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

1. Comparing breathing to poverty is like comparing apples to oranges. There is more similarity in comparing breathing to skin tone because they are conditions we do not control. 

Our bodies develop to breath and develop to have malatone based on genetics. Although we can be born into poverty,  we can navigate/escape poverty.  

What else seems to be missed is that I am sayin poverty/being poor is a cause because a person decides they need to commit crimes to navigate/escape poverty. 

Studies that look at percentages does not determine a person's decision. Only their demographics. Im not basing my position on percentages but real interviews and surveys. 

In contrast, the evidence you provided comes to a brick wall because you use demograpics. Demographics that also indicate that "blacks" and "hispanics" have higher percentages in poverty. Some how we are to forget or ingore this but assume that the mere presence in demographics demonstrates genetics as a cause. 

We can easliy reference social darwinism and how it failed to demonstrate that genetics is a causation. 

2. 

I think your big issue is that you assume all people have good justification for their actions. 

White people owe us this', rather than extensive, valid, desperate reasons about their dire poverty requiring drastic measures.

They can say it was x or y, but I doubt any of them will factor in their genetic makeup into their explanation

 This is a negative proof fallacy. It's not logically valid.

1. Comparing breathing to poverty is like comparing apples to oranges. There is more similarity in comparing breathing to skin tone because they are conditions we do not control. 

Our bodies develop to breath and develop to have malatone based on genetics. Although we can be born into poverty,  we can navigate/escape poverty.  

What else seems to be missed is that I am sayin poverty/being poor is a cause because a person decides they need to commit crimes to navigate/escape poverty. 

Studies that look at percentages does not determine a person's decision. Only their demographics. Im not basing my position on percentages but real interviews and surveys. 

In contrast, the evidence you provided comes to a brick wall because you use demograpics. Demographics that also indicate that "blacks" and "hispanics" have higher percentages in poverty. Some how we are to forget or ingore this but assume that the mere presence in demographics demonstrates genetics as a cause. 

I think your big issue is that you assume all people have good justification for their actions. 

I never said poverty is a justification for crime. I look at it like alcoholism. Treat alcoholism and then other issues can be addressed. Treat poverty and other issues can be addressed. If these things are not treated, then you will not prevent the abusive husband from being abusive and you won't prevent the poor kid from going to jail. 

Does everyone who drinks alcohol or is an alcoholic develop abusive behaviors? No. But for the person who is abusive needs to address the alcoholism. Same for poverty. The poor person stealing has a greater need to steal. Decrease the need first and that person will have an easier time navigating life, staying out of jail, etc. 

I dont have the survey because no one makes the survey. 

But, anyone can argue your evidence is doing same as you blame me.

White people owe us this', rather than extensive, valid, desperate reasons about their dire poverty requiring drastic measures.

You express a person's thought. Same as I do in point 1 above. 

You also highlight a people and "their dire poverty." Somehow these people are in poverty and are in your demographics but we again are to ignore their poverty? 

They can say it was x or y, but I doubt any of them will factor in their genetic makeup into their explanation

Thats because social darwinism has already been debunked. 

 This is a negative proof fallacy. It's not logically valid.

Thats ok.  This thread is not based on validity. That doesnt make a claim untrue though. Correct? 

The point I made was that 100% correlation (e.g. breathing) can come from something that doesn't at all cause the outcome (e.g. crime). So, even if poverty was highly correlated to crime (it's not), that wouldn't necessarily be meaningful unless causation was shown.

Criminals are typically low I.Q. and impulsive, and so a lot of crime is little more than a rash, thoughtless act. 

What you are describing is a vanishingly small group of people -- it is nowhere near the mean.

Their thoughtless reasoning may indicate their poor genetics, but taking literal interpretations of interviews/surveys will only give you surface level (wrong) answers.

An objective, statistical analysis doesn't require people to be totally honest and candid with you, hence why it is superior.

Unless you believe that all racial groups are precisely the same genetically (wtf), different racial groups have different clusters of genetics. We should expect different outcomes in societal achievement partly due to these genetic differences. When we control for relevant environmental effects (something you can't do in surveys or interviews), we find that race is an excellent predictor of crime -- that's how genetic cause is demonstrated (no assumptions involved).

But I want to be super clear with your stance: do you believe that there is no genetic cause (even partial) for poverty at all?

You can't because some of my studies are showing some degree of causation, either through variable control or genetic cluster analysis.

What I'm suggesting is that some people's genetics don't allow them to function well in society. Some people's genetic make them stupid and impulsive, of which negatively predict financial success.

Are you saying that humans were not subjected to evolution?

It makes it untrue. An invalid argument is untrue.

Criminals are typically low I.Q. and impulsive, and so a lot of crime is little more than a rash, thoughtless act. 

And some would say the same for those in poverty. They pertain a low I.Q., impulsive, etc. 

What you are describing is a vanishingly small group of people -- it is nowhere near the mean.

I respectufly disagree. I came to a different conclusion years ago based on varied evidences from research done at universities and recorded/produced by public broadcast station(s) by contributions from viewers like you. There are several other articles and the such about the such as well.  Perchance it is a bias to overcome but for now I see no evidence to conclude otherwise. 

If a person is thoughtless, they woud not be able to forumalte a response.  Kids do it all the time. 

" Why did you kick Joe?"

"I dont know.".

This is a biological occurance because low brain development. We see it in kids, who would have a low IQ but more importantly low brain functionality. Kids cant always comprehend the whys and therefore can not explain them. 

Same for adults who for one reason or another are unable to convey why. 

What demographics are known to have low iq? 

"People of color" 

Im sure that is a legitament response for you

but lets try this. What monetary (money related) demographics is associated  with a low IQ?  

The poor. 

Why? 

Low to no schooling. Low to no intervention or assistence. Etc. Etc. 

An objective, statistical analysis doesn't require people to be totally honest and candid with you, hence why it is superior.

Statistical analysis doesnt go into why a person does x. 

Unless you believe that all racial groups are precisely the same genetically (wtf), different racial groups have different clusters of genetics. We should expect different outcomes in societal achievement partly due to these genetic differences. When we control for relevant environmental effects (something you can't do in surveys or interviews), we find that race is an excellent predictor of crime -- that's how genetic cause is demonstrated (no assumptions involved).

Again this points to social darwinism.  Thats been debunked already.  No biology or science accepts it. 

Also, the predictor in crime is based on stitics in who is being arrested. Blacks and hispanics are more likely to be wrongfully arrested and accused. Stats in one area will not determine or seperate errors in another. 

But I want to be super clear with your stance: do you believe that there is no genetic cause (even partial) for poverty at all?

I'd say partial because of disabilities like autism or cerebal palsey where our society has not adapted to include these individuals or they are not able to adapt to society. These mental and physical diseases occur among all "races" and are not restricted to a single race. However we do see more people suffer from these diseases while in poverty because they do not have resources for clean safe water, or food, or environment in some manner. 

Which again circles us to nurture over nature for my position. 

You can't because some of my studies are showing some degree of causation, either through variable control or genetic cluster analysis.

I havent seen it. 

What I'm suggesting is that some people's genetics don't allow them to function well in society. Some people's genetic make them stupid and impulsive, of which negatively predict financial success.

That seems to be sociopaths and psycopaths or some other minority group that is not affected by malatone. 

Are you saying that humans were not subjected to evolution?

Im saying social darwinism doesnt explain the factual presence and affect seen in evolution for humans. Our skin tone is a genetic resource for surviving in areas where there is more sun, compared to areas where there is less sun. This (our skin) has nothing to do with nor does it affect our behavior or thought patterns. 

the lack of vitamin D from the sun or in general does affect our behavior and mood. 

Do you think the poverty is causing low intelligence and rashness?

Do you think it's impossible that any of the poverty could be explained by low intelligence or impulsiveness?

I don't understand how you can say "research done" and not cite any of it at all 

So, 100% of human behavior is environmental? Is that your stance?

Other predictions are based on genetic clustering.

Other predications are based on the hormonal aspect of skin color and how that is related to aggression, or increased testosterone levels resulting in more violence.

A )  Okay, so you think that the only genetic cause for poverty are disabilities?

B)   You think the genetic aspect of intelligence has nothing to do with it?

C))   You think the genetic aspect of impulsivity has nothing to do with it?

66. 

You understand that skin produces hormones, right? You understand that hormones can effect human behavior, right?