Who is going to riot?

And allow me to highlight some differences between a black man shooting a white person under "Stand Your Ground laws as opposed to Zimmerman shooting Martin.

Tulsa men confess to shooting rampage in black neighborhood

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/10/tulsa-men-confess-to-shooting-rampage-in-black-neighborhood/

 

I say: RIOT!

 

These are the ten cities in the United States with the largest black populations:

Detroit, MI
Jackson, MS
Miami Gardens, FL
Birmingham, AL
Baltimore, MD
Memphis, TN
New Orleans, LA
Flint, MI
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, Ga

The percentage of the black population ranges from 84.3 percent in Detroit, to 56.7 percent in Savannah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_large_African_American_populations

The following website ranks the crime rate of a city from 0 to 100, with 0 being most dangerous.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/west-bloomfield/

Of these ten cities, five rank 1. I could not find Miami Gardens, FL, but the website directed me to West Bloomfield, FL, which ranked 1.

Baltimore ranked 4, New Orleans ranked 11. Montgomery ranked 5. Savannah ranked 10.

Nationally, blacks in 2005 had a murder rate that was over seven times the white rate.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

The following website gives the murder rates of many countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

With very few exceptions that may be attributed to poor gathering of statistics, white and Oriental countries have much lower murder rates than black and Hispanic countries. The few Hispanic countries with low crime rates have predominately European populations. The high murder rate in Russia can be attributed to the social locations that followed the fall of the Soviet Union. While the USSR existed crime statistics were unreliable, but visitors reported a safe country.

As far as blacks having a genetic predisposition to engage in crime, if the evidence is not conclusive, it is certainly suggestive. The fact that they have such a high crime rate means that race profiling is an appropriate method of crime prevention, and that a high percentage of young black men should be in prison.

 

You want facts? I've got your facts right here darlin'. This is the FBI data base for hate crimes committed in the U.S. Check it over as many times as you'd like, you will not be able to spin and twist these numbers. 47% of hate crimes in this country were racially motivated. Of that 47%, 68% were committed against black people, while only 18% of those crimes were committed against white people. Furthermore if you check the the data tables to the right, you'll see a section where the crimes are broken down even more. There is a table that discusses which races committed the crimes in a situation where the offender was known. Not only are hate crimes committed against blacks WAY more often, hate crimes in general are committed BY whites way more often; by such a large margin it's ridiculous. Of the approximately 6,600 hate crimes committed in 2010, 3,176 were committed BY whites, with the next closest race following them being blacks with 905.
So if you want to talk to me about which is a more violent race, then please by all means, at least have the curtsy to state your source instead of persisting in this asinine idea that just because you can spit out of your bigoted face means that it's a fact.

 

Not to mention by the way the VERY long and well documented history of violence committed by white people against other countries, including the Asian people which you hold in such high esteem. Have you ever heard about the African country that left their land to rape, pillage and take over a European country? NO. You haven't. Because it's never happened. On the other hand the history books are splattered with the blood shed at the hands of European countries against countless other people. Native Americans, Africans, Asians... you name it and at some point in history Europeans have taken it upon themselves to decide that land and resources belonging to other people were rightfully theirs and have attempted to take it by any means necessary.

 

Hate Crime: The Violence of Intolerance

In 1996, the FBI received reports of 10,706 hate crimes from State and local law enforcement agencies, involving 11,039 victims, and 10,021 known perpetrators. The crimes included 12 murders, 10 forcible rapes, 1,444 aggravated assaults, 1,762 simple assaults, and 4,130 acts of intimidation.

Among the known perpetrators, 66 percent were white, and 20 percent were black. Some perpetrators commit hate crimes with their peers as a "thrill" or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol; some as a reaction against a perceived threat or to preserve their "turf'; and some who out of resentment over the growing economic power of a particular racial or ethnic group engage in scapegoating.
http://www.justice.gov/crs/pubs/htecrm.htm

In 1996 the black population was less than 20 percent, so blacks were more likely to be guilty of hate crimes than whites.

Also, in 1996 there were a total of 13,493,863 violent crimes.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

11,039 hate crimes are 0.8 % percent of 13,493,863 total violent crimes.

 

I got this from the website of the human genome project on the subject of behavioral genetics which it would appear is in its infancy.

[SIZE=+1]What implications does behavioral genetics research have for society? [/SIZE][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]
[text provided by Joseph McInerney and Mark Rothstein][/SIZE][/FONT]
Researchers in the field of behavioral genetics have asserted claims for a genetic basis of numerous physical behaviors, including homosexuality, aggression, impulsivity, and nurturing. A growing scientific and popular focus on genes and behavior has contributed to a resurgence of behavioral genetic determinism—the belief that genetics is the major factor in determining behavior.
Are behaviors inbred, written indelibly in our genes as immutable biological imperatives, or is the environment more important in shaping our thoughts and actions? Such questions cycle through society repeatedly, forming the public nexus of the "nature vs. nurture controversy," a strange locution to biologists, who recognize that behaviors exist only in the context of environmental influence. Nonetheless, the debate flares anew every few years, reigniting in response to genetic analyses of traits such as intelligence, criminality, or homosexuality, characteristics freighted with social, political, and legal meaning.
What social consequences would genetic diagnoses of such traits as intelligence, criminality, or homosexuality have on society? What effect would the discovery of a behavioral trait associated with increased criminal activity have on our legal system? If we find a "gay gene," will it mean greater or lesser tolerance? Will it lead to proposals that those affected by the "disorder" should undergo treatment to be "cured" and that measures should be taken to prevent the birth of other individuals so afflicted?
There are several scientific obstacles to correlating genotype (an individual's genetic endowment) and behavior. One problem is in defining a specific endpoint that characterizes a condition, be it schizophrenia or intelligence. Another problem is in identifying and excluding other possible causes of the condition, thereby permitting a determination of the significance of a supposed correlation. Much current research on genes and behavior also engenders very strong feelings because of the potential social and political consequences of accepting these supposed truths. Thus, more than any other aspect of genetics, discoveries in behavioral genetics should not be viewed as irrefutable until there has been substantial scientific corroboration.


I have highlighted two of the more relevant caveats.

Thinskin

 

Would you care to state a source that's less then 16 years old?
And at any rate, your source, even in 1996 says the same thing that mine does... that hate crimes are committed by and large by Caucasians. So I'm not sure if it was meant to contradict my findings, but all it did was confirm them. You said it yourself, 66% committed by whites, 20% by blacks.

You actually seem to be saying that because there's more white people then there are blacks that it's okay that more hate crimes are committed by white people... is that a correct assumption of your implication?

I should also mention that your second source made no mention of race at all, so I'm not sure where it's relevant to this particular discussion since it's your assertions that these crimes were committed by black people, but your sources makes no such accusation.

 

If we waited for irrefutable proof we would not be doing much of anything. The evidence for a genetic predisposition to be intelligent or criminal is at least as good as the evidence for man made global warming.

In either case some people will reject the evidence no matter how conclusive it is because they dislike the political implications of the evidence.

 

So you're of the mind that we shouldn't wait for proof of something, if there's enough circumstantial evidence present we should accept that as fact? Okay then, case closed, Zimmerman needs to be in jail. Because according to you, we don't need facts or proof, we just need opinions. Way to shoot yourself in the foot on that one.
If you knew one thing about nature vs nurture you would know that it has been brought up time and again, and over and over the idea that any group of people have a genetic predisposition for violence has been reputed. I'm a Sociology major sir, we discuss and dissect this ideal at length... where exactly do you get your expertise from?

 

LOL I just spilt my drink at that one.:excited: Obviously climatology and genetics are your strengths.

Thinskin

 

Wikipedia and being mugged a couple of times from his black neighbours..Doggo's had first hand experience which has made him an expert on the subject.

MissSharon you might as well bash your head against a wall as doggo's opinions and guesses are unbending.

 

So you are going to start your eugenics program on a hunch?

Thinskin

 

It would not be on a hunch but because of impressive data that I repeatedly posted.

The implications of genetic determinism are that we should not be subsidizing the illegitimate children of unmarried females with low IQs, and that we should not be devoting much effort to criminal rehabilitation. Right now the only thing that reliably reduces recidivism is age. Many violent criminals have spent much of their lives in and out of reform school and prison. If they had been kept in after two or three offenses, there would not have been any subsequent victims.

Another implication is that we should end programs like No Child Left Behind. It is already an obvious failure, but people still think that it was a good idea, only executed poorly.

What I do advocate is an end to busing, affirmative action and Aid to Families with Dependent Children and the beginning of a draconian criminal justice system based on the thorough exploitation of prison labor. Those are directions the United States is moving in.

I do not advocate a repeal of the civil rights legislation that was passed during the 1960s, but I would like for it to be narrowly enforced.

 

Have you checked a calendar lately? What McCarthy era political journals do you read? How many children are born in wedlock anymore? The notion of children being illegitimate is as archaic as the rest of your facist wacko (ie impressive) beliefs.

 

Do you feel the same way when a nigger kills a white person for no reason??? Does your bleeding heart cry for them??? I bet not.

So stop your one sided crap.

 

Reported. There is a way for you to speak your mind if you are of an opposing view with out using racial slurs. We're all adults here, please try to behave as such.

 

The increase in illegitimacy is a tragedy, and a serious social problem. Children raised to adulthood by both biological parents living together in matrimony usually do much better in life than other children.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. If people want to raise illegitimate children themselves that is up to them. They should not expect the tax payers to provide child support.

 

When 15 year old Toronto (white) teen Jane Creba was caught in the crossfire of (black) gunmen on Boxing day in 2005 while shopping for shoes, a lot of new credence was given to racial profiling and race hatred. The commentary was deafningly racist and hateful.

I myself was feeling resentful of the gunmen, and the proliferation of street gang violence that resulted in these kinds of tragedies. And in my resentment I was envisioning the target of my derision and their faces were that of black male youth.

The problem was so prevalent among black male youth that Canadian Media was complying with requests from law enforcement to leave racial identification out of their reports unless the report included describing a person at large. I resented that more than the crime itself. The problem needed to be identified. Black youth, for whatever social, economic, socioeconomic reason, were immersed in the statistics. Why were we denying it? Who were we helping?

I believe that subterfuge did more to cultivate race hatred and mistrust than the crime stats themselves.

It's not a crime to fully identify criminals.

I am not alone when I say my heart still bleeds for Jane and her family. Cries of "Toronto lost it's innocence" and "Year of the gun" were spawned by this and another incident involving a shooting at a funeral that same year. My resentment still conjures the image of black male youth. Not all of them. Just the careless stupid ones that engaged in a fucking firefight in the Toronto shopping district on the busiest day of the year. I do not consider myself racist but many would say that I am for this reason.

 

Children are the most precious thing on the planet and, if we are still on the subject, they represent all the genetic potential of mankind as a species. In my opinion that is what taxes are for, to protect the innocent and vulnerable.

Thinskin