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

[Loren Pechtel]

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?'

Most of what you are referring to was long ago. Pointing out troubles then isn't relevant now. I'm interested in fixing the problem, not in affixing blame.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

Why include it if he meant it had 0% to do with anything? Why not include rainbows and unicorns too?

 

[Davka]

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/

Oh, look, another racist fuck is trying to cloak his bigotry in scientific bullshit!

I guess one good thing about all these race threads is that it's encouraging the scum to come out of the closet.

 

[Metaphor]

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."

Okay. Why are they all equally important? What does it mean to be equally important?

 

[Davka]

"Equally important" =/= "Equal."

Okay. Why are they all equally important? What does it mean to be equally important?

Already answered. See above.

 

[Metaphor]

I will do you the favor of assuming by Islamists you mean Muslims.

That's not 'doing me a favour'. That's the exact opposite of doing me a favour. That's a deliberate misreading of what I wrote which you have used to deliberately construct a strawman. I wrote 'Islamist', not 'Muslim'.

Are you going to defend Islamist culture?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Not 'more important'. Better. Some cultures are better than others, just as some ideas are better than others.

Here's an example: some States (rooted in a disgusting moral culture) execute men for being homosexuals. Other States do not. Not executing men for being homosexual is a better idea than executing them for being homosexual.

 

[Davka]

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.

Not 'more important'. Better. Some cultures are better than others, just as some ideas are better than others.

Here's an example: some States (rooted in a disgusting moral culture) execute men for being homosexuals. Other States do not. Not executing men for being homosexual is a better idea than executing them for being homosexual.

Laying aside the obvious nit that "better" is a value judgement, I agree with the thrust of your argument. I find some cultures appealing and worthy of emulation. I find other cultures disgusting and abhorrent, worthy of consignment to the dustbin of history, where they can stand forever as examples of how not to live.

 

[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.

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.

Scientific inquiry doesn't concern itself with value judgement, which is what I assume we are discussing. Science concerns itself with descriptions and explanations about objective facts in the world. You will no doubt find that there are some anthropologists or some sociologists that find certain cultures more worthy of study. No doubt some find all equally worthy of study. But that isn't a scientific opinion. That is a value judgement that is relative to the particular sociologist or anthropologist you ask. In other words, it is a subjective opinion.

There is nothing wrong with having these sorts of opinions.

This occurs even in the harder sciences. Some physicists might think some domain is more worthy of study than another. A biologist might think that research aimed at producing therapeutic benefits for people more worthy than other types, and others will look with disdain on those routes and prefer "pure research" as opposed to "translational research."

All worth is subjective.

 

[J842P]

Not 'more important'. Better. Some cultures are better than others, just as some ideas are better than others.

Here's an example: some States (rooted in a disgusting moral culture) execute men for being homosexuals. Other States do not. Not executing men for being homosexual is a better idea than executing them for being homosexual.

Laying aside the obvious nit that "better" is a value judgement, I agree with the thrust of your argument. I find some cultures appealing and worthy of emulation. I find other cultures disgusting and abhorrent, worthy of consignment to the dustbin of history, where they can stand forever as examples of how not to live.

What a mighty, God-like ability you have there Davka.

 

[Toni]

I will do you the favor of assuming by Islamists you mean Muslims.

That's not 'doing me a favour'. That's the exact opposite of doing me a favour. That's a deliberate misreading of what I wrote which you have used to deliberately construct a strawman. I wrote 'Islamist', not 'Muslim'.

Are you going to defend Islamist culture?

Actually, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Islamism is a political point of view, not a culture.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, it doesn't mean he is wrong.

In this case it does.

Better to argue the science than to name call.......

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.

There is no science in that criminal black gene - it is speculation by non-scientists.

 

[Toni]

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?'

Most of what you are referring to was long ago. Pointing out troubles then isn't relevant now. I'm interested in fixing the problem, not in affixing blame.

Not that long ago. During my lifetime and within my memory. Easily. And I'm not close to collecting social security yet.

Those 'troubles' are relevant today as a) they built upon the groundwork laid by the racism that allowed the type of slavery practiced in the U.S. south to be institutionalized and made integral to the the south and in doing so, help form the character of the US as a whole and b) It just wasn't that long ago. Those exact same attitudes that instituted slavery were made manifest in Jim Crow laws in the South and 'restricted' clubs and associations in the north, redlining everywhere and some mighty interesting admissions policies and hiring practices throughout the U.S. If the 100+ years post Civil war were not enough to wake everyone up to the the evils of segregation and racial disparities, why do you think the 50 or 60 years since the Civil Rights movement have actually moved the thinking of a whole lot of people in the US to a post racial society?

You are happy to decry 'black culture,' which seems to me to be a proxy for black people because as far as I can tell, there is no single 'black culture' any more than there is a single 'white culture' in the U.S. There isn't even a single midwestern culture or even a single upper midwestern culture, even if you try to divide it into subcultures: white Lutheran rural Minnesotans vs white Catholic Minnesotans, for example. FFS, within a single city, there are many different 'cultures.' In just Chicago, you have Polish culture and neighborhoods, Jewish, Chinese, SE Asian, Indian, German, Italian neighborhoods and I'm just hitting some of the not black neighborhoods. So give me a fucking break, there, Loren. Most black people are decent, hardworking people who just want to live their lives, raise their children and have some measure of happiness and security. Just like most white, Asian, Hispanic, Japanese, Chinese, Native American, Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, agnostic, atheist people.

 

[J842P]

The problem with discussing Islam or Islamism i.e. "political Islam" as a culture is that neither really apply as a culture. Islam is a religion with almost 2 billion adherents (about a quarter of the world's population). Many people from very distinct cultures practice Islam. Islam is a set of beliefs which can be further broken down into different sects.

It would be more accurate to speak of the culture of particular types of Muslims in this or that country. For example, we could coherently speak of the culture of Salafists in Saudi Arabia. I do not think one can coherently speak of "Muslim Culture" in a way that applies to all billion-and-a-half adherents around the world.

 

[Metaphor]

That's not 'doing me a favour'. That's the exact opposite of doing me a favour. That's a deliberate misreading of what I wrote which you have used to deliberately construct a strawman. I wrote 'Islamist', not 'Muslim'.

Are you going to defend Islamist culture?

Actually, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Islamism is a political point of view, not a culture.

Of course it's a culture. The fact that it's also political does not preclude that (in fact, the fact that Islamists want to force radical Sharia on everyone is part of that culture).

 

[Metaphor]

The problem with discussing Islam or Islamism i.e. "political Islam" as a culture is that neither really apply as a culture. Islam is a religion with almost 2 billion adherents (about a quarter of the world's population). Many people from very distinct cultures practice Islam. Islam is a set of beliefs which can be further broken down into different sects.

It would be more accurate to speak of the culture of particular types of Muslims in this or that country. For example, we could coherently speak of the culture of Salafists in Saudi Arabia. I do not think one can coherently speak of "Muslim Culture" in a way that applies to all billion-and-a-half adherents around the world.

I didn't speak about "Muslim culture". I spoke about Islamists.

And while I agree that there are different radical brands of Islamism, they're all morally repugnant, and humanity would be better off if nobody believed those ideas.

 

[Axulus]

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.

He said as much several years ago.

We do know that the Y chromosome has crime genes contained within it. Whether there is such a set of genes whose average frequency differs by race has not been established. It's a possibility. If you were an open minded freethinker you'd be open to the possibility if the evidence led down that conclusion.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

Why include it if he meant it had 0% to do with anything? Why not include rainbows and unicorns too?

You can't bring unicorns into this conversation, it's just wrong.


Which makes this next clip about Cyril killing a black astronaut totally.. I don't know:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSV_GSIs9Qk[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Toni]

Actually, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Islamism is a political point of view, not a culture.

Of course it's a culture. The fact that it's also political does not preclude that (in fact, the fact that Islamists want to force radical Sharia on everyone is part of that culture).

Correction: they'd like to force radical Sharia on everyone. Period. Right now, the focus is on certain parts of the world but don't kid yourself. It's really the same thing as Nazism, with a different set of what rules must be obeyed, with the penalty for disobedience being death.

This is distinctly different than Islam, in any of its forms and certainly different than any of the cultures in which Islam is a dominant religion.

 

[Metaphor]

Correction: they'd like to force radical Sharia on everyone.

That's what I said.