The predominant factor in black deaths by police is more crimes commited - not racism

[maxparrish]

There are a few factors in play here, ones that in 38 pages I am sure have already been discussed but are valid and shuts down the assumption in the OP: the disparities have nothing to do with race and everything to do with poverty and culture. Desperate people are driven to desperate means. Poor educational circumstances lead to poor opportunities. And because people impose expectations of individuals based on trends in populations, the effect is further magnified. we're stuck with racism because until we stomach making white parents go home with black babies and black parents go home with white babies, we'll continue seeing race as a proxy for poverty.

So let me pose this question: do you think that if we randomized which parent got to take which baby home from the maternity wards among an entire city, state, or even a nation, would you expect the trend to be based on skin color in 5 generations? Or do you think it would just be poverty and culture-driven?

As your question is posed, it obscures your point. Blenderizing two populations over 5 generations with originally different frequencies of "crime genes" does not remove genetic influences, it merely 'averages' them into a larger population (all other things being equal).

But it really does not matter. The fact remains that some mix of black culture/poverty/genes creates disproportionate criminality. And when when having run-ins with the law, handing the crook a welfare check is not going to make the criminal into an angel.

 

[Toni]

There are a few factors in play here, ones that in 38 pages I am sure have already been discussed but are valid and shuts down the assumption in the OP: the disparities have nothing to do with race and everything to do with poverty and culture. Desperate people are driven to desperate means. Poor educational circumstances lead to poor opportunities. And because people impose expectations of individuals based on trends in populations, the effect is further magnified. we're stuck with racism because until we stomach making white parents go home with black babies and black parents go home with white babies, we'll continue seeing race as a proxy for poverty.

So let me pose this question: do you think that if we randomized which parent got to take which baby home from the maternity wards among an entire city, state, or even a nation, would you expect the trend to be based on skin color in 5 generations? Or do you think it would just be poverty and culture-driven?

As your question is posed, it obscures your point. Blenderizing two populations over 5 generations with originally different frequencies of "crime genes" does not remove genetic influences, it merely 'averages' them into a larger population (all other things being equal).

But it really does not matter. The fact remains that some mix of black culture/poverty/genes creates disproportionate criminality. And when when having run-ins with the law, handing the crook a welfare check is not going to make the criminal into an angel.

OMFG. I don't think I realized just exactly how far gone you were until I read the above.

 

[George S]

As your question is posed, it obscures your point. Blenderizing two populations over 5 generations with originally different frequencies of "crime genes" does not remove genetic influences, it merely 'averages' them into a larger population (all other things being equal).

But it really does not matter. The fact remains that some mix of black culture/poverty/genes creates disproportionate criminality. And when when having run-ins with the law, handing the crook a welfare check is not going to make the criminal into an angel.

OMFG. I don't think I realized just exactly how far gone you were until I read the above.

Are you disputing that there is disproportionate criminality in the black population? Because if you are not then Max presented a trilemma. There must be some cause of the disproportionality. Perhaps not Max's given three, but something is leading to it.

What is your theory? That that the violent crime rate in black neighborhoods is lower than in white neighborhoods?

 

[laughing dog]

OMFG. I don't think I realized just exactly how far gone you were until I read the above.

Are you disputing that there is disproportionate criminality in the black population? Because if you are not then Max presented a trilemma. There must be some cause of the disproportionality. Perhaps not Max's given three, but something is leading to it.

What is your theory? That that the violent crime rate in black neighborhoods is lower than in white neighborhoods?

One would have thought the " black culture/poverty/genes" is what generated the response. And one would also think that seeking "the cause" of any societal outcome would be obviously naive at best.

 

[ksen]

There are a few factors in play here, ones that in 38 pages I am sure have already been discussed but are valid and shuts down the assumption in the OP: the disparities have nothing to do with race and everything to do with poverty and culture. Desperate people are driven to desperate means. Poor educational circumstances lead to poor opportunities. And because people impose expectations of individuals based on trends in populations, the effect is further magnified. we're stuck with racism because until we stomach making white parents go home with black babies and black parents go home with white babies, we'll continue seeing race as a proxy for poverty.

So let me pose this question: do you think that if we randomized which parent got to take which baby home from the maternity wards among an entire city, state, or even a nation, would you expect the trend to be based on skin color in 5 generations? Or do you think it would just be poverty and culture-driven?

As your question is posed, it obscures your point. Blenderizing two populations over 5 generations with originally different frequencies of "crime genes" does not remove genetic influences, it merely 'averages' them into a larger population (all other things being equal).

But it really does not matter. The fact remains that some mix of black culture/poverty/genes creates disproportionate criminality. And when when having run-ins with the law, handing the crook a welfare check is not going to make the criminal into an angel.

lol "crime genes"

 

[Davka]

My flame genes want me to post something that goes against the TOU, but my not-getting-banned genes are overriding the signal.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

As your question is posed, it obscures your point. Blenderizing two populations over 5 generations with originally different frequencies of "crime genes" does not remove genetic influences, it merely 'averages' them into a larger population (all other things being equal).

But it really does not matter. The fact remains that some mix of black culture/poverty/genes creates disproportionate criminality. And when when having run-ins with the law, handing the crook a welfare check is not going to make the criminal into an angel.

lol "crime genes"

Well, you know, dark people must equal the " dark figure of crime"

(except it doesn't)

 

[Metaphor]

I believe that all races, all cultures, are equally important. Just as language reveals something about both a subset of people who speak that language, it also reveals something about all people. So does culture, religion, tradition of all kinds. I see this as good.

All cultures are not equal. What an absurd thing to believe.

Do you really think that, for example, the slave-owning culture of the antebellum South, were Blacks were property of some economically elite Whites, and women the property of their husbands, is 'equal' to the culture of, say, America today?

Do you really think the culture of Islamists is equal to the culture of secular humanists?

 

[Davka]

I believe that all races, all cultures, are equally important. Just as language reveals something about both a subset of people who speak that language, it also reveals something about all people. So does culture, religion, tradition of all kinds. I see this as good.

All cultures are not equal. What an absurd thing to believe.

Do you really think that, for example, the slave-owning culture of the antebellum South, were Blacks were property of some economically elite Whites, and women the property of their husbands, is 'equal' to the culture of, say, America today?

Do you really think the culture of Islamists is equal to the culture of secular humanists?

"Equally important" =/= "Equal."

 

[laughing dog]

I believe that all races, all cultures, are equally important. Just as language reveals something about both a subset of people who speak that language, it also reveals something about all people. So does religion, tradition of all kinds. I see this as good.

All cultures are not equal. What an absurd thing to believe.

You need to read more closely, because the observation was "I believe that all races, all cultures, are equally important. " not that they are "equal".

 

[J842P]

I think that saying all cultures are equally important is an absurd thing to say.

 

[Davka]

I think that saying all cultures are equally important is an absurd thing to say.

No more absurd than saying that all lives are equally important. Cultures have intrinsic value, even if they are ugly or silly to us. To state that one culture is more important than another is merely subjective opinion.

 

[J842P]

I also think saying all lives are equally important is absurd.

And of course it's subjective. Although, I'm not sure how to square that with your claim that cultures have intrinsic value, because that seems to imply a sort of objectivity. Of course, I don't think anything has intrinsic value, and all value judgments are subjective, unless carefully stated (e.g. this machine is better at propelling me faster than that machine), at which point you are only using the language of value judgments but in fact are making empirical claims.

 

[Davka]

I also think saying all lives are equally important is absurd.

And of course it's subjective. Although, I'm not sure how to square that with your claim that cultures have intrinsic value, because that seems to imply a sort of objectivity. Of course, I don't think anything has intrinsic value, and all value judgments are subjective, unless carefully stated (e.g. this machine is better at propelling me faster than that machine), at which point you are only using the language of value judgments but in fact are making empirical claims.

Well, it seems to me that the only way to assess the value of an individual culture would be through the lens of Anthropology or Sociology, the branches of science which study humans and their cultures. To an anthropologist or a sociologist, all cultures would have intrinsic worth, as objects of study. Any other criteria for assigning value to a culture is bound to be rooted itself in cultural bias, making it uselessly subjective.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As your question is posed, it obscures your point. Blenderizing two populations over 5 generations with originally different frequencies of "crime genes" does not remove genetic influences, it merely 'averages' them into a larger population (all other things being equal).

But it really does not matter. The fact remains that some mix of black culture/poverty/genes creates disproportionate criminality. And when when having run-ins with the law, handing the crook a welfare check is not going to make the criminal into an angel.

OMFG. I don't think I realized just exactly how far gone you were until I read the above.

Note that he said "some mix of"--that doesn't preclude 0% for the third term, in other words, no genetic component. It's culture, not race.

 

[Toni]

I believe that all races, all cultures, are equally important. Just as language reveals something about both a subset of people who speak that language, it also reveals something about all people. So does culture, religion, tradition of all kinds. I see this as good.

All cultures are not equal. What an absurd thing to believe.

Do you really think that, for example, the slave-owning culture of the antebellum South, were Blacks were property of some economically elite Whites, and women the property of their husbands, is 'equal' to the culture of, say, America today?

Do you really think the culture of Islamists is equal to the culture of secular humanists?

I said that all cultures are equally important, which is a bit different than saying they are all equal. Frankly, I don't believe that I have the wisdom or the hubris to declare any culture as being better than another, although of course I find some much more identifiable than others.

I will do you the favor of assuming by Islamists you mean Muslims. Frankly, the Muslims I have known have been intelligent, well educated, with a very strong appreciation of honesty, integrity, hard work, compassion, genuine charity and a love of family. Of course I've known some whom I thought were less admirable than others, just as I've known Christians (of many different persuasions) , atheists, secular humanists, agnostics, Jews, Buddhists, Bahai who were more or less admirable than others. It's not the religious faith or lack thereof that makes someone an admirable person, imo. I don't have to share every point of view in order to respect someone else's point of view.

 

[Toni]

OMFG. I don't think I realized just exactly how far gone you were until I read the above.

Note that he said "some mix of"--that doesn't preclude 0% for the third term, in other words, no genetic component. It's culture, not race.

So what would you say about the white culture of the U.S. that allowed the Dred Scott decision? Would you agree that a society that allowed segregation by race and enforced such segregation by means of violence, including midnight lynchings without benefit of trial to be evidence of a violent culture? What about a culture that allowed the intimidation of citizens who sought to register to vote, as was their legal and constitutional right? What about the murder of individuals who sought to help others register to vote? How do you feel about fire bombing churches when it results in the murder of little children? Turning dogs and fire hoses on peaceful protestors? What about a culture that determines where one can eat, where one can sit on public transportation, which restrooms one can use and which water fountains one can use, which hospitals one can go to in a medical emergency and which school you can attend based solely upon the color of someone's skin and is willing to back up such laws by jail, public beating, lynching and other acts of violence?

How can you, with a straight face, suggest that 'black culture,' whatever the hell you think that means, is somehow more violent than 'white culture?'

- - - Updated - - -

I think that saying all cultures are equally important is an absurd thing to say.

Not being God, I don't consider myself in a position to rank cultures by importance or worth. I understand that some may feel differently about their own abilities.

 

[Davka]

OMFG. I don't think I realized just exactly how far gone you were until I read the above.

Note that he said "some mix of"--that doesn't preclude 0% for the third term, in other words, no genetic component. It's culture, not race.

He also referenced "5 generations with originally different frequencies of 'crime genes.'" That's not zero.

Sorry, but your buddy Max just revealed to all and sundry that he believes black people have a higher preponderance of "crime genes" than white people. AKA white people are genetically superior to blacks. That's good old-fashioned racism, pure and simple.

Not that this should surprise anyone. I think we should keep this post handy for all future discussions with max regarding race. He needs to be reminded, early and often, that he's been sucking down the racism kool-aid. Maybe he'll wake up. Or at least shut up.

 

[Kharakov]

"I ain't here for trouble, so have no fear."
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEpzqLPwG7Q[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3o8-bcfFvE[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISmgOrhELXs[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Trausti]

Sorry, but your buddy Max just revealed to all and sundry that he believes black people have a higher preponderance of "crime genes" than white people. AKA white people are genetically superior to blacks. That's good old-fashioned racism, pure and simple.

Well, it doesn't mean he is wrong. Better to argue the science than to name call.

Over the past 12 years research on MAOA genes has examined how low-activity gene variants interact with environmental factors to influence violence and other antisocial behaviors [11]. In 2002, Avshalom Caspi, then at King’s College in London, and his colleagues published their landmark study [12]. Caspi’s team reported that adults with the low-expression MAOA who were mistreated as children were more prone to developing antisocial problems later in life. But maltreated children with the high-activity variant were less likely to engage in delinquent or criminal activities. It seems low-activity MAOA variants make people more responsive to abuse [12]. Up to this point, all of the studies on the MAOA gene had been conducted in Caucasians.

More recently, Beaver’s team has focused only on the 2R variant rather than the low-expression variants combined [6, 7]. He and his colleagues have discovered that African American males carrying 2R were more likely to be involved in extreme violence — shooting and stabbing — than African American men with other MAOA variants [6]. The relationship between the rare MAOA version and antisocial behaviors has raised eyebrows because, quite simply, this gene is not distributed equally across ethnic groups. In the Add Health database, 5.5% of African American men, 0.9% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men have 2R. (No information is currently available on the frequency of 2R in males of African black descent outside the United States.) Since the rare MAOA variant is virtually non-existent in whites, all of the males in Beaver’s study were black Americans [6].

Beaver’s studies have shown that the 2R variant has a robust association with violent behaviors, arrest, and incarceration [6, 7]. His research is applauded by supporters of behavioral genetics, but it has also drawn criticism. It focuses on an antisocial-linked gene that reportedly occurs more frequently in African American men than in males of other ethnic groups. This has led some popular writers to speculate that MAOA-2R might account for — or at least play a significant role in — the relatively higher rates of violent crime in African Americans.

http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/