One Black Man Might Be President: One Million Black Men Are in Prison

[Saya]

Any isolated genetic pool has cases of being more vulnerable to diseases, its not special to "race". Newfoundland for example was very isolated and became the interest for genetic science:

http://www.sfu.ca/~science/media/davidson.html

We are far more suspectable to BBS than most other populations and 1/10 of us have psoriasis. Can I say I'm "Newfoundlander" now instead of "white"? We will prevail! Newfie Power!

And you lump all people of dark skin african descent as black, but in Africa they see it differently too, there are different "races" there. There is a special tribe for instance that alone in Africa has a huge rate of lactose tolerance. And same goes for Asians, in Vietnam there is a certain village that has a deadly disease where you have a heart attack while experiencing the old hag syndrome, the only people with this genetic disorder descend from that village.

If you take traits like diseases you are suspectable to and say its because of "race", then we can make all sorts of different races. Those 40% of black people who have a variant that can protect them after heart failure should be their own race too!

And where's your evidence that somehow black people are impervious to poverty related crimes but are instead more aggressive because of an asshole gene?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to develop Tay-Sachs than other ethnicities. African-American women face a greater threat of death from heart disease than women of other races. Whites are more likely to have Cystic Fibrosis. There is no logical reason to insist that differences between races must stop at outward appearance. It's been long-established scientific fact that they exist.

Whether or not they succeed in explaining why there are more blacks in prison than whites is irrelevant (though I happen to believe they do, to a degree). They are there.

That's it? That's your defense of pseudo-scientific racism? You're, at base, trying to sell us on the idea that different races of people are also different species, which is fucking bunk.

Let's look at this simply. Generally one can define the members of a specific species by the fertility of their offspring.

Example: Mules are the offspring of a horse and a donkey. Mules are sterile, proving that horses and donkeys are not both members of the same species.

A mutt, on the other hand, is a mixed breed dog, and is entirely fertile. The mutt, though of a mixed heritage and quite likely possessing different kinds of physical features, is still a fucking canine.

Now, let's apply this principle to another kind of animal: humans.

The product of mating a white person and a black person (or any other combination of races) is a mixed-race child. That child is most definitely fertile. Wouldn't it, then, stand to reason that both parties, regardless of how we define their "race", are of the same species?

[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by Saya

Any isolated genetic pool has cases of being more vulnerable to diseases, its not special to "race". Newfoundland for example was very isolated and became the interest for genetic science:

---

We are far more suspectable to BBS than most other populations and 1/10 of us have psoriasis. Can I say I'm "Newfoundlander" now instead of "white"? We will prevail! Newfie Power!

And you lump all people of dark skin african descent as black, but in Africa they see it differently too, there are different "races" there. There is a special tribe for instance that alone in Africa has a huge rate of lactose tolerance. And same goes for Asians, in Vietnam there is a certain village that has a deadly disease where you have a heart attack while experiencing the old hag syndrome, the only people with this genetic disorder descend from that village.

If you take traits like diseases you are suspectable to and say its because of "race", then we can make all sorts of different races. Those 40% of black people who have a variant that can protect them after heart failure should be their own race too!

The term 'race' usually refers to the concept of categorizing humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics. I did not take traits such as susceptibility to disease and say it's due to race, but rather, illustrated that individuals belonging to this or that race share characteristics which they do not share with other such groups.

Increased susceptibility towards a disease does not provide sufficient differences between one group of people and another, not enough for them to be classified as a unique race (a word which strikes me more as technical term rather than a social construct.)

The argument laid out that it doesn't exist resembles wordplay more than anything. I could say that individual computer networks do not exist, because they are all part of the Internet.

I'd like to go back to statement :

And you lump all people of dark skin african descent as black, but in Africa they see it differently too, there are different "races" there.

I do lump people of dark skin of African descent as belonging to a race. There are no different races, as the differences are not numerous or pronounced enough to warrant such a classification.

Members of the sub-Saharan, black race, typically have skin thicker than those of the white race, skin which better impedes the penetration of germs and UV rays. They have arms and legs relatively longer than those of whites, and are more powerfully developed from the waist down, in contrast to whites who are more developed from the waist up.

The physical differences between the two groups continue down to the level of hormonal production and distribution. African-American teenage girls tend to be taller and heavier and mature faster than their peers in other ethnic groups.

These traits tend to be exhibited by members of that unique race.

And where's your evidence that somehow black people are impervious to poverty related crimes but are instead more aggressive because of an asshole gene?

I never stated that black people are impervious to poverty related crimes. In fact, I think I stated that it'd be foolish to dismiss both nature and nurture. I gave my opinion, that nature does influence the present situation of blacks in the states, against the general sentiment that nature can have absolutely, positively no impact whatsoever.


Here is an example against the 'nurture' side of the coin. The statistics may be slightly out of date but that holds little relevance to the context.

Washington, D.C. enjoys the highest average annual salaries and is second only to Alaska in personal income per capita. It leads the nation in about every category of crime including murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and vehicle theft. D.C. also has the country's strictest gun control, highest police costs per capita, highest ration of police and correctional officers per citizen, and highest rate of incarceration. Its permanent population is over 80% Black. West Virginia, which has the nation's lowest crime rate, suffers from chronic poverty and has the highest unemployment in the U.S. It also has the fewest police per capita. West Virginia is over 96% White.

[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

That's it? That's your defense of pseudo-scientific racism? You're, at base, trying to sell us on the idea that different races of people are also different species, which is fucking bunk.

Please point out where I submitted the ridiculous claim that certain humans are not members of the human species.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Please point out where I submitted the ridiculous claim that certain humans are not members of the human species.

Righto. From this thread's 25th post:

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to develop Tay-Sachs than other ethnicities. African-American women face a greater threat of death from heart disease than women of other races. Whites are more likely to have Cystic Fibrosis. There is no logical reason to insist that differences between races must stop at outward appearance. It's been long-established scientific fact that they exist.

Whether or not they succeed in explaining why there are more blacks in prison than whites is irrelevant (though I happen to believe they do, to a degree). They are there.

(my emphasis)

Those two statements, when taken in concert, make the implication. Either you're now backpedaling, or you worded your initial statement rather poorly.

[AshtrayKitten]

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position. While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position. While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

I see. You make an old argument, one prized by every believer in pseudo-scientific racism, and then accuse me of building a straw man when I follow the path you've set to its timeworn conclusion. This is evasion, pure and simple.

If anything, you're the one misrepresenting the statements of others. You blatantly tried to use minor differences in inborn immunities between the races as evidence of some criminal pathology inherently present in blacks. Veiling your argument in mildly scientific terms, and tacking "to a certain degree" on the end of it does not change your intent.

[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

I see. You make an old argument, one prized by every believer in pseudo-scientific racism,

I did nothing but point out that there is more to race than aesthetics. I corrected you when you hysterically denied this:

Physiological differences? Are you serious? Do black people have their organs in different places, or something? You fucking moron.

and then accuse me of building a straw man when I follow the path you've set to its timeworn conclusion. This is evasion, pure and simple.

You claimed I was putting forth the notion that blacks are a different species than whites, and gave a lovely dissertation on how they are the same species and how Paris is the capital of France and water is made of H2O. That you deny you didn't make one is laughable, and we can quietly forget about it along with your outrage over the notion that medical science supports the division of humanity along racial lines if you so desire.

If anything, you're the one misrepresenting the statements of others. You blatantly tried to use minor differences in inborn immunities between the races as evidence of some criminal pathology inherently present in blacks.

Negative. I have not presented supporting evidence for that claim yet, other than my anecdotal example of D.C. and WV. Again, I was stating the fact that there's more to race than skin color.

A separate issue, grasshopper, is whether or not these deeper traits can influence certain races in the areas such as intelligence and propensity towards delinquency. I believe they do, and that for the sake of political correctness, such talk is marginalized and pushed away as far as possible.

Veiling your argument in mildly scientific terms, and tacking "to a certain degree" on the end of it does not change your intent.

Nor does it invalidate the point. I'm not sure what you think my intent is, though.



Do you accept the possibility that genes can make a certain group of more aggressive? Yes/No? Is it absolutely, positively impossible?

[Albert Mond]

Physiological differences don't explain psychological problems.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

There is more genetic differences within a race then between them.

[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Physiological differences don't explain psychological problems.

Physiology affects psychology. Being happy or sad affects numerous biochemical processes and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

There is more genetic differences within a race then between them.

Indeed there are.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

I did nothing but point out that there is more to race than aesthetics. I corrected you when you hysterically denied this:

Physiological differences? Are you serious? Do black people have their organs in different places, or something? You fucking moron.

That's categorically false. You did quite a bit more than that, and we both know it. It's obvious where you're going with your line of reasoning. It's as old as any justification for expansionism or genocide. It's tired, trite, and it belongs at the Berlin Conference, not anywhere in the 21st century. It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines of what you said.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

You claimed I was putting forth the notion that blacks are a different species than whites, and gave a lovely dissertation on how they are the same species and how Paris is the capital of France and water is made of H2O. That you deny you didn't make one is laughable, and we can quietly forget about it along with your outrage over the notion that medical science supports the division of humanity along racial lines if you so desire.

I stand by my assertion, and I don't see where I ever denied making it.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Negative. I have not presented supporting evidence for that claim yet, other than my anecdotal example of D.C. and WV. Again, I was stating the fact that there's more to race than skin color.

You haven't, and you won't be able to. Still, just because you didn't present any evidence - as if you even could - doesn't mean that you didn't make the implication.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

A separate issue, grasshopper, is whether or not these deeper traits can influence certain races in the areas such as intelligence and propensity towards delinquency. I believe they do, and that for the sake of political correctness, such talk is marginalized and pushed away as far as possible.

It is not at all separate. Here we return to the crux of the issue. This is exactly why I said what I said. This is the same argument made by every 19th century politician campaigning for imperial expansion, every crackpot racist with a superiority complex, and every proponent of genocide throughout history. "They" are less intelligent, less articulate, less civilized than "We". It's a hop, skip and a jump from what you say, to declaiming other "races" as being subhuman. All you've done so far is respond with a petty smokescreen about definition. It's as clear as day where you're headed with this line of reasoning.

Honestly, I did make a mistake. I should've let you carry your ridiculous argument out to its fully racist length. You would've hanged yourself, and I wouldn't have had to say a word.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

I'm not sure what you think my intent is, though.

I thought I made it quite obvious. Was my pedantic explanation of how "water is made of H2O" not clear enough?

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Do you accept the possibility that genes can make a certain group of more aggressive? Yes/No? Is it absolutely, positively impossible?

Now you're appealing to my sense of scientific curiosity?

The overwhelming weight of modern research stands against you on this one, yet it seems like you're here insisting that just because it's possible automatically makes it true. Absolutely absurd.

AshtrayKitten stands before you all as the only person who seems to know what he/she's talking about - and yet still the babbling mouths of morons who have thought about the subject for a whole 20 minutes in their entire life feel the need to affront his intelligent remarks with half-baked internet philosophies and artifical rhetoric.

AshtrayKitten consider yourself one of my favourite new members.

[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

That's categorically false. You did quite a bit more than that, and we both know it. It's obvious where you're going with your line of reasoning. It's as old as any justification for expansionism or genocide. It's tired, trite, and it belongs at the Berlin Conference, not anywhere in the 21st century. It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines of what you said.

An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

I stand by my assertion, and I don't see where I ever denied making it.

That was in regards to your straw man.

You haven't, and you won't be able to. Still, just because you didn't present any evidence - as if you even could - doesn't mean that you didn't make the implication.

I stated my opinion that biology is a factor when it comes to race and crime. Anything you've attached to that exists solely in your own mind.

It is not at all separate.

Of course they are separate. Drugs combating disease must occasionally be tailored to specific races. Does this mean the scientist acknowledging the varying effectiveness of medicine in people of different ethnicities is a racist?

Here we return to the crux of the issue. This is exactly why I said what I said. This is the same argument made by every 19th century politician campaigning for imperial expansion, every crackpot racist with a superiority complex, and every proponent of genocide throughout history. "They" are less intelligent, less articulate, less civilized than "We". It's a hop, skip and a jump from what you say, to declaiming other "races" as being subhuman. All you've done so far is respond with a petty smokescreen about definition. It's as clear as day where you're headed with this line of reasoning.

An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

I thought I made it quite obvious. Was my pedantic explanation of how "water is made of H2O" not clear enough?

On the contrary, you have not stated once "where I was going" with it.

Now you're appealing to my sense of scientific curiosity?

I'm asking a very simple question. Is it possible or impossible for genes to influence behavior in specific groups of people as they influence other factors, such as skin color?

The overwhelming weight of modern research stands against you on this one,

The overwhelming weight of modern research shows biological variations in people along racial lines. These variations are significant enough to force medical science to come to terms with them.

yet it seems like you're here insisting that just because it's possible automatically makes it true. Absolutely absurd.

No, that sounds more like something you would insist. Sorry - invective is supposed to be your thing, but I couldn't help myself.




Do you accept the possibility that genes can make a certain group of more aggressive? Yes/No? Is it absolutely, positively impossible?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Do you accept the possibility that genes can make a certain group of more aggressive? Yes/No? Is it absolutely, positively impossible?

Maybe, POSSIBLY a certain isolated gene pool, but not an entire race, and thats only if certain disorders that make you aggressive are genetic. For example, that study that 40% of black people have the gene that protects them after heart failure, was that study done on African Americans or Africans? Since most slaves came from the same parts of Africa (namely West Africa), and since interracial marriage was taboo until fairly recently, the gene pool was isolated. But if you were to look at all Sub-Saharan Africans, would the number be the same? It has far more to do with region and isolation than it has to do with race, and suspectibility to disease and superficial outward differences aren't enough to say that there are definitive races.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Tell me something, which do you believe is more correct:

Obama is the best thing to happen to the United States and all will be fine and dany in America by February. Racism will end, sexism will end, and people will stop being poor. We'll have universal health care and we'll have no more wars and we'll be loved by the rest of the world again.

Obama has done nothing and will do nothing. The only thing that has been accomplished is making people trust the same government they hated yesterday, and real organizations and movements that wanted change now lose their legitimacy thanks to Obama's slogan.

Do you honestly even listen to yourself sometimes? I'm not trying to be rude for the sake of rude, but are you even aware of how many times people asking "choices" like "which is closer, to being Ted the Mailman: 'Magical Unicorn From Mars' or 'A Man, just like the one that beat up my Mother'?" You make comments that are ludicrous to the point where I have a hard time forming a response because I'm too busy laughing and figuring out if you are serious or not.

Dammit Oni, stop stealing my mind.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Dammit Oni, stop stealing my mind.

So, you try to attack me because I have pretty much the same opinion on Obama than you, except that I say out loud that having Obama as president is not enough?

Let me recap; tell me where I got it wrong:
I voted for Obama. I've mentioned that Obama is a step in the right direction numerous times (in fact, it's the thing that began Helpmann's trolling)
I, however, don't think that voting for Obama will change anything substantially.
So you try to argue against me because you think Obama is a step in the right direction?

[Despanan]

No, I'm arguing because you presented me with a silly argument.

For the record, usually when I post, I'm not attempting to "attack" anyone personally or even argue against anyone personally (and when I am it's pretty obvious). You really don't need to skim my posts for hidden meanings or vendettas. I'm usually playful, but I'm pretty plain-spoken when I'm being serious.

Simply electing Obama is certainly not going to save the world, but I do think you're really downplaying the major step in the American consciousness that he represents.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I'm not sifting through posts to look for vendettas.
But definitely, if you're only focusing in one post, then you're downright wrong.
Context is important.
This thread is made because of all those people that will become complacent (and you can't deny there will be millions) simply because Obama won, and if you try to throw blows into the wind, see if you hit something, rather than shudder because it's true, you really have some thinking to do.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I'm not sifting through posts to look for vendettas.

Kay, cool. It's just sometimes it seems that you're trying to read between the lines of my posts when you respond.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

This thread is made because of all those people that will become complacent (and you can't deny there will be millions) simply because Obama won, and if you try to throw blows into the wind, see if you hit something, rather than shudder because it's true, you really have some thinking to do.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say at the end of this post (The stuff I marked in bold). All joking aside, I know it's English, but it doesn't resemble anything that I would consider a complete thought.

Anyway, I agree that there is a danger of complacency at this point, but cynicism is not the way to respond to it. Similarly, I feel sentiments like:

The rest of us know the system is rigged to make us all losers. We deserve another world, another way of distributing power and resources that values everyone's needs equally.

and

Obama has done nothing and will do nothing. The only thing that has been accomplished is making people trust the same government they hated yesterday, and real organizations and movements that wanted change now lose their legitimacy thanks to Obama's slogan.

are not only wildly inaccurate, and cynical to a ridiculous level, there is a real danger in embracing such sentiments. It's not just the fact that we downplay our own accomplishments, and those of our system, but they encourage a very unrealistic view of the world around us, and usher in their own brand of inaction: rather than complacency we have wasted effort.

Now I know you're an Anarchist, but the fact of the matter is, that in today's day and age, ultra-radical "tear it down and start again" politics of any stripe really aren't going to get anything done. Real, lasting change simply isn't going to come from your Ron Pauls, or the other random radicals that pepper our system. They're too isolated, and their ideas are simply too far out there to be embraced to a level where they are effective. If we're going to get America and the world back on track we need to work within our own established system to create that change. That's really the beauty of Obama. Not only is he someone who believes in change in and through our system, and is in the position to facilitate it; He's living proof that that kind of change is possible.

So now we have a bunch of people hopeful, eager, and ready to fix the world. I'm sure many will say "Job done" and we need to be in a position to help them to realize that it's not, But they're not going to listen to us if we come at them spewing ultra-radical agendas flanked with absurd levels of cynicism, and those who embrace that view will waste their own efforts in an attempt to achieve their ridiculous goals. It's as if you were trying to re-model a house with your friends, except one guy refuses to come inside and work on the house in favor of showing you plans of a bigger, better house he's going to build once he levels your home. You want to change the world for the better? You've got to get enough people moving in the same direction, and you're not going to do that with tin-foil hat wearing crazies.

Obama is a good first step on a long hard road, and we're going to need that spirit of optimism your guy is trying to kill, because make no mistake when things get nasty, it may be all that keeps us going.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

they encourage a very unrealistic view of the world around us

That is the opposite of cynicism.
And what I meant by the above is that, by ignoring context, you were trying to tell me something I have said numerous times before; you were throwing blows at the wind to see if you hit something.

And that poster, I just can't see how you could take it as cynicism and inaction. I know that poster was made by activists to activists, but your saying it's cynic and promotes inaction leads me to assume that that's how it looks if passive observation, rather than autonomy, is taken as a priori.

[AshtrayKitten]

Who the heck are all these people trying to derail our race discussion????

Originally Posted by Saya

Maybe, POSSIBLY a certain isolated gene pool, but not an entire race, and thats only if certain disorders that make you aggressive are genetic. For example, that study that 40% of black people have the gene that protects them after heart failure, was that study done on African Americans or Africans? Since most slaves came from the same parts of Africa (namely West Africa), and since interracial marriage was taboo until fairly recently, the gene pool was isolated. But if you were to look at all Sub-Saharan Africans, would the number be the same? It has far more to do with region and isolation than it has to do with race, and suspectibility to disease and superficial outward differences aren't enough to say that there are definitive races.

Why not an entire race?

Aggression isn't a disorder, but something affected by hormonal levels in addition to upbringing and environment. So can hormonal levels differ along the lines of the classical concept of race?

Let me give some better examples than that study, to better present the circumstances. (I'll make sure to point out what is my opinion and speculation so Pinstripes can keep up in case he reads this.)


1) Babies

Black babies mature more quickly than White babies, while Oriental babies mature more slowly. African babies in a sitting position are more able to keep their heads up and backs straight from the start. White babies often need six to eight weeks to do these things.

Black babies spend the least time in the womb. In America, 51% of Black children have been born by week 39 of pregnancy compared with 33% of White children.


2) Hormones

One study of college students showed testosterone levels were 10 to 20% higher in Blacks than in Whites. An older sample of U.S. military veterans saw Blacks having levels 3% higher than Whites. In another study, of university students, Black Americans had 10 to 15% higher levels than White Americans.

Testosterone affects things like self-concept, aggression, altruism, crime, and sexuality, in men and women. Testosterone also controls things like muscle mass and the deepening of the voice in the teenage years. It appears in different levels from race to race.

The list goes on and on, describing common attributes of people in the general grouping of black, white, east asian etc. If you prefer the phrase "regional distribution of differing traits" to "race," so be it. They both describe the same thing.

If there is more doubt I'll provide examples until the cows come home.




--OPINION!*(!_Pp!p!)-!!$#!--

Are blacks more aggressive? As a race, it seems they are biologically more predisposed to it.

Does this mean every black person is 10% more criminal than every white person? No. It can mean there exists a higher occurrence of delinquency among blacks than whites, with the rest of blacks being law abiding as any other ethnicity. It can mean any number of things.

It's unlikely that biology is not a factor, and ignoring it entirely when examining the issue will always, always, always lead to an imperfect conclusion.

Does it alone explain the disparities when comparing a white family, neighborhood, and country with a black one? Probably not.

--OPINION END--

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That is the opposite of cynicism.
And what I meant by the above is that, by ignoring context, you were trying to tell me something I have said numerous times before; you were throwing blows at the wind to see if you hit something.

And that poster, I just can't see how you could take it as cynicism and inaction. I know that poster was made by activists to activists, but your saying it's cynic and promotes inaction leads me to assume that that's how it looks if passive observation, rather than autonomy, is taken as a priori.

Optimism is the opposite of Cynicism.

An inaccurate view of reality can be rooted in either sentiment, or neither one for that matter. It's really only marginally related to those concepts.

I also don't feel that I was ignoring the context, and anyway in context your juxtaposition of ridiculous extremes was just as silly as it was out of context.

Just because it was an idea put forth by an activist doesn't change the fact that the statement is ridiculously cynical with regards to Obama. Also There are many types of inaction, if your goal is to walk into the next room, what does it matter if you sit in the corner and say you're already there, or spend all of your time beating your head against the wall? The result is the same. You're not in the room.

The kind of activism that is implied in the statements I quoted, is not the kind of activism that I believe to be capable of producing meaningful, positive change in our current society I believe this because of the reasons I cited in my previous post, and therefore, I believe it to be, for all intents and purposes, to have little difference from doing nothing.

[Despanan]

Crap. It won't let me edit. that last sentence should read:

therefore, I believe it to be, for all intents and purposes, pretty much the same thing as doing nothing.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Who the heck are all these people trying to derail our race discussion????


Why not an entire race?

Aggression isn't a disorder, but something affected by hormonal levels in addition to upbringing and environment. So can hormonal levels differ along the lines of the classical concept of race?

Let me give some better examples than that study, to better present the circumstances. (I'll make sure to point out what is my opinion and speculation so Pinstripes can keep up in case he reads this.)


1) Babies

Black babies mature more quickly than White babies, while Oriental babies mature more slowly. African babies in a sitting position are more able to keep their heads up and backs straight from the start. White babies often need six to eight weeks to do these things.

Black babies spend the least time in the womb. In America, 51% of Black children have been born by week 39 of pregnancy compared with 33% of White children.


2) Hormones

One study of college students showed testosterone levels were 10 to 20% higher in Blacks than in Whites. An older sample of U.S. military veterans saw Blacks having levels 3% higher than Whites. In another study, of university students, Black Americans had 10 to 15% higher levels than White Americans.

Testosterone affects things like self-concept, aggression, altruism, crime, and sexuality, in men and women. Testosterone also controls things like muscle mass and the deepening of the voice in the teenage years. It appears in different levels from race to race.

The list goes on and on, describing common attributes of people in the general grouping of black, white, east asian etc. If you prefer the phrase "regional distribution of differing traits" to "race," so be it. They both describe the same thing.

If there is more doubt I'll provide examples until the cows come home.

Its not the same thing because you're lumping one group of people, blacks, altogether when it has already been established there are more genetic differences within a race than there is outside a race.

White people are more likely to be jailed for embezzlement, forgery and fraud than black people. Does that mean that white people are genetically prepositioned to be more greedy than black people? More white people live in rich neighbours than black people. Are white people genetically prepositioned to be rich?

In America, amongst black people they are more likely to live in poor neighbourhoods, have higher rates of unemployment and single parenthood. While a lot of black people have come a long way, there is still a glaring fissure between the very rich and the very poor, and no matter what the race of its occupants, ghettos tend to be very high risk areas for crime. Its a hell of a lot more logical to look at the background of the criminal rather than the race; what type of neighbourhood and family did they come from? What was their financial standing? Its a far more logical stance than saying there's some sort of gene that makes them more aggresive.

Those college students and soldiers who have higher testosterone levels? Were they more likely to commit crimes? Chances are not if they have a stable career in the military or are able to go to university or college. And enviromental factors certainly take a place on one's testosterone levels, excercise and sexual activity can be a factor for example. So can threat levels, if a male feels threatened his testosterone levels raise. It can be said that as black men perhaps they get laid more, get more excercise or are more likely to feel threatened. The social and psychological aspect of race play a bigger role than 19th biology.

--OPINION!*(!_Pp!p!)-!!$#!--

Are blacks more aggressive? As a race, it seems they are biologically more predisposed to it.

Does this mean every black person is 10% more criminal than every white person? No. It can mean there exists a higher occurrence of delinquency among blacks than whites, with the rest of blacks being law abiding as any other ethnicity. It can mean any number of things.

It's unlikely that biology is not a factor, and ignoring it entirely when examining the issue will always, always, always lead to an imperfect conclusion.

Does it alone explain the disparities when comparing a white family, neighborhood, and country with a black one? Probably not.

--OPINION END--

Ignoring biology is fine when it doesn't come into play, seeing as there is no aggression gene.