Should interracial marriages be allowed?

[Gabu]

Crime Data
FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

2003, Section IV

note on data: since hispanic is not a race, many are included in the "white" crime rates, thus skewing them to the left. The number of non-hispanic whites is roughly 5.4 times the population of blacks in the US. Using that number will actually underestimate black crime rates because of the aforementioned hispanic confusion of the data, but nevertheless the data is statistically significant.

Arrests by race

Murder
white: 49.1%
black: 48.5%

-- Blacks are slightly more than 5 times more likely than whites to commit murder.

Larceny (theft)
white: 68.5%
black: 28.8%

-- after a ratio adjustment, blacks are still more likely to commit larceny, but the rate is far lower. If economic factors drive crime, then in theory blacks should be even more likely to steal than they do.

Aggravated Assault
white: 64.7%
black: 33%

-- This contradicts the idea blacks are simply in a more violent environment as an explanation for their murder rate. They are more likely to commit assault, by roughly 2.7 times, but nowhere near their proclivity in terms of murder rates.

Drunk Driving
white: 88%
black: 9.6%

-- Used to demonstrate the data is not somehow biased against blacks; in fact, as we will see, quite the opposite-- it is probably biased in their favor overall.

I'm going to try to put together a more thorough analysis that factors in poverty levels and other stuff after I get some sleep, as I have to be up in the morning at 7:45 am, but for now, I think this much can be said:

From the U.S. Census Bureau Website (www.census.gov):

Racial breakdown of the United States:

White: 75.1%
Black: 12.3%
Hispanic: 12.5%

Assuming that we're going to lump together all of the whites and hispanic people, as was done in the crime reporting, we have

White: 87.6%
Black: 12.3%

Given that the total population of the United States is 293,027,571, that is equal to, in absolute terms,

White: 256,692,152 people
Black: 36,042,391 people

The murder rates are

White: 49.1%
Black: 48.5%

Given that the total number of murders in 2003 was 16,043, in absolute terms, that is

White: 7877 murders
Black: 7781 murders

Therefore, we can see that the number of murders per 100,000 people can be seen as

White: 3.07 murders per 100000 people
Black: 21.6 murders per 100,000 people

In other words, out of 100,000 white people and 100,000 black people, 99,996 of the former and 99,978 of the latter are not murderers.

Disregarding all speculation regarding whether or not this is because they're black or because of some other causes, this is the basis that you're using for believeing that interracial marriages should not happen and that blacks are so much more violent than whites: that 18 or 19 extra people out of 100,000 committed a murder?

Right, okay.

[??????????]

AuH20. They simply don't want to hear the facts. They have been so brainwashed by a politically correct culture that when the facts slap them in the face they can't see it.

[AuH2O]

Of course you're right, and I knew that and said so all along.

Gabu sees the facts in front of him, but the best he can do is say "what does this have to do with interracial marriage?"

Looks like he's a liar:

It can easily be proven blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes. But why waste my time on people that won't listen and/or are so stupid they think people with substantial visible (genetic) differences cannot possibly have non-visible (genetic) differences.

I'm not arguing that blacks commit more violent crimes than whites.  I'm arguing against your completely unsubstantiated conclusion.

Here's your argument:

1. Blacks commit more violent crimes than whites.
2. Therefore, black people are inherently more likely to commit violent crimes, regardless of the circumstances.

Gee, Mister Science, you don't suppose that the fact that blacks commit more violent crimes might have something to do with other factors, such as the larger levels of poverty among blacks, now would you?  No, that would be too logical; it must be because they're black!

If you can show that, taking relative levels of poverty into account, blacks still commit a statistically significant higher level of crime than whites, then we'll talk.

Oops. Looks like I did that, and he's not talking.

I'll have to pick myself up off the floor from the shock.

[John Dibble]

Of course you're right, and I knew that and said so all along.

Gabu sees the facts in front of him, but the best he can do is say "what does this have to do with interracial marriage?"

Looks like he's a liar:

It can easily be proven blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes. But why waste my time on people that won't listen and/or are so stupid they think people with substantial visible (genetic) differences cannot possibly have non-visible (genetic) differences.

I'm not arguing that blacks commit more violent crimes than whites.  I'm arguing against your completely unsubstantiated conclusion.

Here's your argument:

1. Blacks commit more violent crimes than whites.
2. Therefore, black people are inherently more likely to commit violent crimes, regardless of the circumstances.

Gee, Mister Science, you don't suppose that the fact that blacks commit more violent crimes might have something to do with other factors, such as the larger levels of poverty among blacks, now would you?  No, that would be too logical; it must be because they're black!

If you can show that, taking relative levels of poverty into account, blacks still commit a statistically significant higher level of crime than whites, then we'll talk.

Oops. Looks like I did that, and he's not talking.

I'll have to pick myself up off the floor from the shock.

Whites account for 44% of Americans in "poverty." Taking into account black population size at the time of the census, roughly 8.6 million blacks were in poverty; slightly less than hispanics and only slightly more than half the number of whites in poverty.

I'm just going to go into a more indepth analysis on this(using data from the article you linked to get the above). I'm going to post the results whether they're what I intend to get or not.

Ok, here goes.

Total Population, 2003: 290,342,554 (July 2003 est.) (from nationmaster.com)

Total Population in Poverty: 12.5%, or 36,292,819
Since whites compose 44% of those in poverty, the total number is: 15,968,840

Total # of blacks, based on percentages Gabu gave: 23,227,404
Total Black population(24.4%) in poverty, based on article: 5,202,938

So, it seems whites beat blacks 3 to 1 in who's in poverty.


Now, the real question is 'why are blacks still more likely to commit crimes?'  Well, I have a hypothesis. The first part is urban vs. rural population - I haven't found statistics for this yet, but I would assume a higher concentration of blacks in poverty live in urban areas than whites in poverty. It's much easier to commit crime in urban areas, since there's more people and there's less people you know(most people, even criminals, would be more reluctant to victimize people they know personally). I would like to see a comparison of crime rates of poor urban whites vs. poor urban blacks, just to get an analysis of subgroups. Second, I do think that the black 'culture' is more violent in some ways - listen to rap and you'll know what I mean. Culture can influence aggression.

Of course, as I've said before, I knew a black guy who was perfeclty well mannered and intelligent - heck, if I described his behavior to you he'd sound white(he had a number of white and black friends, rather than a majority of either), so I think that reinforces my culture idea.

Oh, and this is for the liberals in the audience, particularly opebo, who claims people are worse off than they were:


Seems poverty has been going down for about everyone. Only whites seem to be remaining at a stable level. Perhaps this explains the drop in crime we had in the 90's.

[AuH2O]

Guess what Dibble, it's your lucky day. Though you were too lazy, the FBI UCF has city/metro/suburban/rural breakdowns that allow us to look at the very question you raise.

This is 2002 data; the 2003 is a little more annoying to deal with so I'm using 2002, but it's not a notable difference.

Rural Counties, total population ~21 million

Non-rape Sex offenses
whites: 88.1%
blacks: 8.8%

Forcible rape:
whites: 80%
blacks: 16.6%

Larceny AND Burglary
whites: 82.3%
blacks: 14.5%

Aggravated Assault:
whites: 75.1%
blacks: 19.9%

Murder:
whites: 68.1%
blacks: 26.3%



Keep in mind, while there are a number of rural counties with majority black populations, the overall population of rural counties is heavily white.

The Dept. of Agriculture has said the "nonmetro" population is as high as 17% non-white, but that includes hispanics, blacks, Native Americans, and 'Pacific Islanders' (which I think includes Eskimos). And "nonmetro" includes rural and suburban areas.

In the rural counties submitting data to the FBI, the black population proportion was probably around 5%, though to be more exact would require additional (and unnecessary) research and statistical calculation.

The data clearly shows a tendency towards violent crime, regardless of population density, with murder being the most egregious overperformance by blacks (though technically robbery is actually worse, but that's not especially relevant to this specific issue).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What does not wanting to live in poor, urban hellholes have to do with being upset because your sister dates some black guy?

Because you don't want your sister to end up living in one, which you fear she might if she marries a black guy.

Look, I'm not defending this type of thing, just trying to explain it.  I approve of interracial marriage and dating, as long as the individuals are suitable to each other.  Race should not be an issue per se, but couples do have to deal with cultural differences that could affect their relationship.

then you don't want your sister to marry me?

[Joe Republic]

Goldie, after all this humbskababling, is your point basically that you disapprove of interracial marriage because you don't trust a black guy with a white girl, because he's statistically more likely to commit a crime?  I'm not going to flame you, I'm just asking if this is the actual point you're trying to make.

[AuH2O]

Goldie, after all this humbskababling, is your point basically that you disapprove of interracial marriage because you don't trust a black guy with a white girl, because he's statistically more likely to commit a crime?  I'm not going to flame you, I'm just asking if this is the actual point you're trying to make.

No, not really. This has gotten out of control because PART of my point has to do with innate racial differences.

One method, among many, of demonstrating that is to look at criminal behavior, which I did.

Personally I find athletic differences much more interesting but I felt people are more likely to be familiar with crime than the ideal cornerback's profile-- not to mention the athletic argument involves more statistical tools that some posters can't handle (i.e. normal distributions and standard deviations).

So it's only a part of my argument; rejecting the obvious existence of race has many negative consequences, one of which is that you cannot possibly comprehend my overall position. Only once someone sees basic reality can I even TRY and make a case.

More importantly for society, rejecting racial differences results in terrible consequences for the black community. A rational approach to crime could drastically and quickly reduce the black (and overall) crime rate, but alas, that would require the government and media to accept things that are only 100% proven.

[dazzleman]

What does not wanting to live in poor, urban hellholes have to do with being upset because your sister dates some black guy?

Because you don't want your sister to end up living in one, which you fear she might if she marries a black guy.

Look, I'm not defending this type of thing, just trying to explain it.  I approve of interracial marriage and dating, as long as the individuals are suitable to each other.  Race should not be an issue per se, but couples do have to deal with cultural differences that could affect their relationship.

then you don't want your sister to marry me?

you better believe I don't

[John Dibble]

No, not really. This has gotten out of control because PART of my point has to do with innate racial differences.

Well, as I pointed out, I don't feel that a lot of it is innate. I do think a lot of the black subculture does have an influence on things. As I said, I've had a mild-mannered black friend who was pretty much culturally white, and I'm sure you realize upbringing has a good deal to do with how someone turns out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Chris Rock actually commented on something like this in one of his shows - it goes down to slavery. The masters would breed the strong slaves and the smart ones were not so encouraged, so as we know with heredity, genetic traits are inherited so there might be a case for some genetic influence in this and other behaviors(I will not discount completely that a large number of blacks may have an inherently greater level of testosterone or some other aggression inducing chemical due to genetics).

The problem you point out is simple at a glance, but accurately determining the causes and possible solutions is something that is a very complex matter. We shouldn't treat this as a simple issue, simply because it isn't one.

[opebo]

The results vary, from higher criminality to less investment and saving (i.e. more consumer spending). In other words, even law-abiding and affluent blacks exhibit the same characteristics ON THE WHOLE-- certainly there are many exceptions.

These characteristics are the result of being a subject people - in other words of a politically and socially defined racial role, rather than any inherent racial difference.  Any violence blacks commit - especially against whites - is simply a sort of thrashing about of the victim under the bootheel.  He may not accomplish much, but you can't really blame him for thrashing.

[John Dibble]

The results vary, from higher criminality to less investment and saving (i.e. more consumer spending). In other words, even law-abiding and affluent blacks exhibit the same characteristics ON THE WHOLE-- certainly there are many exceptions.

These characteristics are the result of being a subject people - in other words of a politically and socially defined racial role, rather than any inherent racial difference.  Any violence blacks commit - especially against whites - is simply a sort of thrashing about of the victim under the bootheel.  He may not accomplish much, but you can't really blame him for thrashing.

See, here we again have someone trying to explain something that is obviously complex with something simple. *shakes head*

[Gabu]

Crime Data
FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

2003, Section IV

note on data: since hispanic is not a race, many are included in the "white" crime rates, thus skewing them to the left. The number of non-hispanic whites is roughly 5.4 times the population of blacks in the US. Using that number will actually underestimate black crime rates because of the aforementioned hispanic confusion of the data, but nevertheless the data is statistically significant.

Arrests by race

Murder
white: 49.1%
black: 48.5%

-- Blacks are slightly more than 5 times more likely than whites to commit murder.

Larceny (theft)
white: 68.5%
black: 28.8%

-- after a ratio adjustment, blacks are still more likely to commit larceny, but the rate is far lower. If economic factors drive crime, then in theory blacks should be even more likely to steal than they do.

Aggravated Assault
white: 64.7%
black: 33%

-- This contradicts the idea blacks are simply in a more violent environment as an explanation for their murder rate. They are more likely to commit assault, by roughly 2.7 times, but nowhere near their proclivity in terms of murder rates.

Drunk Driving
white: 88%
black: 9.6%

-- Used to demonstrate the data is not somehow biased against blacks; in fact, as we will see, quite the opposite-- it is probably biased in their favor overall.

Since you asked for it, here's my answer to this:

From the U.S. Census Bureau Website (www.census.gov):

Racial breakdown of the United States:

White: 75.1%
Black: 12.3%
Hispanic: 12.5%

Assuming that we're going to lump together all of the whites and hispanic people, as was done in the crime reporting, we have

White: 87.6%
Black: 12.3%

Given that the total population of the United States is 293,027,571, that is equal to, in absolute terms,

White: 256,692,152 people
Black: 36,042,391 people

The murder rates are

White: 49.1%
Black: 48.5%

(see note 1)

so the discrepancies from what "should" happen, all things being equal, are

White: -38.5%
Black: +36.2%

Given that the total number of murders in 2003 was 16,043, in absolute terms, that is

White: 7877 murders
Black: 7781 murders

In terms of a ratio to total racial populations,

White: 0.56x
Black: 3.94x

So whites commit roughly half as many murders as they "should", whereas blacks commit roughly four times as many murders as they "should", given racial distributions.

However, now let's take a look at the poverty levels:

White: 8.2%
Black: 24.4%
Hispanic: 22.5%

Merging the whites and hispanics again, we have, using the percentages above,

White: 10.2%
Black: 24.4%

As absolute values, we have, as the number of people in poverty,

White: 26,182,600 people
Black: 8,794,343 people

As absolute values, we therefore have, as the number of people not in poverty,

White: 230,509,552 people
Black: 27,248,048 people

Now we're going to have to start making some assumptions.  Bear with me.

If we assume that a% of those who commit murders are those who are in poverty, then we can say that a% of the people in the former group are likely to commit murders and that (100 - a)% of the people in the latter group are likely to commit murders.  Therefore, the total number of "at-risk people" should be

White: w = 26,182,600 * 0.01 * a + 230,509,552 * 0.01 * (100 - a) people
Black: b = 8,794,343 * 0.01 * a + 27,248,048 * 0.01 * (100 - a) people

or, expressed as percentages of the total number of "at-risk people", we have

White: w/(w + b)%
Black: b/(w + b)%

Here are the percentages for varying values of a:

a = 50
White: 87.6%
Black: 12.3%

a = 75
White: 85.2%
Black: 14.8%

a = 90
White: 81.4%
Black: 18.%

a = 99
White: 75.9%
Black: 24.1%

et cetera.  Clearly, this does not account for all of the extra murders even if a = 100, but we're getting there.

We haven't nearly exhausted all of the differences between the two, however.  Regarding what is often a reality for many blacks who may not be impoverished, let me borrow a snippit from a rap song:

Everywhere I go, all I ever seem to hear is
Bang bang! Bang bang!
No matter where I go, all I ever seem to see is
Bang bang! Bang bang!

- "Bang Bang", performed by Dr. Dre, feat. Knoc-turn'al & Hittman

The fact of the matter is that a lot of black people's, er, role models are quite violent in nature.  Take, uh, the entirety of mainstream rappers, for example.  They're almost all black, and they certainly are all violent.  Compare the majority of black music artists to the majority of white music artists.  White music artists (the mainstream ones, at least) usually sing about stuff relating to relationships ("oh baby I love you" type of stuff).  Black music artists tend to sing about, well...

Everywhere I go, all I ever seem to hear is
Bang bang! Bang bang!
No matter where I go, all I ever seem to see is
Bang bang! Bang bang!

I can't imagine it'd be a good influence on the black people to be subjected to this sort of model in life.

In addition to that, black people did not exactly have a very noble start when they first arrived.  Even back in the 1960s, as the graph John Dibble posted, over half of blacks were impoverished.  Even if this does not translate directly into murder, it certainly cannot help the children to be subjected to that.  As has been shown over and over, violence tends to beget nothing more than more and more violence.  Even without the binds of poverty, the violence may still remain, passed down from generation to generation.

Applying this to the example we currently have, suppose that the absence of this influence on white people make them d% less likely to commit murder, and suppose that this influence on black people make then u% more likely to commit murder.  Then we can assume that d% of the whites we had above are not "at risk" and that u% more than the blacks we had above are "at risk".  Then the final number of "at-risk people" can be calculated as

White: w_f = [26,182,600 * 0.01 * a + 230,509,552 * 0.01 * (100 - a)] * 0.01 * (100 - d) people
Black: b_f = [8,794,343 * 0.01 * a + 27,248,048 * 0.01 * (100 - a)] * 0.01 * (100 + u) people

and, as before, expressed as percentages of the total number of "at-risk people", we have

White: w_f/(w_f + b_f)%
Black: b_f/(w_f + b_f)%

Take a = 75, as an example.  Here are the percentages for varying values of d and u:

(d, u) = (30, 30)
White: 75.6%
Black: 24.4%

(d, u) = (50, 50)
White: 65.8%
Black: 34.2%

(d, u) = (75, 75)
White: 45.1%
Black: 54.9%

To get roughly the actual murder rate, take

(d, u) = (71, 71)
White: 49.4%
Black: 51.6%

Or, with a = 90, we have

(d, u) = (30, 30)
White: 70.2%
Black: 29.8%

(d, u) = (50, 50)
White: 59.3%
Black: 40.7%

(d, u) = (75, 75)
White: 38.5%
Black: 61.5%

To get roughly the actual murder rate, take

(d, u) = (63.5, 63.5)
White: 49.4%
Black: 51.6%

You can try it yourself.  Just plug any values for a, d, and u that you'd like into w_f and b_f and you'll be given the predicted level of murders among whites and blacks.  As it's plain to see, there are innumerable combonations of the three variables that will have the predicted level of murder rates be extremely close to the actual level of murder rates.  Thus, it can be seen that there certainly are models that can be devised that completely ignore race and focus instead only on poverty and exposure to violence that produce the expected murder rates.

This analysis is, of course, not entirely rigorous, and is not intended to explain why murder is so much higher among blacks than things like larceny and aggravated assault.

Whatever the case, however, even if the analysis above needs refinement, it should be clear to anyone with an open mind that there is at least the possibility that the increased levels of murder among blacks and that the decreased levels of murder among whites is not inherent in the race, but rather, in any number of variables that are plugged into a very complex function.  To say that we know for sure that blacks are more prone to murder purely because they're black, however, is a lie, pure and simple.

----

Note 1: The sheet that I found for 2003 murder offenders listed it as roughly 30% white, 30% black, 10% other, and 30% "unknown".  I'm not sure where AuH2O got his numbers, but we'll go with them nevertheless.

[Gabu]

I should note that, unlike you, as an amateur scientist, I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong.  I simply don't believe it to be the case at this point in time as I have not been given compelling evidence that dispels all doubt that blacks are violent simply because they're black.

[AuH2O]

I have to go to bed this time, but a few quick points before a more complete response:

1) You make an assumption that is a big no-no: genes don't affect culture. IF they do, then it is not a valid defense to talk about rappers-- the violent rhetoric actually represents genetic tendency, not random cultural developments.

2) I don't think your approach of separating people into "risk" groups for murder makes statistical sense. The problematic result of doing so is that poverty becomes a cause of murder in the data, which it isn't-- it's a condition that makes murder more likely. Correlation does not imply causation, such as it is.

It sounds trivial but is critical. Do 9 million blacks really have a chance of committing murder, sort of like they're playing the lottery? I don't think so. The number of murders is high in an absolute sense but low as a population proportion; the number of murderers is thus fairly low.

Poverty as a factor is also problematic because it is related to other variables (intelligence, etc.). I used it to show that poverty cannot explain away black murder rates, but I don't think it can be used as a way of predicting those rates-- if you cross-tabulate the data it's clear that method doesn't really hold up.

3) It's essential to consider other crimes aside from murder, partially for the above reasons. That data is the most damning because, if your theory is correct, other types of crime should react to your model-- but they don't. Rappers also sing about slapping their hoes up, but their aggravated assault rates are much lower than the murder rates.

[J. J.]

It's actually quite the opposite. Black people are more likely to get away with murder. Two main reasons:

1) More likely to kill someone they don't know
2) Community is scared to help find them

Just today, this article:

http://kyw.com/news/local_story_074120610.html

If you want to debate this I will, but I promise you will lose. Get your evidence together and present it.

Actually, the article said neither.  Are you making these claims (on the day after Robert Blake was found not guilty)?

[??????????]

It's actually quite the opposite. Black people are more likely to get away with murder. Two main reasons:

1) More likely to kill someone they don't know
2) Community is scared to help find them

Just today, this article:

http://kyw.com/news/local_story_074120610.html

If you want to debate this I will, but I promise you will lose. Get your evidence together and present it.

Actually, the article said neither.  Are you making these claims (on the day after Robert Blake was found not guilty)?

Blake found not guilty.
Peterson found guilty.

Proves that money buys verdicts. They had a lot more evidence on Blake. Hilarity.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL Ebowed, a "conservative" organization, hilarious. Please keep it up.

dazzle: do you want to discuss the science? I am more than prepared to do so. You might "think" one thing, but like Ebowed, and like a lot of people, you believe it because you've been told that by the media.

Anyone that knows basic genetics knows there is such a thing as race, period. And anyone so ignorant they have to cite some weirdo "Christian" website has no business making declarative scientific statements.

Race is arbitrary, and a given "race" can be fairly genetically diverse. See here for more information.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1165.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A lot of liberals are going to call you out because you go too far dude. All you do is bash liberals for being politically correct...you're just a huge hypocrite. Most liberals aren't politically correct at all...as a matter of fact I'd go so far as to say the average conservative is much more politically correct then the average liberal.

Yeah, I really don't get people who think that liberals are all politically correct.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It depends on the type of political correctness.  What is commonly referred to as political correctness is a left-wing creation.  Sorry, but those are the facts.  Yes, I bash liberals for it, because they deserve it.  If you don't exhibit political correctness, then it doesn't apply to you.  I happen to think you are anti-white and anti-southern, based on your prior posts.  You should not be throwing stones when you live in a glass house when it comes to calling me a hypocrite, as you have exhibited plenty of bigotry from what I have seen.  You just exhibit a type of bigotry that is acceptable to those of your political leanings. 

I just tell the truth as I see it, and sometimes paint with a broad brush.  But that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

You simply have a different definition of political correctness than I do, obviously.  Your definition probably has something to do with some of the hypocrisies inherent in extreme Christian fundamentalism, or something like that.

Hey, do you think I'm anti straight white male just because because I'm a liberal?

That would be pretty funny, since I'm a straight white male.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Crime Data
FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

2003, Section IV

note on data: since hispanic is not a race, many are included in the "white" crime rates, thus skewing them to the left. The number of non-hispanic whites is roughly 5.4 times the population of blacks in the US. Using that number will actually underestimate black crime rates because of the aforementioned hispanic confusion of the data, but nevertheless the data is statistically significant.

Arrests by race

Murder
white: 49.1%
black: 48.5%

-- Blacks are slightly more than 5 times more likely than whites to commit murder.

Larceny (theft)
white: 68.5%
black: 28.8%

-- after a ratio adjustment, blacks are still more likely to commit larceny, but the rate is far lower. If economic factors drive crime, then in theory blacks should be even more likely to steal than they do.

Aggravated Assault
white: 64.7%
black: 33%

-- This contradicts the idea blacks are simply in a more violent environment as an explanation for their murder rate. They are more likely to commit assault, by roughly 2.7 times, but nowhere near their proclivity in terms of murder rates.

Drunk Driving
white: 88%
black: 9.6%

-- Used to demonstrate the data is not somehow biased against blacks; in fact, as we will see, quite the opposite-- it is probably biased in their favor overall.

Now, in terms of the idea blacks commit more crime because they are more often in poverty:

2004 US Census Press Release

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:e6p-Ou2fnowJ:www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html+income+data+by+race&hl=en

Whites account for 44% of Americans in "poverty." Taking into account black population size at the time of the census, roughly 8.6 million blacks were in poverty; slightly less than hispanics and only slightly more than half the number of whites in poverty.

Taking into account the Uniform Crime Report's inclusion of hispanics into their "white" dataset, the property crime rates seem to follow the above numbers.

In other words, it is not surprising that 28.9% of forgery arrests were made on black offenders; though they make up roughly ~25% of those in poverty, that is a fairly small difference.

The inconsistencies emerge with regard to violent crimes. Blacks, for instance, again commit ~29% of arsons designed to attack property-- but 37% committed for violent purposes.

Blacks commit 23.9% of non-rape sex offenses, which again is higher per capita than whites but not unreasonable given poverty rates. However, they commit 33.3% of forcible rapes, well above the expected number.






If anyone is interested in intelligent discussion, which I doubt, the topic is more than suitable.

Hey, I could argue that those statistics prove that whites own more cars, and are less likely to get caught for non driving crimes.

[opebo]

1) You make an assumption that is a big no-no: genes don't affect culture. IF they do, then it is not a valid defense to talk about rappers-- the violent rhetoric actually represents genetic tendency, not random cultural developments.

Whites are far, far more violent than blacks, as evidenced by their history.  Keep in mind that individual whites need not commit violence in America, as all of the violence that the State commits is perpetrated on their behalf and in their interests (or rather, in the interest of the top 1 or 2 percent of whites).

[John Dibble]

You make an assumption that is a big no-no: genes don't affect culture. IF they do, then it is not a valid defense to talk about rappers-- the violent rhetoric actually represents genetic tendency, not random cultural developments.

You are making a big ass leap here - back it up. And no, the 'religion gene' is not sufficient evidence for this.

[AuH2O]

You make an assumption that is a big no-no: genes don't affect culture. IF they do, then it is not a valid defense to talk about rappers-- the violent rhetoric actually represents genetic tendency, not random cultural developments.

You are making a big ass leap here - back it up. And no, the 'religion gene' is not sufficient evidence for this.

Would it be possible for you to engage in actual discussion and (heaven forbid) use things like evidence and explanation, rather than nitpicking my arguments?

Also, maybe you're not familiar with statistics-- I was questioning an assumption made by Gabu, NOT making a statement of fact. If you don't know the difference then don't bother criticizing.

[J. J.]

You make an assumption that is a big no-no: genes don't affect culture. IF they do, then it is not a valid defense to talk about rappers-- the violent rhetoric actually represents genetic tendency, not random cultural developments.

You are making a big ass leap here - back it up. And no, the 'religion gene' is not sufficient evidence for this.

Would it be possible for you to engage in actual discussion and (heaven forbid) use things like evidence and explanation, rather than nitpicking my arguments?

Also, maybe you're not familiar with statistics-- I was questioning an assumption made by Gabu, NOT making a statement of fact. If you don't know the difference then don't bother criticizing.

Okay,  here are three sites with statistics on church attendance:

US Overall:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2001/cln10221.html

US Catholic:

http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/sv/perspective382.asp

Canada overall:

http://www.augustana.ca/rdx/eng/documents/fireandice.htm

There are some pretty wild swings over short periods that could not be explained by genetics (especially a 10 point increase from 1950 to 1955).  In Canada, it's dropped about 38 percentage points in 50 years.   

Now is there a genetic factor that makes it more likely that someone will be religious?  Possibly.  Clearly, however, there is something more important that is causing the numbers to move. 

Unless genetics stop working north of the US-Canadian boundry, the case cannot be made that genetics is an important factor in religion.