I’ve learned my lesson, and will now throw myself on this landmine I’ve been saving for special occasions.
It’s shards of rusty metal penetrating my being will feel like bliss compared to the insufferable drivel 84 drip, drip, driped onto my brain.
So I go on, to be a lesson for others! Remember me!
Similar socio-economic profiles? Wrong. South Bostonhas a higher median income than the whole of Boston as well as a higher median age (more older people) than the whole of Boston. Roxbury has a significantly lower median income than the whole of Boston, and a significantly lower median age than the whole of Boston.
These two areas of Boston are simply NOT “similar” socio-economically speaking, not even close.
Stop accepting the claims of these articles, just because they happen to support your pre-conceived notions. It’s becoming more and more obvious that you’re opinions can’t possibly be based on actual data, because the data you point to is either wrong (like this one), deficient to the point of near non-existence (like Lynn’s study), or historically untrustworthy (like US crime stats).
Er, no; that’s the claim you are required to prove.
The discovery of two human groups who are mutually infertile. Your cite to demonstrate the accuracy of the null hypothesis, please…?
I already answered that.
Now, why aren’t you answering my questions?!
You must be hiding behind a clammy white hood of anonymity.
Except the people who emigrated from China to America around the 50s were the educated elites fleeing from the Chi-coms rather than the uneducated poor ; there was no centuries of endemic racism weighing against them nor resentment should they succeed ; they were not being deliberately pushed into crack and heroin by the CIA in a bid to undercut/discredit the Black Panthers & similar civil rights movements ; nor did the Chinese really *need *a civil rights movement on account of there not being segregation policies or Jim Crow laws in effect for them ; the police were not biased against them and so forth.
Why don’t you try for a not-false equivalence next time, young padawan ?
In which post? Sorry if I missed it.
Because you are obviously just screwing around. If you have a reasonable, good faith question you wish to ask about a point I have made, feel free to do so.
How do you account for this, then?
Two low-income areas outside of Boston – South Boston and Roxbury – were featured several years ago in U.S. News & World Report. They had similar socio-economic profiles: high levels of unemployment; the same percentage of children born to single-parent households; and the same percentage of people living in public housing. But the violent crime rate in Roxbury, predominately black, was four times higher than that of South Boston, predominately white.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/17/japanese_earthquake_looters_--_mia_109252.html
In the United States the per capita gross domestic produce is $48,100; in China it is $8,400; in Egypt it is $6,500; in India it is $3,700.
In the United States the yearly murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants is 4.8; in China it is 1.12; in Egypt it is 1.24; in India it is 3.4.
Poverty is no excuse for crime. It is not even really an explanation.
See? This is what everyone is talking about, brazil. You’re so bent up on semantics, like “what’s the meaning of subset / how does that differ from subspecies and dog breeds? What’s the meaning of genetic ideas / what’s the meaning of meaningless?” that your not arguing the points of a post, but instead come off as trying to trap the debater in a incessant game of semantics; the point be damned.
It comes off as disingenuous. So of course I was screwing with you, image me replying with that nonsense post after post, never making any forward progress on a discussion, but annoying my opponent until he just gives up out of pointless exasperation.
There’s no value in that kind of debate or discussion. So you don’t win an argument or debate by default. You just come across as petty, obsessive, cocksure, disingenuous and insufferable.
Here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15130329&postcount=692
I’m “bent up on semantics” because people on your side of the debate continuously use ambiguous statements and words to create red herrings.
For example, when you assert that the “genetic idea of race is meaningless” it sounds on the surface like you may be making a statement which is meaningful and relevant to the Egalitarian Hypothesis. But in actuality, you are not.
I don’t see the part of your post where you answered the question. Can you quote it please?
Poverty is a reason for crime. Excuse is loaded with the idea that it’s not their fault they chose that course of action, or something forced their hand and this was the best alternative. At least how you’re using it here.
But a reason is something that implies causation. It’s common sense to expect more crime in an area where people have so little weath. People of any race or creed are naturally greedy, jealous, petty, and indignant or downright hateful.
This is not a race issue. It’s a human and cultural issue. And those that believe it’s due to race will keep generating hate, continuing the cycle ad infinitum; so keep it up there, Jumpin’ Jim Crow.
Jimminey. The second quote in that post.
I wasn’t trying to toss in a red herring, it was a genuine grammatical error. Sometimes you have to read between the lines.
NDD- did you miss post 722, in which I pointed out that South Boston and Roxbury are not at all similar, socio-economically speaking? Roxbury is a lot more poor, and quite a bit younger than South Boston.
You keep going back to the same well of crappy cites- Lynn’s study used completely insufficient data, and his conclusions are similarly suspect. And this report about Boston neighborhoods is similarly wrong. Don’t accept a story just because it supports your opinions… so far pretty much everything you’ve cited is suspect for various reasons. Do you still feel like your “facts” are as strong as you thought they were?
My bad b84, you were asking about “distributed evenly among all races” in your previous post, it was the same question in the other post, but for ethnicity. :rolleyes:
I believe I’ve already made myself clear, over and over, that race and ethnicity have no real genomic basis. So the answer is identical.
Furthermore, if Neanderthals still lived among us, I believe we should treat them equally as well, since they’ve been shown to be demonstrably sapient and intelligent; not too far removed from ourselves.
Genetics alone don’t even matter among separate species. Empathy and compassion does, wherever we can place it.
^That is assuming they would capable of being a part of modern society, and capable of empathy and compassion that would reciprocate with today’s moral and ethical codes.
I love Turtledove. Never read that one though. But, if the good doctor recommends it…
I don’t. But see, that’s sort of the thing. I don’t make grand theories explaining everything I don’t know shit about, nor try to explain this or that anecdote. I don’t know shit about shit, and that’s a fact. I know I don’t know shit about shit. That’s why I don’t make racial assertions. Or any assertions, really.
I *do *know shit assertions, false equivalences and bent logic when I see them, though. I’m a “screw your theory” kinda guy, not a “here’s my theory” kinda guy, savvy ?
Gosh, it’s almost like first world countries are… no, wait, that can’t be right… richer than third world ones ?! Well blow my ass and call me Sally.
And yet the US has much fewer non-whites than India. And yet Egypt has way more than the US. And yet I wouldn’t trust an official Chinese stat if it fucked my mother and pissed whiskey.
Me, I wouldn’t trust a Chinese stat even if it AVOIDED fucking my mother, but ways differ, I guess.