African American murdering people

Author: Kaitlyn
BLM
black
murder
African American
homicide

Posts

Total: 39
Topic's author
#1
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
African Americans, from the bottom half of the American income distribution, have had worse homicide rates than any other country in the world.

Crunching the numbers, we can see that some of the worst homicide rates (per 100,000) worldwide range from 20.8 (Dominica, 2020) to the 49.3 (Virgin Islands, 2012) FuF7chEWIAAb0ux (844×592) (twimg.com) . Most of the countries listed here are from South America, Carribean and (a few) being from Africa. South America and the Carribean are the most violent today, whereas Africa has been so in the past but appears to have improved (if African data is to be trusted, which is debatable: FuGF-N6WYA8dHjI (712×811) (twimg.com) )  FuF8yp1WAAMvQCg (850×620) (twimg.com) .

For African Americans of the 0-10 income distribution decile, their homicide rate has ranged from 86.1-117.0 homicides per 100,000, making them on average twice as bad as the worst country (Virgin Islands 49.3). The 10-25 percentiles ranged from 48.1-63.9, again making them on average worse than the worst country. Even the 25-50 percentiles ranged from 39.8-65.2, still average higher than the worst country, thus proving that at least the bottom half of African Americans, in terms of U.S. income distribution, have greater homicide rates than the worst country in the world. FuF7cgzXoAIV0nR (660×413) (twimg.com) taken from Unequal Incomes, Unequal Outcomes? Economic Inequality and Measures of Well-Being (newyorkfed.org) 

What do you think of this statistical finding? 
#2
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
The causes have been known for quite some time. Homicide correlates strongly with poverty and fatherlessness, both of which are more statistically prominent in black communities. Then there's distrust of police going back to the civil rights era, and decreased police funding leads to higher crime.
#3
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Poor people inherit crime which is very big business in America. Add in guns and you get high murder rates. Not really much more to it. If there was no black people in America, it'd be white people killing each other. American criminal industry has been something awesome for the last century. What's interesting, I guess, is a crime race has supplanted the crime family.  Which is fair enough. They laid claim. 
Topic's author
#4
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Savant
The causes have been known for quite some time. Homicide correlates strongly with poverty and fatherlessness, both of which are more statistically prominent in black communities. Then there's distrust of police going back to the civil rights era, and decreased police funding leads to higher crime.
Wow. Don't overload us with citations/evidence for your claims!

Race is a better predictor of crime than poverty. Whatever effect poverty has on crime (certainly not strongly correlational), race has a bigger effect, so the fact that they are African Americans is more important than the fact they are poor. Someone has already addressed this on this site: Race is a Better Crime Predictor than Poverty (debateart.com) .

You can also see that the 0-10 U.S. income percentiles for White people (from the OP) aren't sky high, despite being as poor as the 0-10 Blacks. In fact, none of the divisions had Blacks being as murderous or less murderous than Whites: Blacks were always more murderous.

I don't know how you reached your conclusions about fatherlessness (zero citations from you), but the majority of crime is committed by a small number of people. If fatherlessness (and poverty) is "statistically prominent" in their communities, that would be evidence against your bare assertion https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/239dfad4-1f16-419d-b6a5-83a1a169ea78_861x574.png (861×574) (substackcdn.com) taken from When few do great harm - by Inquisitive Bird (substack.com) .


Topic's author
#5
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
Poor people inherit crime which is very big business in America.
Wrong.

Poor people sometimes inherit criminal genes that make them commit more crimes. That's why the poor Eastern European countries don't have wild homicide rates. That's why the 0-10 U.S. income percentile Whites don't have sky-high homicide rates. It's not poverty causing the crimes; it's the rubbish genes.

Add in guns and you get high murder rates.
Why don't U.S. poor White people match the homicide rates of U.S. poor Black people? They are both poor. They both have access to guns. Your unsourced, bare assertions are crumbling.

If there was no black people in America, it'd be white people killing each other.
Yeah killing each other at far less of a 1/10th of the African American rate. Do you understand why that's a problem? Did you even read the OP?

American criminal industry has been something awesome for the last century. What's interesting, I guess, is a crime race has supplanted the crime family.  Which is fair enough. They laid claim. 
Your narrative is wrong because none of your (uncited) arguments are incorrect.

It's funny because you made fun of me for citing sources before in another thread, and now studies are sledgehammering you into the ground here with their cold, hard facts.
#6
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
Fatherlessness is a consistent predictor of violence. Poverty is a consistent predictor of crime. Black Americans are more consistently against police funding. You only accounted for one of those factors.

Even if they don't explain the entire discrepancy, they explain a lot of it. Did you want me to give an answer based on statistical evidence or just make something up?

#7
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Why don't U.S. poor White people match the homicide rates of U.S. poor Black people?
Because the big criminal enterprises in America are a cornered market. Very simple and very obvious. Where one race is poorer than the other, young black men have laid claim to crime. Poor white folk got no bone to shoot each other over. It's interesting actually. Machiavelli might have given it a chapter in "The Prince."
#8
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Where one race is poorer than the other, young black men have laid claim to crime.
I mean there's probably more in it than that, but. 
#9
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
criminal genes that make them commit more crimes
That escalated quickly.
#10
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Savant
You seem about the best of the right on here. 

#11
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
Apologize, I copied some of the links wrong and the post doesn't let me edit.

Topic's author
#12
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Savant
Fatherlessness is a consistent predictor of violence.
Your source doesn't prove your statement. Wrong link?

Also, you failed to respond to this (implying that environment has little effect on crime):

I don't know how you reached your conclusions about fatherlessness (zero citations from you), but the majority of crime is committed by a small number of people. If fatherlessness (and poverty) is "statistically prominent" in their communities, that would be evidence against your bare assertion https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/239dfad4-1f16-419d-b6a5-83a1a169ea78_861x574.png (861×574) (substackcdn.com) taken from When few do great harm - by Inquisitive Bird (substack.com) .

Poverty is a consistent predictor of crime.
Link is broken. Still no evidence to suggest it "correlates strongly".

You also didn't address my counter-argument at all, so I'll post it again:

Race is a better predictor of crime than poverty. Whatever effect poverty has on crime (certainly not strongly correlational), race has a bigger effect, so the fact that they are African Americans is more important than the fact they are poor. Someone has already addressed this on this site: Race is a Better Crime Predictor than Poverty (debateart.com) .

This was also dropped:

You can also see that the 0-10 U.S. income percentiles for White people (from the OP) aren't sky high, despite being as poor as the 0-10 Blacks. In fact, none of the divisions had Blacks being as murderous or less murderous than Whites: Blacks were always more murderous.

Black Americans are more consistently against police funding.
This doesn't actually prove your prior statement as Black Americans being against police funding doesn't mean there is less police funding. Your argument hinges on the reality of police getting less funding, not the mere support of it.

Care to try again?
Topic's author
#13
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
Poor people inherit crime which is very big business in America.
Wrong.

Poor people sometimes inherit criminal genes that make them commit more crimes. That's why the poor Eastern European countries don't have wild homicide rates. That's why the 0-10 U.S. income percentile Whites don't have sky-high homicide rates. It's not poverty causing the crimes; it's the rubbish genes.
[dropped by badger]

Add in guns and you get high murder rates.
Why don't U.S. poor White people match the homicide rates of U.S. poor Black people? They are both poor. They both have access to guns. Your unsourced, bare assertions are crumbling.
Because the big criminal enterprises in America are a cornered market. Very simple and very obvious. Where one race is poorer than the other, young black men have laid claim to crime. Poor white folk got no bone to shoot each other over. It's interesting actually. Machiavelli might have given it a chapter in "The Prince."
No, Whites with an income percentile of 0-10 are as poor as Blacks with an income percentile of 0-10. In that instance, one race isn't "poorer than the other". 

That's "very simple and very obvious".

Try again.

If there was no black people in America, it'd be white people killing each other.
Yeah killing each other at far less of a 1/10th of the African American rate. Do you understand why that's a problem? Did you even read the OP?
[dropped by badger]

American criminal industry has been something awesome for the last century. What's interesting, I guess, is a crime race has supplanted the crime family.  Which is fair enough. They laid claim. 
Your narrative is wrong because none of your (uncited) arguments are incorrect.

It's funny because you made fun of me for citing sources before in another thread, and now studies are sledgehammering you into the ground here with their cold, hard facts.
[dropped by badger]
#14
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
I fixed the links almost 10 minutes before you responded; see my more recent post.

If fatherlessness (and poverty) is "statistically prominent" in their communities, that would be evidence against your bare assertion
You're going to have to explain this better—I'm not sure why crimes being committed by a small number of people means that fatherlessness can't correlate with higher crime. Did you think I was saying that literally every child who grows up without a father becomes a criminal?

 Your argument hinges on the reality of police getting less funding, not the mere support of it.
People vote, actually, so the two are correlated.

You can also see that the 0-10 U.S. income percentiles for White people (from the OP) aren't sky high, despite being as poor as the 0-10 Blacks. In fact, none of the divisions had Blacks being as murderous or less murderous than Whites: Blacks were always more murderous.
I didn't drop that. I said, "You only accounted for one of those factors," which is still true. I also never said that these factors explain 100% of the discrepancy, but you seem to be repeating that strawman.
#15
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
You don't really have to respond to me like that. I do really find you very uninteresting. I'll just take up your racist points as I like. 
#16
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
What do you think of this statistical finding? 
That it's identifying a culture, not a race.
#17
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
If you're going to argue with every person who posts here, you'd be better off just instigating a formal debate.
#18
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Savant
If you're going to argue with every person who posts here, you'd be better off just instigating a formal debate.
Why, you can't have multiple opponents simultaneously then.
#19
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Quality > quantity, imo. Better to have an in-depth discussion with one opponent than repeat the same arguments multiple times.
#20
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Savant
Quality > quantity, imo. Better to have an in-depth discussion with one opponent than repeat the same arguments multiple times.
You don't have to repeat them, just refer to what you already said. More minds means more perspectives and more chances at finding a strong or sound argument. That's of course assuming honesty and requite reasoning skills; but you can have a formal debate with a dishonest fallacy-factory so that factor cancels out.

Topic's author
#21
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Savant
Fatherlessness is a consistent predictor of violence: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/206316.pdf
My thread OP talks about homicide rates, not specifically violence. Not all violence leads to homicide, therefore these two terms aren't synonymous. 

But sure, this study appears to show that fatherlessness correlates with violence, and since murder requires violence, fatherlessness will explain some amount of the murders. As to how many is another question your source doesn't appear to address.

If fatherlessness (and poverty) is "statistically prominent" in their communities, that would be evidence against your bare assertion
You're going to have to explain this better—I'm not sure why crimes being committed by a small number of people means that fatherlessness can't correlate with higher crime. Did you think I was saying that literally every child who grows up without a father becomes a criminal?
You've changed your argument from causation to mere correlation, so my argument here doesn't apply anymore.

 Your argument hinges on the reality of police getting less funding, not the mere support of it.
People vote, actually, so the two are correlated.
U.S. public opinion actually negatively correlates with U.S. policy (yes, it's shocking). It's the wealthy elite who have the impact on what policy gets passed.

When the wealthy elite and average person support a policy (i.e. over 75% of them support it), it gets passed 49% of the time. When the wealthy elite support something and average people don't (i.e. average people sub 25% approval of the policy), it gets passed 55% of the time (a -6% change when average people supported the policy). 

Likewise, when the wealthy elite don't support the policy and neither do average people, it gets passed 29% of the time. When wealthy elites don't support it but the average people do, then it gets passed 24% of the time (a -5% change when the average people supported the policy).


So, you arguing that the public supports less funding actually makes it less likely to manifest in reality.

You can also see that the 0-10 U.S. income percentiles for White people (from the OP) aren't sky high, despite being as poor as the 0-10 Blacks. In fact, none of the divisions had Blacks being as murderous or less murderous than Whites: Blacks were always more murderous.
I didn't drop that. I said, "You only accounted for one of those factors," which is still true. I also never said that these factors explain 100% of the discrepancy, but you seem to be repeating that strawman.
You said, "The causes have been known for quite some time. Homicide correlates strongly with poverty and fatherlessness, both of which are more statistically prominent in black communities".

Hence, the way you constructed your sentence implied that you believed there were only two causes. 

How much are you claiming? What correlation effect are you referring to?

You also still haven't addressed how race is a better predictor of poverty than crime:

Race is a better predictor of crime than poverty. Whatever effect poverty has on crime (certainly not strongly correlational), race has a bigger effect, so the fact that they are African Americans is more important than the fact they are poor. Someone has already addressed this on this site: Race is a Better Crime Predictor than Poverty (debateart.com) .
Topic's author
#22
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What do you think of this statistical finding? 
That it's identifying a culture, not a race.
What do you think produces culture?
#23
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
The extraordinarily chaotic system whose general study is known as "history"
#24
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
You've changed your argument from causation to mere correlation, so my argument here doesn't apply anymore.
No, it's causation with low elasticity.

U.S. public opinion actually negatively correlates with U.S. policy
Um, no. Policy positively correlates with the interests of the wealthy, but people voting for a law does not make that law less likely to get passed. People don't support rape, and rape is illegal, to give one example.

You also still haven't addressed how race is a better predictor of poverty than crime
I gave the most likely explanations for why race correlates with crime. You seem to be arguing for a "criminal gene" for which there's no evidence (essentially,  God of the gaps). The factors I listed are known to be the strongest predictors of crime.
#25
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Kaitlyn
What do you think of this statistical finding? 

  • Weak, mendacious.
  • Why are you comparing 21st century nation data to 20th century black crime data?  What is relevant about black homicide rates from 1965-1995 compared to the 28 years after 1995? Almost nothing.  Profound decreases in homicide rates  took place over that time which you ignore because using those 21st century numbers falsifies your comparisons.
  • Using different standards in order to dramatically exagerate the undeniable problem of black homicide is poor conduct and by itself, quite racist.

Topic's author
#26
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What do you think of this statistical finding? 
That it's identifying a culture, not a race.
What do you think produces culture?
The extraordinarily chaotic system whose general study is known as "history"
You're reversing cause and effect. History isn't creating culture. Culture creates history.

Would you not agree that humans create culture?
Topic's author
#27
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Savant
You've changed your argument from causation to mere correlation, so my argument here doesn't apply anymore.
No, it's causation with low elasticity.
Whether intentionally or not, you're equivocating pretty hard on this point.

First you argued that it was causation, "The causes have been known for quite some time. Homicide correlates strongly with poverty and fatherlessness". Then you immediately demoted that to correlation, "Homicide correlates strongly with poverty and fatherlessness".

Then you argued that it was merely a predictor, "Fatherlessness is a consistent predictor of violence. Poverty is a consistent predictor of crime".

Now you're back to causation but with the caveat of "low elasticity".

Do you even know what you want to argue?

U.S. public opinion actually negatively correlates with U.S. policy
Um, no. Policy positively correlates with the interests of the wealthy, but people voting for a law does not make that law less likely to get passed. People don't support rape, and rape is illegal, to give one example.
Policy *both* positively correlates with the interests of the wealthy *AND* negatively correlates with the people's vote. So yes, it does mean that if people vote for a law, it is LESS likely to get passed, but that doesn't mean all policy won't get passed if the people's vote supports it. Your example doesn't contradict what I said.

Your original argued was that if the general population were to support a policy, it would be more likely to get passed -- I've shown that to be not true with the study I cited.

How much are you claiming? What correlation effect are you referring to?
[dropped by Savant]
What effect size are you arguing for? You are claiming that "poverty is a consistent predictor of crime". How do you know this?

You also still haven't addressed how race is a better predictor of poverty than crime
I gave the most likely explanations for why race correlates with crime. You seem to be arguing for a "criminal gene" for which there's no evidence (essentially,  God of the gaps). The factors I listed are known to be the strongest predictors of crime.
I'm not arguing for a singular "criminal gene" at all. I'm arguing that race is a better predictor of crime than poverty to counter the fact you argued that poverty was better. So that you don't accuse me of arguing for a "criminal gene", I'll just copy-paste the argument so that other people can see I'm not (I bolded and underlined the easy to understand, slam-dunk arguments):

Race vs Economics as Predictors of Crime

Land, McCall, and Cohen collected data on the homicide rates of cities, standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs), and states for the years 1960, 1970, and 1980. In each year they included all 50 states and every city and SMSA included in the census. They then looked at how well the following 11 variables predicted crime variation between these areas: population size, population density, percent black, percentage aged between 15 and 29, percent divorced, percent of kids without two parents, median family income, the poverty rate, income inequality, the unemployment rate, and whether or not the city/SMSA/State was in the south. All of these variables were entered into a single regression model, meaning that the estimated effect size for each variable held all other 10 variables constant. This analysis thus produced 9 total models explaining crime variation in cities, SMSAs, and states, across 3 decades. Across these 9 models, race was a better predictor of homicide than unemployment, poverty, and median income, in 7, or 78%, cases, and a better predictor than income inequality in 8, or 89%, cases. Thus, over 3 decades of very large data sets, race was pretty consistently a better predictor of homicide rates than economic variables were.

Another relevant analysis was carried out by Unz.com owner Ron Unz. Unz 2013 looked at how well median income, population density, poverty, and % black, correlated with the crime rates of large American cities between 2006 and 2011. He found that the size of the black population of a substantially better predictor than any of the other variables tested.

Similarly, the New Century Foundation’s report “The Color of Crime” analyzed the violent crime rates of the 50 U.S. states and D.C for the year 2005. The analysis found that state violent crime rates correlated at .81 with the percentage of the population that was Black or Hispanic, 0.37 with the state’s percentage of high-school drop outs, 0.36 with the states poverty rate, and 0.35 with the state’s unemployment rate.

Templer and Rushton 2011 significantly replicated the New Century Foundation’s results. They analyzed crime variation across the 50 U.S. states and found that the percent of the population that was black was a stronger correlate than average income for murder rates (0.84 v -0.40), robbery rates (0.77 v 0.06) and assault rates (0.54 vs -0.23) The paper did find that income was a stronger predictor than black population size for rape rates (-0.16 v -0.22), but neither of these correlates were statistically significant or large.

Kposowa, Breault, and Harrison 1995 analyzed crime variation across 2,078 U.S counties. As can be seen below (standardized beta coefficients are under the “beta” column), the percent of the population that is black was a stronger explanatory variable than poverty, income inequality (gini), and unemployment, for explaining variation in both property and violent crime.

Relevant table for the above study's claims: 2-5.png (456×300) (thealternativehypothesis.org)

Also a relevant table for the above study's claims: 3-4.png (447×299) (thealternativehypothesis.org)

Finally, we have Rushton and Templer 2009 which looked at national variation in crime. They found that skin color, a proxy for race, was more strongly correlated than national income with homicide (0.25 vs 0.17), rape (0.24 vs 0.10), and serious assault (0.20 vs 0.09).
Thus, across a large range a literature analyzing crime variations across cities, counties, states, and nations, we see that race is a better predictor of crime than economic variables are.

Topic's author
#28
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@oromagi
Why are you comparing 21st century nation data to 20th century black crime data?  What is relevant about black homicide rates from 1965-1995 compared to the 28 years after 1995? Almost nothing.  
Why was the homicide rate so high then? I'm pretty sure it was relevant to the people murdered by African Americans.

Profound decreases in homicide rates  took place over that time which you ignore because using those 21st century numbers falsifies your comparisons.
Feel free to demonstrate it.

  • Using different standards in order to dramatically exagerate the undeniable problem of black homicide is poor conduct and by itself, quite racist.
There's no racial hatred in citing statistics. 
#29
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Kaitlyn
What do you think produces culture?
Hillbilly culture, originally from the UK and brought to America. The UK stomped it out though and America stomped out the culture in whites. 

It would have been stomped out in blacks by now as well but liberals have somehow taken an evil culture and called it "black culture" and instead of fighting against hillbilly culture, like whites did (though some very tiny fraction of it exists in the backwoods Appalachian towns isolated from most of America), they actually promote it.

In fact they believe white hillbilly culture and black hillbilly culture are 2 different things and don't realize why the following similarities exist between white and black hillbilly culture.

1. Soul food that is precisely the same in every way
2. Loud boisterous preachers
3. Huge honor cultures that see disrespect as the biggest sin.
4. Fighting to defend One's honor physically
5. Rampant criminality

The general sense that life is short so life has very little value and extreme recklessness is promoted and encouraged. 

I love how these non Americans who haven't had to deal with black or white hillbilly culture will call American's racist though for noticing that hillbilly culture is rampant in black communities. 

Savant is wrong. Yes single mother homes are more likely to create criminals, yes poverty has some effect. However, poverty is caused more by hillbilly culture than it causes it.

Look at Chicago where hillbilly culture is rampant. They just had 4 Walmarts leave in what should be a very profitable city, but hillbilly culture destroyed their ability to be profitable through things like massive shop lifting.

The same thing happened in Seattle where ever crackerbarrel just left because it is easy to walk out on a check in crackerbarrel with no repercussions, you also have very few if any Starbucks left, Walmarts and other stores leaving 

This means less job opportunities and more food deserts. Hillbilly culture is creating poverty in those areas and will continue to do so, because corporations are being blamed for not operating at a loss instead of policy makers and communities looking at ways to eradicate hillbilly culture like all sensible civilizations have done.
#30
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Lets see.

Poverty? Check.

Single-mother households? Check.

Less education? Check.

More likely to be in foster care? Check.

More likely to be abused? Check.

More likely to be unemployed? Check.

So yeah, its not like you have to be a rocket scientist to know that these elements contribute to crime.