El Salvadoran teenager murderes another teenager as part of gang initiation

[Bomb#20]

One of our most famous celebrities was killed by a shark.

You talking about this shark?

 

[Bomb#20]

The violence in Central America goes back long ago. Human sacrifice and torture is just in the blood.

DNA/in the blood is a good answer for stuff like this.

What makes a tiger more violent than a jack russell terrier? DNA/in the blood

What makes a shark more violent than a goldfish? DNA/In the blood

What makes a rotweiler more violent than a golden retriever? DNA//in the blood

What other explanation is there?

Good question, thanks for asking. When we observe systematic correlation between behavior in some subpopulation across generations, it's evidence that the behavior is caused by some behavior-influencing element that is being transmitted vertically from parents to children. So what element might that be? Well, there are three elements that are commonly transmitted vertically from parents to children -- DNA, culture, and possessions -- so it's probably one of those. But if you want to pick one of them and claim that it's the answer, then the burden of proof is on you to rule out the other two. When the signal you get is exactly what you'd expect if violence were in their genes, and also what you'd expect if violence were in their memes, and also what you'd expect if violence were in their property, Central America itself, that means you don't have a signal that points to any one of the three.

So first, what makes you think violence isn't being taught to Central American children by their elders?

And second, what makes you think there isn't some microscopic mind-altering parasite endemic to Central America?

For my money, I'd bet on culture. About a thousand years ago my people spent three hundred years terrorizing the rest of Europe. Today we're a passel of humanitarian superpowers. Was our DNA replaced wholesale by the Swiss?

 

[barbos]

For my money, I'd bet on culture. About a thousand years ago my people spent three hundred years terrorizing the rest of Europe. Today we're a passel of humanitarian superpowers. Was our DNA replaced wholesale by the Swiss?

DNA changes over time, you know, natural and unnatural selection, including cultural selection. If culture demands initiation murders then sooner or later you will end up with a nice excess in murderous alleles.

 

[Bomb#20]

For my money, I'd bet on culture. About a thousand years ago my people spent three hundred years terrorizing the rest of Europe. Today we're a passel of humanitarian superpowers. Was our DNA replaced wholesale by the Swiss?

DNA changes over time, you know, natural and unnatural selection, including cultural selection. If culture demands initiation murders then sooner or later you will end up with a nice excess in murderous alleles.

That could theoretically happen; but the culture doesn't demand initiation murders -- drug gangs demand initiation murders. The great majority of Central Americans never murder anyone. You don't murder somebody because you won't be allowed to reproduce if you don't; you murder somebody to get some anticipated benefit from gang membership. And along with that benefit you get costs: living among extra-violent people, and being expected to take part in wars against other gangs of people who will kill you for being a member. So it seems to me murderous alleles are more likely to be selected against than selected for.

 

[rousseau]

Probably what happens in some of the more dangerous regions in Central and South America, especially in those regions of economic decline, is that the educated, wealthy, and successful slowly siphon off and emigrate to wealthier regions of the world, leaving a kind of brain-drain and vacuous economy behind. Similar is happening right now in, for example, Greece, Africa, Central Asia, and even to some extent rural areas of the U.S.

The unfortunate side of it is that countries like the U.S. and Canada do need tight borders because there are limits on who we can support - I reckon most people in South America would gladly emigrate Northward if they had the means to, but obviously not all of them can. But I think the fallacy here is that anybody really supports loose borders. Some will say they do, but if they truly understood the reality behind them they'd likely change their tune.

 

[Half-Life]

Probably what happens in some of the more dangerous regions in Central and South America, especially in those regions of economic decline, is that the educated, wealthy, and successful slowly siphon off and emigrate to wealthier regions of the world, leaving a kind of brain-drain and vacuous economy behind. Similar is happening right now in, for example, Greece, Africa, Central Asia, and even to some extent rural areas of the U.S.

The unfortunate side of it is that countries like the U.S. and Canada do need tight borders because there are limits on who we can support - I reckon most people in South America would gladly emigrate Northward if they had the means to, but obviously not all of them can. But I think the fallacy here is that anybody really supports loose borders. Some will say they do, but if they truly understood the reality behind them they'd likely change their tune.

That's also exactly what we say when leftists say, "Tax the rich into oblivion!" They would leave the country and go elsewhere with lower tax rates. Many people will go unemployed just as we are seeing now during the coronavirus.

The people who say, "We don't need the rich!" are basically also saying, "We don't need jobs!"

Just think right now about all the people who work at grocery stores and convenience stores such as 7-11. If the owners of those companies said, "I'm shutting down and moving," the workers there would be cursing them out to high Heaven! Why? Because they are out of a job, then.

So before you badmouth the rich, just think of how many people depend on them for survival.

 

[rousseau]

Probably what happens in some of the more dangerous regions in Central and South America, especially in those regions of economic decline, is that the educated, wealthy, and successful slowly siphon off and emigrate to wealthier regions of the world, leaving a kind of brain-drain and vacuous economy behind. Similar is happening right now in, for example, Greece, Africa, Central Asia, and even to some extent rural areas of the U.S.

The unfortunate side of it is that countries like the U.S. and Canada do need tight borders because there are limits on who we can support - I reckon most people in South America would gladly emigrate Northward if they had the means to, but obviously not all of them can. But I think the fallacy here is that anybody really supports loose borders. Some will say they do, but if they truly understood the reality behind them they'd likely change their tune.

That's also exactly what we say when leftists say, "Tax the rich into oblivion!" They would leave the country and go elsewhere with lower tax rates. Many people will go unemployed just as we are seeing now during the coronavirus.

The people who say, "We don't need the rich!" are basically also saying, "We don't need jobs!"

Just think right now about all the people who work at grocery stores and convenience stores such as 7-11. If the owners of those companies said, "I'm shutting down and moving," the workers there would be cursing them out to high Heaven! Why? Because they are out of a job, then.

So before you badmouth the rich, just think of how many people depend on them for survival.

I don't think your post really follows from mine, I get your point, but it doesn't really address the text you bolded.

It's a completely different scenario for the educated and wealthy in the U.S. because the U.S. is (for now) close to the pinnacle of the world economy. The U.S. is where people emigrate to, not from. Well.. for now. If the wealthy keep stripping the U.S. of it's former merit, people will start leaving.

 

[Half-Life]

The violence in Central America goes back long ago. Human sacrifice and torture is just in the blood.

DNA/in the blood is a good answer for stuff like this.

What makes a tiger more violent than a jack russell terrier? DNA/in the blood

What makes a shark more violent than a goldfish? DNA/In the blood

What makes a rotweiler more violent than a golden retriever? DNA//in the blood

What other explanation is there?

Good question, thanks for asking. When we observe systematic correlation between behavior in some subpopulation across generations, it's evidence that the behavior is caused by some behavior-influencing element that is being transmitted vertically from parents to children. So what element might that be? Well, there are three elements that are commonly transmitted vertically from parents to children -- DNA, culture, and possessions -- so it's probably one of those. But if you want to pick one of them and claim that it's the answer, then the burden of proof is on you to rule out the other two. When the signal you get is exactly what you'd expect if violence were in their genes, and also what you'd expect if violence were in their memes, and also what you'd expect if violence were in their property, Central America itself, that means you don't have a signal that points to any one of the three.

So first, what makes you think violence isn't being taught to Central American children by their elders?

And second, what makes you think there isn't some microscopic mind-altering parasite endemic to Central America?

For my money, I'd bet on culture. About a thousand years ago my people spent three hundred years terrorizing the rest of Europe. Today we're a passel of humanitarian superpowers. Was our DNA replaced wholesale by the Swiss?

We see some countries and people are peaceful, others are violent and out of control. When I point out the statistics that show blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population but are responsible for 50% of the murders and then compare it with how Asians are 6% of the U.S. population and only commit 1% of murders, the only logical conclusion is that Asians are not as prone to violence as blacks are. For whatever reason that may be, the fact remains that there's just something about black people that makes them more prone to violence.

Is it free will?

Is it DNA?

Is it culture?

The statistics don't lie. Those are eye-popping numbers that should make anyone pause and wonder what the heck's going on here.

Even black people know how bad the stats are. I can't tell you how many black people I've met in my life and when they look like they are being targeted for discrimination, they say, "I'm one of the good ones!" Even they know the reputation of their race.

 

[rousseau]

Good question, thanks for asking. When we observe systematic correlation between behavior in some subpopulation across generations, it's evidence that the behavior is caused by some behavior-influencing element that is being transmitted vertically from parents to children. So what element might that be? Well, there are three elements that are commonly transmitted vertically from parents to children -- DNA, culture, and possessions -- so it's probably one of those. But if you want to pick one of them and claim that it's the answer, then the burden of proof is on you to rule out the other two. When the signal you get is exactly what you'd expect if violence were in their genes, and also what you'd expect if violence were in their memes, and also what you'd expect if violence were in their property, Central America itself, that means you don't have a signal that points to any one of the three.

So first, what makes you think violence isn't being taught to Central American children by their elders?

And second, what makes you think there isn't some microscopic mind-altering parasite endemic to Central America?

For my money, I'd bet on culture. About a thousand years ago my people spent three hundred years terrorizing the rest of Europe. Today we're a passel of humanitarian superpowers. Was our DNA replaced wholesale by the Swiss?

We see some countries and people are peaceful, others are violent and out of control. When I point out the statistics that show blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population but are responsible for 50% of the murders and then compare it with how Asians are 6% of the U.S. population and only commit 1% of murders, the only logical conclusion is that Asians are not as prone to violence as blacks are. For whatever reason that may be, the fact remains that there's just something about black people that makes them more prone to violence.

Is it free will?

Is it DNA?

Is it culture?

The statistics don't lie. Those are eye-popping numbers that should make anyone pause and wonder what the heck's going on here.

Even black people know how bad the stats are. I can't tell you how many black people I've met in my life and when they look like they are being targeted for discrimination, they say, "I'm one of the good ones!" Even they know the reputation of their race.

It's because they've faced systemic racism for the past 500 years mostly.

 

[Half-Life]

It's because they've faced systemic racism for the past 500 years mostly.

No. Slavery ended over 150 years ago. Civil rights laws have been around for almost 60 years now.

No one is oppressed anymore. Many black athletes and entertainers/rappers make millions of dollars just like whites do. .

There are also poor blacks and poor whites.

Stop using an excuse that died out over 60 years ago. We are many generations removed from civil rights. What's the excuse going to be in 2060? "Well, civil rights laws have only been around for 100 years. Give them more time to become civil."

How much time is required before you realize it's not the laws? The sad thing is that blacks discriminate against each other for not being black enough. If you are black and become highly educated, they say they are "acting white" and say they are a disgrace to blacks. They call them oreos, white on the inside, black on the outside. Don't you find that sad?

 

[rousseau]

It's because they've faced systemic racism for the past 500 years mostly.

No. Slavery ended over 150 years ago. Civil rights laws have been around for almost 60 years now.

No one is oppressed anymore. Many black athletes and entertainers/rappers make millions of dollars just like whites do. .

There are also poor blacks and poor whites.

Stop using an excuse that died out over 60 years ago. We are many generations removed from civil rights. What's the excuse going to be in 2060? "Well, civil rights laws have only been around for 100 years. Give them more time to become civil."

How much time is required before you realize it's not the laws?

This might be the most uninformed post I've seen at this forum in years, and that's really saying something.

 

[Half-Life]

It's because they've faced systemic racism for the past 500 years mostly.

No. Slavery ended over 150 years ago. Civil rights laws have been around for almost 60 years now.

No one is oppressed anymore. Many black athletes and entertainers/rappers make millions of dollars just like whites do. .

There are also poor blacks and poor whites.

Stop using an excuse that died out over 60 years ago. We are many generations removed from civil rights. What's the excuse going to be in 2060? "Well, civil rights laws have only been around for 100 years. Give them more time to become civil."

How much time is required before you realize it's not the laws?

This might be the most uninformed post I've seen at this forum in years, and that's really saying something.

OK, fine. Name me one law on the books that says blacks can't do X, but whites can. I will wait patiently.

Don't you guys notice that it's always Republicans trying to equalize the races while the Democrats try to use race to divide people? We tell blacks they are not oppressed, Democrats tell them they are oppressed.

 

[rousseau]

This might be the most uninformed post I've seen at this forum in years, and that's really saying something.

OK, fine. Name me one law on the books that says blacks can't do X, but whites can. I will wait patiently.

I think you'd need to get a social science and history degree before you'd be able to understand my answer.

 

[Patooka]

We see some countries and people are peaceful, others are violent and out of control. When I point out the statistics that show blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population but are responsible for 50% of the murders and then compare it with how Asians are 6% of the U.S. population and only commit 1% of murders, the only logical conclusion is that Asians are not as prone to violence as blacks are. For whatever reason that may be, the fact remains that there's just something about black people that makes them more prone to violence.

The only time you used statistics to promote your bigoted bullshit was here, and all it showed was how truly ignorant your arguments are.

 

[Half-Life]

This might be the most uninformed post I've seen at this forum in years, and that's really saying something.

OK, fine. Name me one law on the books that says blacks can't do X, but whites can. I will wait patiently.

I think you'd need to get a social science and history degree before you'd be able to understand my answer.

Fancy way of saying that you got nothing. That's fine. Nothing to be ashamed of there. Just don't promote the myth that blacks are oppressed in 2020 America.

We wouldn't have the NBA and successful rappers and actors if blacks were oppressed. Remember when they weren't allowed to play with whites? THAT was oppression.

It's like you guys get sad when we say they aren't oppressed. Shouldn't that be a good thing? Why are you guys so hellbent on telling blacks they are oppressed? Is it a subconscious thing that you want to keep them down or something? I don't get it.

 

[rousseau]

I think you'd need to get a social science and history degree before you'd be able to understand my answer.

Fancy way of saying that you got nothing. That's fine. Nothing to be ashamed of there. Just don't promote the myth that blacks are oppressed in 2020 America.

We wouldn't have the NBA and successful rappers and actors if blacks were oppressed. Remember when they weren't allowed to play with whites? THAT was oppression.

No, what I'm trying to say is that I'm not going to take your bait. Show me a post with substance and I'll reply, otherwise your arguments are just silly to anyone with a middling understanding of the past.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We tell blacks they are not oppressed, Democrats tell them they are oppressed.

Have you not noticed, though, that you tell them they're not oppressed RIGHT AFTER they tell you they experience oppression?

 

[Elixir]

don't promote the myth that blacks are oppressed in 2020 America.

The myth is that alt-white bigots aren't the only people denying that blacks are oppressed in 2020 America. They are. Of course those same alt-white bigots also say blacks weren't oppressed when they were living the good life under the ownership of those benevolent plantation owners. Occasionally one of the alt-white bigots will try to assert "sure, that was then but they're not oppressed any more." But the alt-white bigot never can and never will explain just exactly how and when blacks became un-oppressed in America.

 

[Half-Life]

We tell blacks they are not oppressed, Democrats tell them they are oppressed.

Have you not noticed, though, that you tell them they're not oppressed RIGHT AFTER they tell you they experience oppression?

And many of them say they are not oppressed and then Democrats tell them they are oppressed.

 

[Patooka]

We tell blacks they are not oppressed, Democrats tell them they are oppressed.

Have you not noticed, though, that you tell them they're not oppressed RIGHT AFTER they tell you they experience oppression?

And many of them say they are not oppressed and then Democrats tell them they are oppressed.

Quick question. Where did you receive all these facts you are proclaiming about race? It's obvious you are inclined to just parrot right wing talking points (in some cases verbatim), so you didn't come up with these "facts" on your own. Who told you that black blood harbours these undesirable characteristics? Was it Molyneux? Lana Lokteff? Who?