Blacks far more likely to commit crimes against Whites and Hispanics than the inverse

Author: Kaitlyn
Crime
Violence
Blacks
African American
homicide

Posts

Total: 185
#151
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@hey-yo
Not really. My brother is well to do as a broker. Easily wealthy although not 1%.  He gets dirty looks at his own apartment complex, has been asked if he was a pro basketball player, asked to show that he lives in his own apartment complex, and has said multiple times - he will be watched up and down the  isles at a store. 

If you are suspected to commiting a crime just by your race, thats not privlidge. 
That sucks but isn’t relevant to the point I was making at all, which is that wealth/poverty isnt the only explanation for the causes of crime. If he committed a violent crime despite being wealthy I would have absolutely zero sympathy towards him. 

The fault for that kind of treatment lies with other people in his group who commit crimes at a disproportionate rate even when very wealthy. It is not the fault of people who are often much poorer and less educated than your brother for noticing patterns. If you’ve got a bone to pick, and you do because that situation would annoy me to no end if it were me, the cold hard truth is that it’s with the criminals within your group and not with the rest of society 
#152
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
But would you personally give up your home and your job and move?
#153
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@thett3
The fault for that kind of treatment lies with other people in his group who commit crimes at a disproportionate rate even when very wealthy.
You mean like Hitler and Stalin? Oh sorry, I forgot. They were white. My bad.
Topic's author
#154
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@hey-yo
Meanwhile, there was a study which performed analysis of over half a million Swedish people looked into income levels and future criminality. They looked specifically at crime rates between poor kids who stayed poor into adulthood, and poor kids who become wealthier as they aged. For both groups, the criminality rates were virtually the same. This shows that poverty isn't a cause of crime, but rather a correlation http:/bjp.rcpsych.org/content/early/2014/08/14/bjp.bp.113.136200.abstract 
Site does not allow access. Also this is to a magazine. We need something that is easier to access like this link. 


Study provided by journal of economic structures looks into multiple countries and multiple statistics to see if results can be viewed across multiple countries. A serious benefit considering not two countries will experience the same economic/social environment. Policies will differ along with the practice of justice/law. 

Sweden carry more socialist policies. Today the difference between incomes is not as large as it is in US or other countries. What govt. considers to be poverty may not be the same in other countries. There are many factors that can influence a study's conclusion, but we can not see the study to determine how it influences the discussion.  
The immediate issue I see with your paper is that it doesn't measure poverty in a pure form, but rather GINI which includes poverty, but also statistical noise like income inequality (of which has a much higher correlation and perhaps some causation, basically because people get super angry when they're poorer than the group around them, but don't care nearly as much if everyone is poor). So, the paper doesn't make conclusions on poverty, but rather something that includes poverty.

Furthermore, your paper strikes at correlation rather than causation. Just because worse GINI and higher unemployment are correlated with criminality, that does not mean they are the cause of criminality. What happens is that bad genes/environments cause people to be unable to make money, and they then become far poorer and less employed than other people around them. People don't go from upstanding citizens to hardened criminals the moment they become unemployed. People who are unemployed (particularly in excess of 6 months) tend to have a whole host of mental issues that prevent them from finding work, of which also makes them more likely to commit crimes (e.g. low I.Q, low self-control etc.)

In this study, researchers break down poverty as something a person can leave, fall into, have chronically, and more. Those who had fallen into poverty had a higher risk in using drugs to cope with their misfortune. 

If this study translates to american experience, then those in poverty would be more likely to do drugs, which is a crime. Still the goal is to recognize different aspects about poverty and how to research it. 
The proclivity to use drugs is itself genetic and is a typical criminal element: lack of self-control. That lack of self-control is also a pre-cursor to poverty, because self-control (to some degree) is required for things like regular attendance at a job and saving/investing excess income.

That's why you have people of all income types getting into drug problems: the cause is genetic. You don't suddenly acquire the genes that make you want to cope with drugs when you become poor. Rather, you are born with them. You could argue the capacity for drug usage is latent and activated epigenetically by poverty, but I haven't seen that argument been explicitly made.

Yes, the American experience would have those in poverty more likely to do drugs, but that's also just a correlation.


I will respond to the rest later...



#155
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
It’s their lack of impulse control and predilection for aggressive behavior (as Kaitlyn pointed out) that sees them disciplined more than any other race. 
You seem to dismiss all what Kaitlyn has been saying about blacks, now that you mention her. I know you kind of identify with her but let's be honest and tell us if you really dissent with most of the bigotry she threw.

Do you think blacks are genetically predisposed to be not just unintelligent but also violent as she states? She claimed black culture is genetic-driven which is absurd. Different cultures influence one another in a more globalized world and at the end one of them can prevail (like western culture) or be shaped with other culture's elements,  so it's not about "race".

Kaitlyn reminds me of Hitler when he used to say that germans should preserve not only their race but their culture. Race and culture are the favourite elements of racists, but these racists ignore that there are neither pure "races" nor pure "cultures", both mix in with others and evolve over time.

The best thing humans can do to evolve and hence to succeed as species is through race mixing, nothing more. So what Kaitlyn proposes about America is far beyond against nature, it's counterproductive for all of us, it could hold humans back from evolving.

But regardless of it, I can't change her mind because racists are helpless, so I won't insist on all this because it will be a complete waste of my time.
#156
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@IlDiavolo
--> 
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
It’s their lack of impulse control and predilection for aggressive behavior (as Kaitlyn pointed out) that sees them less disciplined more than any other race. 
You seem to dismiss all what Kaitlyn has been saying about blacks, now that you mention her. I know you kind of identify with her but let's be honest and tell us if you really dissent with most of the bigotry she threw.
No, I have not dismissed “all what Kaitlyn has been saying,” as I mostly agree with her. The only part I cannot affirm is an area that I have not studied, even when obtaining my degree in criminology and criminal justice: genetics. I myself just received results from CRI Genetics breaking down my history and other health reports. There are in fact genes that demonstrate either low/high risk for some trait, or a lack thereof for some trait altogether. The factors she mentioned, impulse control, aggressive behavior, pro or antisocial abilities, et al are all known genetic markers that can be looked for. 

Also, I really dislike the name calling just because you are either ignorant of the data she is putting forth for consideration, and/or just disagree with the data because you were unaware of its fact based existence and do not like it because it triggers your irrational emotive responses, thus the name calling in an attempt to discredit not only the data, but her specifically.

Do you think blacks are genetically predisposed to be not just unintelligent but also violent as she states? She claimed black culture is genetic-driven which is absurd. Different cultures influence one another in a more globalized world and at the end one of them can prevail (like western culture) or be shaped with other culture's elements,  so it's not about "race".
I do not agree that the black culture well documented and articulated by Thomas Sowell is genetic, it’s learned. Clearly Africans had their tribal culture but through punishment and fear it was quashed during the period of slavery. Africans adopted the redneck culture and over time, twisted it and made it something more of their own, but not for their benefit (rather to their detriment). Through learned behaviors, attitudes, demeanor, tolerances and intolerances, black culture has been passed on - it’s not genetic. There are no genetic markers for “cultural awareness,” at least none that I am aware of at this time. However there are genetic markers as I said for impulse control, social adaptability, aggression, et al.

Kaitlyn reminds me of Hitler when he used to say that germans should preserve not only their race but their culture. Race and culture are the favourite elements of racists, but these racists ignore that there are neither pure "races" nor pure "cultures", both mix in with others and evolve over time. 
That’s just more name calling. What it sounds like you are thinking she reminds you of is the position on eugenics. Like all things with good intentions, they can be perverted and used for very bad things….as Hitler intended with eugenics. But if you cut away all that fat and get to the meat of what the theory and application of eugenics was intended to achieve, it’s not such a bad thing. If degenerates were not allowed to procreate, there would certainly be far less degenerates wreaking havoc on society (e.g. ever seen the mug shots of the ANTIFA clowns, environmentalists, BLM advocates and rioters for example? They for the most part look inbred and show the hallmark physical attributes of what one would commonly see in antisocial and criminalistics behavior).

Race and culture are not “the favorite elements of racists,” again, that’s an ad hominem and a strawman fallacy. Truth =/= racism. Facts =/= racism. Only liberals call it racism because liberals hate the truth. Truth = racism. Just stop it already. It diminishes your position and comments when you keep crying wolf (racism). 

Race and culture go hand in hand, they are not mutually exclusive. And mixing races with zero respect for the separate cultures is where all the problems happen. Just look at all the foreign emigrants and illegal immigrants that refuse to assimilate to American culture, language, ethics, etc. and the problems/barriers that cause. 

There used to be pure races and pure cultures, do you really need a history lesson on how destructive it has been for some races throughout history when introduced to other races/cultures? Hell, some even had their own problems within their own race due to different ideologies and lust for power and control (e.g. the kingdoms in Africa that raided other villages, killed many, castrated men, etc. and sold them into slavery).

The best thing humans can do to evolve and hence to succeed as species is through race mixing, nothing more. So what Kaitlyn proposes about America is far beyond against nature, it's counterproductive for all of us, it could hold humans back from evolving. 
Yeah, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with one race wanting to associate with their own. Blacks do it in America, and so much so that they have been re-segregating themselves (e.g. black graduations, black proms, black spaces in college, so on and so forth).

Blacks murder/assault whites 2x more than vise versa.
Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent person crimes, mostly intraracial but also interracially (e.g. high crimes against Asians).
Blacks kill cops at a rate of 18.5x than blacks being shot, and not necessarily killed by cops at 2.5-3.0x (no respect for authority or human life).
The highest probability of a black male being killed in this day and age is by another black male. Not by a white, brown, or Asian male. 

When one sees the vast number of crimes committed by blacks, over 50% of the entire nation’s murders, non-negligent manslaughter, robberies, etc., the televised rioting and indiscriminate violence (remember retired officer M. Dorn)…one cannot help but think, feel and even say it is time to get the fuck away from blacks. It’s precisely why that cartoon artist, Dilbert I think, was “cancelled” because he made the same suggestion, albeit differently and more poignantly. It’s a sad thing for sure to feel/think that way, but whose fault is that?

When South African blacks ran off white farmers and took their land, believing they could fend for themselves and make a better life and economy than what the white farmers were providing…know what happened? They screwed the pooch. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-13/zimbabwe-offers-land-to-recompense-dispossessed-white-farmers#xj4y7vzkg They invited the white farmers back because they ruined the economy. 

Now what do you think would happen if we did give that 20% of the lower income threshold of blacks an entire state all to themselves. Do you think they would run it sufficiently without the need for outside intervention? Or would they invite whites back in because they ruined the economy of their state and lack necessary services due to insufficient number of qualified individuals to run things? 

#157
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
 The factors she mentioned, impulse control, aggressive behavior, pro or antisocial abilities, et al are all known genetic markers that can be looked for. 
There is no doubt about it. The question is if all these traits could be attributed to an specific "racial" group (or to be more precise, the skin color), eventhough the term "race" is very vague for scientifical purposes. 

Also, I really dislike the name calling just because you are either ignorant of the data she is putting forth for consideration, and/or just disagree with the data because you were unaware of its fact based existence and do not like it because it triggers your irrational emotive responses, thus the name calling in an attempt to discredit not only the data, but her specifically.
No. If you check her sources, most of them are outdated, because the genetics knowledge advances very quickly, so it's better to use fresh data.

And it's clear to me that Kaitlyn accomodates her findings so to match her racist view. In any case, it's good that you consider being neonazi something bad. It's indeed bad, but it's what I see when Kaitlyn proposes segregating people along with her biased arguments.

Race and culture are not “the favorite elements of racists,” again, that’s an ad hominem and a strawman fallacy. Truth =/= racism. Facts =/= racism. Only liberals call it racism because liberals hate the truth. Truth = racism. Just stop it already. It diminishes your position and comments when you keep crying wolf (racism). 
Yes, it is. It's well documented that racism didn't end when slavery was abolished. This is specially true when europeans started to use the culture as an element to discriminate the inmigrants in the 80s given that they couldn't use the racial theory.

Race and culture go hand in hand, they are not mutually exclusive. And mixing races with zero respect for the separate cultures is where all the problems happen. Just look at all the foreign emigrants and illegal immigrants that refuse to assimilate to American culture, language, ethics, etc. and the problems/barriers that cause. 

There used to be pure races and pure cultures, do you really need a history lesson on how destructive it has been for some races throughout history when introduced to other races/cultures? Hell, some even had their own problems within their own race due to different ideologies and lust for power and control (e.g. the kingdoms in Africa that raided other villages, killed many, castrated men, etc. and sold them into slavery).
It's true that we sort people by races, but this is a politcal categorization, not biological. Races don't exist, we're not dogs.

As for the rest of you argument, I completely disagree. Europe has been a multicultural continent and they are alright now after a long time of wars and a lot of spilled blood.

Yeah, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with one race wanting to associate with their own. Blacks do it in America, and so much so that they have been re-segregating themselves (e.g. black graduations, black proms, black spaces in college, so on and so forth).
They're just doing what whites have been doing all the time. I always compare the racism in the States and Brazil, you'll never see segregation in the later, to the extent that demographically there is almost 50% of mestizos (mulatos) in this country, and only around 8% of blacks.

Now what do you think would happen if we did give that 20% of the lower income threshold of blacks an entire state all to themselves. Do you think they would run it sufficiently without the need for outside intervention? Or would they invite whites back in because they ruined the economy of their state and lack necessary services due to insufficient number of qualified individuals to run things? 
It depends. Is there a black elite? The success of a country will depend mainly on hthe capacity and values of the elite.

#158
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@IlDiavolo
The factors she mentioned, impulse control, aggressive behavior, pro or antisocial abilities, et al are all known genetic markers that can be looked for. 
There is no doubt about it. The question is if all these traits could be attributed to an specific "racial" group (or to be more precise, the skin color), eventhough the term "race" is very vague for scientifical purposes. 
It could. By ethnicity that is. My genetic testing showed my ancestry across 6 ethnicities/regions of the world. Skin color is fluid and comes in lots of depths (darkness) to paleness. It’s just the color of your book cover, it’s not who you are. 

And it's clear to me that Kaitlyn accomodates her findings so to match her racist view.
While I agree more recent data should be used, if there is nothing new known to replace it, then one uses the best, most recent data to support their contentions. 

How are her views racist? Please be more specific, point by point. Because as I said, if there are studies that she is citing that show a correlation to ethnicity and criminal behavior, well, that’s just data being conveyed. It’s a truth. And as I said, truth ≠ racism. 

I’m at the vet with two cats. Will reply more when I get home. 

#159
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@thett3
Although I disagree with sentiment for what is relevant, we can move on because I agree that Wealth/poverty is not the only explanation for the causes of crime. Im not saying it is. I object to the idea that a person's poverty should never be included with possible cause for crime. 

The fault for that kind of treatment lies with other people in his group who commit crimes
Ah... What? The people to blame and are at fault for looking at you as piece of shit are the people who are looking at you as a piece of shit. 

Apply that same logic to being lynched. Yes its an extreme but a starting point. Who do we blame if someone kills us? You and me. Do we blame ouselves, our family, or the people who actually killed us? 

Im pretty sure the blame is on the suspect. Right? 

We can then dial it down from murder to assault. Who do we blame for a holes beating us? Who is at fault when we get mugged or called names? 

To think that an entire group is guilty of x because a minority percentage perform x is a fallacy just as much as assuming one person is guilty of x if a group performed x. Fallacy either way and for a good reason. This type of reasoning does not bring us to thd truth. 
#160
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Kaitlyn
I 'do think you'd have more success with average people,
In framing it as people having governments and laws that represent themselves,
Rather than we don't like X people.

Though really near everyone dislikes 'some type of X people,
And a number of laws exist for 'some X people,
Though usually for cultural/nurture reasons,
Example, criminal X people, like child molesters being restricted from certain locations or having to self report to their neighbors.
. . .

Hm, not much information on Wikipedia about New Africa,

Doesn't seem to have 'lasted all that much in popularity though, I think.

"The RNA’s popularity and influence diminished with most of its leaders in prison, but it still claims a membership of 5,000 to 10,000. Its headquarters have been moved to Washington, D.C."

"On July 1, 2013, Chokwe Lumumba was sworn into office as mayor of the city. After eight months in office, Lumumba died on February 25, 2014. Lumumba was a popular yet controversial figure due to his prior membership in the Republic of New Afrika, as well as being a co-founder of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America."
. . .

I'm not familiar with New Europe,
Though it looks more a coalition of European countries based on geography and keeping against military aggression,
Rather than politics, purity?
. . .

Aztlan,
Seems more a myth or historical theory of where the Aztecs migrated from.
#161
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@hey-yo
Ah... What? The people to blame and are at fault for looking at you as piece of shit are the people who are looking at you as a piece of shit…

To think that an entire group is guilty of x because a minority percentage perform x is a fallacy just as much as assuming one person is guilty of x if a group performed x. Fallacy either way and for a good reason. This type of reasoning does not bring us to thd truth. 
I’m not saying that you or your brother or any other person deserves suspicious looks or ill treatment. What I’m saying is that the cause of that suspicion is because of crime statistics like this. When I talk about who’s to blame I don’t mean in a moral sense, I’m saying it as a reflection of reality. Right or wrong that’s just the way it is  

Although to be clear I absolutely condemn criminals much more than anyone who hurts some feelings by being unable to know at a glance whose a criminal and who isn’t
#162
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@IlDiavolo
Race and culture are not “the favorite elements of racists,” again, that’s an ad hominem and a strawman fallacy. Truth =/= racism. Facts =/= racism. Only liberals call it racism because liberals hate the truth. Truth = racism. Just stop it already. It diminishes your position and comments when you keep crying wolf (racism). 
Yes, it is. It's well documented that racism didn't end when slavery was abolished. This is specially true when europeans started to use the culture as an element to discriminate the inmigrants in the 80s given that they couldn't use the racial theory.

“Yes, it is.” ~ This says (=) truth is the favorite element of racists. Is that what you are saying? Truth is the favorite element of racists? Truth about race? Truth about culture? 

Who actually said (wrote) that “racism ended when slavery was abolished”? I’ve seen no one say such a thing, and I certainly have not. Racism will be ever present across all races/cultures until the end of time. Whether individually or collectively, people will always feel a sense of superiority over another. 

That last sentence was garbled, please restate/rephrase.

Race and culture go hand in hand, they are not mutually exclusive. And mixing races with zero respect for the separate cultures is where all the problems happen. Just look at all the foreign emigrants and illegal immigrants that refuse to assimilate to American culture, language, ethics, etc. and the problems/barriers that cause. 

There used to be pure races and pure cultures, do you really need a history lesson on how destructive it has been for some races throughout history when introduced to other races/cultures? Hell, some even had their own problems within their own race due to different ideologies and lust for power and control (e.g. the kingdoms in Africa that raided other villages, killed many, castrated men, etc. and sold them into slavery).
It's true that we sort people by races, but this is a politcal categorization, not biological. Races don't exist, we're not dogs. 

As for the rest of you argument, I completely disagree. Europe has been a multicultural continent and they are alright now after a long time of wars and a lot of spilled blood.
Yes, race is a sociopolitical construct, but biological concepts of race are needed to access their reality in a non-species-specific manner (which speaks to your “we’re not dogs” reference).

Yeah, Europe (like Canada) is a multicultural continent BUT they have issues just like we do with that multiculturalism. Don’t pretend (or claim) they don’t have their race/cultural based problems due to multiculturalism. Americans spilled blood for those Europeans too, you know. 

Yeah, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with one race wanting to associate with their own. Blacks do it in America, and so much so that they have been re-segregating themselves (e.g. black graduations, black proms, black spaces in college, so on and so forth).
They're just doing what whites have been doing all the time. I always compare the racism in the States and Brazil, you'll never see segregation in the later, to the extent that demographically there is almost 50% of mestizos (mulatos) in this country, and only around 8% of blacks.

Really? The “well they’re doing it too” defense? Come on. Be better.

It’s 9.1% of blacks in Brazil. And when citizens and immigrants of Brazil mixed with the blacks remaining post slavery, there would be a mixed race that grows and grows. But it really depends on how they self-identify.  3/4 of the way down on the right is a table covering those numbers.

Now what do you think would happen if we did give that 20% of the lower income threshold of blacks an entire state all to themselves. Do you think they would run it sufficiently without the need for outside intervention? Or would they invite whites back in because they ruined the economy of their state and lack necessary services due to insufficient number of qualified individuals to run things? 
It depends. Is there a black elite? The success of a country will depend mainly on hthe capacity and values of the
Not unless you consider the gang leaders and/or crime lords the elite. 
#163
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@thett3
Ah. I see. I'd say exposure for sure. I feel like you can put that on a graph chart where x is exposure and y is quantity or legnth of time a person is exposed to x. 

I still want to push that the individual who is suspicious is the cause of that suspicion because they are the ones interpreting what is being done.

I doubt the avg. person considers statistics or much less knowledgable in it. You are clearly higher than avg. in how you articulate a message- and considering stats or any info on a given topic (as expressed in this topic). 

Moral or not, We dont need to look at person a = person b. 

However I do understand how appearance is part of our natural way to determine danger. Along with repitition. 
#164
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@thett3
Any poc feeling, thinking or believing they are being followed in a store from - like loss prevention - is BOTH paranoia & fact based reality. 

Stores keep record of thefts. When analyzed, the items stolen the most need to be the most guarded. Sad to say, but, fact is, blacks steal a lot. Hence the stores putting more black related products behind lock and key. 

Fact of reality. Does NOT = racism. 

Own it. 
Topic's author
#165
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@hey-yo
During the roaring 20's (i.e. economic boom and great wealth generation), crime increased, but as soon at the Great Depression took hold, crime rates actually went down (the opposite of what your hypothesis predicts) #2 - Homicide in the United States, - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library Crime and the Great Recession | The Great Recession Effects (city-journal.org) 
Interesting read indeed! 
There is so much information. I find it interesting that the roaring 20's - the prohibition ERA - well known corruption in law enforcement saw a great decrease in crime. Who knew making America's past time a crime would some how shift crime away from murder, theft, etc. to supplement the people's needs. Maybe it was bad for business? 

Anyways the last article is interesting. Their conclusion is abortion and increased imprisonment decreased overall crime rates, while same time disproving other factors. Including poverty. Anyone correct me if Im wrong. That is what is suggested yes? 
I'm glad you enjoyed the reads :)

Yes, your summaries are great.

The decreased and increase in crime is influenced by decrease and increase of incarcerations and abortions. Lets take a closer look into these things. 

This article claims poverty is #2 reason for abortion because the women "cant afford" having a kid. 


59% of women who seek abortions are already mothers;

-       Women who seek abortions are more than three time as likely to be poor; 49% are poor while the national poverty rate is about 12%;

-       75% of women who seek abortions are low income
So, the general argument you're making appears to be that because abortions are expensive, and because my source said that abortions decrease crime rates, poverty causes crime (to some extent).

Some of your sources don't quite support this argument because everyone who is poor isn't necessarily in poverty, but there will be some poor people who are in poverty. 

As for those in poverty who cannot afford an abortion, the underlying issue is that unwanted and undesirable genes are being propagated -- being in poverty is just a correlation. The way people end up in poverty in the first place is because their genes couldn't find a way to make money in that environment, and whilst the environment is sometimes to blame, genetic traits like IQ are some of the best predictors of future income. 

Poverty is generally the punishment for very poor genetics. Crime is usually the result of very poor genetics. The underlying genetics are what make poverty and crime correlate.

While it is difficult to ascertain whether poverty makes someone more likely to commit a crime, data show it does make a person more susceptible to being arrested and more likely to be charged with a harsher crime and to receive a longer sentence. Adults in poverty are three times more likely to be arrested than those who aren’t, and people earning less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level are 15 times more likely to be charged with a felony

Some researchers find links between high incarceration rates among men of color and policy changes that criminalized social problems experienced by many people living in poverty (who are disproportionately people of color). These challenges include homelessness, mental illness, and drug or alcohol problems. The result, these researchers suggest, perpetuates poverty and racial inequality both within and across generations.[5]


Although causes of crime are layered and possess multiple factors, we should still be able to see how poverty and inequality are included as factors for crime. 
Again, there is no causation shown. You need to cite studies that show poverty explaining crime, rather than merely being correlated with it. I already agree that there is already a correlation between poverty and crime (I think it is weak, though). The issue is that I don't think poverty is explaining crime to any sizeable degree.

None of the effect sizes between crime and poverty could be considered strong or even moderate. A meta-analysis of 153 studies found the effect size to be .253 (weak correlation) with only 59% of the studies being statistically significant Assessing Macro-Level Predictors and Theories of Crime: A Meta-Analysis on JSTOR 
I followed the provided link to read this:
Across all studies, social disorganization and resource/economic deprivation theories receive strong empirical support; anomie/strain, social support/social altruism, and routine activity theories receive moderate support; and deterrence/rational choice and subcultural theories receive weak support.

What is your take on these sentences? 

Also real kicker. Disappointment. Cant access information. Oh darn. I guess this is further evidence for @KichiroMS

It's a somewhat jargon heavy sentence and it's misleading. The reason they say economic deprivation received strong empirical support is because it was one of the strongest correlates, but it's still a weak one at 0.253. It looks far more impactful than things like unemployment (0.131) and Education effects (0.25), but they're all still weak effects.
Topic's author
#166
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
I 'do think you'd have more success with average people,
In framing it as people having governments and laws that represent themselves,
Rather than we don't like X people.
Yes, I agree.

It's still true that I don't like certain types of people, though. 

Though really near everyone dislikes 'some type of X people,
And a number of laws exist for 'some X people,
Though usually for cultural/nurture reasons,
Example, criminal X people, like child molesters being restricted from certain locations or having to self report to their neighbors.
The average person doesn't consciously accept heritability, moreover genetic reasons for differences in racial outcomes (i.e. Blacks committing more crimes than other races). It's a taboo subject in the Western world. Cultural/nurture reasons are 100% okay.

Hm, not much information on Wikipedia about New Africa,

Doesn't seem to have 'lasted all that much in popularity though, I think.

"The RNA’s popularity and influence diminished with most of its leaders in prison, but it still claims a membership of 5,000 to 10,000. Its headquarters have been moved to Washington, D.C."

"On July 1, 2013, Chokwe Lumumba was sworn into office as mayor of the city. After eight months in office, Lumumba died on February 25, 2014. Lumumba was a popular yet controversial figure due to his prior membership in the Republic of New Afrika, as well as being a co-founder of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America."
The term I used was purely theoretical. It's only incidental if it's already in use. I think that part of America should just be given to Black people, so long as other racial groups get parts to call home, too.

I'm not familiar with New Europe,
Though it looks more a coalition of European countries based on geography and keeping against military aggression,
Rather than politics, purity?
New Europe is just a name for a collection of US States that are majority White already and would be happier under White nationalism.

None of these places exist yet in America.

Aztlan,
Seems more a myth or historical theory of where the Aztecs migrated from.
This would be land for Hispanics.

I'm just showing you that you could theoretically split the union, have reasonable divisions, and make everyone happier :)
#167
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
I'm just showing you that you could theoretically split the union, have reasonable divisions, and make everyone happier :)
You all know that Kaitlyn is Putin's niece, don't you?  What a brilliant plan Putin has using Kaitlyn and Donald Trump.
#168
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Kaitlyn
The State of Jefferson almost happened a few times,
About politics, not race though.
. . .

Hm, other examples,

"The partition of India caused the movement of 18 million people. This caused both religious and civil tensions between Hindus and Muslims.[8] This resulted in the highest casualty rate for one migration according to the Guinness Book of World Records 2014. One million people were killed and 12 million became homeless."

Though,
Maybe that's because the government wasn't prepared for the partition,
"The newly formed governments had not anticipated, and were completely unequipped for, a two-way migration of such staggering magnitude. Massive violence and slaughter occurred on both sides of the new India-Pakistan border. Estimates of the number of deaths vary, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 2,000,000. The worst case of violence among all regions is concluded to have taken place in Punjab"
. . .

Ah, there's modern Israel,
'Obviously lot of controversy there.

No positive or successful examples are coming to my mind or Google searches yet.
Though I haven't Googled that much yet.
#169
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
“Yes, it is.” ~ This says (=) truth is the favorite element of racists. Is that what you are saying? Truth is the favorite element of racists? Truth about race? Truth about culture? 

Who actually said (wrote) that “racism ended when slavery was abolished”? I’ve seen no one say such a thing, and I certainly have not. Racism will be ever present across all races/cultures until the end of time. Whether individually or collectively, people will always feel a sense of superiority over another. 

That last sentence was garbled, please restate/rephrase.
Sorry for that. I was trying to say that racists justify their supposed superiority using either race or culture, which are called biological racism and cultural racism respectively. Cultural racism was theorized during the massive migration that took place in Europe in the 80s.

Not unless you consider the gang leaders and/or crime lords the elite. 
I mean, it's very difficult that the 20% of the lower income threshold of any group survive on their own, no matter the race they belong to. People need an elite anyways that guide them so that the group thrives.

Is there a black elite? What is doing Obama for their people?
Topic's author
#170
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
No positive or successful examples are coming to my mind or Google searches yet.
Though I haven't Googled that much yet.
Remember the alternative is keeping the United States together, of which is already quite a divided country. Some places are already segregating/separating.

The amount of social and economic capital expended on dealing with racial issues, conflicts and riots is a massive expense. 

#171
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Kaitlyn
While there exists areas such as ethnic neighborhoods,
Chinatown in San Francisco as an example,
And any other number of black, white, Irish, Italian, various nationalities, ethnicities,

I don't think you'd be successful forcing people to move,
Or enticing people to move,
In large enough numbers to claim a state,
Well, maybe a tiny state, Like Rhode Island,
But the State of Jefferson would have held a number of people, still wasn't successful in becoming a state.

If you were absurdly rich,
Or had a huge cult following,
I imagine you could form small communities in a state,
Maybe expand over time through various means,
But in just 'asking the here and now people, I'm doubtful any would want to go for it.
Topic's author
#172
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
I don't think you'd be successful forcing people to move,
Or enticing people to move,
Well, people are going to end up moving anyway.

No one wants to live around hordes of unemployed Black people in Chicago, except maybe unemployed Black people.

No one wants to live around La Raza cartel members on the Californian border with Mexico, except maybe La Raza cartel members.

No one wants to live around entire suburbs covered in Chinese writing on shops, street signs and everything else, except maybe Chinese people.

It would be cleaner and quicker if we could organize some sensible state lines that represent the people from the area, and then suggest that people move to those areas that represent them (you probably wouldn't have to force them). But okay. Maybe people would prefer thinking it's their own idea that they don't want to live in an area defunding the police and letting the Walmarts close down.

But the State of Jefferson would have held a number of people, still wasn't successful in becoming a state.
Sure, this wasn't successful.

Would be interesting to see if this would be successful a decade later, though (2023). California isn't exactly a red state and taxes haven't exactly lowered.

But in just 'asking the here and now people, I'm doubtful any would want to go for it.
White nationalists don't really have a place to call home atm. They have their White communities, but nothing massive. A think the offer of a White state would be enough to get them to move, at least that's what I've heard from a lot of White nationalists. 
#173
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
Rednecks need to stop killing themselves.
Topic's author
#174
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
Rednecks need to stop killing themselves.
Do you ever wonder how much violent crime is explained by genetics?
#175
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
What do you mean? like war crimes and genocide and that?
#176
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Kaitlyn
the general argument you're making appears to be that because abortions are expensive, and because my source said that abortions decrease crime rates, poverty causes crime (to some extent).
What I am pointing out is this:
A. ) the source provided is suggesting abortions and incarcerations influence how much crime occurs. 

Where as Higher abortions & incarcerations will result in lower crime rates. As suggested. 

B) the demographics for abortions and incarcerations show us that the majority users are poor or in poverty. 

C) although anyone from any background can and do commit crimes, the correlation  should show us that the main influencers in crime rates are the poor & poverty stricken people. 

D) Does this mean there is a cause? Although I never stated my position before, I will be clear now. Poverty is a cause. A cause is a personal decision. 

There have been plenty of people to say they commited a crime because they do not have x or are dealing with poverty. I don't have a survey to express this. Thats ok. I dont think I'll be changing minds if I did. 

E.) Those who say poverty is a cause normally do not say it is the only cause. 

F) no evidence provided to suggest poverty is not a cause. 
Topic's author
#177
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
What do you mean? like war crimes and genocide and that?
I'm talking about standard violent crimes, like armed robbery and assault.

Do you ever wonder if those crimes can be partly explained by genetics?
Topic's author
#178
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@hey-yo
C) although anyone from any background can and do commit crimes, the correlation  should show us that the main influencers in crime rates are the poor & poverty stricken people. 

D) Does this mean there is a cause? Although I never stated my position before, I will be clear now. Poverty is a cause. A cause is a personal decision. 
The issue with this step if you've gone from poverty being correlated with crime (which is true), but you've taken that correlation and morphed it into a causation.

100% of criminals were breathing when they committed crime, so that literally couldn't correlate higher, but that doesn't mean breathing is a cause of crime.

Also, I haven't found a study (or meta-study) that shows poverty correlates with crime at anything higher than 0.25 (weak correlation).

Meanwhile, I've shown (to someone else) that race is the best predictor of crime (using multivariate analysis): Blacks far more likely to commit crimes against Whites and Hispanics than the inverse (debateart.com) . This produces causation as genes are partly responsible for behaviors, hence the predictive validity when testing for these variables (i.e. having the Warrior gene results in higher crime rates).

There have been plenty of people to say they commited a crime because they do not have x or are dealing with poverty. I don't have a survey to express this. Thats ok. I dont think I'll be changing minds if I did. 
I think your big issue is that you assume all people have good justification for their actions. Some people do, most don't, especially people who commit crimes. 

You don't have the survey because it's not true. Unless you have like a super small sample size of 10, you're going to quickly find people committing crimes are just garbage people for no reason who happen to be poor (hence the weak correlation of no more than 0.25). If they have any reasoning, they're far more likely to have 'rape-and-revenge' nonsense narratives of, 'the government stole from us' or, 'White people owe us this', rather than extensive, valid, desperate reasons about their dire poverty requiring drastic measures.

People with good genetics (high I.Q, high impulse control etc.) who are poor typically won't commit crimes. Unless they get unlucky, they'll typically find ways to get out of poverty.

Also, a survey isn't going to help that much because people often just do things and have ad hoc reasoning as to why (particularly low impulse control people, of who are going to be the ones committing crimes). They can say it was x or y, but I doubt any of them will factor in their genetic makeup into their explanation (and how could they?) A lot of these criminals are just doing what their genes tell them to do without much thought at all.

F) no evidence provided to suggest poverty is not a cause. 
This is a negative proof fallacy. It's not logically valid.
#179
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
All of human behaviour can be partly explained by genetics.
Topic's author
#180
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
All of human behaviour can be partly explained by genetics.
We agree then :)