Black People and Crime

[artisticsolution]

If everyone is the same...then why aren't women committing crimes at as big of numbers as men?

maybe women are just getting away with them more

girls and women unless they are unusually looking - either very good looking or very ugly - are often invisible

i can sit within the field of vision of people talking about personal stuff or confidential stuff or in one case state secrets and as long as i do not make any sudden movements and remain silent i am invisible

this would make committing crimes easier

also the police are very likely to assume that the perp is a man

Yes...true...but I was talking about aggression....murder, rape, etc.

Statistics show men commit these act far more often than women.

[Kayla]

What I mean by race is large groups of people from geographic areas who display certain traits that are similar. If there are physical differences could it be that there are internal differences as well?

'blacks' come from a very large geographic area and have more genetic diversity than other 'races'

genetically an ethiopian will be closer to a swede than to a zulu

the berbers of subsaharan africa vary in color from what we would call white to what we would call black and yet share common genetic markers as well as common culture and history

so while it may well be true that there are differences between some population groups lumping all 'blacks' together makes no sense at all

the ancestors of the blacks in america came from all over africa and the american blacks are a very genetically diverse group







I am talking about ancestry and the beginning of the origin of different races. How did that come to be? If there are different physical attributes of people...couldn't there also be different internal attributes such as more developed areas of the brain?

We know that there are genetic diseases that are more common in various races. So why is it such a reach to question any other differences?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health

Could it be that brain development is different as well? I think it's a valid question to ask. But you seem to be wanting to make the argument, "Don't believe your eyes...believe me" without trying to even come up with a solution for what you believe. Oh yes...and then call people racists for even mentioning there may be a problem. I don't think that is a very successful argument anymore...it's been done to death and people aren't fallin for it anymore. I don't think Tom is a racist for making an observation. He would be a racist if he kept others down. But he is not a racist for simply asking why some blacks don't seem to want to take advantage of a free education in order to better themselves. You seem to have no solution to an obvious problem.[/quote]

[artisticsolution]

What I mean by race is large groups of people from geographic areas who display certain traits that are similar. If there are physical differences could it be that there are internal differences as well?

K:so while it may well be true that there are differences between some population groups lumping all 'blacks' together makes no sense at all

AS: Please read the quote above again. You are arguing against what you heard me say rather than that I actually said. Where did I say we should lump all "blacks" together?

K:genetically an ethiopian will be closer to a swede than to a zulu

AS: So then, you can make a distinction as to different races...right? If you can make the distinction that one "race"will be "closer" that another...genetically speaking...then you have compared and contrasted an idea. That can't be done unless you see a difference.

But my point is...we don't know all there is to know about genetics. And we will never know unless we ask questions. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. There is nothing wrong with seeing differences either. It is when you see a difference and then want to discriminate that is the problem.

Let's take women for an example, in the past that have been treated poorly, abused, thought of as possessions, in other words, kept down...and still are in certain parts of the world. However, you don't see us still fighting about it....you don't see us hating anyone for it, as a whole, no matter what our environmental circumstances are. No, we go about our business and work hard to overcome the prejudice. And guess what? We are getting the reputation for being better workers than men in general....statistically speaking. We are also, getting to the point of getting the same pay as them.

Now let's suppose that instead of women...it was a certain racial group getting less pay.....do you think they would have done what women did about it? Do you think they would have accepted it and worked harder to prove themselves? Do you think things would have been as peaceful?

Now why is it that women by and large don't bring up the abuse they suffered in the past? Why don't the Japanese and American's still bring up the abuses they suffered in the past and continue on with the hate? Why aren't the German's and Jew still hating each other? I don't understand why we are clinging to the hate of racism in the past? Just asking cause it certainly seems to me the groups I mentioned above also have a reason to act aggressively toward one another, but they don't...why?

To make myself clear...I never said that skin color necessarily causes one to be aggressive...I have only said that perhaps genes might play a part...like testosterone. But we will never know unless we are free to ask. Obviously, genes are mixed...so I am sure that there are "black" people all over the world with "Swedish" genes...and every mix you can imagine. I am merely asking what make some people more aggressive than others. It can't be all environment...can it?

[SpheresOfBalance]

...It can't be all environment...can it?

It most probably is, and only, environment, that Blacks share, that lends to your allusion of illusion!

[chaz wyman]

Boaz the well respected anthropologist noted that as all so-called races can and do mix, then there are not reliable categories and that picking a set of characteristics is arbitrary as you can as well pick the middle traits as you can the extreme one. And as none of the perceived differences are immutable, then the term race is not a natural category but a social one.

[artisticsolution]

Boaz the well respected anthropologist noted that as all so-called races can and do mix, then there are not reliable categories and that picking a set of characteristics is arbitrary as you can as well pick the middle traits as you can the extreme one. And as none of the perceived differences are immutable, then the term race is not a natural category but a social one.

Okay...then replace the word "race" with "genetics" then. You still can make a distinction between characteristics such as color, disease, height, sex, etc.

But then how could you call a person a racist if there was no such thing as "race"?

[John]

But then how could you call a person a racist if there was no such thing as "race"?

He said it was a social category and not a natural one, not that it didn't exist.

[chaz wyman]

Boaz the well respected anthropologist noted that as all so-called races can and do mix, then there are not reliable categories and that picking a set of characteristics is arbitrary as you can as well pick the middle traits as you can the extreme one. And as none of the perceived differences are immutable, then the term race is not a natural category but a social one.

Okay...then replace the word "race" with "genetics" then. You still can make a distinction between characteristics such as color, disease, height, sex, etc.

But then how could you call a person a racist if there was no such thing as "race"?

In exactly the same way that a person can believe in astrology when there is no cryptic deterministic relationship between the position of the stars and human lives.
In exactly the same way that you can be a witch when witch craft is bullshit.
In exactly the same way that you can be a (insert delusion)-ist, whilst (delusion) is rubbish.

I think I'd have to give that my vote for the "Silly Question of the Week Contest"

[artisticsolution]

Obviously you didn't get the dig...but whatever...

Just think about this....Black skin has more melanin so they have more protection from high levels of exposure to sun and thus less skin cancer than whites. So suppose one day a scientist asked 'how can we recreate this in white skin' so that we can reduce the effect of sun damage.'

My point is, we don't know all there is to know. All you are doing is stating an opinion as fact. And by doing that you need not ask any more questions. Hence you silence a generation. And to boot you do it by calling someone a racist when you have no idea what it even means. You are simply parroting what you've been taught.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Obviously you didn't get the dig...but whatever...

Just think about this....Black skin has more melanin so they have more protection from high levels of exposure to sun and thus less skin cancer than whites. So suppose one day a scientist asked 'how can we recreate this in white skin' so that we can reduce the effect of sun damage.'
I already know the answer to that question, Just expose yourself and your progeny to copious amounts of sunshine for tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of years and through natural selection just like the blacks of today you're blood line shall be exactly the same, well not exactly as things have changed environmentally speaking, for it to be exactly you'd have to first, time travel to the distant past and start along side the forefathers of the blacks of today doing as they did through all those thousands of years such that your blood line would be exactly the same as them, but you get the idea. which is that the difference between us has to be environmental, via natural selection, seeing as how it is believed that we are from the same origin.

My point is, we don't know all there is to know. All you are doing is stating an opinion as fact. And by doing that you need not ask any more questions. Hence you silence a generation. And to boot you do it by calling someone a racist when you have no idea what it even means. You are simply parroting what you've been taught.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Boaz the well respected anthropologist noted that as all so-called races can and do mix, then there are not reliable categories and that picking a set of characteristics is arbitrary as you can as well pick the middle traits as you can the extreme one. And as none of the perceived differences are immutable, then the term race is not a natural category but a social one.

Okay...then replace the word "race" with "genetics" then. You still can make a distinction between characteristics such as color, disease, height, sex, etc.
Doesn't matter it's all environment.


But then how could you call a person a racist if there was no such thing as "race"?
You can call a person what ever you want, whats in a word after all? If they say they don't like that 'race' then they are a racist, if they say they don't like that 'kind' then I guess they are a kindist, Personally I call them all foolish, because they are in fact fools, and ignorant as well!

[Arising_uk]

... start along side the forefathers of the blacks of today doing as they did through all those thousands of years such that your blood line would be exactly the same as them, ...

Whilst I get your analogy I'd just point out that there is no such thing as a 'blood line' and the forefathers of the blacks are our forefathers as well. Its easier to say that the reason why there is white skin is that their black forefathers lost their melanin content due to natural selection 'selecting' lighter skins for increased vitamin D absorption from the weaker sunlight. But this is just a theory and there are variations including that agriculture was involved as the lack of game meat led to a vitamin deficiency - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people#White_skin

[chaz wyman]

Obviously you didn't get the dig...but whatever...

Just think about this....Black skin has more melanin so they have more protection from high levels of exposure to sun and thus less skin cancer than whites. So suppose one day a scientist asked 'how can we recreate this in white skin' so that we can reduce the effect of sun damage.'

ANy scientist asking that would be a moron. How do we reproduce that - get a black skin obviously

My point is, we don't know all there is to know. All you are doing is stating an opinion as fact. And by doing that you need not ask any more questions. Hence you silence a generation. And to boot you do it by calling someone a racist when you have no idea what it even means. You are simply parroting what you've been taught.

No one ever taught me that you were an idiot - I worked that out for myself.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... start along side the forefathers of the blacks of today doing as they did through all those thousands of years such that your blood line would be exactly the same as them, ...

Whilst I get your analogy I'd just point out that there is no such thing as a 'blood line' and the forefathers of the blacks are our forefathers as well. Its easier to say that the reason why there is white skin is that their black forefathers lost their melanin content due to natural selection 'selecting' lighter skins for increased vitamin D absorption from the weaker sunlight. But this is just a theory and there are variations including that agriculture was involved as the lack of game meat led to a vitamin deficiency - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people#White_skin

Arising, I appreciate you trying to rise to the top as the cream that you think you are. I came to this conclusion by myself, I did not read any wikipedia. I simply used logic to come to the conclusion that the difference between peoples of the earth is 100% environmental giving rise to natural selection. I don't care if you or anyone else agrees, has theories or otherwise, I could give a fuck, I just know its true, call it intuition if you will, but my argument is based upon facts that I've gathered through education, call it circumstantial if you will, but it's true none the less. It's not just variable exposure to the sun, but geologic, staple food source, and weather pattern related, put it this way, anything that varies, around the globe, that the animal is exposed to, on a regular basis, over prolonged periods of time has some small percentage to do with our differences that some call race. PERIOD!!!

[Arising_uk]

I thought you interested in truths? As such I thought you'd be interested in what the evolutionary biologists are thinking about.

Once again your emotions gush all over the place and you contradict yourself, you say you came to these conclusions yourself and then mention gathering it through education and then, dear oh dear, 'intuition'. Well I've just given you some more education, whats the issue? I also thought you'd like to not be promoting and talking nonsense about blood-lines and black forefathers, etc.

If its only a small percentage to do with our differences what makes the big percentage?