qman said:

"where is the evidence that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit crime"

You didn't know, Scientist's isolated the specific genes for blowing stops signs, possession of drugs, disturbing the peace and petty thief.

---

Quote:

Do you even realize how absurd your question is? 

---

Quote:

Again, are you even playing dumb? I'm beginning to wonder.

---

I wonder this about you rather frequently but I think you just hesitate on being too overt. Either that or you're in denial.

Tipote said:

amp244 said:

I don't agree. Lets assume, hypothetically, that Qman is right, and that biologically black people are really more prone to aggression, and this could in fact be identified as being the result of a unique genetic difference. In this case, under your interpretation, the universe, or God, as it were, is racist. The mere thought or belief that people are different is not racist. Treating people different or advocating such treatment based in anyway on those differences, whether perceived or fully demonstrated, is racist. The belief  that "black people", in general, are more prone to having big lips, more prone to being violent, or more prone to playing basketball, is not racist if I base it on science. If I go up to a random black person and ask him to autograph my basketball, or belittle him for having unique facial features, or yell at him to back off and warn him with a pistol, that is racist. I have TREATED him DIFFERENT based on his race.

There is also, as with everything, the element of intent. If I am autistic and I simply run up to everyone and ask them to sign my basketball, I am not racist when I run up to the black man and do the same. You have to be treating them DIFFERENT than others, and it must be based on RACE. 

Races are different biologically. Broad races can be differentiated based on jaw bones alone, when there is no skin or facial features. Kenyans are successful long distance runners because of the unique physical attributes in the bones of their legs, which allow them perform better in long races. This is not racist, it is a matter of fact. Black people have a higher proportion of explosive muscle to slow twitch muscle than white people, on average. You can see the results of this proven in the NFL, where the overwhelming majority of the positions requiring elite athletes are filled by African Americans. The wide-outs, running backs, line backers, corner backs, safeties; are OVERWHELMINGLY black, despite the fact that there are far more white people in the country. Not that there aren't Jordy Nelson's and Brian Urlacers, but, when taken on average, the differences in genetics are clearly there. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between one another. Pointing that out is NOT RACIST, it is a scientific fact, provable through the scientific process and statistics. Treating people differently, or advocating such treatment, based on these differences, is racist.

---

ok apparently you as well as qman did not read my post or I was not absolutely clear enough. I said very clearly that talking about difference based on scientific fact is not racist - even if it says that people from eg. Kenya are more likely to exhibit a phenotype than someone from Ohio. I dont know about the evidence behind this twitch-muscle thing you keep mentioning but I'm not suggesting that would be racist. BUT what there is no evidence for is that blacks are genetically-predisposed to violence and crime. If there is no evidence then it is pure conjecture based on (in qman's case) a long established prejudice.

I'm saying that the categorisation of the races in a hierarchy especially with the power structure that goes with it is racist. That is NOT as simple as the reductionist definition of "treating people differently according to race is racist". Otherwise you could make the case that reparations for slavery were racist..(which qman would probably say actually...)  If I said black people have bigger lips and that makes them worse than whites then it is racism. If I say that blacks are innately criminal and violent (without any conclusive evidence)then it is racist as it implies inferiority.

While white male dominance is threatened, white supremacy is an established political order which is still in the process of collapse. When qman makes these baseless statements, he reveals his clear ranking with only his prejudice to back it up.

Did you ever have the displeasure of meeting WAN? The Asian immigrant to Canada who hated non-whites. She even said she grew up with the idea that whites are best, then asian..and then people squabble about the order but blacks at the bottom with arabs above them. Can you pretend that has not been the defacto status quo of how people construct race hierarchy? in Sudan, there is Arab superiority over black Sudanese groups.

race is a human construct and should not be used so rigidly. It can be useful when talking about some important biological differences based on scientific proof and used as a rough guide.

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

Pointing out biological differences is NOT racism, it's observation and nothing more, only if someone mistreats them because of those differences does racism enter the equation.

---

As I've said repeatedly now.. biological differences supported by fact are not racist. Your baseless assumption that blacks are innately violent not only is racist and without truth in itself but puts people of colour in a position where they will be mistreated for their race - as you put it. RACISM!!

I know some aspects are hard to get your head around. I learned a lot from hearing the perspectives of black people themselves.

---

The Ecstatic said:

He definitely slips up from time to time. He'll begrudgingly admit his error, then go right back to implying it.

---

The Ecstatic said:

Its on you to prove your claim, not on me or anyone else to disprove it.

---

ballsalsa said:

presumably it is that people of african descent are genetically more prone to violence and crime than other groups.  I'm not 100% on that, but it seems to be the point of the last several posts in this thread

---

qman said:

ballsalsa said:

presumably it is that people of african descent are genetically more prone to violence and crime than other groups.  I'm not 100% on that, but it seems to be the point of the last several posts in this thread

---

No, I put forward the POSSIBILITY that there's a biological inclination towards violence for certain races, it's commonly accepted that there's a biological inclination towards violence depending on sex and age, but when race comes into the equation some people start to freak out, it's called being closed minded when a person won't even entertain a possibility.

Also, why would anyone assume being more inclined to be violent is a bad thing?  Again, more defensive bullshit.

---

The Ecstatic said:

keeping in mind every human being is of African descent.

---

Thank you Caption Obvious.

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

ballsalsa said:

presumably it is that people of african descent are genetically more prone to violence and crime than other groups.  I'm not 100% on that, but it seems to be the point of the last several posts in this thread

---

No, I put forward the POSSIBILITY that there's a biological inclination towards violence for certain races, it's commonly accepted that there's a biological inclination towards violence depending on sex and age, but when race comes into the equation some people start to freak out, it's called being closed minded when a person won't even entertain a possibility.

Also, why would anyone assume being more inclined to be violent is a bad thing?  Again, more defensive bullshit.

---

Theres also the possibility that youre a young black male using welfare funds to prop up your online alt right whitebread persona.

Dont be close minded and write off that possibility.

---

  So using absurdity is your natural response once you discover your own closed mindedness?

ballsalsa said:

I didn't say it was a bad thing, and you may have noticed by now that I am open to the idea of many behavioral traits having a genetic basis.  That being said, until someone does some conclusive studies on the subject of genetic behavioral predispositions in humans, and until those studies' results show a definite link between specific genes or sets of genes and specific behaviors, any assertion about the genetic basis of violence or crime is pure conjecture. (or maybe wishful thinking, depending on who you are)

---

qman said:

ballsalsa said:

I didn't say it was a bad thing, and you may have noticed by now that I am open to the idea of many behavioral traits having a genetic basis.  That being said, until someone does some conclusive studies on the subject of genetic behavioral predispositions in humans, and until those studies' results show a definite link between specific genes or sets of genes and specific behaviors, any assertion about the genetic basis of violence or crime is pure conjecture. (or maybe wishful thinking, depending on who you are)

---

Yet, you acknowledge there's a genetic basis for violence when it comes to sex? 

And a biological basis when it comes to age?

And you also acknowledge genetic and biological differences between human races?

---

ballsalsa said:

qman said:

ballsalsa said:

I didn't say it was a bad thing, and you may have noticed by now that I am open to the idea of many behavioral traits having a genetic basis.  That being said, until someone does some conclusive studies on the subject of genetic behavioral predispositions in humans, and until those studies' results show a definite link between specific genes or sets of genes and specific behaviors, any assertion about the genetic basis of violence or crime is pure conjecture. (or maybe wishful thinking, depending on who you are)

---

Yet, you acknowledge there's a genetic basis for violence when it comes to sex? 

And a biological basis when it comes to age?

And you also acknowledge genetic and biological differences between human races?

---

Show me the data, or explain the reasoning to me, and i very well may.

as for genetic differences between human populations; of course there are differences.  "Race" as we think of it may not even be a great method for grouping these differences though, because there are as many differences within "races" as between.

---

qman said:

Yeah, because we can't see any differences in professional athletics, but that's OK as long as it shows blacks outperforming whites.

Can you show me any evidence that blacks are better athletes?  Because I can't accept the real world reality of the situation.

---

DividedQuantum said:

qman said:

Yeah, because we can't see any differences in professional athletics, but that's OK as long as it shows blacks outperforming whites.

Can you show me any evidence that blacks are better athletes?  Because I can't accept the real world reality of the situation.

---

Everyone knows blacks are better at football, basketball and golf, while whites are better at baseball, hockey and tennis.  That's a racist comment, but I'd be amused to see someone try to refute it.

---