Homicide Statistics by Race & Gender

[Evo]

Number of people? New York City. I believe is the most populated and most crowded city in America correct? Why does New York not have an extraordinarily high crime rate as Washington DC. New York even has a lower median household income than DC.

So let's sum it all up. New York is more populated, more crowded, has a higher cost of living, and has a lower median house value, but has a crime rate about 6 times less than DC. Hmm.

What's mind boggling is that you refuse to accept New York ghettos. New York's got some shi*ty ghettos. LA also has shi*ty ghettos. Ever hear of South Central? There's a higher percentage of people in New York below the poverty line in a city that has a HIGHER cost of living than DC. Now what do you think of that? What weird twisted story will you come up with to explain this one?

The number of people living below the poverty level, not the population of the city, why do you keep pulling things out of context?

Showing homicide rates proves nothing if you do not factor in all the variables that affect the numbers. Of course you refuse to do that because it would disprove your little theory. Until you take these other factors into consideration, there is no point discussing this, it's meaningless.

This is absolutely hilarious. Because when someone commits a crime, they're first adjusted for BMI and waist circumference too?

Your comment doesn't even make sense.

 

[Evo]

Source: Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J Rushton

Do you have a source that is not a known racist that was investigated for hate crimes and is on several "watch lists"?

 

[Moonbear]

Since BlackVision won't define his own terms, I thought I'd go find the information for myself. The White/Black/Other categories used by the BJS website (source of the stats in the first post of this thread) are based on the DOJ Uniform Crime Reporting guidelines. I've included these below. Note in reporting statistics they have two separate categories, race, which is white, black, American Indian/Alaskan native, and Asian or Pacific Islander. The other category is ethnicity, which distinguishes between Hispanic and non-Hispanic. This is not the same set of categories used by the Census Bureau, as BlackVision earlier implied. Under DOJ guidelines, Hispanic individuals are included under the white category, then later divided by ethnicity as non-Hispanic White and Hispanic White. In the excerpt below, the definitions refer to the victims, because that is where the specific definitions were provided. The same definitions are used for offenders.

From:
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Criminal Justice Information Services Division Uniform Crime Reporting
National Incident-Based Reporting System
Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines

28 Race (of Victim) - one character (A): If the victim was a person (I = Individual was entered into Data Element 25 [Type of Victim]), his/her race should be indicated in this data element.
Allowed entries: (Enter only one.)
W = White
B = Black
I = American Indian/Alaskan Native A = Asian/Pacific Islander U = Unknown
According to page 48 of the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, NIBRS Edition, racial designations are as follows:
White–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
Black–A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
American Indian or Alaskan Native–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
Asian or Pacific Islander–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
92
Data Elements and Data Values Example: If the victim was a white person, W = White should be entered.
29 Ethnicity (of Victim) - one character (A): If the victim was a person (I = Individual was entered into Data Element 25 [Type of Victim]), his/her ethnic origin should be entered into this data element.
Allowed entries: (Enter only one.)
H = Hispanic Origin N = Not of Hispanic Origin U = Unknown
Example: If the victim was not of Hispanic origin, N = Not of Hispanic Origin should be entered.
Note: This is an optional data element. Ethnic origin is recorded at the discretion of the reporting agency.

I also checked on the BJS definition of an offender, since that's what we are discussing statistics about. Offender information is collected at the time of the incident report, and does not rely on arrest or conviction. The description of the offender, when a suspect is not caught, is based on the victim's or witness' description of the offender. The site has a disclaimer that it recognizes there is inherent bias in this system, especially for homicides in which there are no witnesses and that remain unsolved.

 

[hitssquad]

Bias in homicide testing

I also checked on the BJS definition of an offender, since that's what we are discussing statistics about.

Could you provide links to this sort of information, so readers can see what it is (instead of just your personal interpretations) that you are discussing?

Offender information is collected at the time of the incident report, and does not rely on arrest or conviction. The description of the offender, when a suspect is not caught, is based on the victim's or witness' description of the offender. The site has a disclaimer that it recognizes there is inherent bias in this system

Doesn't it seem strange that they would report bias without saying what direction it runs in or along what axis or axes it runs along?

especially for homicides in which there are no witnesses and that remain unsolved.

There does not seem to be a clear connection between non-witness and unsolved status, and introduction of bias.

 

[BlackVision]

He says this, I saw those same quotes on his website, but he does not cite sources for those statements. This is not based on his own work, he isn't reporting experiments or studies and their methodology. There's a saying in science, "anyone can write a book." Which means, if you write a book, you can say anything you want, there's no criteria for truth or fiction, fiction sells very well. Show me a study that shows a causal relationship between testosterone and "explosive energy." If a white man increases his testosterone concentrations (many do so illegally), he doesn't become a better runner or jumper, he adds muscle mass. Higher testosterone concentrations do not explain these characteristics in blacks. That's also a pretty huge leap from athletic ability to hip size (hip size is different than pelvic girth, and completely ignores the relaxation and expansion of the pelvis during labor and delivery). It also glosses over how evolution works. Women aren't going to get a wider pelvis because their baby has a bigger head, indeed, bigger heads during birth in the days before c-sections would have meant mother and baby both probably would have died during child birth. This also ignores that the cranial bones compress during delivery to permit the baby to get out. He also makes a huge leap between his studies of cranial size in adults (which have been debunked in other threads here, and is not relevant to this debate), and cranial size in babies. Besides, athletes competing at the elite levels are not representative of entire groups, they are at the extremes of those population distributions. What is Rushton's evidence that testosterone increases restlessness in school? And what is his evidence that it makes someone more prone to committing crimes?

Step #1: You need to stop lying and trying to twist statistics. Each time you do, your credibility drops further lower and lower. You stated that you didn't write the whole article to your source cause it was "copyrighted" NOTHING prevented you from providing a link, yet you did not do this. And even if you did not want to provide a link, you could of at least given an unbias summary of that whole study which clearly you did not do. Anything that irrefutably mentioned the white-black testosterone gap, anywhere where it stated that the reasons why blacks are more prone to cancer or etc is due to that gap, you seemed to have "conveniently" omitted. I kindly ask you not to lie and twist data whenever you "think" you can get away with it.

Women aren't going to get a wider pelvis because their baby has a bigger head, indeed, bigger heads during birth in the days before c-sections would have meant mother and baby both probably would have died during child birth.

I'm not going to even bother explaining to you the fundamentals of evolution but it's very clear you lack that knowledge. But to help you, bigger heads, causing more small pelvis women to die, will change the gene pool.

Besides, athletes competing at the elite levels are not representative of entire groups, they are at the extremes of those population distributions.

Every characteristic, be it intelligence, be it atheletic abiliity, be it motor skills, etc has a bell curve. With the majority in the middle. And an extreme on both ends. Blacks have a higher median level in testosterone driven sports than whites do. They also completely dominant the very high end of the bell curve in athletic ability which is somewhat expected since they would have a higher median level.

If you're going to continue to argue that higher testosterone does result in increased crime rates

This one is NOT in question. Higher testosterone level IS an increased risk of crime. There is more evidence to support this than the theory of evolution. You can try to argue that the reason why men commit about 90% of murders is due to the environment, but I assure you, you will look very silly doing so.

The testosterone concentrations reported are means, those means are pretty close between blacks and whites, so plenty of individuals overlap between the two groups.

The vast majority of both whites AND blacks do not commit murder correct? But as blacks have a higher median level, they will also have a higher extreme level and have a higher abundance of people on the very right hand tail of the hormone bell curve. The group most at risk.

What you would be trying to suggest by saying the higher mean among black men is related to the higher crime rates among black men is that there is a level of testosterone that would be a "threshold" for committing crime. If your testosterone concentrations surpass that level, you are going to commit crime, and if they are below that level, you won't, and then you would argue more black men than white men have testosterone levels above that threshold. So, what is that threshold?

Ok before we go further. You need to understand the difference between "increased risk of" and "threshold" With higher testosterone level comes increased risk of criminal behavior. It DOES NOT mean one will commit criminal acts. A person with an extremely low dose of testosterone will still have the ability to commit murder. A person with a extremely high dose of testosterone will still have the ability not to commit murder. But odds, the risk increase and decrease with that level.

 

[BlackVision]

OJ is also filthy rich and could afford all the best lawyers. There are many more blacks below the poverty level than whites. So, this still doesn't refute that ability to hire a good lawyer is the critical factor in whether one is convicted of a crime or not.

It still doesn't change the fact that the victim homicide rate, which is not based on conviction, correlates to the offending homicide rate. Anyway you look at it, there is a gap.

 

[BlackVision]

No, we don't agree on that. I am focusing on the testosterone argument for now. I don't have time to debate every issue all at once. I'm willing to table my argument that overcrowding is the issue until we resolve your argument that testosterone is the issue.

The testosterone debate is already done. Settled by even your own source. No more beating a dead horse, move on to the next.

 

[BlackVision]

I did not provide a link, I provided the full citation. That's all you need to find the article. You also don't have to look it up online, you can go to the library and get the paper version if you want. Obviously, the information was sufficient since you found the article.

Again that doesn't change the fact that you omitted a lot of important information. That study was showing many instances of blacks being more prone to such thing as cancer, due to the testosterone gap. You conveniently didn't mention this, nor anything else that would put a damper on your argument.

No, what the authors are saying is their population did not start out equal. If you started out with a group of men who were the same age and same body fat content, you would not get these differences.

Again you need to directly answer my question, a random population sample WILL show blacks having a higher testosterone level? Yes or no. Answer DIRECTLY.

And same age and same body fat content, you WILL get these differences, go back and read again. With this it states a 3% testosterone difference.

I'm just telling you that based on your criterion that adjustments for body fat and age are not valid for assessing testosterone concentrations, then the source cited by the person you are saying is the authority on the subject shows that, indeed, Asian men, on average, have the highest testosterone concentrations. Otherwise, you have to accept that the age and body fat adjustments are acceptable.

Since asians have the lowest body fat and the smallest waist circumferences, your argument is just getting thrown out the door. Stop trying to twist statistics.

 

[BlackVision]

Nope, they aren't. But in the CARDIA study, they also showed that the UNADJUSTED means did not differ between the two groups in years 2 and 7 of the study, only in year 10.

Why you constantly think you can get away with lying, I have no clue. Here are the data from your OWN source:

Total testosterone level:[/color]

Year 2:
White: 6.4
Black: 6.5

Year 7:
White: 5.75
Black: 5.8

Year 10:
White: 5.69
Black: 5.8

Here is the link:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/11/10/1041/T1

If testosterone is the cause of higher crime rates, then does this mean black females age 18-24 have higher testosterone than white males aged 25+? Of course this is not the case. Adult women have free testosterone concentrations of approximately 1 - 1.5 pg/ml (that's .001 to .0015 ng/ml).

Who here ever stated that testosterone level was the ONLY factor in crime risk? It is a large factor yes. It is NOT the only factor.

Such things as intelligence is also a factor, the mean IQ in the prison population is approximately 90. About 10 points below the national average.

 

[BlackVision]

Jews have been for the most part tolerated, not constantly branded by their skin color

Not true at all. Although there have been major improvements in the acceptance of both Jews and Blacks today, Jews historically, were very hated.

and had endured especially one decade of terrifying devastation, whereas African Americans had many generations without the privilages

One decade?? You need to look back on history a little bit more. The mass hatred of Jews goes back 5,000 years.

African Americans had many generations without the privilages (education, leisure, some civil rights, etc.)

Africans never even had this in their own homeland. Way before "white man" even stepped foot into the place. And Hispanics, I assure you had far more privileges than Jews during the mass immigration of Jews during WWII.

It would not surprise me from your attitude to find out that you are capable of instigating a parallel thread demeaning Jews.

I have a high deal of respect of the Jewish community. To be able to go through everything they have. The discrimination, the genocide, and still be able to accomplish everything they have done.

 

[BlackVision]

The number of people living below the poverty level, not the population of the city, why do you keep pulling things out of context?

Again completely faulters since both Oklahoma City and New York City has a higher population under the poverty level than Washington DC. And don't try to tell me that NYC doesn't have high cost of living.

Showing homicide rates proves nothing if you do not factor in all the variables that affect the numbers. Of course you refuse to do that because it would disprove your little theory. Until you take these other factors into consideration, there is no point discussing this, it's meaningless.

Yes yes all the variables such as if a US soldier killing an Iraqi soldier constitutes as a homicide and all the other lovely "questions" that Nereid asks. These will of course disprove my fact. Oh how well the logic flows from this.

Your comment doesn't even make sense.

You mean yours right? Yeah I know it doesn't.

 

[Evo]

I can't take it any longer. BlackVision says he is a student at a university, yet he writes like an uneducated hick.

Step #1: You need to stop lying and trying to twist statistics. Each time you do, your credibility drops further lower and lower.Ok, probably an editing mishap. You stated that you didn't write the whole article to your source whole article to your source? What? cause it was "copyrighted" CAUSE?? Did you mean "because"? NOTHING prevented you from providing a link, yet you did not do this. And even if you did not want to provide WANNA? Did you mean "want to"? a link, you could of COULD OF? did you mean could have? at least given an unbias summary unbiased of that whole study which clearly you did not do. Anything that irrefutably mentioned the white-black testosterone gap, anywhere where it stated that the reasons why blacks are more prone to cancer or etc is due to that gap, you seemed to have "conveniently" omitted. I kindly ask you not to lie and twist data whenever you "think" you can get away with it.

I'm not going to GONNA even bother explaining to you the fundamentals of evolution but it's very clear you lack that knowledge. But to help you, bigger heads, causing more small pelvis women to die, will change the gene pool.

I have left out all the punctuation errors and additional spelling errors.

BlackVision, don't pretend to be highly educated when it is so obvious that you are not. I am tired of wasting my time with you.

 

[Loren Booda]

BlackVision

I have a high deal of respect of the Jewish community.

Including their continuing brotherhood and solidarity with a good part of the African American community?

The billionaires whom I have come to know are a Jewish family whose philanthropy includes volunteerism with Goodwill Industries, along with the respect of the hardest working, lowest paid (by technicality) black people in the DC "ghetto." It is not a shame to these impoverished folks that they themselves are also disabled, and must live in substandard neighborhoods. An evident statistic there is that the average (95% black) DC Goodwill worker is genuinely superior to comparatively overprivilaged, unconcerned whites.

 

[BlackVision]

I thought I'd go find the information for myself.

Good job you're starting to help yourself as you should.

White–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
Black–A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
American Indian or Alaskan Native–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
Asian or Pacific Islander–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.

How are these different from the Census Bureau guidelines again?

 

[BlackVision]

BlackVision, don't pretend to be highly educated when it is so obvious that you are not. I am tired of wasting my time with you.

LOL. When you can't argue the facts, spelling is the way to go. And Lord knows in your 493 posts, you didn't make one single spelling or grammatical error yes? And also "wanna" and "gonna" are considered proper slangs. I didn't know this was such a formal gathering. And if you even try to say that you never used the word "wanna" or "gonna" in your lifetime, you just proved yourself to be the biggest liar on this board.

Also I have a 4.0 GPA at UCLA. So let's see, I have straight As in one of the most respected universities in the country. I also have Professors writing letter of recommendations for Ivy Leagues for post grad. So I'm not pretending to be anything. I am who I am.

Charles Murray was who he was, Harvard and MIT grad. And Arthur Jensen is who he is, a Berkeley and Columbia grad.

 

[Evo]

LOL. When you can't argue the facts, spelling is the way to go. And Lord knows in your 493 posts, you didn't make one single spelling or grammatical error yes? And also "wanna" and "gonna" are considered proper slangs. I didn't know this was such a formal gathering. And if you even try to say that you never used the word "wanna" or "gonna" in your lifetime, you just proved yourself to be the biggest liar on this board.

I never use want to or going to or could of, I have an education. Your posts are painful to read, they are so full of errors.

Also I have a 4.0 GPA at UCLA. So let's see, I have straight As in one of the most respected universities in the country. I also have Professors writing letter of recommendations for Ivy Leagues for post grad. So I'm not pretending to be anything. I am who I am.

ROTFLMAO! BlackVision, want to & going to aren't even in the dictionary, and the dictionary contains slang. "Could of". HAH!

 

[BlackVision]

whole article to your source? What?

Yes. Having trouble understanding?

CAUSE?? Did you mean "because"?

Cause is short for because. Did your mental capacity fail to get this?

WANNA? Did you mean "want to"?

Ah another one that just zips over Evo's head.

GONNA

Opps this seemed to fly over her head as well. Sad.

 

[BlackVision]

I never use want to or going to or could of, I have an education. Your posts are painful to read, they are so full of errors.

Ok so you are the biggest liar on the board. Not actually a surprise.

ROTFLMAO! BlackVision, want to & going to aren't even in the dictionary, and the dictionary contains slang. "Could of".

You're making yourself look foolish. You might want to get yourself a new dictionary. Yes I said wanna. Have a problem with it? Tough luck.

wanna 1: Contraction of want to 2: Contraction of want a:

gonna 1. Contraction of going to:

Source: American Heritage Dictionary.

HAH! I think you are some skinhead from Alabama.

Strange as you're the one that lives in Middle America. A red state. A bush state. An excessively conservative zone. Whereas, I live in Los Angeles. Born and raised. One of the most liberal cities of America.

 

[BlackVision]

ROTFLMAO!

This of course is an intellectual phrase. I see it very often in all my books.

 

[Evo]

Originally Posted by Evo -
whole article to your source? What?

Yes. Having trouble understanding?

It makes no sense.


Originally Posted by Evo - CAUSE?? Did you mean "because"?

Cause is short for because. Did your mental capacity fail to get this?

'cause is an illiterate slang for because. You didn't even use it correctly.

Originally Posted by Evo - WANNA? Did you mean "want to"?

Ah another one that just zips over Evo's head.

Not in the dictionary. You sound like a 10 year old. Grownups don't talk that way BV.

Originally Posted by Evo - GONNA?

Opps this seemed to fly over her head as well. Sad.

Not in the dictionary either.

BlackVision you are speaking with educated adults here. I haven't even seen the children on PF speaking the way you do.

BV it is obvious you lack an education. Who else here talks like that?

 

[BlackVision]

It makes no sense.

Only you would think it made no sense which isn't surprising.

'cause is an iliterate slang for because. You didn't even use it correctly.

ILLITERATE you mean? Learn to spell why don't you.

Not in the dictionary.

I POSTED the source. American Heritage Dictionary is a HIGHLY respected dictionary. Go look it up now.

You sound like a 10 year old. Grownups don't talk that way BV.

What generation are you in?? You're a baby boomer aren't you? I assure you Gen X & Y talk that way regardless of level of eduacation. Actually baby boomers do also. You must be in some strange foreign alien universe.

Not in the dictionary either.

Aw poor Evo. Doesn't even have the ability to open a dictionary. Opps can't use contracting words in front of Evo. Does not even have the ability. Ah. Evo should be happy now.

BlackVision you are speaking with educated adults here. I haven't even seen the children on PF speaking the way you do.

Educated adults? Or people that have too much free time?

BV it is obvious you lack an education.

My credentials would say otherwise. You do not get into UCLA without having a high academic profile. What is obvious though is that you lack the ability to logically carry on a debate and have shown to be nothing more than a sore loser. When you lose a debate, just leave graciously like a normal person.

 

[Evo]

My credentials would say otherwise. You do not get into UCLA without having a high academic profile. What is obvious though is that you lack the ability to logically carry on a debate and have shown to be nothing more than a sore loser. When you lose a debate, just leave graciously like a normal person.

You aren't in UCLA, what a joke. I think you are a high school kid. Just because you found a dictionary with more slang doesn't make it correct. Here is the definition of slang.

Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: 1slang
Pronunciation: 'sla[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 : language peculiar to a particular group: as a : ARGOT b : JARGON 2
2 : an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech

If you are trying to act adult, don't use slang.

 

[BlackVision]

Just because you found a dictionary with more slang doesn't make it correct. Here is the definition of slang.

It seems that you are absolutely unaware that slangs are highly rampant among social gatherings. You're a loner aren't you? Make some friends.

You aren't in UCLA

Want me to scan my student ID? I advise you though if you make this request, after I provide it, you have to agree to stfu. Agree?

P.S. Did you learn how to spell illiterate yet?

 

[Evo]

It seems that you are absolutely unaware that slangs are highly rampant among social gatherings. You're a loner aren't you? Make some friends.

Among children, yes. But an intellectual doesn't use slang.

Want me to scan my student ID? I advise you though if you make this request, after I provide it, you have to agree to stfu. Agree?

Fake ID's are easy to get. Or did mommy & daddy buy your way in?

P.S. Did you learn how to spell illiterate yet?

My keyboard sticks. I corrected it when I proof read it, long before you pointed it out. Check the times dear.

 

[BlackVision]

WANNA? Did you mean "want to"? GONNA? BV it is obvious you lack an education. Who else here talks like that?

List of people Evo considers uneducated: (the following have used the word "gonna" in their comments)

russ_watters
Hurkyl
Zero
p-brane
chroot
phoenixthoth
LURCH
Ivan Seeking
sbenj
Averagesupernova
jimmy p
Mr. Robin Parsons
Stevo
Chen
turin
Antonio Lao
Arsonade
salamander
gizzybeans
humanino
quddusaliquddus
aroha
PrudensOptimus
ExecNight
oscar
tribdog
the number 42
KingNothing
Ikovian
tribdog
Noah
deimos
Janitor
olde drunk
Lubos Motl
ProdQuanta
AndyPIXEL
Tsunami
Moorglade
mhernan
master_coda
Cliff_J
Imparcticle
ydnef
The_Professional
to_son
the hanged man
anti-christ
pattiecake
peter444
Rut Roh
Hatim Hegab
Gara
olde drunk
xerox2ooo
faust9
cytokinesis
KSCphysics
pantalaimon

Source: The "search" feature of this board (Only a partial list. There's way too many. I have no time to go through them all)

 

[BlackVision]

Evo I believe the admins on this board will be happy to hear that you called many of them uneducated.

 

[Loren Booda]

At Yale I remember these two guys, obvious bigots who had nothing better to do but pathologically complain about blacks. There they made no academic distinction for themselves, but I do think they had something for each other.

Here's a statistic - what's the male/female ratio for members of hate groups? It's no wonder they compensate by homophobia!

 

[Evo]

Evo I believe the admins on this board will be happy to hear that you called many of them uneducated.

When you're fooling around, it's acceptable, because you're not trying to hold an intellectual discussion. You however ARE trying to hold an intellectual discussion.

It is so funny that you would go to such lengths to see if I ever used any of those words! Found out I don't, right?

 

[BlackVision]

When you're fooling around, it's acceptable, because you're not trying to hold an intellectual discussion. You however ARE trying to hold an intellectual discussion.

What are you talking about? These are full length debates. Go read them yourself. It's not like I'm going to post entire debates here. You're just mad cause you're getting told. :D

It is so funny that you would go to such lengths to see if I ever used any of those words! Found out I don't, right?

How would I know? You think I bothered reading ALL the posts that contained the word "gonna"? You have any idea how many that is? Do a search and see the listings.

You sure go to great lengths to show your spite.

 

[BlackVision]

Who else here talks like that?

A lot. As I have just proven.

 

[Evo]

A lot. As I have just proven.

No one uses all of the gramatically incorrect words you do. If you exclude those where English is not their first language and those that are not academic discussions, you'll have virtually nothing left.

The fact is that you have shown you don't know any other way to speak.

 

[Evo]

How would I know? You think I bothered reading ALL the posts that contained the word "gonna"? You have any idea how many that is? Do a search and see the listings.

You sure go to great lengths to show your spite.

Yeah, actually I was watching you read all of those posts and was wondering why. I watch that part to find threads that might be of interest and saw you looking at an odd variety of threads. You were trying to see if I was the one that said "gonna". You are obsessed.

 

[BlackVision]

No one uses all of the gramatically incorrect words you do. If you exclude those where English is not their first language and those that are not academic discussions, you'll have virtually nothing left.

The fact is that you have shown you don't know any other way to speak.

Um quite a lot of PF admins and PF mentors seemed to have used the words. Are you really going to make me search for "wanna" as well? Come on I dare you to make this request. If the list comes out similiar, showing the same PF admins and PF mentors using them, you will agree to concede that you have made a mockery of yourself deal?

Much like Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, and others, you're just upset that someone with an excellent education level makes you look absolutely foolish. Spite. A word you should look up in your dictionary.

 

[BlackVision]

Yeah, actually I was watching you read all of those posts and was wondering why. I watch that part to find threads that might be of interest and saw you looking at an odd variety of threads. You were trying to see if I was the one that said "gonna". You are obsessed.

Actually searching for if you ever said the word "gonna" I never did. If I wanted to do that, I would have included your name in the search field. I never did. I was only comprising a short list of people that have used the word "gonna" Many of course, came out to be some of the most respected people on this board.

 

[Evo]

Um quite a lot of PF admins and PF mentors seemed to have used the words. Are you really going to make me search for "wanna" as well? Come on I dare you to make this request. If the list comes out similiar, showing the same PF admins and PF mentors using them, you will agree to concede that you have made a mockery of yourself deal?

Using a slang word occasionally is one thing, when they comprise your entire vocabulary, that is something completely different.

Yes, please do a search on wanna.

 

[Evo]

Actually searching for if you ever said the word "gonna" I never did. If I wanted to do that, I would have included your name in the search field. I never did. I was only comprising a short list of people that have used the word "gonna" Many of course, came out to be some of the most respected people on this board.

Yes, and one was using it in a "quote", as an imitation. Another used it humorously to say he was too tired to continue writing. They are not using slang in place of regular words on a consistant basis the way you are. Big difference.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, I'm impressed. It took a long time for such a heated topic to degenerate to ad hominem attacks. I really didn't expect it to take this long. It's a tough topic to keep one's cool on. Since it now looks futile to attempt to continue any sort of serious debate, I'll just toss in that there's a lot of useful information at www.city-data.com for anyone interested in looking at more information about differences among various cities cited in this debate, particularly in terms of median house value relative to median income, and a plethora of information about cities other than the select few listed here, cities that show opposite trends than those presented. Anyone interested can go to the site and draw your own conclusions.

 

[BlackVision]

Yes, please do a search on wanna.

You have to first state that you will agree that you have made a complete mockery of yourself if the results match. No ifs, ands, or buts. None of this "i'm going to twist my story here and there as new evidence comes in" You look like a fundamental christian that goes "yes the Earth was created in 6 days" and once dinosaur fossils are discovered change it to "oh no no what I meant was that a day is just a figure of speech which could equal 100 million years" So if you're going to waste my time, you will have to agree to concede once the facts come in and will not use the creationist tactic.

But try using your own logic...eh maybe the standard definition of logic, not your own. If a person uses the word "gonna", why on Earth would they have any objection whatsoever with using the world "wanna" Sometimes using simply logic is the best way to go.

 

[BlackVision]

Yes, and one was using it in a "quote", as an imitation. Another used it humorously to say he was too tired to continue writing. They are not using slang in place of regular words on a consistant basis the way you are. Big difference.

LOL. Forget the "wanna" I think we'll do this one instead. You want me to show PF admins and mentors repeatedly using the word "gonna" over and over, post after post? Cause I can do that.

 

[BlackVision]

www.city-data.com for anyone interested in looking at more information about differences among various cities cited in this debate, particularly in terms of median house value relative to median income, and a plethora of information about cities other than the select few listed here, cities that show opposite trends than those presented. Anyone interested can go to the site and draw your own conclusions.

Thanks. Good information. Here's another one. www.ersys.com

 

[Evo]

You have to first state that you will agree that you have made a complete mockery of yourself if the results match. No ifs, ands, or buts. None of this "i'm going to twist my story here and there as new evidence comes in" You look like a fundamental christian that goes "yes the Earth was created in 6 days" and once dinosaur fossils are discovered change it to "oh no no what I meant was that a day is just a figure of speech which could equal 100 million years" So if you're going to waste my time, you will have to agree to concede once the facts come in and will not use the creationist tactic.

But try using your own logic...eh maybe the standard definition of logic, not your own. If a person uses the word "gonna", why on Earth would they have any objection whatsoever with using the world "wanna" Sometimes using simply logic is the best way to go.

BlackVision, one of my pet peeves is grammar, sorry I went off on you, but can you try to use at least some proper grammar?

Can you please refrain from calling people liars and making condescending remarks when you reply to posts? It is very tiresome and makes discussion difficult.

Moonbear is right, we need to get this thread back on track. She has been spending time finding some great information. Moonbear, feel free to slap me back any time I lose my temper.

 

[BlackVision]

BlackVision, one of my pet peeves is grammar, sorry I went off on you, but can you try to use at least some proper grammar?

My use of spelling and grammar is not severely flawed. Everyone makes a mistake here and there from the hundreds to thousands of posts people type and that is very well expected. This would include you as well I am quite sure. But come on, cause and 'cause, that is very ticky tacky.

On this board, I will speak as if I'm in a social gathering, rather than as if it was a major speech or if I'm writing my thesis. Which probably means the word "gonna" and "wanna" will show up. Even if you do not use these words very often or at all, you should understand that many do. Regardless of level of education. I can't remember the last time I've ever heard someone say "Well I'm going to go now" rather than "Well I'm going to go now" Social gatherings are different from formal presentations. It's not like I use "gonna" when I write term papers.

 

[BlackVision]

Can you please refrain from calling people liars and making condescending remarks when you reply to posts? It is very tiresome and makes discussion difficult.

I was upset with Moonbear very delicately handpicking certain lines from that article while completely ignoring lines that say the contrary. I also got more upset when she stated that there were no difference in year 2 or year 7 in testosterone level between white and black when her own study that she posted showed differently. I don't know if it was on purpose or not but honestly is crucial in a debate.

 

[Janitor]

Fox news just ran a brief story on the O.J. Simpson trial. One comment was that the evidence was enough to convict Simpson in the criminal trial, but the black jurors were not going to let Furman off the hook for lying about his past. It was also pointed out that Simpson has been far from sympathetic and compassionate toward inner city blacks and toward black females in general.

 

[NoahAfrican]

Ok first off you would have to equalize the environment. Comparing America to Russia does not work. My original point was that gaps exist WITHIN a country. I never brought this country to country comparision into the debate. Mainly cause the political and economical structure from country to country is excessively drastic to warrant any fair comparison. So I don't have a prove a thing in this retrospect.

White is anyone of the Caucasian race. This does include the Middle East and this group will inflate the score if there's a heavy surplus of them. (UK groups Middle East with Asian however) Asian is Far East and the Southeast Race. The Southeast will inflate the score. Black is the Sub-Sahara race. From what I know there isn't a particular Sub-Sahara group that will inflate the score and is quite even across the board.

You're right the burden is on me to support evidence for the gap and I did just that. Comparison of white, asian, blacks in countries that have these volumes. I provided US and United Kingdom. The same gap exists in Australia, Canada, and other countries that have volumes of these races. I have seen statistics for these countries before and will post them once I find them again. But like i said WITHIN a country, the gaps are very consistent.

As I was googling the web for information regarding international homicide statistics, the search engine offered up a link to this forum and to Black Vision’s (BV) post on racial homicide statistics. I found the conversation intriguing so I decided to join the forum to add in my observations.

I would like to know the motivation which lead BV to conclude that inter country homicide statistics could not be compared to the USA, because there was not an equalization of environment. If his abstract point is true, then why does he not see that the same argument can be made towards intra-country homicide statistics? The fallacy I see in BV’s reasoning is that he erroneously assumes that intra-country racial homicide statistics has an equalization of environment for the races.

One cannot assume that just because people live in the same nation that they are exposed to the same environmental stimuli. Indeed, here in America and the Western Hemisphere, over 90% of the blacks that are here is due to the enslavement of their ancestors. Furthermore, aside from the enslavement was the general degree of mistreatment codified into law and hearts of the society. Consequently, this created a much different environment for blacks (if not in kind…certainly in degree) than for whites. Thus, in order to equalize the environments, whites need to experience the same degree of enslavement, subordination and mistreatment as have blacks in this nation, in degree and kind.

We also must remain cognizant of the fact that the past creates the present. I am sure many will argue that much of these environmental differences existed in the past. However, every action manifest a reaction and the reaction always manifest in the future, relative to when the original action takes place. It is the initial condition of the past that creates the butterfly effect of the present and future. Thus, for a people to spend 3 centuries in various degrees of violent oppression will no doubt reverberate a reaction upon the present and future. For a people to spend 200 years in slavery, followed by 100 years of apartheid (Jim Crow laws) will not have the effects of those causes fatigue in some 30 years of the absence of legalized oppression.

I will agree that homogenous nations experience less problems with violence than does heterogeneous nations. However, the reason that most nations are heterogeneous are linked to European imperialism, colonization and forced enslavement and transportation of people against there will. As I stated, nearly all of the blacks in the western hemisphere come by virtue of enslavement and transport to these places by Whites. Also, most of the conflicts in the world, such as civil wars and wars with neighboring countries are the butterfly effect emanating from the initial actions of European nations colonizing and creating borders to serve its imperialistic purposes. The resultant was that non-homogenous peoples or tribes were grouped together under on nation and pitted against one and other to keep the nation divided and conquered. In other cases homogenous peoples were split by borders and today fight to have their former territory back.

I could go on and on but I think you get my point. It is one thing to have the ability to note statistics. However, statistics do not explain the WHY. Just throwing out statistics that are negative only serves the purpose of the doctrine of racial inferiority/superiority racism.

PS...also, let me add that homogenous black nations have homicide rates that are among the lowest in the world. For example, Burkina Faso, Benin and Camaroon have extremely low homicide rates. Given that many of this current black nations are the roots of a blacks in in the West, one must therefore conclude that it is something about the western (white culture) that creates such an environment that is conducive to this type of criminal behavior.

 

[plus]

I would like to know the motivation which lead BV to conclude that inter country homicide statistics could not be compared to the USA, because there was not an equalization of environment. If his abstract point is true, then why does he not see that the same argument can be made towards intra-country homicide statistics? The fallacy I see in BV’s reasoning is that he erroneously assumes that intra-country racial homicide statistics has an equalization of environment for the races.

I think that it is obvious that the environment is not the same for any two people, never mind any two races or groups of people. I presume that his point was that intra country homicide statistics can be compared. To say that these statistics are irrelevant and should be ignored is ridiculous.

Thus, in order to equalize the environments, whites need to experience the same degree of enslavement, subordination and mistreatment as have blacks in this nation, in degree and kind.

I presume that you are not calling for the enslavement of people with the white skin color. What about the black africans who owned and captured slaves? The Arabs?

I will agree that homogenous nations experience less problems with violence than does heterogeneous nations. However, the reason that most nations are heterogeneous are linked to European imperialism, colonization and forced enslavement and transportation of people against there will. Also, most of the conflicts in the world, such as civil wars and wars with neighboring countries are the butterfly effect emanating from the initial actions of European nations colonizing and creating borders to serve its imperialistic purposes. The resultant was that non-homogenous peoples or tribes were grouped together under on nation and pitted against one and other to keep the nation divided and conquered. In other cases homogenous peoples were split by borders and today fight to have their former territory back.

I could go on and on but I think you get my point. It is one thing to have the ability to note statistics. However, statistics do not explain the WHY. Just throwing out statistics that are negative only serves the purpose of the doctrine of racial inferiority/superiority racism.

Most conflicts in the world today involve Islam. And nations today are becoming heterogeneous due to immigration of peoples from poor areas (even the hallowed grail of homogeneous areas) to rich areas which become heterogeneous.

PS...also, let me add that homogenous black nations have homicide rates that are among the lowest in the world. For example, Burkina Faso, Benin and Camaroon have extremely low homicide rates. Given that many of this current black nations are the roots of a blacks in in the West, one must therefore conclude that it is something about the western (white culture) that creates such an environment that is conducive to this type of criminal behavior.

Sub sahara africa has the highest homicide rate in the world. I see no reason for you to believe otherwise other than the fact that you are biased.

In 1990, there were an estimated 1,851,000 violence related deaths (35.3 per 100,000) in the world (table 1 and fig 1). Overall rates of violence related deaths ranged from 12.5 per 100,000 in EME excluding the United States (-US) to 101.0 per 100,000 in SSA. Rates of violence related deaths were highest in SSA, MEC, and ESE and lowest in EME (-US). In 1990, an estimated 3.7% of all deaths in the world were violence related (table 2). Suicide was the most frequent form of violent death followed by homicide and then war related deaths. The global risk of suicide was 1.7 times that of war related deaths and 1.4 times that of homicide. Violence accounted for a greater proportion of total deaths in SSA than in any other region of the world (table 2).

From http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/epi_of_violence.htm

 

[NoahAfrican]

Lets try to stick with the premise here or if there is not one stated, please have the character to state it, regardless of its possible racist intent and or effect. You have keenly stated the obvious in that no two people can have the same life experience. Also, no two people are genetically identical, not even twins. There is always a mutation that makes everyone unique. Thus, you take the combination of over 6 billion unique identities, married with over 6 billion unique environmental stimuli, then you have almost a zero probability that one life’s outcome and behavior can intelligently be compared with another.

Be that as it may, even though humans genetics and experiences are all different, we are still much more similar than we are different, especially in regards to genetics. If there is a difference in human outcomes amongst individuals, its origin is invariable environment, genetics or a combination there of. In regards to race, which is not a natural biological construct with clear demarcation, the genetic difference is primarily phenotypic to promote an efficient survival evolution and adaptation to a given environment. Among groups of people, such as races, environment and conditions vary to a higher degree than genetics. Thus, varying rates of homicides between races is linked to environment and not genetics, as what is being implied here by omission.

The Africans who were brought to the West were never enslaved by other Africans. They were simply prisoners of wars and raids who were kept in staging areas to later be picked up, transported and converted to slaves by the white man in the new world. I know that it eases whites moral pains by suggesting that blacks were equally guilty and complicit in the slave trade but that is not true in degree, even if it is true in name. There is a difference that is not represented by the semantics of such a broad term as slavery.

The term slavery is similar to the term criminal in that both come in varying degrees. A pick pocket and a serial killer both can be correctly termed criminal, but there is an obvious degree of difference between the two practices. In Africa, prior to Arab and White influence, slavery was simply the resultant of war and what to do with war captives, or the punitive price for societal transgression such as crimes. These so called slaves had nearly all the rights and privileges as non head of household members of a family that owned them. They were allowed to marry into the capturing tribe or family and there children were not slaves by the default of their parent. There were not brutalized, whipped or castrated to force servitude. That contrast sharply with what the white man practice on the African for several brutal centuries, with a unique psychological racial component, that enslaved the mind as well as the body.

Most conflicts of the world today are not rooted in Islam, even if Islam is invoved in many In fact, one can argue that Christian nations are involved in as many conflicts as Islamic nations. Most of the conflicts in the world are rooted in economics and not religion, however. Land or territory has always been one of the primacy cause of conflict and the white man has went way beyond his natural borders in Europe shaping the boundaries and borders of non white people. In fact, when Iraq invaded Kuwait they did so under the rational that Kuwait is historically part of Iraq, but the British made separate entities after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, whites and not Islam, was the cause of the first gulf war.

Also, it was the white Europeans who decided to take white Jews from Europe and superimpose them over people indigenous to that area, not by religion, but by birth and genetics. The creation of the state of Israel in 1947 was cause by white Christians. That was the initial condition or action that resulted in the butterfly effect of the Middle East conflicts of today. That plus a double standard foreign policy by white America towards Israel and its neighbors.

In regards to homicides rates in sub Saharan Africa being the highest in the world, that is simply more misinformation. It is true of South Africa, Namibia and other countries where whites violently oppressed the indigenous population in the quest for land, wealth and power as they chose new homelands. However, there are 50 black African nations and what is true for a few parts cannot be assumed true for the whole, which many people out of ignorance or malice intent of making blacks look as if they are there worst enemy.

 

[Prometheus]

Everyone makes a mistake here and there from the hundreds to thousands of posts people type and that is very well expected.

I guess that you are correct. Alongside your name, the number of posts accredited to you is just over 300. Yet, if you have posted hundreds of thousands, then you are certainly due your number of typos.

On this board, I will speak as if I'm in a social gathering, rather than as if it was a major speech or if I'm writing my thesis.

Yes, I agree again. These are the only 2 options possible.

Which probably means the word "gonna" and "wanna" will show up. Even if you do not use these words very often or at all, you should understand that many do.

Yes, just look around. Most everyone on this forum speaks like you, right? Well, at least you do.

Regardless of level of education. I can't remember the last time I've ever heard someone say "Well I'm going to go now" rather than "Well I'm going to go now"

My, you must run in poorly educated circles. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone older than 10 use gonna.

Social gatherings are different from formal presentations. It's not like I use "gonna" when I write term papers.

Stick to your guns. Don't let the quality of your peers bring out the better side of your grammar. Continue to equate decent grammar with "term paper" grammar. Don't strive to better yourself to the level of your peers, but instead try to bring them down to your level.

 

[BlackVision]

I would like to know the motivation which lead BV to conclude that inter country homicide statistics could not be compared to the USA, because there was not an equalization of environment. If his abstract point is true, then why does he not see that the same argument can be made towards intra-country homicide statistics? The fallacy I see in BV’s reasoning is that he erroneously assumes that intra-country racial homicide statistics has an equalization of environment for the races.

Due to the reason that the differences from country comparison lie predominately political. SES have repeatedly been shown to have little effect as far as murder rates and crime goes and it seems as though that is what you are trying to argue.

Thus, for a people to spend 3 centuries in various degrees of violent oppression will no doubt reverberate a reaction upon the present and future.

Once again, why does this not apply for Jews. Arguably the most oppresed group in history. They went through a genoicide which I assure you is much worst than slavery. Not to mention it's far more recent in history. Do you see them with a high crime rate?

I will agree that homogenous nations experience less problems with violence than does heterogeneous nations.

Not even. The crime a nation suffers is directly in proportion to the ethnic makeup of it's population. Homogeneous African nations do have extraordinarily high crime rate. People talk about the high crime rate of America all the time. How it's so much higher than other 1st world nations. And yes it is true, America has a higher crime rate than any other 1st world country. But when you actually extract the black and hispanic statistics, you will notice it comes VERY close to the European crime rate.

As I stated, nearly all of the blacks in the western hemisphere come by virtue of enslavement and transport to these places by Whites.

And most Jews are Holocaust survivors. What is your point?

You will have a very hard case trying to prove that blacks who don't have slavery in their roots, somehow outperform black who do. If your great great great great great grandmother was raped, the effect it would have on you today will be from absolutely minimal to absolute zero.

Just throwing out statistics that are negative only serves the purpose of the doctrine of racial inferiority/superiority racism.

It isn't for negativity or for racial inferiority or superiority. If it is for the better understanding of human nature and human behavior. Instead of trying so hard to look for the prettiest answer or the politically correct one, we should be trying to find the truth.

 

[BlackVision]

Be that as it may, even though humans genetics and experiences are all different, we are still much more similar than we are different, especially in regards to genetics.

No one argued that. But it does not mean slight differences do not exist.

Thus, varying rates of homicides between races is linked to environment and not genetics, as what is being implied here by omission.

If you have any evidence to support this stance, I will be here. But it seems quite consistent in that blacks have the highest crime rate wherever they are. And asians have lower crime rate than whites, even if they are 1st wave immigrants that are poor.

As shown before on this thread, blacks do have a higher average of testostereone level than any other race. Testosterone has been linked to aggressive behavior. Which can often lead to criminal behavior.

Also if you can explain why 90% of homicides are done by males and contribute that to environmental factors. That would be great.

It is true of South Africa, Namibia and other countries where whites violently oppressed the indigenous population in the quest for land, wealth and power as they chose new homelands.

I'm sorry to say that it is you that is misinformed. South Africa is the only African nation that is even remotely successful in terms of development. They actually have phones and electricity and running water. It is also the civilization that White Europeans built and where the White Europeans still live. To think that South Africa could be where it is today, a GDP per capita of 20 times that of other African nations, without Europeans, would be quite absurd.

Also you do know that power of South Africa was handed over to blacks in 1993 if I remember correctly. What happened then? Crime skyrocketed, economy suffered, they have had more problems than they ever had before.

Also I would like you to tell me the interracial murder rate of South Africa. Blacks killing whites versus whites killing blacks. I think you will find it quite astonishing.