[JohnMaltczevitch]

Can the truth be racist?

[Unonounaple]

ghetto´s dont look bad to me (I mean the infrestructure, houses, streets with asphalt, they have tvs, cable tv, bathroom, kitchen etc)

That would be middle class in most of latin america, they (black americans who live iun ghettos) should realize that they arent really poor

[BaselBimbooooo]

At least in the US most criminals are not black though blacks do have a higher rate of criminal conduct then other groups. That has more to do with poverty and urban living (ghettoization) then anything else.

[MexicoCity]

Actually, studying something does imply that you think there is a correllation. Otherwise it's a useless thing to study. When you bring it up, you are implying there is a relevence to it. Otherwise it's a useless thing to say.

So I guess if you have absolutely no aims whatsoever, you can do whatever you want... er... do whatever you don't want... and nothing you do has any intent. But people don't operate that way. Everything we do is enacted on some conscious or subconscious intent.

[johnteriz]

Interesting surname

I think there is also some indicativeness of the relative lack of prosperity of black society in London. Let us be honest, they are the most economically disadvantaged, and those least educated on the whole in society and more predisposed to these activities - very sad really.

The problem in London is the sheer disparity between the rich and the poor which has continued to worsen. A working class young man in London must feel absolutely hopeless in the face of the sheer cost of living in this city.

[Daruhuw]

Originally posted by Elok
Correlation does not imply causation. Unsupported correlation based on race is racist. If there are genetic traits inherent to the race (not present in other races) that lead to crime, then race could be presented as a factor. Otherwise it's just thinly veiled racism trying to hide behind meaningless statistics.

It could be economic reasons. That is not a racial correlation. If economics are a factor, they are a factor regardless of race.

It could be the lack of positive black role models or the large number of single black mothers. If single motherhood is a factor, it is a factor regardless of race. Same with positive role models.

There is no need to bring race into it unless you think that there is a racial factor involved. So by bringing race into it at all, you are implying it is a factor.

[Chooriwrocaxz]

Lactose tolerance has nothing to do with race either, it's a cultural phenomena.

Doesn't mean the correlation with race doesn't exist.

[TNgqZhLR]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Lactose tolerance has nothing to do with race either, it's a cultural phenomena.

Doesn't mean the correlation with race doesn't exist. Correlations exist, I'm not arguing against that. The problem is you cannot use correlations without making implications as to why you use them. My initial statement was about use of correlations "like this", in which these racial correlations are promoted as evidence of causation.

To be technical, the complete lack of racism is being unaware of race altogether. Just viewing everyone as humans. To make any correlation based on race requires the conscious acceptance of racial differentiation.

[Aleenkagirlla]

Whats wrong in acknowledging non europeans are most often lactose intolerant?
Even if it is a racial difference, I dont see anything wrong with it

[Berta]

Originally posted by Aeson


Correlations exist, I'm not arguing against that. The problem is you cannot use correlations without making implications as to why you use them. My initial statement was about use of correlations "like this", in which these racial correlations are promoted as evidence of causation.

To be technical, the complete lack of racism is being unaware of race altogether. Just viewing everyone as humans. To make any correlation based on race requires the conscious acceptance of racial differentiation. Where is your evidence that races are all 'the same under the skin'? Without concrete proof either way, neither assumption is morally wrong, yet you use the 'racist' tag to attack those who assume differences, or merely question the underlying cause of the differences that everyone can see.

[makemoneyonli]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think part of the trouble is that we talk of race sometimes when we mean culture.

Forget skin color, one could argue that there are cultural reasons for certain crime statistics in the United States (or elsewhere). People often look at stats like this that lump all "black" people together... but it seems to me that there is a significant cultural difference between an "African American" born & raised here and a black person who recently moved here from, say, Barbados.

-Arrian For sure. In my experience, black immigrants from the Carribean or Africa are more hardworking than black Americans. Neither do they have such a chip on their shoulder.

I have no doubt that there is a significant cultural factor, but I'm not going to discount a possible genetic factor either. After all, there are very few places on the planet with a majority black population that don't have the usual social problems, and you can't blame everything on whitey.

[thehhhyips]

[arreskslarlig]

Originally posted by Aeson


My brothers and I aren't the same under the skin, certainly my sisters and I differ under the skin, even though genetically they are my closest relations. In fact, my skin tone is somewhat darker than their's. It doesn't mean we must be from different races.

There is genetic variation within humanity. No one is claiming we are all the same genetically. I don't have to prove we are all the same to say we are all humans. I don't even claim to have genetic proof that people from all backgrounds are humans. If you wish to counter my belief that we are all human even in absense of genetic proof, feel free to make a mockery of yourself. Nobody is denying we are all human.

What morals you accept are an individual choice. I have my own moral view on it, you have yours. I'm not going to worry about it because I know there's nothing either of us will say to change the other's moral viewpoint. If you wish to read moral implications into my statements, feel free. I understand that when using a term there will be implications made to others (much as I am arguing that by using correlations implications are made), and quite honestly, that's part of the fun of it.

Racism as i was using the term is defined: (dictionary.com)

"1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

If you feel, without genetic proof, that race is a factor in crime, then that is a belief on your part that there is an inherent difference between the races that impacts "cultural or individual achievement". (And before you go and try to argue based on the second part of that definition, remember the term "usually" is not "always" and I made no claims as to whether it was being used to apply to such conclusions in any case.)

My use of the term racism applies in absense of proof for the assumption or insinuation that race is a factor in crime. The term "racism" does not need genetic disproof of racial differentiation to apply. The problem is that the term 'racism' has far more meaning attached to it than what the dictionary definition states. When you call someone a 'racist', you are not just calling them a 'person who believes that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others', you are calling them an evil, bigoted person. Surely the question of inherent racial differences should be considered entirely seperate from issues of morality - no?

[Indoendris]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
ghetto´s dont look bad to me (I mean the infrestructure, houses, streets with asphalt, they have tvs, cable tv, bathroom, kitchen etc)

That would be middle class in most of latin america, they (black americans who live iun ghettos) should realize that they arent really poor Most of them aren't. There are a few neighborhoods (mostly in the rural South, what do you expect) that are comparable to the shanties and slums of the third world, but they're not common.

I think that just as shameful as the poverty itself is that you can drive a few miles down the road and see sprawling, well-manicured lawns and mansions. The most prosperous country in the world should not have any locales that compare to sights in the least prosperous countries.

[anfuckinggs]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Because you say so? No, because I haven't said "so". We have agreed that people are all humans. That is what I have stated. Since we both accept it, no proof is necessary. It is a given.

I don't need to prove my stance to you, that we are all humans, because we have already both accepted it.

The vast majority of humans divide themselves as such, and always have, so the burden of proof should be on those who claim there are no major differences. If you want to make a further distinction that would be considered valid, show your evidence. Truth is not democratic.

I'm not trying to disprove race. So why should I try to prove a statement that I haven't made? I view humans as humans in cases where there is no evidence for further differentiation, that is sufficient for me. You can view them how you will as well. But the point is, when you accept racial differentiation without actual genetic proof of such an assertion's validity, you are making a racist assumption.

It could be argued that the 'environment only' perspective is also derogatory. False dichotomy. Just because I don't accept your unsupported assertion that race is a factor in crime doesn't mean that I deny any potential genetic factors in crime. You haven't even shown genetic evidence to support a distinction by race, yet now you are making the insinuation (I'm sure unwittingly) that race is the only genetic distinction.

I didn't say that it was environment only. To quote myself, "There is genetic variation within humanity. No one is claiming we are all the same genetically."

Learn to read.

[Pcodaygs]

Originally posted by Aeson
If you want to make a further distinction that would be considered valid, show your evidence. Truth is not democratic.

I'm not trying to disprove race. So why should I try to prove a statement that I haven't made? I view humans as humans in cases where there is no evidence for further differentiation, that is sufficient for me. You can view them how you will as well. But the point is, when you accept racial differentiation without actual genetic proof of such an assertion's validity, you are making a racist assumption. Are you saying that you don't accept race as a valid concept unless there is genetic evidence?

[Pataacculakp]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Are you saying that you don't accept race as a valid concept unless there is genetic evidence? I am (and have repeatedly been) saying that in the absense of evidence, I do not take a stance on whether race is a valid concept or not.

If it helps you understand what I am saying, consider me agnostic on race. In the absense of evidence, I would not take a hard stance on race being a valid or invalid concept. It is unknown. But even if I do not take a hard stance as to whether race exists or not, I do not accept unsupported assertions about race as valid arguments.

[Slchtjgb]

Originally posted by Caligastia


What is your problem? No problem at all. To describe it as a "problem" would indicate that it was in some way challenging, which it isn't.

1- You have no idea how many crimes are committed.

2- You don't know who's committing most of them.

3- You have no means of satisfactorily eliminating skewing factors in the very long and vulnerable series of stages that lead to conviction.

4- You cannot distinguish "genetic factors" from envionmental ones.

Given the above, your continued straining erection for the supposed "Negro Crime Gene" has to viewed as really rather baffling. Now try coming up with something I haven't punched whopping great holes in many times before.

[Jambjanatan]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Whats wrong in acknowledging non europeans are most often lactose intolerant?
Even if it is a racial difference, I dont see anything wrong with it Most lactose intolerance isn't genetic but instead is a result of the environment (though some is genetic). In east Asia few people traditionally ate any dairy past childhood nursing (the exception being some Mongolians and Tibetians who practiced animal herding and dairying). Adult bodies typically turn off the production of the enzyme to digest lactose unless lactose remains a significant part of the diet. Thus adults from countries which eat lots of dairy products generally aren't lactose intolerant but adults who don't eat dairy are.

The real proof that most of it isn't generic is when people move from an area where most people are lactose intolerant to a country were most people eat dairy. The adults will remain lactose intolerant but their children will normally not be since they're raised on a diet which includes lots of dairy. Take for example Chinese-Americans who grow up in the US; adults in China are mostly lactose intolerant while this kids normally aren't. That's just the human body adapting to the common food sources even though the genes shared by the two populations are almost the same.

[PickEmUp]

Well it is genetic, as the result of selection pressures applied by their diet.