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
  • #141
Loren Booda said:
The characteristic that murder rate follows most closely is the perceived value of the victim and attacker by society as a whole. When a people had been reduced to institutionalized slavery only 140 years ago, and segregation mostly since, it follows that they are still regarded by many racists as subhuman and dispensible.

Such an attitude by a hateful culture would enable the degradation of self-esteem in any community. When your reality has been hundreds of years under imposed ignorance when your life could be purchased for pocket change, the whole world comes to see you as without monetary, intellectual, personal or familial value - much as a gladiator of the inner city surrounded by a coliseum of fanatic bigots.

Try working this into your statistics.
And why exactly are Jews exempt from this. Jews is probably the most discriminated against, the most hated, the most degraded ethnic group in history. Going back THOUSANDS of years. And slavery for blacks were bad yes but it's NOTHING like the holocaust which caused 2/3 of the Jewish population to be wiped out in Europe.

But have Jews ever faultered in society? No. Despite everything they went to, the discrimination, the genocide, Jews get the highest paying jobs, have the highest college graduation rate. 25% of the world's billionaires are Jewish even though they comprise of only 0.2% of the world population. 27% of students in Ivy League universities are Jewish even though they comprise of 2% of the US population.

But if course for whatever reason, if this group ever DID faulter, did start committing high crime rates, and couldn't get merits to get into a university, people like Moonbear and Evo will jump on the "it's cause of their history and what they went through" in a heartbeat. They have this whole "blame someone else" mentality.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
I didn't post the whole study because of something called copyright laws. I posted the full citation necessary to look it up, and with only one exception, I've been attempting to post only articles available online so the articles are readily available. In my post, I DID point out that correction factors were included. I have since then posted references explaining the obesity/testosterone link. I have also since then posted references showing both differences AND lack of differences among different ethnic groups, including a study showing differences in testosterone according to where a particular ethnic group lives (in that example, Chinese men living in China vs US), showing that environmental factors contribute more strongly than racial factors to differences in testosterone. The key point is that the finding of racial differences is not repeatable. I also cited a study that does show racial differences, with Chinese men having the highest testosterone concentrations compared to African-American and Caucasian men. Yet, according to your statistics, Asian men have the lowest crime rates. If testosterone concentrations are the primary cause of the differences in crime rates, then Asian men should be at the top of the list!
I never recall you giving a link to your so "source" Bottom line, your source specifically states that blacks have a higher testostereone level. Period. Why they do, is far more irrelevant than the fact that they DO. Meaning you take 100 random blacks and 100 random whites, and tested their testostereone level and averaged it out, the mean level WILL be higher for blacks correct? After all it took THREE "adjustments", and I heavily emphasize the quotes, in order to "equalize" the gap.

And asian men have the highest testostereone level? What are you smoking? You really need to read J Rushton's book. Next thing you'll say is that asian men are the tallest of all races.
 
Last edited:
  • #143
Moonbear said:
It is not available online, so I can't post a link for you, but since I'm hunting down the source you've cited, I assume you have it readily on hand yourself. Interestingly, in that study, they correct for age and body fat too, even though you say it is not valid to use correction factors. Without the correction factors, Asians have the highest testosterone concentrations, not blacks.
Who exactly are you trying to fool with your lies?

"Blacks have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians. The testosterone translates into more explosive energy."

"East Asians run even less well than Whites. The same narrow hips, longer legs, more muscle, and more testosterone that give Blacks an advantage over Whites, give Whites an advantage over East Asians."

"The reason why Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners is because they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women had to have a wider pelvis. Further, the hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless in school and prone to crime."


Source: Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J Rushton
 
  • #144
Moonbear said:
While refusing to provide any evidence of my own? I have cited study after study after study for you. We're asking you to back up your claims with sources.
You mean your testosterone source that I completely debunked? Oh yes that.

And whatever happened to your argument that a more crowded area induces crime. I gave you the example of New York, an extremely crowded city, not having an overly high crime rate and you never said anything after that. Can we at least agree here that a more crowded area has little or no impact on overall crime rate?

Not related to the homicide stats, but is related to the crime stats. Fraud is a crime. If you're being selective about the types of crime you are including to purposely leave out the crimes committed by a particular ethnic grouping, then you are biasing the statistics. Does crime only refer to violent crime, or all crime? This also relates to the testosterone/aggression argument. If your huge difference in crimes are mostly nonviolent crimes, then the testosterone connection you're trying to make doesn't fit with those data.
Since white collar is mostly whites and not blacks, not many blacks even have the opportunity to commit such a crime. So of course most white collar crimes will be white.

Well, I'm going to make the assumption your statistics refer to convictions, not arrests, though that's not overtly stated (correct me if this is a wrong assumption).
The offending rate is, the victim rate isn't. And the offending and victim rate are very close which verifies one another.

If juries have a greater tendency to convict blacks based on weaker evidence, and/or to let off whites even with greater evidence against them, or blacks get worse legal representation than whites, then the actual rate of committing homicide would be different than the incarceration/convinction rate.
A possibility but even if there is a slight truth to this, the victim rate still shows that there is indeed a major gap.

And I think we can all agree that OJ being black did NOT hurt him at all. :biggrin: And actually played a lot in his favor.
 
  • #145
BlackVision said:
Who exactly are you trying to fool with your lies?

"Blacks have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians. The testosterone translates into more explosive energy."

"East Asians run even less well than Whites. The same narrow hips, longer legs, more muscle, and more testosterone that give Blacks an advantage over Whites, give Whites an advantage over East Asians."

"The reason why Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners is because they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women had to have a wider pelvis. Further, the hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless in school and prone to crime."


Source: Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J Rushton

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?

If you're going to continue to argue that higher testosterone does result in increased crime rates, then let's try to look at it from a different angle. The testosterone concentrations reported are means, those means are pretty close between blacks and whites, so plenty of individuals overlap between the two groups. 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? And what percentage of black men and white men have testosterone concentrations above that threshold? Do those percentages match the crime rates? Can a direct, one-to-one relationship be proven between someone with a particular testosterone concentration and that same person's criminal history? You can claim all you want at a population level, but correlation does not equate with causation.
 
  • #146
BlackVision said:
And I think we can all agree that OJ being black did NOT hurt him at all. :biggrin: And actually played a lot in his favor.

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.
 
  • #147
BlackVision said:
And whatever happened to your argument that a more crowded area induces crime. I gave you the example of New York, an extremely crowded city, not having an overly high crime rate and you never said anything after that. Can we at least agree here that a more crowded area has little or no impact on overall crime rate?

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.
 
  • #148
BlackVision said:
I never recall you giving a link to your so "source"

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.

BlackVision said:
Bottom line, your source specifically states that blacks have a higher testostereone level. Period. Why they do, is far more irrelevant than the fact that they DO. Meaning you take 100 random blacks and 100 random whites, and tested their testostereone level and averaged it out, the mean level WILL be higher for blacks correct? After all it took THREE "adjustments", and I heavily emphasize the quotes, in order to "equalize" the gap.

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.

BlackVision said:
And asian men have the highest testostereone level? What are you smoking? You really need to read J Rushton's book. Next thing you'll say is that asian men are the tallest of all races.

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.
 
  • #149
BlackVision said:
This is absolutely hilarious. Because when someone commits a crime, they're first adjusted for BMI and waist circumference too?

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. Since your crime stats indicate younger men have higher crime rates than older men, then we should focus on year 2 when the men in the study were younger. No difference in unadjusted means. When they corrected for age alone, they still found no differences. When they corrected for age and BMI alone, they found a difference, but recognizing that BMI is not always an accurate measure of adiposity, which can influence testosterone concentrations, they further corrected for waist circumference so that the combination of BMI and waist circumference is a better reflection of adiposity. Free testosterone is the bioavailable form. In year 2 of the study, both groups had mean concentrations of 0.17 ng/ml of free testosterone (before any correction for age or BMI or waist circumference). In year 10, the blacks had a mean free testosterone concentration of 0.16 ng/ml and the whites 0.15 ng/ml.

Also, from the statistics you provided:

Males. Age 25+:

Whites: 5.3 per 100,000
Blacks: 39.2 per 100,000

Females. Age 18-24:

Whites: 1.8 per 100,000
Blacks: 12.6 per 100,000


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).
 
  • #150
BlackVision,

Jews have had solidarity from a common religion proven over thousands of years. Their particular culture has survived and thrived much the same way that other minority religions of today have. Jewish people had the eventual support of the allies in WWII, establishing a homeland for their diaspora. Few, if any, African nations have benefitted from such support. Even my neighborhood, in a suburb of Washington DC, has had dozens of Jewish families, but only one or two black families (I invite any good people).
And slavery for blacks were bad yes but it's NOTHING like the holocaust which caused 2/3 of the Jewish population to be wiped out in Europe.
How do you justify such relative experience ("NOTHING") of suffering? I think that the vast majority of Jews would be more forgiving than you.
25% of the world's billionaires are Jewish even though they comprise of only 0.2% of the world population. 27% of students in Ivy League universities are Jewish even though they comprise of 2% of the US population.
You imply with your statistics Jews to be so socially respected in one breath, yet simultaneously
Jews is probably the most discriminated against, the most hated, the most degraded ethnic group in history.
I can tell you from the kindnesses I have receive from both Jews and blacks that they needn't be billionaires (although one family I know is - it's the alms as well as the geld). Jews have been for the most part tolerated, not constantly branded by their skin color, and had endured especially one decade of terrifying devastation, whereas African Americans had many generations without the privilages (education, leisure, some civil rights, etc.) Jews enjoyed despite endemic discrimination. Even if Jews were perceived as moneylenders, at least they had some value above a dispensible beast of burden.
And why exactly are Jews exempt from this.
It would not surprise me from your attitude to find out that you are capable of instigating a parallel thread demeaning Jews.
 
  • #151
BlackVision said:
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.

BlackVision said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #152
BlackVision said:
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"?
 
  • #153
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.
 
  • #154
Bias in homicide testing

Moonbear said:
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.
 
  • #155
Moonbear said:
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.
 
  • #156
Moonbear said:
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.
 
  • #157
Moonbear said:
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.
 
  • #158
Moonbear said:
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.
 
  • #159
Moonbear said:
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:

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #160
Loren Booda said:
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.
 
  • #161
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #162
I can't take it any longer. BlackVision says he is a student at a university, yet he writes like an uneducated hick.
BlackVision said:
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 :grumpy: 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #163
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #164
Moonbeare said:
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?
 
  • #165
Evo said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #166
BlackVision said:
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.
BlackVision said:
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!
 
Last edited:
  • #167
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #168
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #169
Evo said:
ROTFLMAO!
This of course is an intellectual phrase. I see it very often in all my books. :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #170
Originally Posted by Evo -
whole article to your source? What?
BlackVision said:
Yes. Having trouble understanding?
It makes no sense.


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

BlackVision said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #171
Evo said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #172
BlackVision said:
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.
 
  • #173
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? :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #174
BlackVision said:
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.


BlackVision said:
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?

BlackVision said:
P.S. Did you learn how to spell illiterate yet? :rofl: :rofl:
My keyboard sticks. I corrected it when I proof read it, long before you pointed it out. Check the times dear.
 
  • #175
Evo said:
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)
 

Similar threads

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