• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Snowflakes in action: the actual reality of "snowflakes" in the world and the consequences

Hermit said:
It does not say.

If you take a look, it's a site with city crime statistics, not region crime statistics. And it says it's for the town in Virginia.

Hermit said:
Nobody knows. One declarative sentence and no link to support it leaves sfa to work out what Trausti is talking about, and we may never find out.
He now says he was talking about the region. You seem to have interpreted that correctly, since you were talking about the 13 states, but your crime statistics were for the town, so it seems you got the wrong stats.
 
Appalachia has the common meaning of a region. Thought everyone knew that.
Everybody does, but that is not the issue. The issue is your that your assertion
The violent crime rate in Appalachia, home of the poorest and most downtrodden Whites, is half the national average.
is bereft of any links substantiating it. I asked you to provide some. Until you do, your assertion is just hot air.
 
Appalachia has the common meaning of a region. Thought everyone knew that.
Everybody does, but that is not the issue. The issue is your that your assertion
The violent crime rate in Appalachia, home of the poorest and most downtrodden Whites, is half the national average.
is bereft of any links substantiating it. I asked you to provide some. Until you do, your assertion is just hot air.

I posted where I got that from up thread.
 
He now says he was talking about the region. You seem to have interpreted that correctly, since you were talking about the 13 states
Trausti still has not provided any crime statistics whatsoever.
your crime statistics were for the town, so it seems you got the wrong stats.
I did mention that
Unfortunately, it does not state if those figures cover urban Appalachia only or the entire area covering parts of 13 states, but it would not make an appreciable difference, since less than 10% of Appalachia's population lives in rural areas.
 
Appalachia has the common meaning of a region. Thought everyone knew that.
Everybody does, but that is not the issue. The issue is your that your assertion
The violent crime rate in Appalachia, home of the poorest and most downtrodden Whites, is half the national average.
is bereft of any links substantiating it. I asked you to provide some. Until you do, your assertion is just hot air.
I posted where I got that from up thread.
Where are the crime stats?
 
Hermit said:
Trausti still has not provided any crime statistics whatsoever.
But he provided a link to an article that gives the 'half' estimate, which must have some source. It's not conclusive, but it's not nothing.

The article is on a site called "The Week". According to this site, it is left-biased, but it is highly credible with the facts (for comparison, it's the same rating as the NYT). Curiously, doing some more digging, the article is "adapted" from one on a right-wing site called "National Review", which is somewhat less reliable, though still classified as 'mostly factual' by the aforementioned site (the same rating as the WP). Of course, there is the issue of the reliability of the fact-checkers, so as I mentioned it's not conclusive. But I probably one can find more precise numbers if one is interested, though I don't know how long that would take.

Hermit said:
I did mention that
But I'm afraid you got the wrong stats. You mentioned it was not clear whether it covered "urban Appalachia" or the entire area, but you said it would not make an appreciable difference given that less than 10% of Appalachia's population lives in rural areas. So, you were saying that either those statistics were for both the rural and urban areas of the region combined, or only for the urban areas. But the statistics you gave were for neither: they were for a town in Virginia named "Appalachia"
 
Yes, but again, if a lack of fatherly guidance and discipline is a dominant cause of increasing crime among blacks, an increase in the general population's number of children in single-mother households should equally result in a concomitant increase in crime across the board. It's not happening.
Don’t know that lack of fathers is the “dominant” cause of the high Black crime rate; but we seem to agree that it’s a big hurdle for any child growing up. But the high Black crime rate is probably a big factor in the group disparities; though it’s politically incorrect to notice that.
You did attempt to explain the difference of crime rates between blacks and non-blacks in terms of single-mother households here and here. You also tried to bolster your claim by falsely asserting that "Before the 1960's, the White/Black marriage rate was the same". (Before the 1960s the difference was actually a multiple compared to now.)

I have countered that if the incidence of of single-mother households causes an increase in crimes perpetrated by blacks we must expect to see the same effect in the US population at large. We obviously don't. What we see is a number of years (1983- 1991) during which crime rates as well as the number of single-mother households increased, followed by years (1992-2014) in which crime rates dropped significantly (just about halved) despite the continued steady rise in the number of single-mother households. Dads do matter. A lot less than you think. Try to come up with other causes of the high Black crime rate. If you manage to do that without allowing past and present racism as a dominant factor you'll get bonus points who don't think it is because, you know, Asians.
No, because there can be other causes also. Two obvious ones here--unleaded gas and legal abortion.
Loren, you misunderstood the question.
I'm not trying to answer your question, I'm showing your rebuttal data doesn't prove it's point.
 
There is a link between single parent families and adolescent crime, as confirmed by multiple studies
Yes. Now go and find some who says there isn't.
If you already believed it, why did you go down a rabbit hole of trying to find a raw correlation between single parent families and violent crime 15 years later?
 
I'm showing your rebuttal data doesn't prove it's point.
What do you think is the point of the data I provided? How does the mention of unleaded gas and legal abortion show that the data don't prove their point?

These are not trick questions. I really want to know.
 
There is a link between single parent families and adolescent crime, as confirmed by multiple studies
Yes. Now go and find some who says there isn't.
If you already believed it, why did you go down a rabbit hole of trying to find a raw correlation between single parent families and violent crime 15 years later?
Perhaps you should read this post, you know, the one in which I started by saying "I agree that children of single-parent households fare worse on life metrics, generally, than their married-household peers", before you continue. My argument is somewhat more nuanced than you imagine.
 
When you only have a hammer.

FMTx95EXoAsY8P_
 
North Carolina’s Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district appears to be a bit confused as to where it stands in the ongoing battle against books around the US: they banned educators from participating in a weeklong series of events drawing attention to banned books and then … said there was no ban.

The American Library Association (ALA) holds “Banned Books Week” annually, with this year’s iteration running from 1-7 October, to celebrate the freedom to read and discuss attempts to censor books.

According to WFAE, a public radio station serving North Carolina, district officials in Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools told principals to cancel events, readings, suggestions, announcements, messages or displays linked to the program.

“It has come to our attention that some schools have planned events next week October 1-7, to mark the American Library Association’s ‘Banned Book Week’,” wrote Shayla Cannady to school principals on Friday: “If this is the case, all principals are requested to cancel all events and messaging associated with this observance.”

The directive went on to say that banned book week was not aligned with districts’ academic curricula: “It is not something we teach in our classrooms or as supplementary material for out of school learning.”
The aim of the challenges, said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, was to “to suppress the voices of those traditionally excluded from our nation’s conversations”.

“The choice of what to read must be left to the reader or, in the case of children, to parents. That choice does not belong to self-appointed book police,” Caldwell-Stone said.
 
Back
Top Bottom