Beating on school bus upsets parents

[HAL 9000 96]

How can you be so sure of this? People do move from the inner cities to suburban settings.

If in your opinion, the 'circumstances' do not fit well with suburban AA populations, then what explains the violence in middle class areas? I recommend you try answering in as short and simple answer as you can muster for others' clarity.

Now your twisting it. For someone to be considered middle class, this means they have a certain amount of wealth or income behind them. As such, the they're just economically disadvantage excuse does not fly; as it's wrong. The financial excuse alone still fails to explain with other ethnicities and communities, in similar financial circumstances, are not as likely to commit crimes.

Refusing to accept reality is nothing new here. We've had these same arguments about illegal aliens and where the majority of them come from.

Just be clear how you word it. Your exact words were 'middle class areas' - not that they were middle class. Furthermore, the existence of economical status does not preclude the potential for that economic status to have been achieved in the process of relocating from the inner city to suburbia.

Again... I am curious what your conclusion is likely to be if it isn't economics out in suburbia.

[HAL 9000 96]

Lucky me I have lived several places overseas.

Now- what do you mean by factoring in population? You mean its break down into racial category as the stats are?

You mention its not racially motivated... so what would be the logical conclusion?

You know exactly what population means, as per 100,000 people. By scaling it that way, differences in population are accounted for.

I am guessing you did not pay attention to the graph I posted earlier of the incarceration rates or homicide rates.

So if they are scaled per 100K, and the absolute numbers where the data comes from are still weighed 2 to 1, White to Black in your example, then the scaling factor applies to both absolute sets. What difference in population are you referring to?

[Heracles 417]

Just be clear how you word it. Your exact words were 'middle class areas' - not that they were middle class. Furthermore, the existence of economical status does not preclude the potential for that economic status to have been achieved in the process of relocating from the inner city to suburbia.

Again... I am curious what your conclusion is likely to be if it isn't economics out in suburbia.

I don't know as I have not studied the issues. Hence, my suggestion for there to be a study. My posts are based on empirical evidence. To the contrary, clearly many here have the answer and therefore can safely rule out that there even is an issue.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Booyah!

[HAL 9000 96]

Just be clear how you word it. Your exact words were 'middle class areas' - not that they were middle class. Furthermore, the existence of economical status does not preclude the potential for that economic status to have been achieved in the process of relocating from the inner city to suburbia.

Again... I am curious what your conclusion is likely to be if it isn't economics out in suburbia.

I don't know as I have not studied the issues. Hence, my suggestion for there to be a study. My posts are based on empirical evidence. To the contrary, clearly many here have the answer and therefore can safely rule out that there even is an issue.

Nobody is stating there isn't an issue nor a made-up problem. I think you mean to say that your posts are based on empirical statistics, not necessarily evidence. Just because there is a correlation in the numbers does not rationalize causation.

I believe family unity is a CRITICAL component of family behavior, making for a domino effect on communities. How these family units develop is a function of the society, economics, and a community's history. Addressing all of these factors tend to improve the others. That much is obvious.

What do you believe specifically?

[Heracles 417]

So if they are scaled per 100K, and the absolute numbers where the data comes from are still weighed 2 to 1, White to Black in your example, then the scaling factor applies to both absolute sets. What difference in population are you referring to?

Population stats of the same year of the crime stats

White population: 221.3 million

Black Population: 40.9 million

Black perps total = 32,443 + 7,705 = 40,148 perps

White perps total = 98,300 + 0 = 98,300 perps

As such:

1 in every 2251 white Americans committed rape.

1 in every 1018 black Americans committed rape

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you're going to use that kind of statistical analysis then we're back to poverty again - as you will find that you have a much greater chance of experiencing poverty if you're black, than if you're white

Edited September 16, 2009 by Private Pike

[HAL 9000 96]

So if they are scaled per 100K, and the absolute numbers where the data comes from are still weighed 2 to 1, White to Black in your example, then the scaling factor applies to both absolute sets. What difference in population are you referring to?

Population stats of the same year of the crime stats

White population: 221.3 million

Black Population: 40.9 million

Black perps total = 32,443 + 7,705 = 40,148 perps

White perps total = 98,300 + 0 = 98,300 perps

As such:

1 in every 2251 white Americans committed rape.

1 in every 1018 black Americans committed rape

Now you got it.

And in your opinion, is that a function of race or is that a function of something else?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now you got it.

And in your opinion, is that a function of race or is that a function of something else?

That right there is why these discussions inevitably go to hell.

[Heracles 417]

Nobody is stating there isn't an issue nor a made-up problem. I think you mean to say that your posts are based on empirical statistics, not necessarily evidence. Just because there is a correlation in the numbers does not rationalize causation.

I believe family unity is a CRITICAL component of family behavior, making for a domino effect on communities. How these family units develop is a function of the society, economics, and a community's history. Addressing all of these factors tend to improve the others. That much is obvious.

What do you believe specifically?

I identify two things. One clearly there is a family breakdown. All of the evidence suggests this. As does the surge of teenage pregnancies, particularly in AA communities. Most of the trouble markers at my high school were raised by their mothers in single parent homes.

Second of all there is an issue in the US with the glamorization of violence and crime. Where it's cool to be a gang banger rather than be normal.

While this is not race related, you cannot deny a fact brought to my attention in another thread that the states with the lowest crime rates in the Union also just so happen to have smallest, as in less the 2%, percentage of minorities. To the contrary, the states and cities with the opposite, just so happen to have the highest crime rates.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What States are we talking about here?

[HAL 9000 96]

Nobody is stating there isn't an issue nor a made-up problem. I think you mean to say that your posts are based on empirical statistics, not necessarily evidence. Just because there is a correlation in the numbers does not rationalize causation.

I believe family unity is a CRITICAL component of family behavior, making for a domino effect on communities. How these family units develop is a function of the society, economics, and a community's history. Addressing all of these factors tend to improve the others. That much is obvious.

What do you believe specifically?

I identify two things. One clearly there is a family breakdown. All of the evidence suggests this. As does the surge of teenage pregnancies, particularly in AA communities. Most of the trouble markers at my high school were raised by their mothers in single parent homes.

Second of all there is an issue in the US with the glamorization of violence and crime. Where it's cool to be a gang banger rather than be normal.

While this is not race related, you cannot deny a fact brought to my attention in another thread that the states with the lowest crime rates in the Union also just so happen to have smallest, as in less the 2%, percentage of minorities. To the contrary, the states and cities with the opposite, just so happen to have the highest crime rates.

Certainly- and is that glorification of thuggery (since we are focusing as still on mere statistical correlates) a characteristic of race (causation by existence) or is it a byproduct of all the other factors combined (causation by consequence)?

Simple answer...

[Heracles 417]

So if they are scaled per 100K, and the absolute numbers where the data comes from are still weighed 2 to 1, White to Black in your example, then the scaling factor applies to both absolute sets. What difference in population are you referring to?

Population stats of the same year of the crime stats

White population: 221.3 million

Black Population: 40.9 million

Black perps total = 32,443 + 7,705 = 40,148 perps

White perps total = 98,300 + 0 = 98,300 perps

As such:

1 in every 2251 white Americans committed rape.

1 in every 1018 black Americans committed rape

Now you got it.

And in your opinion, is that a function of race or is that a function of something else?

Is the not a no brainer. A black male is twice as likely to rape a woman as is a white male. Or is that because of economic injustice too? I guess the president's opinion that rape is more acceptable in some societies than others is wrong too?

Edited September 16, 2009 by Booyah!

[Heracles 417]

Now you got it.

And in your opinion, is that a function of race or is that a function of something else?

That right there is why these discussions inevitably go to hell.

The discussion goes to hell because you guys discredit facts based on your opinion. I have so far posted four sets of stats, which you have either overlooked or discredited on the basis of your opinion. I think bla bla bla. Who cares what you think. Either prove them wrong using your own facts or shut up.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the mistake you are making (if you are really interested in sociology) is you are focussing on crime statistics to the exclusion of everything else.

That statistic is certainly disturbing, but if you refuse to look at other aspects of the problem (family history, socio-economics for example), you aren't really going to get the full picture of what is actually going on and what the real causes of these problems are.

[Heracles 417]

Certainly- and is that glorification of thuggery (since we are focusing as still on mere statistical correlates) a characteristic of race (causation by existence) or is it a byproduct of all the other factors combined (causation by consequence)?

Simple answer...

Nothing to do with race but culture and attitude. Gang banging is certainly not the Australian or Swedish or Japanese American thing to do.