EPTSCOTUS case: Fisher v. Texas (Affirmative Action) - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Huyugu
23 Posts
On November 13 2012 12:48 oneofthem wrote: but a recognition of the irrationality of that resentment on the parts of whites etc should in itself be enough to dissuade one from participating in that resentment. It's irrational for Whites to resent racial discrimination against Whites? Was it irrational when Blacks resented racial discrimination against Blacks? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Huyugu
23 Posts
| ||
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
| ||
|
Huyugu
23 Posts
The idea there is some phantom "societal racism" is a fallacy based on the incorrect premise that in a non-racist society all races would have equal outcomes. | ||
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
Black Defendants Are At Least 30% More Likely To Be Imprisoned Than White Defendants For The Same Crime | ||
|
ConGee
318 Posts
On November 13 2012 16:29 Huyugu wrote: Nonsense. Racial discrimination happens in favor of minorities. (Asians excluded) The idea there is some phantom "societal racism" is a fallacy based on the incorrect premise that in a non-racist society all races would have equal outcomes. Don't you find that hilarious though? AA is a policy meant to help minorities succeed, yet when one minority puts itself in a position to effectively utilize its advantage, it turns around and begins to work against that minority. | ||
|
Huyugu
23 Posts
On November 13 2012 16:38 Dracid wrote: So prove it. Show me some studies that conclude that white people are disadvantaged in America. I'll start by showing you one where whites are still advantaged: Black Defendants Are At Least 30% More Likely To Be Imprisoned Than White Defendants For The Same Crime See, again you have jumped to a conclusion based on an incorrect premise. Races do not have exactly the same rate of crime. When a judge passes sentence, he considers such things as previous convictions and characteristics of the crime. The gray bars in Figure 6 show what happens when criminal background is controlled. When their circumstances are the same, black defendants are slightly less likely to be sentenced to prison than whites, and Hispanic defendants are about half a percent more likely. Why does controlling for these factors make a difference? Because among these defendants blacks were 37 percent more likely than whites to have a prior felony conviction and 58 percent more likely to have a prior conviction for a violent crime. http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html | ||
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
On November 13 2012 16:58 Huyugu wrote: See, again you have jumped to a conclusion based on an incorrect premise. Races do not have exactly the same rate of crime. When a judge passes sentence, he considers such things as previous convictions and characteristics of the crime. The gray bars in Figure 6 show what happens when criminal background is controlled. When their circumstances are the same, black defendants are slightly less likely to be sentenced to prison than whites, and Hispanic defendants are about half a percent more likely. Why does controlling for these factors make a difference? Because among these defendants blacks were 37 percent more likely than whites to have a prior felony conviction and 58 percent more likely to have a prior conviction for a violent crime. http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html Righto. Do you care to provide a source that isn't from a white supremacist group? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Color_of_Crime_(New_Century)#The_Color_of_Crime The New Century Foundation is nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations. From 1994 to 1999 its activities received considerable funding by the Pioneer Fund,[1][2][3] and has been described as a white supremacist group.[4] He [Jared Taylor, founder of NCF] sees Japan as an exemplar of a racially homogenous society, and views Asians generally as genetically superior in intelligence to whites. He also view whites as genetically superior in intelligence to blacks.[5][6] So we're back to the argument that black people are genetically inferior to white people. I'm sure you can make a great argument for that supported by mountains of sketchy sources, but I'm really not interested in having that argument and I'm starting to suspect that you're ReginaldRogers under yet another new account. | ||
|
Huyugu
23 Posts
Interestingly I read the study linked in the article you provided. It doesn't prove what the article you linked claims it does. Your article is an outrageous lie. No wonder, it was written by a "guest blogger" on a trash website. One important limitation of our work is that while we show that race appears to play a role in judicial decision-making, we cannot make statements about its optimality. That is, we can say that judges vary in their treatment of race, but not whether this is evidence of discrimination or reverse discrimination. It is theoretically possible that the heterogeneity in the racial gap in incarceration reflects favoritism by some judges towards African-American defendants. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1800840 As you can see from the Color of Crime graph, this bias is in favor of black defendants. When you control for criminal history there is favoritism towards Blacks. This is not surprising considering someone's life can be ruined over perceived racism. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On November 13 2012 11:15 PrideNeverDie wrote: please don't use your experience taking online IQ tests to make sweeping generalizations about IQ tests intelligence is polygenic and highly heritable SOURCE: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html so it is possible to see a divergence of intelligence between two populations. disparate impact automatically assumes that there is a problem with the standardized test if there is a disparity between minorities. interesting to note that when people use race to demonstrate differences, people love to use the "there is no such thing as race" excuse. however, when using race to give them an advantage with job quotas and affirmative action, minorities have no problem with stratifying themselves according to race. I don't even doubt that intelligence is in part based on your genes and I would be interested in reading more than the abstract but I'm not going to pay for it. As far as I can the study has nothing to do with so called race unless they show that the variations are correlated to race (but I might be wrong here since I'm in no way an expert for genetics). What I wonder is how they measured intelligence. It's easy for you to say I shouldn't generalize my experience with IQ tests and you are free to show me how a proper IQ test is done. I will probably be able to explain why at least some part of this test is culturally biased. Btw it's interesting to note that you don't address the question of which cognitive skills should be called intelligence. And I really don't understand why you struggle with the idea that race is a culturally existing phenomena (e.g. blacks are treated different) but "black" is not a race in the biological sense. And last, the OBVIOUS culturally existing problems with IQ tests and minorities (see above) are why I will always first try to explain the disparity between minorities in this way. [EDIT]: Even if there should be a correlation between some race and IQ results in something like the study above they would need to control for the existing cultural influences (and I doubt anybody can do that properly). Because even if race has no biological influence on IQ their findings would be that there is a correlation because of systemic problems with said population groups. [BONUS EDIT]: A simple example: There are cultures who don't use relative directions. In turn they have the ability (a cognitive skill) to use their frame of reference (for example cardinal directions) even if they go into a dark windowless room and spin around. If you test for this skill you will find that they are awesome at it and pretty much everybody else sucks. Considering these tribes are usually isolated they will have some unique genetic variation, the correlation of this skill and this variation will be extremely high and yet we would be dumb to conclude anything about the genetic nature of that ability from this. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'. Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day. "About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." Source Note how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now. | ||
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
Also, the study states that it's theoretically possible that the judges are biased towards black people, but uses an absurd example to demonstrate how it would be. They are simply stating the limitations of their research, but their findings that there exists a significant racial gap in incarceration gaps is still sound. Unless you're willing to make a conjecture as to what those "unobservable case characteristics" might be, I think it's reasonable to say that there shouldn't exist a racial gap in sentencing, and the existence of said gap should be proof enough of racial discrimination in our judicial system. | ||
|
Huyugu
23 Posts
On November 13 2012 18:26 plogamer wrote: Stats relating to population almost always follow the Normal distribution in stats, for ex: body height - when genetic background are controlled for. There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'. Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day. "About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." Source Note how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now. I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with your "research", what you have linked is completely meaningless! All it shows is the arrests reflect the makeup of the population. And in China most arrests would be Chinese. It is meaningless other than who lives in that area. "Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables. "In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix." http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html To dismiss black crimes against whites so readily is quite disgusting of you, and proves my point about how deeply rooted in society discrimination and racism against whites has become. If whites committed crimes anywhere near the rate or category as blacks against whites you would be having candle light vigils, protests, marches, etc. "... In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single "white"-on-black gang rape. Overall, blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against whites per year between 2001 and 2003, and "whites" committed 32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators 89 percent of the time. "... [O]f all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods, and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites." http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On November 13 2012 19:02 Huyugu wrote: I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with your "research", what you have linked is completely meaningless! All it shows is the arrests reflect the makeup of the population. And in China most arrests would be Chinese. It is meaningless other than who lives in that area. "Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables. "In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix." http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html To dismiss black crimes against whites so readily is quite disgusting of you, and proves my point about how deeply rooted in society discrimination and racism against whites has become. If whites committed crimes anywhere near the rate or category as blacks against whites you would be having candle light vigils, protests, marches, etc. "... In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single "white"-on-black gang rape. Overall, blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against whites per year between 2001 and 2003, and "whites" committed 32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators 89 percent of the time. "... [O]f all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods, and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites." http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html Yeah, parroting one source, nice research yourself. I think I just happened upon a fanatic here. Nothing to see here I guess. /edit I asked for statistic specific to black people in urban versus rural settings. Do you have one? | ||
|
Huyugu
23 Posts
On November 13 2012 19:05 plogamer wrote: Yeah, parroting one source, nice research yourself. I think I just happened upon a fanatic here. Nothing to see here I guess. But what, if anything, is incorrect about any of it? | ||
|
Huyugu
23 Posts
On November 13 2012 18:31 Dracid wrote: Ad hominem only works as a fallacy if the person's character is irrelevant to the topic. In this case, you're citing studies from white supremacist groups, which is pretty damned relevant if you're going to talk about racial discrimination. The guy in charge believes that Asians are genetically superior to white people who are genetically superior to black people. They get most of their funding from the Pioneer Fund, which itself is a SPLC designated hate group and has more than a few connections with neo-nazis and other white supremacist groups. Fuck all of that. Also, the study states that it's theoretically possible that the judges are biased towards black people, but uses an absurd example to demonstrate how it would be. They are simply stating the limitations of their research, but their findings that there exists a significant racial gap in incarceration gaps is still sound. Unless you're willing to make a conjecture as to what those "unobservable case characteristics" might be, I think it's reasonable to say that there shouldn't exist a racial gap in sentencing, and the existence of said gap should be proof enough of racial discrimination in our judicial system. No, ad hominem fallacy happens any time you try to use personal attacks to avoid addressing an argument. That is exactly what you are doing. It's not even true that they are White supremacists. Color of Crime shows Asians are the most law abiding. Their stats are entirely from US government stats, are 100% true and verifiable. You resort to petty name calling because you cannot refute them. The study states (as I quoted): "[W]e can say that judges vary in their treatment of race, but not whether this is evidence of discrimination or reverse discrimination. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1800840 The article you linked outright lied and claimed it was evidence of discrimination against Blacks. The data shown in Color of Crime demonstrates that the discrimination is against white people. "When their circumstances are the same, black defendants are slightly less likely to be sentenced to prison than whites. See image (or pdf): http://imgur.com/hyTw5 http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html | ||
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
On November 13 2012 19:06 Huyugu wrote: But what, if anything, is incorrect about any of it? There's nothing wrong with the statistics, but the person doing the analysis is a known white supremacist meaning the conclusions drawn are biased. I haven't looked at any of your color of crime studies, because a quick glance at wikipedia reveals it all to be stormfront level white nationalist drivel. Edit: typo | ||
|
Huyugu
23 Posts
On November 13 2012 19:23 Dracid wrote: There's nothing wrong with the statistics, but the person doing the statistics is a known white supremacist meaning the conclusions drawn are biased. I haven't looked at any of your color of crime studies, because a quick glance at wikipedia reveals it all to be stormfront level white nationalist drivel. Wow, you haven't looked at them and you argue against them anyways! I shouldn't be surprised, apparently you didn't even read the study your article was citing either. If you had, you would have seen the article was lying about the contents. I suppose that is the difference between you and I. When I get linked contrary opinions (as you just linked me to) I read them fully. I even checked their sources and read them as well. Then I consider all available evidence when forming my views. You do so little reading you didn't even check what you were linking people to. You're just a blind zealot. | ||
| ||
