Homicide Statistics by Race & Gender

[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 similar, 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 similar, 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 consistent 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 consistent 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.

 

[BlackVision]

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.

Ah because if I searched all your posts, I will not find one single error correct? What do I win if I find one?

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

That is correct.

My, you must run in poorly educated circles.

Incorrect, I attend a university that is one of the most prominent universities of this nation.

I can't remember the last time I heard anyone older than 10 use gonna.

Yes yes because most people, including intellectuals, say "going to run" instead of "gotta run" correct? Common sense seems to be something you lack here.

As demonstrated before, even most of the PF Admins and Mentors of this very board use "gonna" If you want to go ahead and insult quite a high percentage of this board, go ahead.

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.

If that was the case, I would never use contractions and neither would you. But I noticed you just said "don't" When's the last time you heard a President in a speech say "don't"? You will notice Presidential speeches as well as most formal speeches avoid contractions. And what is "gonna"? All that is is a contraction which YOU YOURSELF used just now. So it seems as though you have some work to do.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I use going to when I'm feelin' frisky. Aetatum meum LXX annos. (Case? It's been a long time.)

 

[plus]

Thus, varying rates of homicides between races is linked to environment and not genetics,

You certainly did not reach this conclusion by the reasoning given. To state this fact that genetics has nothing to do with the homicide rates goes against modern science. If you have some new revelation which goes against decades of study, then I expect you to be on the cover of some science journal.

The Africans who were brought to the West were never enslaved by other Africans.

Where is the proof of this? And I think that this contradicts to this:

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.

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.

According to your 'Butterfly effect' reasoning you can extrapolate that anyone who breathed 200 years ago is responsible for every sin commited today. You are using this reasoning as a tool to insult and pin blame upon the whites.

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.

I am surprised that you are not trying to claim that homogeneous black nations are the richest in the world, and that in USA the blacks are far far poorer that what they would be in Africa.

 

[NoahAfrican]

Well, the fact is this. There is about ¾ a billion black people on this Earth and more than 6 billion humans. Now the fact is that no one has did any type of genetic testing, such as for testosterone levels relative to other races, on all ¾ billion black people or the over 6 billion humans that we are juxtaposed against. Thus, there is a whole lot of extrapolation from relatively extremely small sample sets of human populations. I am one who is of the so called Negro race who has never been part of any genetic testosterone testing. Yet, you all hold to such test results for the simply fact that it coincides with your preexisting notions and or your white superiority forgone conclusion. As the say, statistics don’t lie but liars sure use lots of statistics.

Even it is a truth that blacks have higher testosterone levels, there is no proof that the higher homicide rates are directly or indirectly correlated with these levels. The fact that women have lower testosterone levels and lower homicide rates is not correlation or causation, but likely coincidence. Men have higher suicide rates than women. White men have higher suicide rates that black men. Thus, this violent ending of white male life is rooted in what? Lower testosterone levels? Can some say that having lower testosterone in men leads to higher suicide rates? Can some argue that races with males having lower testosterone levels are actually less manly or more feminine. Can someone therefore conclude that the white male is more female like than the black man?

What about social conditioning? Have any of you geniuses wondered why there are more male engineers per capita than female engineers per capita. Oh right. Men have balls and women don’t. There fore there are more male engineers because we got the balls. Hahahahahahah. How about social conditioning and steering that compels certain genders into certain occupations. How about nurses. Women have vaginas’ therefore vaginas make women better nurses, than men. You guys kill me.

In regards to BV and his non germane tirade about white people being responsible for the modernizing of South Africa….whooop dee doo. One can draw a correlation between the advancement of society and exploitation. The reason being is that through most of human history survival has been an overtime occupation. It is extremely hard to study after toiling hours working trying to provide sustenance to you and your family. People simply did not have the time for learning that was not directly relevant to their daily survival. Many did not have the luxury of time to sit around philosophizing, studying, experimenting, exploring and learning new things because they were too dang busy working However, exploitation allowed one group of people wealth and the leisure of time by virtue of making another group of people the beast of burden. The elite thus became the learned class who then advanced society from the learning and adventures, while the poor provided their income and sustenance.

More egalitarian societies and cultures would therefore not advance as rapidly, because one group of people did not create wealth and leisure for another group of people who in turn would advance science. Thus, strutting around like a peacock talking about what the white did to advance the world and South Africa may simply an admission of the degree that whites have exploited their own, as well as others.

Anyway, it is funny that high testosterone levels of Negroes is able to manifest one of the lowest, if not the lowest, homicide rates in the world in the Negro nation of Burkina Faso. Cameroon, Benin, Togo and many other nations in Africa have lower homicide and suicide rates than the typical whites of the world. However, what the hell do I know….I am just an inferior stupid Negro with high testosterone and a lust for white women….Hahahahahah….NOT!

 

[Loren Booda]

NoahAfrican,

I felt enlightened and refreshed after reading your response. The statistics this thread misrepresents will eventually expose its own worldview of racism.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I want to add something to this thread concerning the wanna, gonna, cause, etc. B.S.

Some of you are hitting below the belt with this crap. You acuse BV of trying to pull everyone else down to his 'lowly' level. You compare BV to a 10 year old. Let's please give BV the benefit of the doubt concerning his story. You imply that you are above BV by saying that you NEVER speak that way. You acuse BV of forging identification. You acuse BV of having his way paid by mom and dad. By doing all of this you are basically putting yourselves above BV. Nothing like stomping on someone else to raise your own self up. By doing these things you have just drawn a line in the sand that separates you from others. By acting like this you are not doing your cause any good.

I read a lot of internet forums and when someone sinks to the level of nit-picking grammar, typos and things of this nature I usually determine that those who are doing the nit-picking have just run out of valid arguments to support their case and quite likely ARE 10 year olds. It seems you have more interest in winning the argument then anything else. Can you just bow out politely if you've run out of constructive input? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying EITHER side is correct. But I DO suspect that the pot is calling the kettle black.

 

[Prometheus]

What do I win if I find one?

Your posting is hilarious.

You place such stress on your conclusions, which you draw on the basis of your own fabricated presuppositions.

I think that you might consider becoming a political speech writer.

 

[BlackVision]

The statistics this thread misrepresents will eventually expose its own worldview of racism.

How do you define racism? If I were to accept that Jews are far more likely to obtain Tay-Sachs is that racism? If I accept that Blacks are far more likely to obtain sickle cell would that be racism? Has political correctness become far more important than accuracy and honesty? Would you go as far as to deny any differences between races whatsoever that would be advantageous to one race to another regardless of the evidence behind it?

Race is an exceptionally sensitive issue. That is a given. But because it is such a sensitive issue, many seem to want to dilute the truth if the truth happened to not paint a pretty picture. While their intentions are good, it determines honesty.

 

[BlackVision]

Your posting is hilarious.

You place such stress on your conclusions, which you draw on the basis of your own fabricated presuppositions.

I think that you might consider becoming a political speech writer.

What is this? Zero refute to anything I have stated? Ah yes. I found it quite solid myself.

 

[BlackVision]

I want to add something to this thread concerning the wanna, gonna, cause, etc. B.S.

Some of you are hitting below the belt with this crap. You acuse BV of trying to pull everyone else down to his 'lowly' level. You compare BV to a 10 year old. Let's please give BV the benefit of the doubt concerning his story. You imply that you are above BV by saying that you NEVER speak that way. You acuse BV of forging identification. You acuse BV of having his way paid by mom and dad. By doing all of this you are basically putting yourselves above BV. Nothing like stomping on someone else to raise your own self up. By doing these things you have just drawn a line in the sand that separates you from others. By acting like this you are not doing your cause any good.

I read a lot of internet forums and when someone sinks to the level of nit-picking grammar, typos and things of this nature I usually determine that those who are doing the nit-picking have just run out of valid arguments to support their case and quite likely ARE 10 year olds. It seems you have more interest in winning the argument then anything else. Can you just bow out politely if you've run out of constructive input? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying EITHER side is correct. But I DO suspect that the pot is calling the kettle black.

Thank you Averagesupernova. I appreciate your thoughts.