In the linked piece, you were schooled pretty well by Honesty. Generally speaking, every human being does have the same set of genes. We may have different versions of those genes (called alleles).
The criticism in that post is a standard issue of concern when making links between genetic variations and any trait. I’m surprised you do not know that.
Anyway, “theorize” about white male pedophilia for us.
With respect to rape/sexual assault, the perpetrator was reported to be black for about 16% of the 117,640 forcible rapes/sexual assaults involving white victims in 2008.
There were no reports of black victims of rape/sexual assault by white perpetrators in 2008.
75% of the 46,580 black victims reported being raped/assaulted by black perpetrators; 25% of the perpetrators of rape/sexual assault on blacks are listed as “unknown” for race.
As you can see, the high prevalence of black on black rape/sexual assault, coupled with an absence of white on black rape/sexual assault, in conjunction with much higher crime rates for blacks to begin with, all comes together to raise the number of black rape/sexual assault victims.
I hope this helps your understanding. I certainly agree that black women are likely to be disproportionately raped/sexually assaulted over other groups.
Well if most high school dropouts are from a minority of the population that would pretty different than having a majority of a specific crime committed by members of a group that are in the majority. I don’t think you have a very good gotcha here.
Will you be returning to defend this?
It caused quite a distraction in the thread which motivated you to create this thread, and I’m wondering if you intend to defend your point, or if you have conceded that your original representation of how genes work (i.e. that we all have the same genes coding for the same proteins with a few minor exceptions coding for deleterious effects) was (to be charitable) simplistic.
Genes no doubt impart some influence on behavior, but they are far from the be all and end all. I think it’s generally more helpful to first exhaust all of the software solutions before you start delving into the hardware.
This is not a dichotomy. The question is not whether X gene causes Y behavior. The question is, what does the gene code for, and what systems and subsystems does that affect, in what way, and to which degree?
Yes, I would, but a different kind of joke thread, as in, that thread’s a joke without the OP intending it to be.
Hey folks. Lovely thread.
Just popped in to hit CP with the idiot stick yet again.
The PDF he linked to is NOT a tally of reported rapes. It’s a random survey, not a record of crime reports. That’s why it’s called “National Crime Victimization Survey” right there on the first pages.
Here’s some analysis, from a hard core racialist yet, who recognizes that the oft repeated claim that white guys don’t rape black women is completely false:
Take it to the Pit thread.
Do you mean serial killers? I’ve certainly seen many a fictional depiction of serial killers as perverts, but spree killers are a different matter. And I can immediately think of black, asian and female serial killers, whereas spree killers seem like a palefaced bunch.
“Spree killer” refers to killings over a short period (which could be weeks), not just those that happen basically all at once. A guy who kills one person a day for a week would be a spree killer, at least according to the FBI’s definition, which is based on the lack of a “cooling off” period.
According to the FBI Arrest Reports (Crime in the United States, 2010, Table 49), of all rapists 60.8% are white and 36.5% are black. Whites are 63% of the US population and blacks are 12% of the US population. So the Black-to-“White” per capita rate ratio for rape perpetration, R, is found from
R = (36.5/60.8 ) (63/12) = 3.15
If we took that at face value, it would mean that black men are about three times more likely than white men to rape some woman or other. However, the FBI (and the Department of Justice generally) lumps Hispanic males into the “White male” offender group. Most (over 90%) of the Hispanics in the United States are mestizos; they are not whites.
Experience with jurisdictions in which mestizo crime has been tracked separately from white crime provides a rule of thumb to apply, when correcting crime percentages attributed to “whites” by the FBI or by the DoJ, in order to remove the erroneously combined mestizo group. The correction is to multiply the percentage of crimes committed by the combination of “whites and mestizos” by a factor of 3/4 to reach a usually very good estimate for the percentage of crimes that were committed by whites alone.*
Thus corrected, the actual White percentage of total forcible rapes is 45.6% (instead of 60.8%), and the Black-to-White per capita rate ratio for rape perpetration, R, is found from
R = (36.5/45.6) (63/12) = 4.20
The average black man is 4.2 times more likely to rape a woman (without regard to her race), as compared with the average white man.
There were 84767 rapes reported to the police in 2010. Of these rapes, we can estimate that 38654 were committed by white men, 30940 by black males, and 15173 by mestizo males. Of the 38654 rapes committed by white men, not more than 10 had black females as victims.
According to an older study (from 2000), 75% of sexual assault victims were white women, compared to 20% for black females and 3% for other races. If we assume that the same distribution exists for victims of forcible rape in 2010, then we can reach the following conclusions:
Since white-on-black rapes are so very rare, nearly all of the 16953 black females who were raped, were raped by black males. Subtracting those victims from the total victims of black rapists in 2010 leaves 13987 non-black women who were raped in 2010 by black males. If we attribute half of the rapes whose victims were neither white nor black to black rapists, then we’re left with 12715 white women who were raped by black males in 2010.
Of course, that figure is based on a tenuous assumption that I made about the congruence of percentage distributions from another time and for a somewhat broader category of offenses, but until I find statistics that are more fine-tuned in relevance, this will be the best I can do.
If there were ten** rapes of black females by white men in 2010, then the Black-to-White per capita ratio for the perpetration of interracial rape in the United States in 2010 was
R = (12715/10) (63/12) = 6675
*This correction works in the United States as a whole, in the present and in recent history. It doesn’t work for areas having percentages of mestizos that are significantly higher or lower than the US average.
**Ten rapes of black females by white men in 2010 seems to be the maximum estimate in crime statistical reports that I’ve seen. It could be fewer.
You’re discounting your own premise that most rapists are white. by default that’s a statistical premise when suggesting it’s a racial trait. You need to spell out exactly what point you’re trying to make based on this report and then cite it with quotes.
Actually they tend to go on for pages and pages.
I’ll try, but you haven’t exactly covered yourself in glory with this thread.
Well, no, obviously. Even a majority can be over-represented if they appear in the statistics more than one would expect if their distribution were random. Did you really not understand this, or was it a rhetorical device?
Anyway, the title of the OP is premature. The posts that had you all hot and bothered do not automatically assign a genetic cause to all black-white differences that fail to redound to the credit of blacks. It is only those differences that appear to persist after other factors, mostly socio-economic ones, are controlled. Thus it is not the difference in SAT scores between all blacks and all whites in the US that form the basis for the genetic theory, but the difference between blacks and whites that would otherwise appear to be comparable socioeconomically. Thus blacks from the top quintile socioeconomically are outscored by whites from the bottom quintile. Blacks with one parent who holds a graduate degree are outscored by whites whose parents have only a high school degree. And so on.
Now if you divide rapists into comparable groups by socioeconomic background, I do not doubt that much or most of the disproportion will disappear. If you then find that some of the difference persists, and that whites are disproportionately more - or less - likely to rape, then it is legitimate to start discussing other causes. But not until then.
So, if you want to carry on with the thread as submitted, we will need a cite that shows the differences between blacks and whites from similar socioeconomic groupings in their propensity to commit or attempt rape. Got any?
Regards,
Shodan
Just fyi, I don’t know if this one year old thread counts as a zombie, but Honesty said he was done with this board here so you may not get a reply to your post.
Shoot, I missed the date on the OP, and that it was a semi-zombie. So, never mind.
Regards,
Shodan
This is wrong. I explained why in an earlier post. I’ll repeat:
So, in any given year, a couple thousand black women are raped by white men. Not very rare at all.
In conclusion, let me suggest that it’s not a good idea to make statistical arguments if you don’t understand statistics.
thanks for posting that. I too missed his departure.
After some consideration I’m going to leave this open, even though it’s a zombie.
But if this turns into another non-productive racial cite war with no actual debate I’m shooting it in the head with extreme prejudice.
I suspect rape as a crime is subject to a very large confounding factor in reporting. It seems intuitive to me that different groups will vary in how much point they feel there is to reporting a rape.
Would you agree that it is “not very rare at all” for a white woman to be raped by a black man? It’s much more common than vice versa.
Regards,
Shodan