Most Dangerous? American Black's or Iraqis

[nutmeg]

most culture/civilisation has been based around getting high or very drunk,

_____________________

It's a lost cause, as soon as a kid learns how to stand, what do they do next? Spin around, till they get fucked up and can't walk and fall down. They laugh, we laugh. Kids don't need drugs. They find a way to get a natural buzz. We are hard wired to get messed up.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from smilingsynic:

Those who are eager to link race to crime should remeber that correlation does not mean causation.

It doesn't rule it out, either. Further arguments are required to substantiate the causative link. Such arguments exist.

No one disputes that African-Americans are charged with and are imprisoned for committing violent crimes at a rate higher than average.

Most likely because they actually commit crimes at far higher rates than other groups (not just higher than the "average" rate, because that average rate is inflated by the inclusion of the black crime rate).

But those racists--yes, an appropriate label for those who judge others by the color of their skin--who think it is a matter of skin color

Race is much more than skin color.

should consider other factors that are demonstrably more closely linked with violent crime: education, culture, family background.

Blacks fail at education because of lower IQs and greater impulsivity (the latter likely a result of elevated testosterone levels).

Black "family background" is a result of black promiscuity and feckless procreation, itself the result of black sex drive, impulsivity and short-term thinking, all of it rewarded, thus reinforced, thus perpetuated by generous but misguided welfare programs.

If skin color CAUSED one to commit violent crime, then one would expect that other darker skinned individuals--natives of India, for instance--would also commit violent crime in great numbers.

Race is more than skin color, however.

For that matter, light skinned peoples--Scandinavian peoples, for instance--have not been historically the most non-violent. Today Sweden may be a peaceful country, thanks to culture, education, and such, but when you had warriors nicknamed "Skullsplitter" sailing across the Atlantic to rape, pillage, and shed blood, times were different.

Hereditarians do not contend that race explains all. Environmentalists, however, do insist that culture explains all.

Enough sloppy thinking on this thread already, please.

Indeed.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from acronym:

Correcto-mundo, I was indeed thinking of opium in my broad brush opinion that most culture/civilisation has been based around getting high or very drunk, to the extent that using culture as proof of supposed racial features, makes something of a mockery of what "culture" actually is.

What a topsy-turvy world we live in, in which your outlandish and unsupported claims receive respectful consideration while the objective, fact-based views of "vile racist pigs" are hushed up or outlawed.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from trefoil:

Or you could actually use your mind, and think logically: humans are closer to each other genetically than just about any other species.

The genetic similarity among humans -- estimates vary between 98.5 - 99.9% -- are similar to the genetic similarities among dog breeds.

Dog breeds clearly differ thus the proper inference is that for all the genetic similarity the devil is in the details.

So, arguing that one socially defined group

Social definition exists only at the margins. Comprehending the genetic difference between a Kalahari Bushman, a British royal and a Mongolian herdsman requires no more than a set of functioning eyeballs.

 

[spect8or]

Cutten said
If race is the prime factor, we ought to see very high murder rates amongst blacks in all countries, relative to the murder rates amongst other ethnic groups.

True. But you fail to test this hypothesis.

For example, if race were the main factor, then black citizens in Switzerland, Ireland or New Zealand would have a similar murder rate to black citizens in the USA.

Wrong. Blacks would have a murder rate higher than the non-black residents of Switzerland, Ireland or New Zealand -- not necessarily the same as or similar to that of US blacks.

Whereas in fact US blacks as a group have a massively higher murder rate.

Immaterial. Neverthless, you must have had access to black murder rates for Switzerland, Ireland and New Zealand in order to make the comparison. Could you share that information with us? We are only interested in whether the black rates in those countries are higher than the non-black rates in those countries.

 

[acronym]

Quote from spect8or:

What a topsy-turvy world we live in, in which your outlandish and unsupported claims receive respectful consideration while the objective, fact-based views of "vile racist pigs" are hushed up or outlawed.

Neither outlandish, nor unsupported from any historical perspective, but feel free to do your own research, as always.
The primary thing seperating man from animals, is drugs, and the ability to make or cultivate them, much less build societies and hierarchies around them, from druidism or shamanism, to simply getting smashed on fermented yak, or coconut milk, within a basically primitive society.

My argument stems from the reality that all cultures have that common base, or are not far removed from it, so of course I will argue that "culture" , fine art, or the preconceived concepts of culture within an approach based on caucasian imperialism, are moot in realistic terms.

Your approach has always been specifically ethnographic, you look for perceived differences, I acknowledge commonalities.

I dont think i ever called you a vile racist pig.....a "rampant ideologue" maybe, but not a vile racist pig, as far as I know.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from acronym:

Neither outlandish, nor unsupported from any historical perspective, but feel free to do your own research, as always.

Here is what you said:

What is often neglected, in these [race/culture] arguments is drug culture, too.

Neglecting to consider the drug angle is the big failing of anthropology as it relates to analysing and predicting social outcomes.

Right.

I call that outlandish.

Modern society, is a drug culture, make no mistake-what appears to be a local problem goes back thousands of years, has not only never been conquered, but is the very basis of everything we look to as human culture , or societal advancement, all based on drugs, and SHITLOADS of them.

Getting our hands on drugs is the very foundation on which civilization rests. I see.

The primary thing seperating man from animals, is drugs, and the ability to make or cultivate them, much less build societies and hierarchies around them, from druidism or shamanism, to simply getting smashed on fermented yak, or coconut milk, within a basically primitive society.

Everything we understand as civilization exists only to support getting those drugs we crave. I'll give you points for novelty.

My argument stems from the reality that all cultures have that common base, or are not far removed from it, so of course I will argue that "culture" , fine art, or the preconceived concepts of culture within an approach based on caucasian imperialism, are moot in realistic terms.

Right, now that we understand it's all about drugs and has only ever been about drugs, let's just cut to the chase. We may as well dismantle all those cultural artifacts that so many of us have come to treasure; they were only ever a prop anyway, and now they just get in the way of getting what it is we've always wanted -- more drugs -- and besides, it's the height of cruelty to expect certain "cultures" (read: races) to meet the standards of others', especially not when there's an entire "legacy of slavery" to account for (slavery being all about drugs, too, mind you).

Your approach has always been specifically ethnographic, you look for perceived differences, I acknowledge commonalities.

Right, because taking an "ethnographic" approach leaves no room for acknowledging commonalities.

What a crock.

I dont think i ever called you a vile racist pig.....a "rampant ideologue" maybe, but not a vile racist pig, as far as I know.

I prefer "realist" myself.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from acronym:

I dont think i ever called you a vile racist pig

Which probably means you have not read his posts. The guy is a nazi, hates the jews, hates minorities, hates the blacks. He is a very well-spoken vile racist pig though.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from spect8or:

I dont think i ever called you a vile racist pig.....a "rampant ideologue" maybe, but not a vile racist pig, as far as I know.

I prefer "realist" myself.

Right...Your neo-Nazi buddies have actually coined a new term - "Racialism" to describe themselves
Of course they (you) are not fooling anyone but yourself, the rest of the world clearly sees you for what you are - nazi racist scum.

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from spect8or:

It doesn't rule it out, either. Further arguments are required to substantiate the causative link. Such arguments exist.

Of course such arguments exist. They are all fatally flawed.

To establish a causal link, one must need to define, with precision, "blackness" and to provide specific, scientifically demonstrable effects of skin pigment upon intelligence, testosterone, and other qualities.

Otherwise, what you have is a post-hoc argument.