I don't agree. For example, in Northern Europe drugs are fairly accessible. Yet, these are some of the safer societies on earth. Yet we see in Africa, where drugs are generally very rare, if they are accessible at all, that violence, rape, murder, and robbery are all rampant. If drugs were the common denominator, Northern Europe should be a murderous, bloody hell hole, and Africa and middle eastern states should be social paradises. Of course, we can see that's not the case...
I wasn't aware that I had a "model". It does, however, perfectly fit my initial assertion which is that the best indicator of crime in a given area is how much of the population is black or hispanic. The fact that you cited, that Latin American communities have higher levels of violence than North American communities ( and African communities higher than those) reinforces my assertion. Thanks for reinforcing my assertion. No, this wasn't the first time I heard of gini. The first time I heard of gini was way back in my undergrad. And yes, wikipedia is great, although far from perfect. Glad you were able to reinforce my points.
Learn to read, I did not say "African" communities have higher rates of violence than Latin American communities. Some of them [Latin American] have even higher rates. Your assertions have been mono-cultural, and ahistorical, and therefore cannot be used to reach a rational understanding of the problem or give us a tool for solving it. In fact, we've been over this correlation to this non-depth on this board more than once, and in that context this thread actually tells us nothing new whatsoever.
Nice try. Some of us are paying attention when we read. In a debate this would be the point that you lost.
Hi. I'll be happy to engage you in this discussion. After all, I'm the one who started it, and I have so far been reasonably attentive to it I feel. Therefore your taunting and aggression isn't really necessary. My answer is that the first thing that should be done is that we should all be honest about the existence and nature of these problems, and openly address them in a non hateful manner. There is no hope to overcome these problems without acknowledging their nature, and certainly not without even acknowledging their existence. Reality is what refuses to go away when you do not believe in it. We have to be willing to to acknowledge this inconvenient truth even though it may not fit our societal indoctrination or our idealized world view. It's certainly not what most of us want to believe. We have to cease this state of idealized wishful thinking, and address reality. If you want to see real racial hatred, simply keep denying reality. We will deal with this reality sooner or later. It's much better for everyone that it's acknowledged now, before more hatred is germinated. The longer these realities are ignored, the harder these issues will be to deal with, when they do inevitably arise. Ignoring issues doesn't make them go away. You can ignore your growing obesity, but then when you start having a heart attack you'll wish you had forgone your delusional comfort. I understand your concerns about confronting these issues. However in theory, we have the intellectual and moral tools to defuse the dangers. "Is" does not imply "ought." Group differences, when they exist, pertain to averages, not to individual men and women. There are geniuses and dullards, saints and sinners, in every race, ethnicity, and gender. Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that groups, genders, or races are indistinguishable. Many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points.
Ghana, and you won't get any blacker than that, has lower homicide rates than almost all US states. So much for your nonsense. Are you going to keep typing now?
No, I said that African communities have higher rates of violence than Latin American communities and they do, on average of course. Your attempt to obfuscate the facts wont change them. Historical figures are irrelevant. What we affects us are the conditions of the world NOW. Even if we wanted to study historical data, reliable data isn't available. That still wouldn't make it any more relevant though. You appear to be very desperate to attack my case. "Mono cultural"? You have no idea what culture I am a product of, nor does culture have anything to do with quantitative data. Are you saying that the data would somehow be different if viewed by someone from a culture different from mine (which you are unaware of)? You can attack the messenger all you like but it wont change the facts. Your failure to address any of the facts, other than to attack the quantitative data as being "ahistorical" and "mono cultural" is more or less an admission of defeat by any thoughtful observer. Criticizing raw data is absurd and highly symptomatic of denial. Truth is not hatred. Mathematical facts are not racism.
Sure, and I could point out one single white person who is far more violent or dangerous than one single black person. But that's not exactly logical is it? And in fact you do get "blacker" than Ghana. Ghana is barely sub saharan. The fact is that according to the UN and World Bank we can't even derive reliable data for the carnage in Africa. You have clearly never been in an academic setting, so I'll throw you a bone. Attacking people or harboring a derogatory or hostile attitude towards people because you don't like their views is in very poor taste. I'd really appreciate it if you could try to have a bit more class and less hostility.
Oh, so you ARE going to keep typing. Except we're not talking about one person, we're talking about 23.5 million people (the population of Ghana), more than sufficient a sample to disprove your theory. I can see why you're upset, you've lost this argument to two people two different ways. Crying about how everybody is hostile isn't going to reverse your catastrophic, total and utter losses.
Cherry picking one African nation which has a reasonably low homicide rate doesn't "disprove" anything anymore than cherry picking one mostly caucasian nation with a relatively high homicide rate. You can cherry pick one single person, or one single nation which deviates from the statistical norm, but that merely highlights the weakness of your position. I never said that ALL black nations are carnage filled violent places. I never said that ALL black people are violent. I said that on average, blacks and hispanics commit a highly disproportionate amount of the violent crime, as compared to the portion of the population that they represent. I further said that on average, predominantly black and latin american nations are far more violent and unsafe. Those are facts. Facts are not hatred. Facts are not racism. You are trying to disprove a point that I never made. I never said all African nations, or all Latin American nations. Of course, you will find individual statistical deviations from the mean with almost any measure in almost any population. Why are you trying to argue against a point that I never tried to make? Why do you feel the need to twist my argument in order to overcome it? If my argument is so "weak", why don't you simply address it? Because you cited an African nation with an atypical reported homicide rate for African nations means disproves that violent crime, murder, and rape rates are higher amongst black populations? Can you explain how finding one example which deviates from the norm in one single measure invalidates all the other available data? That's tantamount to saying that because I found a store which sells inexpensive Versace suits, that all Versace suits are inexpensive suits compared to other kinds of suits. Of course, it's not difficult to see how ridiculous this logic is. The only person who seems upset is you. You are handling it very distastefully. You are very derogatory, hostile, and most of all hateful. Why are you so hateful? Is class a totally alien concept for you? All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) Which of these phases do you think you represent?