Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Three teens commit murder for "the fun of it"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

- Reasonable. Avoid near 100% concentrations of any one ethnic group not all known to you personally. If someone assaults you, you want disinterested witnesses.

...

A lot of this is just an extension of 10a, which I'd apply to any minority ethnic group really. You are probably safe if you're in a majority group, say Koreans in Korea. But minorities have resentments and their group-complex can be more dangerous.


So you'd be equally uncomfortable in a large crowd of poor urban blacks and a large crowd of ethnic Japanese? I suppose many one of them will still have a grudge about Japanese internment during World War II and take it out on me?

Kuros wrote:
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

- No. The black corruption machine exists, but it cannot harm you any worse than what you call the "usurious complex." See Elites’ deplorable double-standard on corruption


But the two are not mutually exclusive; the usury complex is going to get you more or less anywhere in the country, and any problems you run into as a result of the political corruption you just admitted the existence of will merely be on top of that, not in exclusion to that.

If there were a part of the country where I could escape the influence of big usury, I'd want to live there as well, I assure you. If I do come back to the States, it will be to live an acetic life in the north woods of Wisconsin or some such, so that may come about as close as reasonably possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Kuros wrote:

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

- Reasonable. Avoid near 100% concentrations of any one ethnic group not all known to you personally. If someone assaults you, you want disinterested witnesses.

...

A lot of this is just an extension of 10a, which I'd apply to any minority ethnic group really. You are probably safe if you're in a majority group, say Koreans in Korea. But minorities have resentments and their group-complex can be more dangerous.


So you'd be equally uncomfortable in a large crowd of poor urban blacks and a large crowd of ethnic Japanese? I suppose many one of them will still have a grudge about Japanese internment during World War II and take it out on me?


When I go to the local park on Sunday afternoons, its full of blacks. I do not feel uncomfortable. I'm trying to approach this intellectually. There's a basis for the rule of thumb.

If I'm in Little Japan, I'm not paranoid they're going to do me violence, but I'd be pretty uncomfortable doing commerce with them or trusting their advice as to the value of goods with which I'm not familiar.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Fox"]
Leon wrote:

I mean it's possible, but is a few lives statistically significant, even if it was possible to prove your contention? Also, there are externalities to consider, such as the reason that there are many urban black heavy areas where poverty has been concentrated was caused by housing policy. Also white flight lessens property value for black families, and is part of the reason that blacks of all socioeconomic classes are much more likely to live in neighborhoods with poverty.


Impoverished urban areas are rife with violence; the number of white lives which will have been saved by fleeing such areas is in direct proportion to the degree to which white flight occurs in the first place. So we've got two real possibilities:

1) The number of lives saved is statistically insignificant, in which case white flight is statistically insignificant, in which case those who complain about it in their "fight against racism" are blatant, agenda-driven propaganda artists.

2) White flight is statistically significant, in which case the number of white lives saved by it will almost certainly also be statistically significant.

Whichever you choose, it does not bode well for your philosophy.
[\quote]

For it to be white flight, whites had to have lived there in the first place. In he worst urban areas that isn't, at least as far as I'm aware, the case. For what you are saying to be true whites would have had to live in the same poor urban areas as blacks, and then afterwards left that area. If you have something showing that's true, please post it, otherwise all we have is your conjuncture.


Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
For someone who likes to talk about culture being a cause of violence, I shouldn't have to explain to you why this is a problem. If anything white flight probably has at best a neutral effect, but unless you have any data to show why one way or another, why mention it?


I mention it because people -- people such as yourself, right here -- take issue with white flight and the effect it has on "black property values" while simultaneously trivializing black on white violence. In order for white flight to have a substantial impact on black property value, it must be prevalent, and if its prevalent, then of course blacks will have far less opportunity to engage in violence against whites: the whites are actively avoid them. It's your self-contradictory world view which I'm attacking here.


Again I'm going to need some proof that whites are leaving the most violent inner city areas before you get to comment on my self-contradictory world view.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
The advice is stupid, btw. A large group of elderly black people, a black church group, or probably a group of black woman ...


... are all exactly not the people the advice giver is talking about. He is clearly referring to young black men. Don't play stupid with me, it doesn't suit you; there's no possible way a rational, informed person could read this and say, "Oh, he's talking about the dangers of a retirement home full of black people."


I know what he meant, but young black males is a small percentage of black people, and in general I don't like it when people are imprecise, and it really is easy to tell when a group of people are likely to be thugs based on mannerism, dress, speech, etc., regardless of race.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread suddenly became outstanding.

Old Uncle Derbyshire's advice: "If surrounded by a large crowd of blacks, be careful, they may rob or harm you."

Old Uncle Kuros' advice: "If surrounded by a large crowd of Japanese, be careful, they may sucker you into paying slightly more for their products."

I have to admit, I don't like paying too big a mark up!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

For it to be white flight, whites had to have lived there in the first place.


One could technically make that case, but I've always understood white flight to consist not merely in the act of actually leaving, but also in the act of intentionally avoiding; a man who might like to buy a home or rent an apartment in a certain area yet forebears because of a high local black population seems to me to be engaging in, if not white flight, than something very closely related to white flight, and this forebearance certainly has an impact on black property values (probably a much bigger one than the whites who initially moved away in fact, since it's a perpetual effect).

Note that if you insist white flight can only be the actual act of moving away once blacks move in, and cannot be the act of avoiding heavily black areas, then your case for white flight causing black property values to remain low evaporates; whites move out of white neighborhoods all the time, and it doesn't cause white property values to plummet all across the nation, because other whites move in shortly after. It's white avoidance that harms black property values, because whites, being the ones with access to the money, are the ones who cause property values to be high in the first place.

If you want to use white flight as an excuse for black poverty, you need to use my understanding of it, and if you use my understanding of it, you are faced with the contradiction I previously mentioned.

Leon wrote:

I know what he meant, but young black males is a small percentage of black people, and in general I don't like it when people are imprecise...


Linguistic precision is near and dear to my heart, but I cannot in good faith allow you to use it as a smoke bomb in this conversation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
radcon



Joined: 23 May 2011

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:


When I go to the local park on Sunday afternoons, its full of blacks. I do not feel uncomfortable.



So when you go to this park is it anything like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tim4zIxrbOo

You feel comfortable picnicking at the next table in this type of scenario? Do you "get your eat on?" " Hey Keisha, bring Kuros over a plate."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

For it to be white flight, whites had to have lived there in the first place.


One could technically make that case, but I've always understood white flight to consist not merely in the act of actually leaving, but also in the act of intentionally avoiding; a man who might like to buy a home or rent an apartment in a certain area yet forebears because of a high local black population seems to me to be engaging in, if not white flight, than something very closely related to white flight, and this forebearance certainly has an impact on black property values (probably a much bigger one than the whites who initially moved away in fact, since it's a perpetual effect).


Turns out we have both been using it wrong.

"Following World War II, there was pent-up housing demand in the US, and widespread suburban development took place. In addition, some working-class and middle-class white families felt pressure from increases in minority populations and overcrowding in cities.[citation needed] They moved out to the suburbs, aided by GI loans for purchase, federally subsidized highway construction, and other facilities that made commuting to work easier.[citation needed]
In the 1970s, attempts to achieve effective desegregation by means of forced busing in some areas led to more families' moving out of former areas.[10][11] Migration of middle-class white populations was observed during the 1950s and 1960s out of cities such as Detroit and Cleveland, although racial segregation of public schools had ended there long before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. More generally, some historians suggest that white flight occurred in response to population pressures, both from the large migration of blacks from the rural South to northern cities in the Great Migration and the waves of new immigrants from southern and eastern Europe.[12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

Fox wrote:
Note that if you insist white flight can only be the actual act of moving away once blacks move in, and cannot be the act of avoiding heavily black areas, then your case for white flight causing black property values to remain low evaporates; whites move out of white neighborhoods all the time, and it doesn't cause white property values to plummet all across the nation, because other whites move in shortly after. It's white avoidance that harms black property values, because whites, being the ones with access to the money, are the ones who cause property values to be high in the first place.

If you want to use white flight as an excuse for black poverty, you need to use my understanding of it, and if you use my understanding of it, you are faced with the contradiction I previously mentioned.


It seems we have both have been imprecise with this word here. White flight, as in the sense that at least wikipedia defined it, is certainly a factor in black poverty and would be hard to argue otherwise. Since housing is a long term thing, i.e. most people tend to end up living where their parents lived, while most of the legal things that kept blacks from living where they wanted are gone, the effects remain. I'm not sure that whites leaving black areas is happening that much currently, I think people are pretty well sorted already. Although, with gentrification the opposite might be happening with white yuppies moving in to what once were poorer urban areas. Might be an interesting case study for or against your theory.

Although, I mean if we are getting technical and you want to redefine white flight simply as whites leaving an area, there are certainly neighborhood where when whites leave white areas and any other race moves in, it affects property values and other whites on occasion leave to more exclusive places. I was visiting an old money waspy area last week with my friend who lives there and as we drove through the neighborhood of multi-million dollar homes he told me that the country club there only let in Jews since 1990, not officially, that'd be illegal, but..., and now that Jews and Italians and new money was moving in some of the other families have started leaving, which in the current market of course lowers property values of surrounding houses.


Again, find some way to prove your white flight conjecture, or it is just a conjecture. You were the person to bring it up, so the burden of proof isn't on me, so don't call a reason an "excuse" until you can show it's wrong.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

I know what he meant, but young black males is a small percentage of black people, and in general I don't like it when people are imprecise...


Linguistic precision is near and dear to my heart, but I cannot in good faith allow you to use it as a smoke bomb in this conversation.


Look, everyone knows what he means, but language is powerful, right? Language shapes how we view the world, so imprecise language when we are dealing with large diverse groups is irresponsible and misleading. He makes a point of talking about statistics, if we look at violent crime statistically we are talking about young black males, and more specifically poor urban black males without a college education. If we apply that statistical filter, even if we remove the part about the college education because just by appearances one can't necessarily tell, we are left with a much smaller group of people than Derbyshire gave us.

If we rewrote the article and used the word male instead of black, people would be outraged, and no one would really take it seriously. Yet males commit somewhere around 70% of all violent crime, we're just using statistics, right, what's the big deal?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

Again, find some way to prove your white flight conjecture, or it is just a conjecture. You were the person to bring it up, so the burden of proof isn't on me, so don't call a reason an "excuse" until you can show it's wrong.


I don't see how I can reasonably prove that whites avoiding blacks helps keep down the rate at which whites fall prey to black crime. It's a reasonably intuitive claim, but it's cast against a counter factual situation. On the other hand, that makes definitively proving its inverse -- that if whites lived dispersed in high-crime black communities, they would be killed no more often -- equally difficult, and given your case rests upon that assumption, I don't think you're in a position to talk about who is or isn't holding the burden of proof here. I'm burdened with proof to the exact extent I want to convince you of something, and you are likewise burdened to the extent you want to convince me. I must admit, Leon, that while I at times enjoy a chat with you, I'm not dying to convince you of this, especially since I can't even begin to imagine how I'd go about it. Are you at all interested in convincing me?

Leon wrote:
If we rewrote the article and used the word male instead of black, people would be outraged, and no one would really take it seriously. Yet males commit somewhere around 70% of all violent crime, we're just using statistics, right, what's the big deal?


Women who are concerned with rape, kidnapping, or other male perpetrated violence would be very wise to be cautious in male-heavy situations actually, and I wouldn't be outraged at all if someone were to write out a list of advice. In fact, it wouldn't shock me if such lists already existed on some feminist website somewhere. I certainly remember women being admonished somewhere or other to obey their "creep sense" when in the presence of men. It would of course hurt my feelings to be the target of such defensive behavior, just as I'm sure it might hurt an honorable, peaceable, and kind-hearted young black man's feelings to be the target of the defensive behavior listed by this man, but my or his feelings must be secondary to safety Leon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

Again, find some way to prove your white flight conjecture, or it is just a conjecture. You were the person to bring it up, so the burden of proof isn't on me, so don't call a reason an "excuse" until you can show it's wrong.


I don't see how I can reasonably prove that whites avoiding blacks helps keep down the rate at which whites fall prey to black crime. It's a reasonably intuitive claim, but it's cast against a counter factual situation. On the other hand, that makes definitively proving its inverse -- that if whites lived dispersed in high-crime black communities, they would be killed no more often -- equally difficult, and given your case rests upon that assumption, I don't think you're in a position to talk about who is or isn't holding the burden of proof here. I'm burdened with proof to the exact extent I want to convince you of something, and you are likewise burdened to the extent you want to convince me. I must admit, Leon, that while I at times enjoy a chat with you, I'm not dying to convince you of this, especially since I can't even begin to imagine how I'd go about it. Are you at all interested in convincing me?


I'm not interested in convincing you, that isn't my purpose here. I don't think anybody ever really convinces anyone else in these kinds of contexts. I am interested in looking for errors in my thinking, and testing out ideas. Also, I am kind of weird in that I actually enjoy conducting research and reading research studies, most of what I read is directly related to my field, but these conversations gets me to look outside of it.

It would be hard to prove one way or another, and you are correct in that of course since races are most likely to interact within themselves they are most likely to commit more crimes within that race. If blacks and whites interact on a more frequent basis, blacks would kill more whites, and whites would kill more blacks. In that scenario, though would the crime be more because of racial hatred or because of increased interaction? Also, by saying high crime black areas you add a qualifier that changes the conversation. Anyone moving into a high crime area will suffer a greater rate of victimization, regardless of race. If a black person moves from a low crime area to white area with a higher crime rate then they will more likely be victims, to say nothing of certain areas of the south.

Race based and random crimes are more spectacular, and hardly a black phenomenon, noticed this didn't receive much media attention compared to the two recent cases http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/richard-beasley-craigslist-killer-death-penalty-sentence_n_3013536.html despite being equally horrorific and having a higher body count. But these types of crimes are hardly the most common, I would guess that most black on white homicides are drug related, probably followed by robbery or something similar.

It is hard to prove one way or another, but I suppose I would point to something like this, which is an imperfect way to answer the question, but I don't have the time to try to search for something as difficult to define as the hypothetical you have described.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/08/hard-data-proves-housing-vouchers-dont-cause-crime/6404/

Again, not completely relevant, but the best I can do without spending hours searching for a better study. I don't expect you to prove it either, it's just that it is a little frustrating when you use words like excuse and self contradictory world view without really earning the use of those words by conclusively showing where I'm wrong.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
If we rewrote the article and used the word male instead of black, people would be outraged, and no one would really take it seriously. Yet males commit somewhere around 70% of all violent crime, we're just using statistics, right, what's the big deal?


Women who are concerned with rape, kidnapping, or other male perpetrated violence would be very wise to be cautious in male-heavy situations actually, and I wouldn't be outraged at all if someone were to write out a list of advice. In fact, it wouldn't shock me if such lists already existed on some feminist website somewhere. I certainly remember women being admonished somewhere or other to obey their "creep sense" when in the presence of men. It would of course hurt my feelings to be the target of such defensive behavior, just as I'm sure it might hurt an honorable, peaceable, and kind-hearted young black man's feelings to be the target of the defensive behavior listed by this man, but my or his feelings must be secondary to safety Leon.


Yes, but I didn't specify, nor did Derbyshire specify, females. In any case that wouldn't necessarily be accurate because other young males are overwhelmingly the most common victim of crime as well as the most common perpetrator of crime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two posts from Sailer are relevant to the discussion you all are having:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/08/how-rare-is-crime.html
Quote:
How rare is crime?
The liberal orthodoxy on the costs of crime victimization tend to be a weird combination of Eloi / macho: crime is rare, so man up and don't worry about it.

Yet, Ross Douthat pointed yesterday to a 1987 Bureau of Justice Statistics study estimating that 83% of Americans are subject to at least one violent crime over their lifetimes. But, since some people are subject to more than one crime, the expected average per Americans was closer to two violent crimes per lifetime.

A commenter notes that it's reasonable for people to include their loved ones being subject to violent crimes as well.

So, let's use a stylized family tree to estimate the number of expected crimes committed against relatives by blood and marriage. Assume everybody in America gets married once and has two children. Thus, each person would have two parents, one sibling, one spouse, and two children. Counting yourself and your six first order relations, that would be an expected average of 14 violent crimes per lifetime committed against you and your closest relations.

A few caveats

Some of those violent crimes will be domestic. You, personally, might beat up your spouse, for example. On the other hand, society has put strong efforts into punishing and deterring domestic violence, with sizable gains, so domestic crime should hardly be wholly discounted.

Second, some of those crimes will happen before your birth or after your death, but that hardly means you feel all that great about that.

How many more relative do you have in this stylized schema:

4 grandparents -- 8 victimizations
4 grandchildren -- 8 victimization
2 nephews-nieces -- 4 victimizations
2 first cousins -- 4 victimizations
2 parents-in-law -- 4 victimizations
1 sibling-in-law -- 2 victimization
2 nephews/nieces-in-law -- 4 victimizations
1 spouse-in-law's spouse (e.g., your wife's sister's husband) -- 2 victimization

So, that's 36 more violent victimizations, along with the 14 of your inner circle, for a total of 50. And you can keep going onward from there. And then there are your friends.

No man is an island.


http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/08/all-we-have-to-fear-is-inference-itself.html

Too long to put here in full.

Quote:
This may have something to do with the trillions spent fighting crime, the 800,000 cops employed, the two million in jail, the flight to the suburbs, the decline of walking, and other costs.


Another cost of black violence is the diminished quality of life people are forced into by being pushed out to suburbs. Long commutes and the like. All to avoid "bad areas" and "bad schools".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
Two posts from Sailer are relevant to the discussion you all are having:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/08/how-rare-is-crime.html
Quote:
How rare is crime?
The liberal orthodoxy on the costs of crime victimization tend to be a weird combination of Eloi / macho: crime is rare, so man up and don't worry about it.

Yet, Ross Douthat pointed yesterday to a 1987 Bureau of Justice Statistics study estimating that 83% of Americans are subject to at least one violent crime over their lifetimes. But, since some people are subject to more than one crime, the expected average per Americans was closer to two violent crimes per lifetime.

A commenter notes that it's reasonable for people to include their loved ones being subject to violent crimes as well.

So, let's use a stylized family tree to estimate the number of expected crimes committed against relatives by blood and marriage. Assume everybody in America gets married once and has two children. Thus, each person would have two parents, one sibling, one spouse, and two children. Counting yourself and your six first order relations, that would be an expected average of 14 violent crimes per lifetime committed against you and your closest relations.

A few caveats

Some of those violent crimes will be domestic. You, personally, might beat up your spouse, for example. On the other hand, society has put strong efforts into punishing and deterring domestic violence, with sizable gains, so domestic crime should hardly be wholly discounted.

Second, some of those crimes will happen before your birth or after your death, but that hardly means you feel all that great about that.

How many more relative do you have in this stylized schema:

4 grandparents -- 8 victimizations
4 grandchildren -- 8 victimization
2 nephews-nieces -- 4 victimizations
2 first cousins -- 4 victimizations
2 parents-in-law -- 4 victimizations
1 sibling-in-law -- 2 victimization
2 nephews/nieces-in-law -- 4 victimizations
1 spouse-in-law's spouse (e.g., your wife's sister's husband) -- 2 victimization

So, that's 36 more violent victimizations, along with the 14 of your inner circle, for a total of 50. And you can keep going onward from there. And then there are your friends.

No man is an island.


http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/08/all-we-have-to-fear-is-inference-itself.html

Too long to put here in full.

Quote:
This may have something to do with the trillions spent fighting crime, the 800,000 cops employed, the two million in jail, the flight to the suburbs, the decline of walking, and other costs.


Another cost of black violence is the diminished quality of life people are forced into by being pushed out to suburbs. Long commutes and the like. All to avoid "bad areas" and "bad schools".


Why use the violent crime rate from 1987? Especially considering that across America the violent crime rate has been cut in about half since that time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:


I'm not interested in convincing you, that isn't my purpose here. I don't think anybody ever really convinces anyone else in these kinds of contexts. I am interested in looking for errors in my thinking, and testing out ideas.


That's a good purpose.

Leon wrote:
In that scenario, though would the crime be more because of racial hatred or because of increased interaction?


I want to say something about this: I really don't care if "racial hatred" is a motivation or not. I feel like it's a huge distraction from actual issues. Sure, it seems like there's a real level of resentment against whites in the black community, and it does seem like sometimes that resentment peaks sufficiently that young black men will seek out a white victim, but swap that ostensible motive out for another one and I wouldn't be any more pleased.

Motive is less important than character. Plenty of people manage to dislike other individuals -- or even other groups -- without taking violent action. Whether the ostensible motive is "hating whites," "being bored," or anything else, the same real cause is at work: the character of the perpetrator.

Leon wrote:
Also, by saying high crime black areas you add a qualifier that changes the conversation. Anyone moving into a high crime area will suffer a greater rate of victimization, regardless of race. If a black person moves from a low crime area to white area with a higher crime rate then they will more likely be victims, to say nothing of certain areas of the south.


That's fine; a person moving from a low crime area to a high crime area is obviously putting themselves more at risk, making it a reasonable principle. Apply the principle to communities all over America, look at the demographics of those communities, and you'll quickly see a trend. Yes, a black living in some hypothetical nearly crime-free, heavily black area who moves into a hypothetical meth-ridden white trailer park will probably be more likely to be a victim, but he's not representative of the general trend.

Leon wrote:
Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
If we rewrote the article and used the word male instead of black, people would be outraged, and no one would really take it seriously. Yet males commit somewhere around 70% of all violent crime, we're just using statistics, right, what's the big deal?


Women who are concerned with rape, kidnapping, or other male perpetrated violence would be very wise to be cautious in male-heavy situations actually, and I wouldn't be outraged at all if someone were to write out a list of advice. In fact, it wouldn't shock me if such lists already existed on some feminist website somewhere. I certainly remember women being admonished somewhere or other to obey their "creep sense" when in the presence of men. It would of course hurt my feelings to be the target of such defensive behavior, just as I'm sure it might hurt an honorable, peaceable, and kind-hearted young black man's feelings to be the target of the defensive behavior listed by this man, but my or his feelings must be secondary to safety Leon.


Yes, but I didn't specify, nor did Derbyshire specify, females. In any case that wouldn't necessarily be accurate because other young males are overwhelmingly the most common victim of crime as well as the most common perpetrator of crime.


Of course they are the most common victim: they're the ones most likely to be hanging out with other young males! I don't see how clear I can make this: if someone wants to advise being careful around strange men, I'm completely okay with it, and he's probably even correct. He's even more correct if he qualifies it with black men though, and he would be even more correct were he to qualify with young black men. If that upsets people, well, I'm sorry the statistical facts of the world are upsetting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:


I'm not interested in convincing you, that isn't my purpose here. I don't think anybody ever really convinces anyone else in these kinds of contexts. I am interested in looking for errors in my thinking, and testing out ideas.


That's a good purpose.

Leon wrote:
In that scenario, though would the crime be more because of racial hatred or because of increased interaction?


I want to say something about this: I really don't care if "racial hatred" is a motivation or not. I feel like it's a huge distraction from actual issues. Sure, it seems like there's a real level of resentment against whites in the black community, and it does seem like sometimes that resentment peaks sufficiently that young black men will seek out a white victim, but swap that ostensible motive out for another one and I wouldn't be any more pleased.

Motive is less important than character. Plenty of people manage to dislike other individuals -- or even other groups -- without taking violent action. Whether the ostensible motive is "hating whites," "being bored," or anything else, the same real cause is at work: the character of the perpetrator.


I agree with this, and the reason that I mentioned the racial hatred part was because of the context of this thread. There have been more horrific crimes recently with higher body counts, that as far as I can tell, are receiving less attention than these specific crimes. It's funny when the left accuses the right of propaganda or the right accuses the left of propaganda, the both do the same thing and the media just cashes in on it.

The real cause in most cases is economics, i.e. when certain things have high enough profit margins the benefits outweigh the risks, whether that's selling drugs or selling bad debt. Character has a role to play, as well of course. Anyways, I think the idea that if blacks and whites interacted more the rate of blacks killing whites doesn't really matter because in that case the inverse would be true as well, as whites interacted with blacks more they would kill more blacks.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
Also, by saying high crime black areas you add a qualifier that changes the conversation. Anyone moving into a high crime area will suffer a greater rate of victimization, regardless of race. If a black person moves from a low crime area to white area with a higher crime rate then they will more likely be victims, to say nothing of certain areas of the south.


That's fine; a person moving from a low crime area to a high crime area is obviously putting themselves more at risk, making it a reasonable principle. Apply the principle to communities all over America, look at the demographics of those communities, and you'll quickly see a trend. Yes, a black living in some hypothetical nearly crime-free, heavily black area who moves into a hypothetical meth-ridden white trailer park will probably be more likely to be a victim, but he's not representative of the general trend. [/leon]


This is more reasonable than what you previously stated. I don't feel like repeating our debate about black crime statistics here because I feel like we have covered this ground before. Although, I would state that this is a recent development, and that historically the opposite was true. I.e. In the not too distant past a black person moving into a white neighborhood in the south, and even in places in the north, had a much higher chance of violence and harassment, and of have the law either ignoring it or even going along with it. It's not like this is only a black problem, or that we can ascribe certain characteristics to certain races so easily without considering the fairly recent history.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
If we rewrote the article and used the word male instead of black, people would be outraged, and no one would really take it seriously. Yet males commit somewhere around 70% of all violent crime, we're just using statistics, right, what's the big deal?


Women who are concerned with rape, kidnapping, or other male perpetrated violence would be very wise to be cautious in male-heavy situations actually, and I wouldn't be outraged at all if someone were to write out a list of advice. In fact, it wouldn't shock me if such lists already existed on some feminist website somewhere. I certainly remember women being admonished somewhere or other to obey their "creep sense" when in the presence of men. It would of course hurt my feelings to be the target of such defensive behavior, just as I'm sure it might hurt an honorable, peaceable, and kind-hearted young black man's feelings to be the target of the defensive behavior listed by this man, but my or his feelings must be secondary to safety Leon.


Yes, but I didn't specify, nor did Derbyshire specify, females. In any case that wouldn't necessarily be accurate because other young males are overwhelmingly the most common victim of crime as well as the most common perpetrator of crime.


Of course they are the most common victim: they're the ones most likely to be hanging out with other young males! I don't see how clear I can make this: if someone wants to advise being careful around strange men, I'm completely okay with it, and he's probably even correct. He's even more correct if he qualifies it with black men though, and he would be even more correct were he to qualify with young black men. If that upsets people, well, I'm sorry the statistical facts of the world are upsetting.


If Derbyshire had qualified it in that matter he could claim to be using statistical facts in an unbiased manner, but he didn't. I would speculate that he wrote it in such a manner to appeal to his audience rather than as sincere advice, which is fine that is his business, literally. The article was a way to score racial points, which has a built in audience and is an easy way to make money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://mobile.news.com.au/national-news/victoria/woman-beaten-unconscious-by-8216boisterous8217-gang-on-nightrider-bus/story-fnii5sms-1226703645023

Africans beat woman on bus in AUS.

No matter where these Africans go their behavior is the same.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
http://mobile.news.com.au/national-news/victoria/woman-beaten-unconscious-by-8216boisterous8217-gang-on-nightrider-bus/story-fnii5sms-1226703645023

Africans beat woman on bus in AUS.

No matter where these Africans go their behavior is the same.


Do you have some kind of email alert set up for this sort of stuff? It's like a car insurance commercial, no matter where in the world a black person attacks a white person, Titus will be there by your side to let the world know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 5 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International