Who is to blame for the recent hate crimes?

[wenglund]

48 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Thanks, I'll consider it a miscommunication.  

I admit that I don't think that men tend to more violence because of nurture.  We've all heard stories of moms trying to raise non-violent boys, by not giving them army men, or guns and those boys still make guns out of sticks.  Of course, it could also be argued that they are getting that from the larger culture around them (children aren't born knowing about guns).  So I don't know.

But as to races, no I don't think that any race is more prone to violence than another, unless it is by culture as Mormongator suggested.  I realized that there is a lot of crime in some areas, but there are so many other possible reasons for that than genetics.  I don't know what the answer is, but I can think of too many possibilities to accept the idea that any race is more prone to violence than another.   I mentioned to you two books that make great arguments/explanations.  No, not science, just theories, but it is those theories that I agree with.   And right now, that's all I believe we have is theories.  

I am grateful for your response, and I must admit that my natural inclination is along the same lines as you regarding race.

What got me to thinking a bit differently (i.e. nature as a contributing, though not sole or necessarily prevailing factor for increased violence), is the matter of evolution. If men have selectively evolved to become better hunters and protectors, each of which involves violence, then why wouldn't the same hold true for races who may generally be more dependent on hunting and who have a greater need for protecting?

Great conversation, by the way. I am gaining much from the discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 12, 2017 by wenglund
Spelling

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

 

Great conversation, by the way. I am gaining much from the discussion.

Very good of you to say, welcome to the forums. 

[wenglund]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. There is a lot of crime in rural Florida, which is much more white than the cities.  Crime isn't genetic and no, no race is more pre determined to commit crimes just because of their race. 

Several of us, including LiterateParakeet, agree that the male nature (genetics) is more prone to crime and violence. So, at least in that sense, crime and violence is believed to be tied to genetics. Do you disagree?

Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting that crime is just because of race. Rather, the question raised is whether the nature (genetics) of certain races may contribute to a greater propensity for crime and violence.

Looking at the nation as a whole, as opposed to areas in Florida, there is little or no disputing the disparity in crime rates between the races (not just in terms of incarceration rates or arrests, but victim reports as well--see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States). What is at issue is explaining the reason for the disparity. There are a variety of theories, several of which are listed in the wiki article to which I just linked. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting that crime is just because of race. Rather, the question raised is whether the nature (genetics) of certain races may contribute to a greater propensity for crime and violence.

Which naturally leads to others to ask... "To what end are you asking?"

Lets say I have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism...  But I have never touched an alcoholic drink in my life... Should people treat me different?  Should laws be passed? Should my insurance rates go up?  What value do you hope to get?  What end do you hope to get?  What consensus do you hope to reach?  By learning this information.  That can't be more accurately and more fairly reached by judging me by what I actually do?  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

40 minutes ago, wenglund said:

What got me to thinking a bit differently (i.e. nature as a contributing, though not sole or necessarily prevailing factor for increased violence), is the matter of evolution. If men have selectively evolved to become better hunter and protectors, each of which involves violence, then why wouldn't the same hold true for races who may generally be dependent on hunting and who have a greater need for protecting?

I'm on the fence about evolution.  I mean I'm open to the idea, but not solidly for or against it.  I need to know more.

So for me, it may be that men evolved to be more prone to violence for the reasons you mentioned.  However, since some women can also be prone to violence, and some men are incredibly gentle.  For example, my husband was got in a lot of fist-fights when he was in high school.  But then he got converted to the gospel, and became a very different person. Now he is one of the most patient and people I know.    If the violence were simply a case of genetics that kind of change wouldn't have happened, in my opinion. 

Gavin deBecker in his book, The Gift of Fear, talks about how once he had an interview with someone on death row.  He found it interesting that he and the death row inmate had very similar childhoods (abuse) and yet one of them had turned to violence, and the other became an author and head of a company to help protect people from violence.  

That lends to my theory that there is much more than genetics at work here.

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

18 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Several of us, including LiterateParakeet, agree that the male nature (genetics) is more prone to crime and violence. So, at least in that sense, crime and violence is believed to be tied to genetics.

Wait...I agreed that men seem to be more violent.  I did not tie that to genetics.  

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Which naturally leads to others to ask... "To what end are you asking?"

Lets say I have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism...  But I have never touched an alcoholic drink in my life... Should people treat me different?  Should laws be passed? Should my insurance rates go up?  What value do you hope to get?  What end do you hope to get?  What consensus do you hope to reach?  By learning this information.  That can't be more accurately and more fairly reached by judging me by what I actually do?  

Excellent!! I am glad you raised this counter argument so I wouldn't have to myself.

Even granting the genetic factor, there isn't much that can be done about it public policy-wise, particularly in the short term and in a way that wouldn't create more problems than it solves. It isn't like we can feasibly get rid of the Y chromosome, nor would it make sense ethically or rationally to eliminate certain races. Target sensitivity training, anyone?

In other words, "So what?" And, for the most part I agree.

The exception to this might be giving preferential treatment  in relation to  occupations where adeptness at violence is a plus. But, we do that anyway, though with out thinking it through in this way--i.e. the military, law enforcement, and contact sports.

Long-term, though, there might be some value in terms of immigration policies, though that can present some unwanted problems as well. Do we really want to keep men out of the country.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 12, 2017 by wenglund

[Guest]

Men have higher testosterone. Higher testosterone levels are linked to aggression (which can and should be channeled and controlled, but that's another conversation). But this is true across all racial lines, and gender =/= race. I don't see how this is relevant to your argument, Wade Englund. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Eowyn

[wenglund]

17 hours ago, Eowyn said:

Men have higher testosterone. Higher testosterone levels are linked to aggression (which can and should be channeled and controlled, but that's another conversation). But this is true across all racial lines, and gender =/= race. I don't see how this is relevant to your argument, Wade Englund. 

Men and women have genetic differences (which is why there is a difference in testosterone levels) . There are genetic difference between the races. I don't know if the testosterone levels are higher with certain races or not, nor do I know if testosterone alone is what is biologically behind aggression. Whatever the case, the relevance is with both sex and race there are genetic differences which MAY result in different propensities for aggression or violence.

But, as indicated in my previous post, even if it were definitively established that certain races are more prone to crime and violence, then so what? There isn't much in the way of public policy that can effectively be done about it?

This doesn't mean that there isn't a benefit to exploring the issue. I will explain why when I get a moment.. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

On 1/13/2017 at 11:21 AM, wenglund said:

But, as indicated in my previous post, even if it were definitively established that certain races are more prone to crime and violence, then so what? There isn't much in the way of public policy that can effectively be done about it?

This doesn't mean that there isn't a benefit to exploring the issue. I will explain why when I get a moment.. 

There are two reasons that I can think of. First, If racial genetics is determined scientifically to be a contributing factor to crime and violence, then honesty demands that we acknowledge it, whether something can be done about it or not. Besides, at first glance we may not see right now how such an knowledge may advance civilization, though down the road something positive and uplifting (as opposed to the morally objectionable policies under-girding Nazism) may manifest itself.

Second, it may help break the choke-hold of political correctness that not only significantly impedes solving serious problems in certain racial communities, but is slowly killing them as well. Asking African Americans to look in the mirror for problems and solutions, seems unconscionable to far too many. This is a variation of the subtle, though more insidious prejudice of low expectations .As Dr. Phil says, "You can't fix what you don't acknowledge." And, "The only person you can control [fix] is yourself." 

However, If people can come to accept racial genetics as a predictive, if not causal factor in crime/violence, there shouldn't be any difficulty getting people to accept the prospects of certain race-related cultural and political factors leading to increased crime and violence.

But, we'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

On 1/6/2017 at 0:25 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

I thought this was a thought-provoking article.

I agree with you that the author's remarks are provoking. What I took from the piece was a reminder to myself to try to temper my remarks, my debates, etc., and to seek first to understand before seeking to be understood--as I've heard it said. 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I agree with you that the author's remarks are provoking. What I took from the piece was a reminder to myself to try to temper my remarks, my debates, etc., and to seek first to understand before seeking to be understood--as I've heard it said. 

Beautifully said my friend. Welcome to the forum. 

[Vort]

On 1/12/2017 at 2:20 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

Wait...I agreed that men seem to be more violent.  I did not tie that to genetics.  

"Male" is a genetic condition. Saying that men tend to be _________ is saying that ________ is a genetically related condition.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

"Male" is a genetic condition. Saying that men tend to be _________ is saying that ________ is a genetically related condition.

Good point. I was thinking the difference could be cultural though. Even if a mom refuses to gives her son army men, and guns, there are so many other influences. And I was thinking of hormones, which I suppose would be genetics. Obviously science is not my atrong suit.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

19 hours ago, Mike said:

I agree with you that the author's remarks are provoking. What I took from the piece was a reminder to myself to try to temper my remarks, my debates, etc., and to seek first to understand before seeking to be understood--as I've heard it said. 

Love this, welcome to thw forum 

[Vort]

Just now, LiterateParakeet said:

Good point. I was thinking the difference could be cultural though. Even if a mom refuses to gives her son army men, and guns, there are so many other influences. And I was thinking of hormones, which I suppose would be genetics. Obviously science is not my atrong suit.

I agree with you. I am absolutely certain that many of the sexual differences we observe are culturally conditioned. But I am equally sure that there are differences both subtle and stark between the sexes. I suspect most of our cultural conditioning about sexual differences are based on these underlying and very real biological differences.

[Mike]

@LiterateParakeet, you said that you like the idea that we need to move away from taking sides and blaming. You offered the example of blaming political parties. To me this makes a lot of sense because it seems far more productive. We see around us a lot of blaming groups, don't we. Conversely, there are many people (philosophers and religious teachers) who teach us this principle--I think of it as taking each man and woman one-at-a-time instead of by which ideological or racial label we can evaluate them by. (I suppose I'm gravitating toward what seemed to be your original thinking when you started this thread).  

In my perhaps naive way of looking at it I think of the application of what you articulated as being an aspect of what I was taught as a child about the golden rule. And maybe I can pay the teaching forward by the example I set for my children and my acquaintances. I took the author's theme to be along this line of thought. The principle seems to be one of setting a positive example rather than contributing to the atmosphere the author observes.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Mike

[Mike]

On 1/12/2017 at 2:27 PM, wenglund said:

I am grateful for your response, and I must admit that my natural inclination is along the same lines as you regarding race.

What got me to thinking a bit differently (i.e. nature as a contributing, though not sole or necessarily prevailing factor for increased violence), is the matter of evolution. If men have selectively evolved to become better hunters and protectors, each of which involves violence, then why wouldn't the same hold true for races who may generally be more dependent on hunting and who have a greater need for protecting?

Great conversation, by the way. I am gaining much from the discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm having difficulty buying-in to the claim that men are selectively evolved to become better hunters and protectors. That is unless the claim simply means that men are selectively evolved to be on average bigger and stronger than women.  Also, I'm curious about which races are to be considered more dependent on hunting; and which races have a greater need for protecting? 

[wenglund]

16 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm having difficulty buying-in to the claim that men are selectively evolved to become better hunters and protectors. That is unless the claim simply means that men are selectively evolved to be on average bigger and stronger than women.  

What about greater risk tolerance, inclination to fight rather than take flight, and less reluctance to kill? Do you realize that, as Eowyn astutely noted, the hormones that make males  bigger and stronger also have behavior effects, like greater aggression? I don't understand your difficulty. It seems rather obvious and none controversial.

Quote

Also, I'm curious about which races are to be considered more dependent on hunting; and which races have a greater need for protecting? 

A better way to ask this is: Are there differences among the race in the rate of transition from hunting/gathering to agrarian and later industrial societies? 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

42 minutes ago, wenglund said:

What about greater risk tolerance, inclination to fight rather than take flight, and less reluctance to kill? Do you realize that, as Eowyn astutely noted, the hormones that make males  bigger and stronger also have behavior effects, like greater aggression? I don't understand your difficulty. It seems rather obvious and none controversial.

A better way to ask this is: Are there differences among the race in the rate of transition from hunting/gathering to agrarian and later industrial societies? 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It may be that the difficulty I mentioned stems from whether or not you and I are talking about the same things after all.  Or, it may be a product of you being better educated on this topic than I am. I don't know. But as I allowed, I do realize that hormonal differences can contribute to behavioral effects (including aggression).  And I understand that we are talking about general characteristics identified on average since we can also identify isolated examples of women who hunt more effectively than men or compete better in physical competition. Likewise we can identify cases where women do a better job bringing home the bacon in modern times than their counterparts, and conversely men who are better nurturers than their female counterparts. I confess also that my difficulty buying-in is related to my suspicions about taking all this as a lead-in to judging groups in order to discriminate against individuals because I feel like that's what I've observed throughout history when under the guise of science some sought to identify undesirable traits in less powerful groups to justify mistreatment by more powerful ones.

Since you voluntarily changed the wording [with regard to races being more or less dependent on hunting and needing protection] to differences in the rate of transition I am interested in you giving me some examples. That's what I sought when I asked my question about which races you might have been referring to. 

 

 

 

[wenglund]

On 1/20/2017 at 2:22 PM, Mike said:

 I confess also that my difficulty buying-in is related to my suspicions about taking all this as a lead-in to judging groups in order to discriminate against individuals because I feel like that's what I've observed throughout history when under the guise of science some sought to identify undesirable traits in less powerful groups to justify mistreatment by more powerful ones.

It is more than unfortunate when such things happen.

The same, however, is true in reverse--i.e. when sound and potentially beneficial science is summarily dismissed because of misguided fears of discrimination.

As indicated above, there is public policy value in exploring the scientifically established differences between the races, just as with the differences between the sexes, more so culturally, but also genetically as well. Yet, these days we squander that potential value through dysfunctional political correctness, and often the one's who are disadvantaged the most are those for whom the political correctness was intended to protect.

Take, for example, the scientific data on differences in IQ's between the races (see: http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/iqs-of-races-in-the-united-states/ ). For some time now this topic has been pretty much taboo, particularly within Left-leaning educational institutions, not only because the results are somewhat shocking, and no longer easily dismissed as "testing bias," but for fear that the results may be used to champion racial supremacy and/or discrimination against certain races. Consequently, the raw data on IQ and other related scores have been squelched even before studies explaining the disparities could be explored, thereby effectively eliminating research on how to diminish the gaps in IQ, which in turn cements the gaps, keeping some races perpetually less intelligent than other races. 

Said another way, in the name of fake equality and discrimination avoidance between the races, the Left has turned a blind eye to certain real inequalities, the unintended consequence of which is it may well prevent a move towards real equality and elimination of the causes for discrimination. And, who stands to lose the most from this? That's right, the races the Left presumed to protect.

Quote

Since you voluntarily changed the wording [with regard to races being more or less dependent on hunting and needing protection] to differences in the rate of transition I am interested in you giving me some examples. That's what I sought when I asked my question about which races you might have been referring to.

I would think it obvious. One need but compare and contrast the predominate races in developed countries with those in 3rd-world countries.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Blueskye2]

On 1/12/2017 at 5:22 PM, Eowyn said:

Men have higher testosterone. Higher testosterone levels are linked to aggression (which can and should be channeled and controlled, but that's another conversation). But this is true across all racial lines, and gender =/= race. I don't see how this is relevant to your argument, Wade Englund. 

This is what I was thinking. 

Also a spiritual aspect. We are fallen. 

[Blueskye2]

23 hours ago, wenglund said:

It is more than unfortunate when such things happen.

The same, however, is true in reverse--i.e. when sound and potentially beneficial science is summarily dismissed because of misguided fears of discrimination.

As indicated above, there is public policy value in exploring the scientifically established differences between the races, just as with the differences between the sexes, more so culturally, but also genetically as well. Yet, these days we squander that potential value through dysfunctional political correctness, and often the one's who are disadvantaged the most are those for whom the political correctness was intended to protect.

Take, for example, the scientific data on differences in IQ's between the races (see: http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/iqs-of-races-in-the-united-states/ ). For some time now this topic has been pretty much taboo, particularly within Left-leaning educational institutions, not only because the results are somewhat shocking, and no longer easily dismissed as "testing bias," but for fear that the results may be used to champion racial supremacy and/or discrimination against certain races. Consequently, the raw data on IQ and other related scores have been squelched even before studies explaining the disparities could be explored, thereby effectively eliminating research on how to diminish the gaps in IQ, which in turn cements the gaps, keeping some races perpetually less intelligent than other races. 

Said another way, in the name of fake equality and discrimination avoidance between the races, the Left has turned a blind eye to certain real inequalities, the unintended consequence of which is it may well prevent a move towards real equality and elimination of the causes for discrimination. And, who stands to lose the most from this? That's right, the races the Left presumed to protect.

I would think it obvious. One need but compare and contrast the predominate races in developed countries with those in 3rd-world countries.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Human evolution covers the past millions of years. Modern societies cover the past 1500 years or so. Not even a blip on the evolutionary timeline. 

Prior to Europe being Christianized the norm was tribal, hunter-gatherers, and farmers, who practiced human sacrifice. Raided other tribes and people, fought wars, etc. Northern Africa in your sense of "evolution", "evolved" sooner than Northern Europe. Highly developed civilizations thousands of years before a Northern European etched a rune into a rock. 

Your sense of evolution is that of societies and societal structure, not of human evolution. Homo sapiens sapien is Homo sapiens sapien. Race does not define a sub species, because there is no such thing as a sub species for Homo sapiens sapien, and there are no other extant sub species of Homo sapiens. 

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Blackmarch]

Medi, Social media and peer gossip/rumor.

 

.02$

Edited January 24, 2017 by Blackmarch

[Jojo Bags]

On 1/6/2017 at 0:25 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

I thought this was a thought-provoking article. Possibly even something most of us can agree on, we'll see. 

This is about the recent hate crimes and who is to blame....

https://www.theelijahproject.org/single-post/2017/01/06/The-Coming-Storm

The vast majority of the reporting on "hate" crimes by the Gadianton media is nothing more than hype.  Crimes of black against white are ignored while crimes of white against black are hyped and blown all out of proportion.  If you take a look at crime statistics, you will see some shocking numbers.

Quote

• The evidence suggests that if there is police racial bias in arrests it is negligible. Victim and witness surveys show that police arrest violent criminals in close proportion to the rates at which criminals of different races commit violent crimes.
• There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.
• In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.
• In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.
• In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting” — defined as firing a bullet that hits someone — a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.
• If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.
• In an all-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.
• In 2015, a black person was 2.45 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by the police. A Hispanic person was 1.21 times more likely. These figures are well within what would be expected given race differences in crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest.
• In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.
• Both violent and non-violent crime has been declining in the United States since a high in 1993. 2015 saw a disturbing rise in murder in major American cities that some observers associated with “depolicing” in response to intense media and public scrutiny of police activity.
• https://www.amren.com/archives/reports/the-color-of-crime-2016-revised-edition/

Before jumping on the racial hate crime band wagon, I would consider these stastics.