bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,827
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Yeah. We can see that. But you could at least TRY to overcome them.
-
Features
Suppose scientific racism is correct. How will you react? How will society?
- Thread starter ApostateAbe
- Start date
Yeah. We can see that. But you could at least TRY to overcome them.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,827
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Which given that neither is a bad thing, is probably a good thing.
Seriously, if you are going to rail against fornication and illegitimacy, why not against apostasy, miscegenation or universal suffrage?
The 1860s rang - they want their attitudes back.
ApostateAbe
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,299
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Basic Beliefs
- Infotheist. I believe the gods to be mere information.
There is probably just one thought that is more offensive and more provocative than the thought that races vary innately in average intelligence, and that is the thought that races vary in average violent behavior. It is probable for the same reason the point about intelligence is probable: violent behavior is known to be highly heritable within groups, within-group genotypic variations always means between group genotypic variations, and there are racial variations in violent crime with patterns seemingly consistent in every multiracial society in the world (i.e. blacks always most violent, whites always less, northeast Asians always least). I am inclined to explain it the same way as intelligence variations, as I think they would be closely related. Northern climates selected not only for intelligence but also for less impulsive and more rational thought, as a means to survive in an environment of scarce resources, whereas fewer such selective pressure existed in equatorial climates with plenty of resources. I am less inclined to explain it in terms of civilization of the last few thousand years. But, violent behavior is not as precisely measurable as intelligence, and not as thoroughly studied, and it is therefore more speculative.
"everywhere on earth" -- citation needed.
ApostateAbe
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,299
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Basic Beliefs
- Infotheist. I believe the gods to be mere information.
Richard Lynn's "The Global Bell Curve." Check the index for "African" to get page numbers. Yes, in every nation with immigrant black Africans, they have the lowest income, lowest educational attainment, highest crime and lowest intelligence scores. The only possible exception is the Australian Aborigines (who are at the most extreme on all metrics). You are not required to accept this data, but, if you doubt it, then I challenge you to find a nation where either whites, Arabs, Jews, Hispanics, Native Americans, Persians or any other race on average have either a lower income, lower educational attainment, higher crime or lower intelligence scores than black Africans (presumably a hundred times easier than recompiling all the data from around the world to prove the opposite). This includes any of the nations of Africa. It is a horrible reality but an important one. If genetics is not the explanation, in spite of this global pattern, then I advise you to find the environmental explanation, change the world, and make black Africa a wealthy, well-educated, peaceful, intelligent region.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
The crucial words here are "when whites and blacks share roughly the same environment". Since they don't, everything you say about ratios and genetic influences is meaningless. The material living conditions and social attitudes to which they're exposed growing up differ greatly between blacks and whites in the US. Even arguing that the inferior living conditions of blacks are entirely due to black laziness and lack of intelligence won't help you here. The fact that the environments of blacks and whites differ (no matter its causes) means that an environmentalist explanation for other parameters along which blacks and whites differ and which we know to be influenced by environment remains plausible.
And the world's a better place for it.
Last edited:
Jokodo
Veteran Member
You gave him the keywords, watch what happens.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
That's an ad hoc explanation not backed up by anything resembling numbers. Even if we grant you that people of European descent have had more exposure to criminal justice systems on relevant time scales (quite debatable in itself), you have not presented an argument for why and how formal criminal justice systems are more efficient at removing genes for criminal inclinations from the gene pool than the tools primitive societies have developed for dealing with transgressions. All societies do have some such tools, often taking the form of revenge killings or ritualised lynching after a tribal council has debated the case (remember public stoning from the Bible?). While these systems are arguably less efficient than a formalised court system at determining actual guilt and bringing the real perpetrators to justice, that doesn't imply they're less efficient of purging the gene pool of genes for aggression and lack of self-control.
Say, for illustration, let's say a court of law convicts 15 out of 20 murderers, with no false convictions, while a tribal council convicts 10 out of 20 murderers, and falsely convicts 20 innocent people, 10 of which are also carriers of the genes (they were convicted based on the argument that "we don't have any actual proof but we all know how aggressive he can get so it must be him").
The result is that the criminal court removes from the gene pool 15 out of 30 people with the relevant genes, while the tribal council removes 20/30.
I'm not saying it is so. But this scenario is at least as plausible as saying that the use of capital punishment "removes those with crime genes from the gene pool". Genes don't care whether their carrier was lynched by a mob or executed by court of law after his guilt was established beyond a shadow of doubt. They're gone one way or the other once he's dead.
A "theory" that can explain anything and its polar opposite depending on which way the data point is not a theory. It is worthless pseudoscientific speculation.
Not even wrong. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out yourself, strong emotions are immune to logic.
Last edited:
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
And presumably these peaceful northern genes didn't evolve until after the middle ages when homicide rates were about double those in any of today's murder capitals (which are mostly in, not Africa, but South America). But no, because didn't these placid northerners then turn around and take over entire continents through brutality and fear? Then there was that dreadful business of physically shackling a lot of Africans, packing them into boats like sardines and flaying them alive if they tried to run away. Stuff that went on for centuries.
But I'm guessing all that stuff doesn't count for some reason.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
The one I live in. White working class males have the lowest educational attainment (blacks in the same demographic do better) here. Primarily, according to an Education Dep't eniquiry, because they're the least likely to come from homes where education is valued (and that's discounting pikeys - "travellers" of mostly Roma and Irish descent - who don't even send their kids to school). The immigrant groups with highest and lowest educational attainment here are Asian.
As has been pointed out to you before and dismissed by you because it didn't chime with things you've read in the 'scientific racist' literature. Which is fine because it makes you look like a crank.
Trodon
Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2015
- Messages
- 224
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Basic Beliefs
- I lean to the left on economic and environmental issues, and to the right on social issues. I am an Episcopalian.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
There is some overlap. Russia has a higher murder rate than some black countries, but the relationship between race and crime is obvious.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
Senegal and Malawi (and probably a few others I missed) have lower rates than hon-Hispanic whites in the US, and the highest rate is found in Honduras (2% blacks). And comparing countries with obviously and greatly different economic and political circumstances is the opposite of a controlled experiment.
Also, off topic. Even without those problems, the source doesn't even begin to address the claim you're supposed to defend.
The only thing that is obvious is that you don't understand science.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
IMO the propensity of 'scientific racists' to cite evidence which doesn't support their claims is mostly environmental.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
Likely true. In a world in which their claims were true, they'd occasionally cite evidence which does support their claims, if only by accident. Although, since understanding the evidence is not what drives them to their conclusions, they'd still be citing a lot of evidence that doesn't support their claims, not knowing the difference.
Last edited:
ApostateAbe
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,299
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Basic Beliefs
- Infotheist. I believe the gods to be mere information.
I think you are right about Africans having higher educational qualifications in the UK, and I give you credit for that, in spite of your personal hostility. I downloaded the 2011 census data from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/censu...vellers-in-england-and-wales-/rft-table-5.xls and I calculated the percentages. Lynn's data on educational achievement by race was from 1990, and I expect the main change was increasing income and educational thresholds for all immigrants from outside Europe (selecting mainly the most intelligent immigrants). Whatever the cause, it does seem to be an exception to the general pattern, and I can no longer assert universals.
Duke Leto
Deleted
Trodon dislikes that appellation, and he and his partisans generally prefer to be called by their own name for themselves, which is "Syphillitically Deranged, Donkey Raping Shiteaters".
Please be more respectful.
This doesn't follow--as usual we have a big socioeconomic factor.
Trodon
Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2015
- Messages
- 224
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Basic Beliefs
- I lean to the left on economic and environmental issues, and to the right on social issues. I am an Episcopalian.
POVERTY AND CRIME
I have already posted this. Here it comes again.
---------
The notion that economic deprivation necessarily leads to lawlessness is widely believed but is not supported by empirical evidence. Human history is replete with examples of impoverished people—of all racial and ethnic backgrounds—who have endured extreme poverty without descending into criminal activity. During the 1960s, for instance, the residents of San Francisco's Chinatown were among America's poorest people—with the most unemployment, the worst housing conditions, the least education, and the highest rate of tuberculosis in their city. Yet despite such hardships, only five people of Chinese ancestry went to jail in the entire state of California in 1965.[1]
Similarly, Jewish immigrants to America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also repudiated criminality despite having to face extreme economic deprivation. Historian Max Dimont describes them:
"The majority of these immigrants had arrived penniless, all their worldly belongings wrapped in a bundle.... Most of [them] arrived in New York. Some made their way into other cities,... but the majority remained in New York, settling in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, [which was] a neighborhood of the poor. Sociologists, with their impressive charts showing the number of toilets (or lack of the), the number of people per room, the low per capita income, paint a dismal picture of the Lower East Side Jewish slum. But their charts do not capture its uniqueness. Though it bred tuberculosis and rheumatism, it did not breed crime and venereal disease. It did not spawn illiteracy, illegitimate children, or deserted wives. Library cards were in constant use."[2]
The late political scientist James Q. Wilson debunked the theory that crime results from poverty, or that redistributive government programs can reduce crime rates by alleviating poverty, by pointing out that “crime rose the fastest in this country at a time when the number of persons living in poverty or squalor was declining.” He added: “I have yet to see a ‘root cause’ or to encounter a government program that has successfully attacked it.”
In modern America, the correlation between high crime rates and poverty has a great deal to do with the proliferation of single-parent, father-absent households. According to the U.S Census, in 2008 the poverty rate for single parents with children was 35.6%; the rate for married couples with children was 6.4%. For white families in particular, the corresponding two-parent and single-parent poverty rates were 21.7% and 3.1%, respectively. For Hispanics, the figures were 37.5% and 12.8%, and for blacks, 35.3% and 6.9%. According to Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, “the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent” and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a self-perpetuating underclass.
Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with profound economic disadvantages, but are also far likelier to eventually get into trouble with the law. As a Heritage Foundation analysis notes, youngsters raised by single parents, as compared to those who grow up in intact married homes, are much more likely to be physically abused; to be treated for emotional and behavioral disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to behave aggressively and violently; to engage in criminal activity; and to be arrested for a juvenile crime. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1636
I have already posted this. Here it comes again.
---------
The notion that economic deprivation necessarily leads to lawlessness is widely believed but is not supported by empirical evidence. Human history is replete with examples of impoverished people—of all racial and ethnic backgrounds—who have endured extreme poverty without descending into criminal activity. During the 1960s, for instance, the residents of San Francisco's Chinatown were among America's poorest people—with the most unemployment, the worst housing conditions, the least education, and the highest rate of tuberculosis in their city. Yet despite such hardships, only five people of Chinese ancestry went to jail in the entire state of California in 1965.[1]
Similarly, Jewish immigrants to America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also repudiated criminality despite having to face extreme economic deprivation. Historian Max Dimont describes them:
"The majority of these immigrants had arrived penniless, all their worldly belongings wrapped in a bundle.... Most of [them] arrived in New York. Some made their way into other cities,... but the majority remained in New York, settling in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, [which was] a neighborhood of the poor. Sociologists, with their impressive charts showing the number of toilets (or lack of the), the number of people per room, the low per capita income, paint a dismal picture of the Lower East Side Jewish slum. But their charts do not capture its uniqueness. Though it bred tuberculosis and rheumatism, it did not breed crime and venereal disease. It did not spawn illiteracy, illegitimate children, or deserted wives. Library cards were in constant use."[2]
The late political scientist James Q. Wilson debunked the theory that crime results from poverty, or that redistributive government programs can reduce crime rates by alleviating poverty, by pointing out that “crime rose the fastest in this country at a time when the number of persons living in poverty or squalor was declining.” He added: “I have yet to see a ‘root cause’ or to encounter a government program that has successfully attacked it.”
In modern America, the correlation between high crime rates and poverty has a great deal to do with the proliferation of single-parent, father-absent households. According to the U.S Census, in 2008 the poverty rate for single parents with children was 35.6%; the rate for married couples with children was 6.4%. For white families in particular, the corresponding two-parent and single-parent poverty rates were 21.7% and 3.1%, respectively. For Hispanics, the figures were 37.5% and 12.8%, and for blacks, 35.3% and 6.9%. According to Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, “the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent” and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a self-perpetuating underclass.
Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with profound economic disadvantages, but are also far likelier to eventually get into trouble with the law. As a Heritage Foundation analysis notes, youngsters raised by single parents, as compared to those who grow up in intact married homes, are much more likely to be physically abused; to be treated for emotional and behavioral disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to behave aggressively and violently; to engage in criminal activity; and to be arrested for a juvenile crime. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1636
You have it bass-ackwards here. I don't think anyone is saying that being poor leads to lawlessness. Rather, the cultural problems that lead to lawlessness also lead to poverty.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
This quote seems to be saying that crime is caused by broken families. So even if there's a biological factor for illegitimacy rates (something even you admit you have no explanation for), crime rates themselves don't appear to have a direct and immediate biological basis.
So you have an "explanation" (although one that remains pseudoscientific wishful thinking, as previously explained) for how one phenomenon (crime rate differences) could be caused by selection, but according to your own sources, that phenomenon appears to be environmental (growing up outside an intact family). If you want to maintain a biological basis for the difference (in crime rates) at all, you'll have to provide a explanatory theory for how the behaviour that leads to that environmental difference is based on biology, something you admit you don't have.
What you said about strong emotions and logic indeed seems to apply.