Society/Culture People, crime and the law
- Thread starter Old Skool
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #202
When you lie about comments never made and I call you out on it by calling you a liar, that is not abuse. Calling something a racist without a shred of evidence is, however, abuse.
Never said any of those things. You are deliberately trying to twist around my words to imbue them with an unintended meaning.
I ask that you withdraw and apologise for your offensive use of quotation marks unless you can link to an actual quote from me.
You quote Wikipedia. May as well quote your mother.When I quoted Google it was because I was joking. Your quoting of Wikipedia is just a joke.
Provide proper sources.
The notion of "race as a social construct" became popular around 2000 when two geneticists working on the DNA project came out and stated that humans shared 99.9% of DNA. All the lefties and hippies came out and rejoiced. Their prayers were answered! Now they could do away with white people!
But lets remember that we also share between 96-99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Does this also mean they should be included in the global human family? Now we can even join bonobos to our happy little family: http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
Of course, this was a bit rash, it started to to unravel around 2005 when people start to conduct some unbiased research:
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050128_racefrm.htm
Now they realise they were perhaps a little hasty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6174510.stm
You misquote me and chop off parts of my posts to deliberately distort their meaning then have the temerity to call into question my conduct. Nice.
I never said general propensity. In fact I said:
Or did you skim over it because it didn't suit your image of me as a jackbooted neo Nazi?
And what does your mum have to say on the topic? Provide some kind of proper source that cant be edited by tin foil types or nothing at all.
The OED one is fine. I would agree with that definition in any event. Its not some juiced up political definition like the Wikitionary one is.
I'm saying they commit more crime. I'm saying that due to ethnic differences they are more likely to commit crime.
You are intent on provide excuses, so I'll give you another example. Would I act the same way around a Pitbull or Rottweiler that has been mistreated or raised to be agressive than a poodle or Jack Russell that hasn't? Of course not. Doesn't mean I blame the dog. I blame its upbringing and owner. But yes, my initial judgement will be that because it is a Rottweiler I should be more careful because they statistically are more likely to harm. Am I going to be surprised if it doesn't attack? Of course not, I'm not expected it to attack, I'm just on guard in case it does.
Do you blame police forces for patrolling more in areas known to have higher rates of crime? Or do you expect equality and for them to patrol the city in a geographically "inclusive manner"?
Do you disagree that:
-Black people commit more crime than white people
-That domestic violence rates amongst Muslims are higher than among non Muslims?
-The there are higher incidence of rape and sexual assault among sub continental populations than the Australian population for example.
If not then you agree with the first element of my argument, which is that certain ethnicities commit higher levels of crime. Hell, you want me to be inclusive and involve myself? White people and Jewish people statistically commit more white collar crime. I would be more suspicious around those people in relation to those crimes than other ethnicities.
You are trying to imbue my comments with racist elements that were never there. Again, I ask that you cease using quotation marks to refer to comments I never made.
Where did I use the term "less desirable" In what context are they less desirable?
Stop quoting me to give off the appearance that I actually said that.
And yes, finally there is something we broadly agree with. That does not imply that there is a biological basis for crime, but ignoring the fact that for many reasons, race not being one of them, non-white, non Asian ethnicity commit more crime isn;'t goign to change that fact. And everyone has the right to take proper precautions to protect themselves from crime. Just as in my analogy involving women protecting themselves from men (and dont try and derail this thread), women have the right to take precautions knowing that they are statistically more likely to harmed by men. By your logic that means that women are inherently better than men with any further context.
I said if white people were going to Saudi Arabia and disregarding their laws then the Saudis would have every right to treat them warily.
Oh stop quoting me out of context. Do I think this shop assistant was ignorant (and yes, quite possibly racist) by refusing to serve Oprah? Of course, because she probably had an entourage and expensive clothes and jewellery on. The asistant could clearly see that she had the money and even if she didn't it was ignorant to refuse her service. But my initial post never even referred to Oprah.
Your thinly disguised racism is fooling no-one. You've provided nothing by wiki links and dictionary definitions. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who misquotes, misrepresents, ignores key posts, racial stereotypes white males and provides no proof. Cut out the high and mighty whinging, it does nothing for your "argument".
I also ask that you cut out the personal attacks thank you. I expect a more substantial reply, otherwise you will waste no more of my time. And I was genuinely looking forward to this debate too.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #203
Shoosh, the adults are talking.
- Moderator
- #204
Dont chage the goalposts mate. You called me a liar about skyping my ex. And I didnt call you a racist - I put to you the definition of racist, and invited you to explain why you are not one.
I did. That article is sourced. Address the contents of the article please.
Youre using a naive and scientifically wrong definition of 'race'.
Perhaps we should start there first. For what its worth, I (and current scientific consensus and social sciences such as anthropology and sociology) assert that there are no 'biological' races at all, and that people (such as yourself) use the term 'race' in a very naive way.
Your linked article does nothing to establish the existence of 'biological race'. Doesnt even adress the topic in fact.
I've never suggested that ethnic minority groups dont experience traditionally and historically higher incidences of crime.
What I am contesting is your assertion that it is caused by race and ethnicity. I am of the view that it is caused by socio economic factors, not 'racial' factors.
Bro, they were direct quotes from you from the other thread (as you requested).
You asked me to!
Youre corellating corobboeration with causation. And you have provided zero evidence to demonstrate this causation. Zilch, zero, nada zip.
Youve yelled a lot. And ranted a bit. But I still cant see any evidence for 'racial causation of crime'.
Because they are white? Youre asserting that people have 'every right' to treat people differently or discriminate because of percieved biological differences!
How on earth is that NOT racist?
Last edited:
- Sep 21, 2004
- 46,548
- 52,865
- AFL Club
- GWS
And suing apparently.
- Banned
- #206
So you ask me to justify why I am not racist and you don't think that is implying that I am a racist to begin with?
"Dont chage(?) the goalposts" - laughable. That what you have done every time I sliced through your weak attempt at avoiding straight logic.
You have asserted nothing- posting a Wikipedia article is not the same as posting primary sources or similar. I'm not going to sift through a publically edited and often biased webpage to find a point you refuse to make.
Every source? I just posted one regarding research at Standford University that rejects the view that race doesn't exist. Boom- you argument is dead.
You said this:
But your refusal to answer the question again points to an answer you don't want to provide based on the uncomfortable answer that would expose you as a hypocrite.
Then you introduced the words "historically and traditionally" to again distort the context.
Once again, I have never said that anything was caused by race or "racial factors". I have specific said that this is not the case. Stop misquoting me.
I never said it is "'natural to be wary of certain races based on skin color and appearance'" That is paraphrasing by you.
When I say "quoting me" I mean using quotation marks and implying I said something I did not. Again, your desperation has lead you to deliberately take me out of context.
Bullshit. Another misquote. Again, I never said that race is THE causative factor in crime. But ethnicity often is a factor, though as you and I have BOTH pointed out, gender and economic factors are also relevant. Muslims come to Australia and hit woman because for them, the Koran is more important than Australian law. Or bash other Muslims for drinking alcohol. Even though non Muslims from the same countries are so influenced by it that they engage in the same behaviour. Their ethnicity and religion is directly contributing to their actions.
No. I am saying that people have every right to be alert and use whatever environmental factors at their disposal to protect themselves from crime. You've gone and twisted that around to make it seem like I believe that black people are automatically more likely to commit crime when I have, several times, stated this is not the case and that race alone is not a factor in determining crime.
Its ethnic profiling. And its necessary. It doesn't mean that people who dont commit crimes should be arrested on questioned by police simply on the basis of race. That is racist profiling and our Crimes Act has non racial safeguards to pevent that from happening. Women and police profile men in the interests of safety and that is fine, you don't hear me complaining about that as a male. And like I said, police patrol the areas most likely to report crime. This is not racist, its proper preventative police work. And it is done on the basis of statistics which clearly demonstrate that ethnic minorities commit more crime than white/Jewish or Asian people.
I love also how you refuse to discuss my analogies (as analogies, without trying to merge them into the debate to muddy it up) because you realise how close they hit home. So you just avoid the uncomfortable bits, and the part of my posts that you don't want to admit and carry on.
Simply put, your preference for paraphrasing me rather than quoting me directly speaks volumes about your approach to this argument. Had you provided proper sources, not made silly personal attacks and actually quoted me in context I would have been happy to continue this. But your posting is circular and disingenuous and I will waste my time with you no further.
- Moderator
- #207
So, you... ignore it? Convenient for your argument isnt it?
Show me where in that article it makes the claim that biological race exists. Not 'there are biological differences between people'. I cant find any reference to it.
- Moderator
- #210
Also, have a read of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Theories_of_causation
It gives a pretty good summary of the main crimimology theories as to why ethnic minority groups are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
And as a hint, it has nothing to do with ethnicity or race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Theories_of_causation
It gives a pretty good summary of the main crimimology theories as to why ethnic minority groups are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
And as a hint, it has nothing to do with ethnicity or race.
- Moderator
- #212
To be fair, we all do it. Doesnt mean it has any grounds in reality though.
I must admit that before I looked into questions of race (as a younger lad) I would have come to the same conclusions myself. Go a bit deeper, and the 'assumptions' we make just dont hold up.
Its a common problem whem discussing race issues (including crime). In the absence of a biological 'demarcation' between the 'races' any assumption you make about any particular 'race' is flawed before you get off the ground.
If race is a social construct, then it naturally assumes that we are going to experience an unfounded confirmation bias. We define a race according to arbitrary social factors that we ourselves define, then act unsurprised when we observe that 'race' exibiting those social factors that we ourselves set and in the process 'confim' our inital flawed premise.
Gender disparity is whole different kettle of fish. Gender is (at least) partly biological and partly a social constuct (such as gender roles which are socially defined). Because it has both qualities, its even more of a bastard to determine whats causing what.
Nature v nurture and all that.
Wow, Mal getting another thorough kicking on the topic of race.
Dresden redux.
Plenty of evidence re IQ differences between males and females as well ie fat tails for males.
Dresden redux.
Plenty of evidence re IQ differences between males and females as well ie fat tails for males.
- Moderator
- #214
Please point me to the 'kicking', I thought I was doing rather well.
I agree. Like I said above, there are biological and hormonal differnences between the genders. Sexual dimorphism and all that. Gender isnt a wholly social construct.
Unlike say... race is.
Similar threads
