Homicide Statistics by Race & Gender

In summary: Latvia', it mentions 'Latvians', 'Russians', and others, but for Singapore it mentions 'Chinese', 'Indian', and others, and for Andorra it mentions 'Spanish', 'French', and others.- 'Suicide' is mentioned, but is not subdivided into 'murders' and 'manslaughters'.- 'serious fraud' is mentioned, but is not subdivided into 'financial crimes' and 'other crimes'.I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to get at here.(my emphasis).I am trying to understand the relevance of the US stats you quoted to the other ~95% of the people in the world. Your answer
  • #71
Nereid said:
No, I am not kidding. If you make an assertion in Physics Forums, you can expect to be challenged to provide support for your assertion; that's what happens in science. :eek:
Yet you showed absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your claims. I sure as hell provided my evidence for a gap, did you show anything to counter that? Ah nope.

Please be sure to be quite clear on what you mean by 'crime rate', 'black ghettos', 'white trailor parks' and so on.
No more ignorant beating around the bush type of questions. I will also not tell you what the definition of the sun and the Earth and a flower and an umbrella is.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
BlackVision said:
You notice that you are the ONLY one arguing against that? Everyone else has already accepted the fact that blacks do commit far more crime than other groups. Some are obviously trying to contribute it to environmental issues but you are the ONLY one trying to say this gap doesn't exist. It makes you look really silly here.
Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Perhaps because no one else has posted questions?

BTW, whether there is a gap or not has yet to be established; it's your assertion and I'm challenging you to provide solid evidence for it.
Nereid said:
"white, asian, black"
1) How are these terms defined?
Did I not answer this already. Hell I even gave the specific definitions used by the government.
No, you did not answer this question. You provided the definitions that are used by the Census Bureau for conducting censuses. Your assertion is about crime rates, and my question is how are the terms that you use ('white', 'asian', 'black') defined in respect of crime rates (once more, with feeling, NOT in respect of censuses).
The white, asian, black gap is consistent in each diverse country. E.g. USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc.
Maybe, maybe not; but you've provided no data to support this racist claim, nor have you even defined what you mean by 'white', 'asian', 'black' in countries other than the US.
Nereid said:
3) If, as you assert, these terms are somehow related to Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Melanesian, please show that the 'white, asian, black' categories in any crime stats that you cite are indeed directly related to Caucasian etc.
What the hell are you even talking about here? Crime stats are directly related to Caucasian? Cause the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not going to put a murder done by Native Americans on the white homicide rate chart.
Really? And how, precisely, does the FBI put down a murder in a 'white homicide rate chart'? Do they test the DNA of the perp and determine that he cannot possibly have any African ancestry? Or, if it's a 'black' perp, when the DNA results come in and he's got a 65% non-African ancestry (assuming such a thing is possible to determine), do they add .65 to the 'white homicide' stat and .35 to the 'black' one?
Nereid said:
4) Many people in the US (and UK, and probably many other countries) likely have ancestors who belong to more than one of your groups, whether 'white, asian, black', or 'Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, Melanesian'. For the purposes of showing the gap that you assert, how do you classify such people?
This is of complete irrelevance since mixed races are not THAT common. In the US, 2.4% of the population is considered 2 or more races as reported by the US Census Bureau. Regardless of how this 2.4% is classified would mean literally nothing to the statistics at hand.
Er, no, that would only be true if the 'race' of the perps was indeed self-reported (under the CB's definition) or mixed ancestry was uncommon. However, if you take the time to read some of the other threads in this sub-forum, or ask hitssquad, you will learn that there are essentially NO 'pure' ancestral groups in the US. This is particularly true for 'blacks' - most have some 'white' ancestry, and many have a great deal indeed (and many 'whites' aren't). You might like to read a book such as "The Seven Daughters of Eve"
Nereid said:
'crime rate':
5) How do you define this term?
Questions that beat around the bush alright. Crime is murder, rape, robbery, etc.
Actually, this goes to the heart of your assertion; at the very least I would expect you could easily define - in clear, unambiguous terms - the key concept in your assertion.

(to be continued)
 
  • #73
Nereid said:
'each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist':
7) What are these countries? Please list them

...

For the record, you asserted that the specific countries to be considered are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Germany. You provided some stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for the UK. The former is certainly something we can discuss further; the latter has no apparent relationship with your assertion. Despite being asked for them, you have provided no data for any other country.
BlackVision said:
Why are you constantly making me repeat myself of statements that I've already said not once, not twice, but numerous times. This time, I'm going to kindly ask you to scroll up.

...

I already provided 2 countries. Another to add to the list is South Africa. I'm sure even you will be well aware of the white-black crime gap there.
That's two countries for which you have provided at least some data, and four for which you have made an assertion without any support whatsoever for blatantly racist claims.
Nereid said:
8) For each country in your list, please provide age, sex, and 'white, asian, black' demographics
BlackVision said:
Look I already gave you a link to an almanac. For petty simple things, you do it on your own.
As has already been discussed, the link you provided does NOT give 'white', 'asian', 'black' demographics. Please provide the 'white', 'asian', 'black' age and sex demographics of the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, and South Africa (and any other country for which you assert there is this "'white', 'asian', 'black' crime gap").
Nereid said:
You provided some stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for the UK. The former is certainly something we can discuss further; the latter has no apparent relationship with your assertion.
The later [sic] has no relationship? Wtf?
Perhaps 'crime' means 'found guilty by a court of committing an offense' (perhaps it doesn't; you haven't defined the term); perhaps 'incarceration' means 'sent to prison, either for being an asylum seeker/refugee without papers, or for being denied bail after being charged with an offense, or as a penalty, after being found guilty of an offense'. or perhaps not. Perhaps 'white' criminals in the UK get far lighter sentences, for the same crime, than 'black' criminals do. Perhaps, in the UK, 'asian' criminals are deported (so are not 'incarcerated'); or perhaps not.

As *you* provided 'incarceration rates' as data to support your assertion, I'm asking you to show, clearly and unambiguously, how UK incarceration rates are related to 'crime rates'.
Look, as many has already said, the GAP is not in question. The question is why. YOU are the only one trying to argue that the gap doesn't exist.
I haven't even started to discuss 'the gap'! :eek:

At this stage, I'm simply trying to get you to state your assertion in terms that are clear and unambiguous (and not, IMHO, merely baseless racist propoganda), so that we can start to discuss this topic.
 
Last edited:
  • #74
BlackVision said:
Yet you showed absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your claims. I sure as hell provided my evidence for a gap, did you show anything to counter that? Ah nope.
What claims? What evidence (other than for the US, perhaps)?
No more ignorant beating around the bush type of questions.
So you concede that you cannot support your racist assertions?
 
  • #75
BlackVision said:
You're telling me if I didn't post that article, this discussion would of went to gender? You and I both know that anything racial related, immediately causes a spark.
No, I believe that the predominant amount of racial data in your first post would have been sufficient.


There are environmental issues. But then why don't white trash trailor parks have high murder rates?
From what I've seen, inner city slums are worse than low income trailer parks. What data do you have on murder rates in low income trailer parks?


Blacks in better SES do have lower crime rates than their poorer SES counterparts, however is still substantially higher than white counterparts in the same SES.
I'm not aware of higher crime rates by blacks in higher SES. Do you have data on that?
 
  • #76
Nereid said:
Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Perhaps because no one else has posted questions?

"If we are going to identify and address these problems, we need to first acknowledge they exist. The data are not in question, the interpretation is."---Moonbear

And I doubt even Evo will argue that the statistics given on the first page is inaccurate. But she, like Moonbear, will give their interpretations to why the gap exists. YOU are the only one trying to argue against it. Do you have any clue how inconceivable you sound? Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks. This conversation cannot go any further without you at least acknowledging there is a gap. It shows your ignorance/stubbornness on the subject.

BTW, whether there is a gap or not has yet to be established; it's your assertion and I'm challenging you to provide solid evidence for it.
See above comment.

No, you did not answer this question. You provided the definitions that are used by the Census Bureau for conducting censuses.
Which are standard definitions used by all government agencies

Your assertion is about crime rates, and my question is how are the terms that you use ('white', 'asian', 'black') defined in respect of crime rates (once more, with feeling, NOT in respect of censuses).Maybe, maybe not; but you've provided no data to support this racist claim
LOL. Ok you have lost all ability to carry this conversation. Read way back, where I stated, that there are people that put their emotions and PC into an argument when the issue deals with race which prevents them from carrying a proper and refined discussion. You fit into this description.

Really? And how, precisely, does the FBI put down a murder in a 'white homicide rate chart'? Do they test the DNA of the perp and determine that he cannot possibly have any African ancestry? Or, if it's a 'black' perp, when the DNA results come in and he's got a 65% non-African ancestry (assuming such a thing is possible to determine), do they add .65 to the 'white homicide' stat and .35 to the 'black' one?
This is your own research to do. Why you expect other people to do your work for you I have no clue. I posted statistics. That's all I did. You are free to interpret them however you wish and post your thoughts. But don't expect anyone to tell you what the definition of an umbrella or a cat is.

Er, no, that would only be true if the 'race' of the perps was indeed self-reported (under the CB's definition) or mixed ancestry was uncommon. However, if you take the time to read some of the other threads in this sub-forum, or ask hitssquad, you will learn that there are essentially NO 'pure' ancestral groups in the US. This is particularly true for 'blacks' - most have some 'white' ancestry, and many have a great deal indeed (and many 'whites' aren't). You might like to read a book such as "The Seven Daughters of Eve"
Actually Whites in America would rank over 95% Caucasian in genetic testing. Blacks would rank 80% African in genetic testing. Again you need to quit beating around the bush.

Actually, this goes to the heart of your assertion; at the very least I would expect you could easily define - in clear, unambiguous terms - the key concept in your assertion.
Look you want to do your research, do your research. If you have any thoughts on this matter, you are free to state them. But asking someone else to do YOUR homework, is quite pathetic. The one and only statement I've made, I've defended quite well. If you want to know how the Census Bureau ranks different races, that is your research to do. If you find out anything useful, you are free to post them.
 
  • #77
That's two countries for which you have provided at least some data, and four for which you have made an assertion without any support whatsoever for blatantly racist claims.
Just simply cause you're completely ignorant on this topic, doesn't make anything less true. Study Europe's melting pot in recent years. You will notice that one of the biggest debates among the flex of incoming immigration, is the vast surplus of crime rates that comes with it. But this surplus doesn't seem to apply to East Asian or South Asian immigration for whatever reason.

And again, calling it racist claims, you have lost all ability to carry a race related discussion. PC is a term that comes for you before science.

As has already been discussed, the link you provided does NOT give 'white', 'asian', 'black' demographics. Please provide the 'white', 'asian', 'black' age and sex demographics of the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, and South Africa (and any other country for which you assert there is this "'white', 'asian', 'black' crime gap").
Look if you're ignorant, you're ignorant. If you can't figure out that if it says English origin or French origin or German origin, that it means white, how much do you think I can help you. You're going back to 3rd grade material on race now.

Perhaps 'crime' means 'found guilty by a court of committing an offense' (perhaps it doesn't; you haven't defined the term); perhaps 'incarceration' means 'sent to prison, either for being an asylum seeker/refugee without papers, or for being denied bail after being charged with an offense, or as a penalty, after being found guilty of an offense'. or perhaps not. Perhaps 'white' criminals in the UK get far lighter sentences, for the same crime, than 'black' criminals do. Perhaps, in the UK, 'asian' criminals are deported (so are not 'incarcerated'); or perhaps not.

As *you* provided 'incarceration rates' as data to support your assertion, I'm asking you to show, clearly and unambiguously, how UK incarceration rates are related to 'crime rates'.
Again your research to do. But continue to pretend a gap doesn't exist. Something that everyone already has. Although Evo and Moonbear will contribute the gap to environmental differences, they at least acknowledge the gap. You didn't even pass the first gate.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
I thought this was interesting. This is from the department of Justice. Seems that the homicides commited by blacks that make up the disproportionate gap between white & black homicide is due to drugs and arguments, whereas whites are more likely to murder their friends, family, co-workers, children and the elderly.

Whites are more likely to kill multiple people.

Whites commit more sex related murders.

Whites commit more gang related murders.

Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2000

Offenders - All Homicide White - 46.4%, Black - 51.5%

Victim/Offender Relationship

Intimate White - 53.5%, Black - 44.4%

Family White - 58.3%, Black - 39.4%

Infanticide White - 55.2%, Black - 42.1%

Eldercide White - 54.5%, Black - 44.0%

Circumstances

Felony Murder White - 39.2%, Black - 59.2%

Sex Related White - 56.8%, Black - 41.3%

Drug Related White - 32.7, Black - 66.3%

Gang Related White - 56.7%, Black - 39.1%

Argument White - 45.7%, Black - 52.1%

Work Related White - 70.2%, Black - 26.9%

Weapon

Gun Homicide White - 43.7%, Black - 54.6%

Arson White - 54.5%, Black - 43.1%

Poison White - 74.3%, Black - 23.0%

Multiple Offenders

Multiple Victims White - 57.9%, Black - 38.6%

Multiple Offenders White - 46.1%, Black - 51.6%
 
Last edited:
  • #79
This isn't funny.

--Tom Mattson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80
Evo I commend you for never using this "questions" tactic. :biggrin: And at least did attempt to have a debate.
 
  • #81
BlackVision said:
"If we are going to identify and address these problems, we need to first acknowledge they exist. The data are not in question, the interpretation is."---Moonbear

And I doubt even Evo will argue that the statistics given on the first page is inaccurate. But she, like Moonbear, will give their interpretations to why the gap exists. YOU are the only one trying to argue against it.
I don't recall stating that the stats that you posted were inaccurate, nor arguing that a gap exists (or doesn't); I'm merely asking you to provide a clear, unambiguous set of definitions of the terms which you use in your assertion - which is, at the risk of boring everyone silly, a racist one ("The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.", my emphasis)
Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks.
How did you conclude that "provide clear, unambiguous definitions of the terms you use in your assertion" is the same as "Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks."?
This conversation cannot go any further without you at least acknowledging there is a gap. It shows your ignorance/stubbornness on the subject.
Er, with respect, I disagree. Regarding the US, we may be able to proceed ... to discuss the statistics which you posted. However, we cannot proceed to discuss your assertion without you first defining, clearly and unambiguously, the key terms in that assertion. And we certainly cannot discuss the racist core of your assertion ("in each and every country") without any statistics, or definitions.
Nereid said:
No, you did not answer this question. You provided the definitions that are used by the Census Bureau for conducting censuses.
Which are standard definitions used by all government agencies
Earlier you weren't so certain, so excuse me if I remain skeptical ... do I understand you to say that all players in the US criminal justice system (or at least those who play a part in collecting and processing data which subsequently becomes 'crime rates') ask every criminal for their race? whether they are Hispanic or not? I'm curious - at what stage(s) are such questions asked? What happens if the criminal wishes to change her answer? Is there a category called 'refused to answer' (or similar)?
LOL. Ok you have lost all ability to carry this conversation. Read way back, where I stated, that there are people that put their emotions and PC into an argument when the issue deals with race which prevents them from carrying a proper and refined discussion. You fit into this description.
Does this same apply to those who make racist assertions and are unable to substantiate them?
This is your own research to do. Why you expect other people to do your work for you I have no clue. I posted statistics. That's all I did. You are free to interpret them however you wish and post your thoughts. But don't expect anyone to tell you what the definition of an umbrella or a cat is.
Actually, you did much more than just post stats; you made a racist assertion, and claimed that the (US) stats you posted are evidence for the (global) claim.
Actually Whites in America would rank over 95% Caucasian in genetic testing. Blacks would rank 80% African in genetic testing. Again you need to quit beating around the bush.
So perhaps some Jensen might clarify things: "M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states" (Source: Jensen, "The g Factor"; this quote is from an extract, posted in an earlier thread). For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying these are good data, merely those used by an academic figure who I hope BlackVision will acknowledge as having some authority.
Look you want to do your research, do your research. If you have any thoughts on this matter, you are free to state them. But asking someone else to do YOUR homework, is quite pathetic. The one and only statement I've made, I've defended quite well. If you want to know how the Census Bureau ranks different races, that is your research to do. If you find out anything useful, you are free to post them.
Let's re-examine BlackVision's "one and only statement": The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.
BlackVision's 'defence'?
1) A set of 'homicide statistics by race and gender' (US only)
2) An excerpt from an article about violent crime and 'blacks', in the US
3) A link to a (dated) chart on incarceration rates in the UK
4) Selected US city homicide rates (with the addition of the Hispanic category)
5) Definitions of 'race', as used by the US Census Bureau

What's missing? Definitions of 'crime rate'; any statistics whatsover for countries listed as having 'white, asian, black crime rate gaps' (other than the US); definitions for 'white', 'asian', 'black' in all countries listed (except the US); and more.
 
  • #82
BlackVision said:
I want to show everyone what Nereid is doing here. It's called the "questions" tactic. In an debate where you have absolutely nothing to make your claim, you ask tedious questions one after the next. Let me show you what I mean.

Let's say someone posted a research that states "Watermelons have one of the highest level of percentage of water of all fruits"

What Nereid would do, if he had no argument against it but yet want to give an illusion as though he's refuting it, he would ask:

"How do you define watermelon?"

Now once this question gets answered he will then ask "How do you define water?"
You're doing OK up to here ... these are key terms in the proposal.
After at which point he will ask "Did any of these watermelons have seeds?"
Leaving aside whether Nereid is a 'he', this is where BlackVision goes off the rails; first, no "What is the class 'fruits'?" (BlackVision introduces it later, but way out of sequence) nor "How is the measure 'percentage of water' determined?"; second, there's no need to ask about seeds (unless an answer to an earlier question demands it).

IMHO, it's not a debating tactic, it's fairly standard proceedure for doing science ... define the terms, explain clearly how measurements (data) are taken, state the hypothesis in a form that can be tested. AFAIK, all good science teachers try to get this elementary concept across ... even if the students forget all the 'facts', if they remember only how the scientific method works, the teacher will have done a sterling job.

Did this thread get moved to Politics and World Affairs? or General Discussion? No, it seems to be still in "Other Sciences".

BlackVision, are you going to define your terms, explain clearly how data are collected, etc? Or do you concede that your assertion is an unsubstantiated racist one?
 
  • #83
BlackVision said:
Just simply cause you're completely ignorant on this topic, doesn't make anything less true. Study Europe's melting pot in recent years. You will notice that one of the biggest debates among the flex of incoming immigration, is the vast surplus of crime rates that comes with it. But this surplus doesn't seem to apply to East Asian or South Asian immigration for whatever reason.
So let's see the data! arildno earlier provided data that the crime rates (in Norway) are related to socio-economic status, with recent migrants (of whatever ethnic origin) over-represented due to their immigrant status (not their ethnic origin).
Nereid 1, BlackVision 0.

0TheSwerve0 asked you about socioeconomic class; Monique asked about racial bias; Russ re-iterated 0TheSwerve0's question, ...

In BlackVision's own post (with England and Wales incarceration rates), two separate snapshots of data are provided (June 1996 and June 1997); the change over a year, for all groups except "Indian" and "Chinese" is >10%, and >50% for two of the 'black' groups. To understand how there can be such huge changes, in only one year, would clearly be important in determining how relevant the data are to BlackVision's assertion (which, by the way, has no time dimension).
And again, calling it racist claims, you have lost all ability to carry a race related discussion. PC is a term that comes for you before science.
Er, do I need to provide the links to BlackVision's own statements about 'race'? To Andre's comment (and link) "there are no human races"? To the census websites of many nations - including most (all?) of those in BlackVision's list (except the US) - where 'race' is not used (let alone 'white', 'asian', 'black')?
Look if you're ignorant, you're ignorant. If you can't figure out that if it says English origin or French origin or German origin, that it means white, how much do you think I can help you. You're going back to 3rd grade material on race now.
Can I infer from this statement that outdated and inaccurate concepts ('race') are still being taught in US schools?

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3110124.NSF/0/52c075a57302d0feca256bce000412b3?OpenDocument [Broken] is some info on how the 2001 Australian census was conducted; note the terms 'ancestry' and 'cultural and ethnic groups'.
Again your research to do. But continue to pretend a gap doesn't exist.
What gap?
Something that everyone already has. Although Evo and Moonbear will contribute the gap to environmental differences, they at least acknowledge the gap. You didn't even pass the first gate.
I've read this thread again; neither Evo nor Moonbear commented on any gap, except that in the US, as portrayed by homicide stats. I'm still waiting for evidence of a 'white, asian, black crime rate gap' in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, ... After all, BlackVision's racist assertion is: "The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #84
Evo said:
No, I believe that the predominant amount of racial data in your first post would have been sufficient.
Racial data? I had as much data on gender as on race. Did you miss these?

Homicide Rate by Gender:

Males. Age 14-17:
Males. Age 18-24:
Males. Age 25+:

Females. Age 14-17:
Females. Age 18-24:
Females. Age 25+:

From what I've seen, inner city slums are worse than low income trailer parks. What data do you have on murder rates in low income trailer parks?
The Midwest is quite poor but have low crime rates. Here's Washington DC as compared to Oklahoma City:

Washington DC

Population: 572,059

Ethnic Races:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Median Household Income: $40,127
Households Under $20,000 income: 26%

Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030616-093406-7084r.htm



Oklahoma City

Population: 506,132

Ethnic Races:
White: 64.7%
Black 15.2%
Hispanic 10.1%
Asian 3.4%

Median household income: $34,947
Households Under $20,000 income: 27%

Homicide Rate: 7.41 per 100,000

Source: http://statestats.com/


So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

I'm not aware of higher crime rates by blacks in higher SES. Do you have data on that?
I've seen many sources. It is heavily addressed in "The Bell Curve" and "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" Although you will probably just dismiss these sources.
 
  • #85
BlackVision said:
The Midwest is quite poor but have low crime rates. Here's Washington DC as compared to Oklahoma City:

Washington DC

Population: 572,059

Ethnic Races:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Median Household Income: $40,127
Households Under $20,000 income: 26%

Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030616-093406-7084r.htm

Oklahoma City

Population: 506,132

Ethnic Races:
White: 64.7%
Black 15.2%
Hispanic 10.1%
Asian 3.4%

Median household income: $34,947
Households Under $20,000 income: 27%

Homicide Rate: 7.41 per 100,000

Source: http://statestats.com/
What about the relative incidence of all other types of crime? After all, BlackVision starts with by saying 'crime rates'.

Does "White" mean 'non-Hispanic white'?
So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?
Maybe because it has different age and sex demographics? After all, BlackVision earlier posted stats showing that young men are considerably over-represented in homicide stats.

Maybe because there are fewer families (per 100 adults) in DC?
 
  • #86
Nereid said:
I don't recall stating that the stats that you posted were inaccurate, nor arguing that a gap exists (or doesn't); I'm merely asking you to provide a clear, unambiguous set of definitions of the terms which you use in your assertion - which is, at the risk of boring everyone silly, a racist one ("The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.", my emphasis)
If you want to get into a discussion, that is fine. I encourage that. There have been many here that I've been able to get into a healthy debate with. If you're going to use the "watermelon" argument aka the "Nereid" tactic, you will be dismissed. Understand?

And continuing to state that the statistics are racist, again makes you lose credibility. No more putting PC into this, actually try to attempt to debate this with a more scientific approach.

The white, asian, black gap is very apparent in each diverse countries yes. I already provided 2. And it was untrue, you should EASILY be able to provide 1, a single ONE, to refute me, have you? No. Again I'm not here to do your entire research for you.

How did you conclude that "provide clear, unambiguous definitions of the terms you use in your assertion" is the same as "Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks."?
No more repetitive questions that have already been addressed. See "watermelon" tactic above.

Er, with respect, I disagree. Regarding the US, we may be able to proceed ... to discuss the statistics which you posted. However, we cannot proceed to discuss your assertion without you first defining, clearly and unambiguously, the key terms in that assertion. And we certainly cannot discuss the racist core of your assertion ("in each and every country") without any statistics, or definitions.
You know what, here I'll make a deal with you. If you want to prove to me that you're not simply using the watermelon tactic, You are allowed to ask me ONE question. With that one question, we will have a FULL discussion with it. After that discussion, I will ask you ONE question, and we will have a discussion with it. I'll even allow you to go first. Pick your ONE question. After that we are actually going to have a debate alright? Instead of the watermelon BS you've been stringing along up until now.


Earlier you weren't so certain, so excuse me if I remain skeptical ... do I understand you to say that all players in the US criminal justice system (or at least those who play a part in collecting and processing data which subsequently becomes 'crime rates') ask every criminal for their race? whether they are Hispanic or not? I'm curious - at what stage(s) are such questions asked? What happens if the criminal wishes to change her answer? Is there a category called 'refused to answer' (or similar)?
Another watermelon question. Great. See above comments.

Does this same apply to those who make racist assertions and are unable to substantiate them?
Simply stating that blacks have higher crime rates is racist? Oh gee, forget science and facts and statistical data, we must remain PC and live in our fairy little fantasy world. I suppose the statistics that men are on average 6 inches taller than women area also sexist. Again quit involving your personal emotions and PC into what should be a scientific debate.

Actually, you did much more than just post stats; you made a racist assertion, and claimed that the (US) stats you posted are evidence for the (global) claim.
Once again, simply stating it's racist, doesn't make it so. And yes the trend is quite global. I provided 2 countries which directly corresponded with each other. And there's tons of articles on others, just google for them. How many did you provide? Oh yes zero. When you attempt to refute, you should at least bring in some countering statistics which you are yet to do.

So perhaps some Jensen might clarify things: "M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states" (Source: Jensen, "The g Factor"; this quote is from an extract, posted in an earlier thread). For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying these are good data, merely those used by an academic figure who I hope BlackVision will acknowledge as having some authority.
Isn't Hispanic very mixed? Hispanic by definition are heavily mixed of 3 primary races. So the fact that "some" Americans are heavily mixed are of absolute no surprise. White Americans and probably Asian Americans mixing rate is not heavily significant. Blacks do have about a 20% mixture rate but are still predominately African in descent.

Let's re-examine BlackVision's "one and only statement": The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.
BlackVision's 'defence'?
1) A set of 'homicide statistics by race and gender' (US only)
2) An excerpt from an article about violent crime and 'blacks', in the US
3) A link to a (dated) chart on incarceration rates in the UK
4) Selected US city homicide rates (with the addition of the Hispanic category)
5) Definitions of 'race', as used by the US Census Bureau

I have provided evidence to support my one and only statement. Can you say the same for you? You are yet to give a single countering statistic to refute any claims. If what I stated is false, I would be completely bombarded by everyone saying "no no this is not true, here are statistics for this country" Is that yet to happen? Are you yet to do this? Why is that there is absolutely ZERO evidence that you brought to the table?
 
  • #87
Neried said:
Leaving aside whether Nereid is a 'he'
So it's a she? Well that would certainly make more sense. Women tend to be far more PC. Not that men aren't either. But it does tend to be tilted toward a certain direction.

second, there's no need to ask about seeds
Oh yes cause so many of your questions had so much validity behind it.

IMHO, it's not a debating tactic, it's fairly standard proceedure for doing science
There's a CLEAR distinction between a scientific procedure, and what you have been attempting as I have thoroughly show in the watermelon analogy.

Did this thread get moved to Politics and World Affairs? or General Discussion? No, it seems to be still in "Other Sciences".
Shouldn't you approach it more with a scientific mind rather than with a PC mind then?

BlackVision, are you going to define your terms, explain clearly how data are collected, etc? Or do you concede that your assertion is an unsubstantiated racist one?
No more watermelon tactics. You have any idea how easily visible this is? As a science forum, the level of intellect is not low enough for this to work on anybody.

I already suggested an agreement with you. You will get to ask one question and we will have a discussion. But the watermelon tactic of asking one question after the next after the next the next, after a failed attempt to refute anything, is not something that will be tolerated.
 
  • #88
So let's see the data! arildno earlier provided data that the crime rates (in Norway) are related to socio-economic status, with recent migrants (of whatever ethnic origin) over-represented due to their immigrant status (not their ethnic origin).
Nereid 1, BlackVision 0.
Acutally SES has very little effect on SES and even after adjusting for SES, blacks have a higher crime rate. Read pages 235-251 in "The Bell Curve" They go into full depth in it and even have nifty graphs. So in all you failed to score. You didn't even make it to first base.

In BlackVision's own post (with England and Wales incarceration rates), two separate snapshots of data are provided (June 1996 and June 1997); the change over a year, for all groups except "Indian" and "Chinese" is >10%, and >50% for two of the 'black' groups. To understand how there can be such huge changes, in only one year, would clearly be important in determining how relevant the data are to BlackVision's assertion (which, by the way, has no time dimension).
The so called "huge" changes is simply due to lack of a large enough sample. One must remember that although UK has been admitting thousands of immigrants, it is still over 97% white.

Er, do I need to provide the links to BlackVision's own statements about 'race'? To Andre's comment (and link) "there are no human races"? To the census websites of many nations - including most (all?) of those in BlackVision's list (except the US) - where 'race' is not used (let alone 'white', 'asian', 'black')?
Well there are human races. And there are certainly genetic basis to human races. As I have shown clear evidence for by geneticists being able to pinpoint the ancestral continent of a random individual simply by looking at their DNA.

Can I infer from this statement that outdated and inaccurate concepts ('race') are still being taught in US schools?

Here is some info on how the 2001 Australian census was conducted; note the terms 'ancestry' and 'cultural and ethnic groups'.
What you are attempting to do is state that human races don't exist. That there are no scientific basis for it. Which is a failed attempt. Races are real and are indeed genetically based. However this plays with people's emotions becomes irrelevant.

What gap?
The white-black crime gap. You need to at least acknowledge this first before moving on. Everyone already has. They've moved on to attempting to explain why this gap exists. You're still stuck in the dugout while everyone else is playing.

I've read this thread again; neither Evo nor Moonbear commented on any gap, except that in the US, as portrayed by homicide stats. I'm still waiting for evidence of a 'white, asian, black crime rate gap' in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, ... After all, BlackVision's racist assertion is: "The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."
Moonbear specifically stated the DATA is not in question. I'm quite sure Evo will agree with that as well. What the debate is explaining the data.

LOL. I find it so funny that Nereid tries to input the word "racist" in as many times as she(?) can. Hoping that if she does it enough times, it somehow will become true. But yes the white, asian, black gap is consistent in melting pot countries and no I will not do your research for you as I've already done enough. I have my own work to do. And as I've said before, demanding demanding demanding, without providing a SINGLE evidence a single statistic to support your claim, makes you look weak. In your attempted counter argument, you should provide at least one evidence, one statistic to show the contrary. But of course you haven't.
 
Last edited:
  • #89
Planet Green

Planet Green has 100,000 inhabitants, each of whose skin is identically genotypically green. All of these inhabitants, with one immaculately innocent exception, have committed murder.

Are we to say there is a true correlation between the genotype of green skin and acts of murder on Planet Green - that the the one pacifist is a statistical anomaly to be "tarred with the same brush"? Should we be swayed by the exception to the rule, whether it be moderate (an assumption in the rate of murder by "blacks," posted above) or limiting (the one pacifist on Planet Green), that a genetic interpretation is inappropriate?

Using Occam's razor, I conclude that inhabitants' green skin on Planet Green, while seemingly a predictor of future behavior, is actually not so genetically. Genetics in conjunction with environment may have unpredictable nonlinear effects as well. Translated to labeling "blacks" on Earth, we realize the complex sociological mileau we must account for, rather than risk repeating history. The glee with which some invite ignorant distortion of statistics recalls the "schadenfreude" and eugenics of Nazi Germany.
 
  • #90
Planet Green

Loren Booda said:
Planet Green has 100,000 inhabitants, each of whose skin is identically genotypically green.
A genotype can neither be, nor discretely code for, a color. The skin might be identically phenotypically green, and if that were the case then the genetic contribution to variance in skin color in that particular case would have to be zero.



All of these inhabitants, with one ... exception, have committed murder... there is a ... correlation between the genotype of green skin and acts of murder
There cannot be a correlation when there is no variance in at least one of the variables.
 
  • #91
BlackVision said:
Once again, simply stating it's racist, doesn't make it so. And yes the trend is quite global. I provided 2 countries which directly corresponded with each other. And there's tons of articles on others, just google for them. How many did you provide? Oh yes zero. When you attempt to refute, you should at least bring in some countering statistics which you are yet to do.
Please try again; you provided several stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for England and Wales, for 1996 and 1997 (which, BTW, you claimed were 'UK figures'). Your racist assertion is about 'crime rates', which is not the same as 'incarceration rates'

Earlier BlackVision mentioned debating tactics, and characterised the scientific method as 'watermelon tactics'. Here is another example of failure to follow the scientific method: repeatedly stating an assertion instead of addressing questions about the assertion, and repeatedly failing to provide data to support the assetion.
Isn't Hispanic very mixed? Hispanic by definition are heavily mixed of 3 primary races. So the fact that "some" Americans are heavily mixed are of absolute no surprise. White Americans and probably Asian Americans mixing rate is not heavily significant. Blacks do have about a 20% mixture rate but are still predominately African in descent.
Please check the sources; the Jensen quote* refers to US 'blacks'
I have provided evidence to support my one and only statement. Can you say the same for you? You are yet to give a single countering statistic to refute any claims. If what I stated is false, I would be completely bombarded by everyone saying "no no this is not true, here are statistics for this country" Is that yet to happen? Are you yet to do this? Why is that there is absolutely ZERO evidence that you brought to the table?
Nereid said:
Here is some info on how the 2001 Australian census was conducted; note the terms 'ancestry' and 'cultural and ethnic groups'.
What you are attempting to do is state that human races don't exist. That there are no scientific basis for it. Which is a failed attempt. Races are real and are indeed genetically based. However this plays with people's emotions becomes irrelevant.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@census.nsf/Census_BCP_ASGC_ViewTemplate?ReadForm&Expand=1 [Broken] BlackVision wrote: "the same racial gaps [in crime statistics] exists in every country. Canada, United Kingdom, Australia." BlackVision, please use this data to show, in terms of your 'white', 'asian', and 'black' definitions, the 'racial' makeup of the Australian population. Here's my assertion: there were fewer than 150,000 people in Australia in 2001 who claimed to have been born in Sub-Saharan Africa, out of a total population of over 18 million.

I will start a new thread on whether there are 'human races' or not, and I will insist that the discussion be conducted following a clearly defined protocol, consistent with the scientific method.

*"M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #92
Nereid said:
So let's see the data! arildno earlier provided data that the crime rates (in Norway) are related to socio-economic status, with recent migrants (of whatever ethnic origin) over-represented due to their immigrant status (not their ethnic origin).
Nereid 1, BlackVision 0.
BlackVision said:
Acutally SES has very little effect on SES and even after adjusting for SES, blacks have a higher crime rate. Read pages 235-251 in "The Bell Curve" They go into full depth in it and even have nifty graphs. So in all you failed to score. You didn't even make it to first base.
Now we are getting close to BlackVision's apparent ignorance (or racism). As was discussed extensively here in Social Sciences earlier, not even the authors of "The Bell Curve" - not even Jensen - claim that their research and conclusions have validity outside the US. Those racists - such as Lynn and Rushton - who do claim some global validity for their racist views base their conclusions on very sloppy science, not to mention claims not even substantiated by their own data (also discussed here earlier).

BlackVision, your assertion is a racist one (it claims some global validity for a crime-'race' relationship). A reasonable counter to such a claim is that crime rates are more closely related to socio-economic class. In one European country (Norway), a PF member asserts that this socio-economic dimension accounts for much of the variation in crime rates between ethnic groups. You assert that 'race' has a correlation with 'crime rate' in the US, independent of SES (at least for 'blacks'). On the surface, your racist assertion is inconsistent with these two data points (if indeed that's what they are).
 
Last edited:
  • #93
BlackVision said:
So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?
Perhaps because http://about.dc.gov/about2.asp?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
BlackVision said:
Washington DC
Population: 572,059
Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Oklahoma City
Population: 506,132
Homicide Rate: 7.41 per 100,000

So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?
Perhaps because http://www.kiat.net/dc/ [Broken] commuting workers and visitors is the best stat I could find in a quick Google search). I assume that the DC homicide rate refers to homicides committed in DC, no matter where the perp(s) or victim(s) live(d).

Maybe because "More than 359,000 people living in the metropolitan area are on the federal payroll" ... out of a population of only ~600,000 (I don't have a stat for Oklahoma City, but I rather doubt it's over 30,000).

Maybe I'm in the slow class today; isn't Oklahoma City where Timothy did his thing? Weren't 168 people killed in the bombing? Wasn't that homicide? My calculator says that 168/5.06 = 33.2. IOW, if this multiple victims, white offender homcide is included, the homicide rates for the two cities become much more equal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #95
Here is a good example of why one needs to take the statistics which BlackVision provides with some skepticism:
BlackVision said:
One must remember that although UK has been admitting thousands of immigrants, it is still over 97% white.
In April 2001, the UK conducted a census, and "respondents were asked to which ethnic group they considered themselves to belong", among many other things (note: no question about 'race').

Here are the results:

Ethnic group . . . . . . Total Population . . %
White . . . . . . . . . . . 54153898 . . . . . 92.1
Mixed . . . . . . . . . . . . 677177 . . . . . . 1.2
Asian or Asian British . 2331423 . . . . . .. 4.0
Black or Black British . 1148738 . . . . . . . 2.0
Chinese . . . . . . . . . . 247403 . . . . . . . 0.4
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . 230615 . . . . . . . 0.4
Total . . . . . . . . . .. 58789194

Source
 
Last edited:
  • #96
selfAdjoint said:
And does "homocide" mean killing homosexuals, as it seems to? Homicide, on the other hand is defined (slightly differently) in the laws of every state of the US and the Federal code, and in the codes of all the nation states. When they report homicides, they are presumably using the definitions in their codes. This means a slightly various population of course, since what is a homicide over here might not be over there and vice versa.
In terms of the US stats which BlackVision posted, at the beginning of this thread, here are some answers (the source is one of the two links in BV's post):

"Homicide as defined here includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. Excluded are deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation, as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body.

Not all agencies which report offense information to the FBI also submit supplemental data on homicides. About 91% of homicides reported in the UCR are included in the SHR. To account for the total number of homicides, this analysis weighted the SHR data to match national and State estimates prepared by the FBI. All victim-based analyses are adjusted in this manner.

While many agencies report supplemental data on homicides, much of the data concerning offenders may not be reported because no suspects were identified. The most significant problem in using SHR data to analyze offender characteristics is the sizable and growing number of unsolved homicides contained in the data file. Ignoring unsolved homicides, of course, would seriously understate calculated rates of offending by particular subgroups of the population, distort trends over time among these same subgroups, and bias observed patterns of offending to the extent that the rate of missing offender data is associated with offender characteristics.

To adjust for unsolved homicides, a method for offender imputation has been devised ..."

Further material, also from the site BV provided a link to, details the procedures used in the SHR; methodology for the National Crime Victimization Survey, and more.

Regarding 'crime rates' (a question which Nereid had asked BV repeatedly about, only to get vague, inconsistent answers), the site has this to say:

"Launched 70 years ago, the Uniform Crime Reporting Program collects and publishes criminal offense, arrest, and law enforcement personnel statistics. Under the UCR program, law enforcement agencies submit information to the FBI monthly. Offense information is collected on the eight Index offenses of homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Information on the the number of persons arrested includes many additional crime types such as drug abuse violations and driving under the influence." Note that the kind of crimes which are alleged to have been committed in the Enron, WorldCom, etc scandals are not included. Nor is a leading cause of death in the US - drunk driving.

Finally, to 'race': as BV 'supposed', the instructions to those who provide the data (which later become the stats) are in line with the Census Bureau's definitions and approach. I haven't read enough yet to see how a) 'more than one race' answers are analysed, b) ditto 'refused to answer', c) time series are constructed (the data collection methodology changed with the CB's change in approach re 'race').
 
  • #97
US white homicide rate >7 times that of blacks!

The "Homicide Offending Rate per 100,000 Population", according to official US Department of Justice figures, is more than seven times higher for 'whites' than 'blacks'!

Whites: 32.6
Blacks: 4.6

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oarstab.htm [Broken]

BlackVision's assertion clearly wrong, in the US, according to stats provided by BV himself! :eek:

Now that I have your undivided attention ... you'll recall that Nereid kept insisting that BlackVision define the key terms he used in his assertion, clearly and unambiguously? And that BV got really annoyed with this, calling it 'watermelon tactics', and denying it played any role in science?

The example above was created to show what can happen if you aren't very clear in your definitions etc.

BV's assertion, to refresh our memories: "The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."

So, let's examine the data above, in light of this assertion:
"white, asian, black [...] populations": Yes, those groups exist in the US.
"in each country ... where a mixture of these populations exist": Yep, the US qualifies.
"crime rate": Yes, homicide rates are crime rates.
"gap": clearly there's a gap! (But not the one BV wished to show) :grumpy:
"consistent": two sets of data are the minimum needed to establish consistency, so here is a second set: White 31.6, Black 4.9.

To quote BV, "Wtf?"

The "White" rates are 18-24 White male, 1991 (1995); the "Black" 25+ (14-17) Black female, 2000.

Of course no one would consider this a serious rebuttal :rolleyes: It's not intended to be.

But who can say what (slightly) more subtle considerations need to be made, before a serious examination of BV's assertion can be undertaken?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98
Multiplicative comparisons

Nereid said:
The "Homicide Offending Rate per 100,000 Population", according to official US Department of Justice figures, is more than seven times higher for 'whites' than 'blacks'

Whites: 32.6
Blacks: 4.6
32.6 is 6.09 times higher than 4.6.
 
  • #99
Nereid said:
Please try again; you provided several stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for England and Wales, for 1996 and 1997 (which, BTW, you claimed were 'UK figures'). Your racist assertion is about 'crime rates', which is not the same as 'incarceration rates'

Earlier BlackVision mentioned debating tactics, and characterised the scientific method as 'watermelon tactics'. Here is another example of failure to follow the scientific method: repeatedly stating an assertion instead of addressing questions about the assertion, and repeatedly failing to provide data to support the assetion.
I see that you clearly and conveniently skipped over my question. You can't tell me that I've provided no evidence. However we can all agree that YOU have provided absolutely nothing.

Please check the sources; the Jensen quote* refers to US 'blacks'
20% black, 60% black, 80% black. Regardless. Genetics plays a role. Race is genetically linked. You can try to deny it but it doesn't mean anyone will agree with you.

Here is an Australian Bureau of Statistics website, on the 2001 Census. Earlier BlackVision wrote: "the same racial gaps [in crime statistics] exists in every country. Canada, United Kingdom, Australia." BlackVision, please use this data to show, in terms of your 'white', 'asian', and 'black' definitions, the 'racial' makeup of the Australian population. Here's my assertion: there were fewer than 150,000 people in Australia in 2001 who claimed to have been born in Sub-Saharan Africa, out of a total population of over 18 million.
Small sample but sample nonetheless. Aborigines also have an extraordinarily high crime rate. East Asians in Australia have a lower crime rate than the White population. Although Southeast Asia does have a higher one although not as high as the Aborigine population.

I will start a new thread on whether there are 'human races' or not, and I will insist that the discussion be conducted following a clearly defined protocol, consistent with the scientific method.
You might want to go back to lesson #1 in evolution if you're actually going to argue against the genetic basis of human races.

*"M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states"
I already addressed this above. The mixing becomes a moot point. If someone is 50/50 of one race, he/she would get a great deal of mix of the genetic pool of both races. Genetic testing will also confirm this.
 
  • #100
Now we are getting close to BlackVision's apparent ignorance (or racism). As was discussed extensively here in Social Sciences earlier, not even the authors of "The Bell Curve" - not even Jensen - claim that their research and conclusions have validity outside the US. Those racists - such as Lynn and Rushton - who do claim some global validity for their racist views base their conclusions on very sloppy science, not to mention claims not even substantiated by their own data (also discussed here earlier)
Ah yes the racist tactic again. Fail to provide any contrary evidence, use "racist" as a last resort. The work of Murray, Herrnstein, Jensen, Lynn, and Rushton does have a high level of support in the academic circles. These are all respectable academics of their fields. Coming from the most prestigious universities.

Let's have a contest, how many more times will Nereid say the word "racist" in this thread. :biggrin:

BlackVision, your assertion is a racist one (it claims some global validity for a crime-'race' relationship). A reasonable counter to such a claim is that crime rates are more closely related to socio-economic class. In one European country (Norway), a PF member asserts that this socio-economic dimension accounts for much of the variation in crime rates between ethnic groups. You assert that 'race' has a correlation with 'crime rate' in the US, independent of SES (at least for 'blacks'). On the surface, your racist assertion is inconsistent with these two data points (if indeed that's what they are).
There is a global crime-race relationship. If you want to be completely oblivious to it that's your problem. The data however, as some have stated, is not in question. The crime gap between races is very consistent from country to country from region to region. You can explain WHY that is but you STILL haven't been able to get on first base.

And the relation of SES to crime I already addressed. And did you bother reading the article that is the 2nd post of this thread. Let me quote it:

"Experts love to blame crime on poverty. That's nonsense! From 1900 to 1929, the nation's murder rate rose from 1.2 per 1 00,000 of the population to 8.4. However, during parts of the 1930s, when the unemployment rate stood at 37 percent, the murder rate had fallen to 6.3 per 1 00,000 and to 4.7 per 100,000 by 1960. After 1960, violent crime rates shot up. By 1993, the murder rate was 9.5 per 100,000, falling to 8.2 in 1995. Rather than poverty causing crime, one might more easily make the case that crime causes poverty."---Walter E. Williams

This is said by a BLACK professor. Your hypothesis is just getting blown out of the water.
 
  • #101
Now that I have your undivided attention ... you'll recall that Nereid kept insisting that BlackVision define the key terms he used in his assertion, clearly and unambiguously? And that BV got really annoyed with this, calling it 'watermelon tactics', and denying it played any role in science?
You do know that repetition gets you nowhere right? I made it VERY distinctively clear between the difference of the scientific method and what YOU have been doing. And I've repeatedly asked you to provide ANY contrary data whatsoever and you have yet to do so. It seems you're getting annoyed.

"consistent": two sets of data are the minimum needed to establish consistency, so here is a second set: White 31.6, Black 4.9.

To quote BV, "Wtf?"

The "White" rates are 18-24 White male, 1991 (1995); the "Black" 25+ (14-17) Black female, 2000.

Of course no one would consider this a serious rebuttal It's not intended to be.
Yes gender is also a factor. Men and women do indeed have genetical differences. Are you going to argue this as well? Men have a far higher testostereone level which contributes to aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior will often times turn criminal. Certain races have been shown to have a higher mean testosterone level than others.
 
  • #102
BlackVision said:
The Midwest is quite poor but have low crime rates. Here's Washington DC as compared to Oklahoma City:

Washington DC

Population: 572,059

Ethnic Races:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Median Household Income: $40,127
Households Under $20,000 income: 26%

Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030616-093406-7084r.htm



Oklahoma City

Population: 506,132

Ethnic Races:
White: 64.7%
Black 15.2%
Hispanic 10.1%
Asian 3.4%

Median household income: $34,947
Households Under $20,000 income: 27%

Homicide Rate: 7.41 per 100,000

Source: http://statestats.com/


So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

These stats don't take into account cost of living. In the midwest, you can live fairly comfortably on $35K, even afford to buy a small house. In DC, to live at the same comfort level, you'd need to be earning about $80-$100K. Of course, interesting you should choose Oklahoma City as your example, since in recent years, the bombing of the Federal Building there is one of the bigger stories of mass murder by a white person.
 
  • #103
It must now be obvious that the reduction and dehumanization of a people is very effective with the authority of numbers, even without addressing a single individual.

Here is a link that lists "20TH CENTURY DEMOCIDE," genocide by the 20 worst offending governments last century. Of the regimes listed, not one is a sub-Saharan state.

The statistics may vary source-to-source, but my position remains: the vast majority of mass murder (per capita) in the 20th century has been perpetrated by "non-black" peoples. As sub-Saharan states acquired more lethal weapons from whites, their incidence of mass killings increased toward the end of the 20th century.

A side note: Serial killers, those who kill sporadically more than three persons, are almost invariably white.
 
  • #104
BlackVision said:
"If we are going to identify and address these problems, we need to first acknowledge they exist. The data are not in question, the interpretation is."---Moonbear

And I doubt even Evo will argue that the statistics given on the first page is inaccurate. But she, like Moonbear, will give their interpretations to why the gap exists. YOU are the only one trying to argue against it. Do you have any clue how inconceivable you sound? Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks. This conversation cannot go any further without you at least acknowledging there is a gap. It shows your ignorance/stubbornness on the subject.

For clarity, when I referred to the data, I was referring only to the statistics for US murder rates, not worldwide differences. Nereid's questions are all valid questions and I'm still waiting for the answers too, I'm just getting bored of seeing them repeated over and over without any further answers, so don't see the point of asking them too.

I think the point Nereid is trying to make regarding the racial classifications is that in the US, it wasn't too far back in history that 1/8 black was defined as white, any higher percentage and they were defined as black. So, someone who is 50% black and 50% white would still wind up in the black category rather than half of those people being randomly assigned to the black group and the other half to the white group. And what about hispanics? Hispanic is a general term for someone of South American heritage who can be of Caucasian, African, or Native American ancestry (or a mix of any combination of those).

Then, to support your point about crime rates being similarly racially split in around the world, you compare murder rates in the US to overall crime rates in the UK...apples and oranges. I also have not seen stats presented on the distribution of races in the UK. Further, if you want to show that there is a racial factor, then show the stats for some African nations...what percentages of crimes are committed by blacks vs whites in countries that have a predominantly black population?

And I see you're back to claiming testosterone levels differ between the races, despite my offering several sources of evidence this is not the case.

As for the issue of differences between the genders, since the discussion has led primarily down the race/ethnicity/ancestry question, it seems best to focus on that one issue first, then address the second issue of gender differences.

If you want us to accept your hypothesis, then you need to first demonstrate, with valid studies, that ALL of the other alternative hypotheses can be disproven. Basically, Nereid's questions are all directing you toward those alternative hypotheses, so by dismissing her questions, you are choosing to not disprove the alternatives, thus weakening your own argument.
 
  • #105
Racial categorizations of individuals vs. groups

Moonbear said:
the bombing of the Federal Building ... is one of the bigger stories of mass murder by a white person.
What makes you think Timothy McVeigh was a "white" person?
 

Similar threads

Replies
99
Views
76K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top