|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jan 13, 2022 20:44:29 GMT
Today 41% of under-18s in custody are from minority backgrounds, compared with 25% a decade ago.
Young black people are now nine times more likely to be in youth custody than young white people.
Has that innate tendency towards criminality become even more innate in the last 10 years?
Are black people nine times as likely to be criminals than their white counterparts?
Think about it
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 13, 2022 20:53:25 GMT
Today 41% of under-18s in custody are from minority backgrounds, compared with 25% a decade ago.
Young black people are now nine times more likely to be in youth custody than young white people.Has that innate tendency towards criminality become even more innate in the last 10 years? Are black people nine times as likely to be criminals than their white counterparts? Think about it The first question is the interesting one: why has that proportion increased? It's almost certainly not because racism is worsening: on the contrary, diversity agendas and Black Lives Matter indicate exactly the opposite. Does that mean that indulging black people makes black youths feel more empowered and thus more likely to offend? I have no idea and am merely thinking aloud. As for whether black people are nine times more likely to be criminals than their white counterparts? Again, I don't know. If they are equally likely to be arrested when they commit an offence, and if the CPS is equally likely to pursue cases for similar offences against white and black people, then yes. If the police and CPS are demonstrating bias against black offenders, then no. But even if system is biased against them, that doesn't prove they're not committing crimes at a significantly higher rate. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jan 14, 2022 10:53:49 GMT
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence and that seems to be be your criteria for "empirical data" when you claim that people would have been living in the stone age without slavery. If you don't see the sheer lazy arrogance of a statement like "people who are not influenced by political correctness can see the world as it really" then you really have let yourself get to a point where you just take your opinions, and any evidence that support them, throw out any inconvenient evidence or use lack of same to "prove" your argument. It is lazy because it's purposely coming from a place where you have already decided what you want to prove rather than if it is true. It all rather smells of the old "I'm not racist, but" conversations that we used to see. Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence, but you're missing the point: my arguments are based on data and statistics. You're advancing arguments in spite of the data, and as such should not be accusing anyone else of "sheer lazy arrogance". You are the one who is "purposely coming from a place where you have already decided what you want to prove rather than if it is true". I have proved my points, citing statistics where appropriate; your arguments are increasingly without substance, relying on "well, you could be wrong" (of course I could, but I can present an argument, with supporting statistics, as to why that is almost certainly not the case), taking sentences out of context and, when all else fails, shouting "that's racist!". If you can come back with convincing arguments supported by statistics, I'll be delighted to continue this conversation with you. But as it is, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and I don't really see what either of us will gain by doing that. Sorry, no. I have no idea what say 600 years would have meant for African progress, I don't pretend to. You though make sweeping judgement based on things that happened before on that continent to postulate that ergo, they would make no further progress so are lucky for slavery. The fact that you think this argument to be evidence based is just ludicrous. As with "Rogue" though, it probably is pointless, you've just come with a highly inflammatory statement, meant to be controversial, and as with Rogue I really am not sure I understand what is gained by these extreme positions. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jan 14, 2022 11:12:40 GMT
... or 'according them the respect they are due as fellow human beings', depending on your point of view  |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jan 14, 2022 11:22:04 GMT
Today 41% of under-18s in custody are from minority backgrounds, compared with 25% a decade ago.
Young black people are now nine times more likely to be in youth custody than young white people.Has that innate tendency towards criminality become even more innate in the last 10 years? Are black people nine times as likely to be criminals than their white counterparts? Think about it Black gang culture has risen as has white, but probably a lot more due to a much higher degree of Black people living in the poorest and most ignored boroughs where it and the "county lines" drug culture exists and continues to grow. The people who are "not wanted" by society always reflect more in these figures, as they used to in poor East End and South areas of London when gangs were run by good old fashioned white thugs (those Krays and Richardsons were loverly boys, you could keep your back door unlocked in them days) football may have replaced Boxing as a way out but poverty is still the main factor behind these things. I think that there is no doubt a problem with the number of single mother families in black communities which I believe is quite a bit higher than whites and where unlike single white mums they prefer to work for a living (I worked for the DSS for a number of years in South London and always found black single mums were far more likely to want a job than their white counterparts) so are more likely to have "latch key kids" who are bored and easy prey for the gangs. There is no such thing as pre disposition to crime, just exterior factors that create these "nine times" discrepancies, and among them looms large societal racism such as we see in sweeping statements about intelligence or tendency to crime. You treat people like shit, take away their futures and when the inevitable occurs, turn round and say, "see, they're all criminals" and then call it "facts". |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 14, 2022 11:33:53 GMT
Sorry, no. I have no idea what say 600 years would have meant for African progress, I don't pretend to. You though make sweeping judgement based on things that happened before on that continent to postulate that ergo, they would make no further progress so are lucky for slavery. The fact that you think this argument to be evidence based is just ludicrous. As with "Rogue" though, it probably is pointless, you've just come with a highly inflammatory statement, meant to be controversial, and as with Rogue I really am not sure I understand what is gained by these extreme positions. You're right: you have no idea, and you're not even bothering to do any research to construct an argument. My position that sub-Saharan Africans would be extremely unlikely to have emigrated en masse by now is based on the fact that their civilisation had not even discovered the wheel by the sixteenth century. This was discovered elsewhere around 3500 to 4000 BC, and it was around 1500 to 2000 years later that other civilisations made their first tentative trips to other continents; thus it is very unlikely that Africans would have gone from a pre-wheel civilisation to one that could cross continents in large numbers in a mere 600 years. That would have required a meteoric acceleration in their development unparalleled in any other human civilisation at any point in history. Does that make it impossible? Of course not. Does that make it very, very, very unlikely? Yes. As such, my opinion is based on evidence. Your rebuttals are based on nothing and are no more than unsupported opinions. As I said, you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jan 14, 2022 11:43:09 GMT
you've just come with a highly inflammatory statement My position that sub-Saharan Africans would be extremely unlikely to have emigrated en masse by now is based on the fact that their civilisation had not even discovered the wheel by the sixteenth century. ... hence their descendants should still be doffing their caps to a statue of the man who gave them the opportunity to live in the civilised world |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 14, 2022 11:46:55 GMT
My position that sub-Saharan Africans would be extremely unlikely to have emigrated en masse by now is based on the fact that their civilisation had not even discovered the wheel by the sixteenth century. ... hence their descendants should still be doffing their caps to a statue of the man who gave them the opportunity to live in the civilised world Well, I carefully avoided using loaded terms like "civilised", instead saying "modern technological world", and I've pointed out that they should only be thankful if they consider their present existence preferable to the one they would almost certainly otherwise have had. But my point nonetheless stands. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jan 14, 2022 12:02:59 GMT
... hence their descendants should still be doffing their caps to a statue of the man who gave them the opportunity to live in the civilised world my point nonetheless stands. Another ‘point’ you could make is that the Jews should have built the Knesset in the shape of a massive swastika to commemorate the fact that the holocaust provided the impetus for the creation of the Israeli state |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 14, 2022 12:06:50 GMT
Another ‘point’ you could make is that the Jews should have built the Knesset in the shape of a massive swastika to commemorate the fact that the holocaust provided the impetus for the creation of the Israeli state I was wondering when you were going to come up with that argument. The Holocaust did provide the impetus for the creation of the Israeli state, so Hitler, whilst one of the most loathsome figures in history, unwittingly did more for Zionism than almost any other human being. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jan 14, 2022 12:10:28 GMT
Another ‘point’ you could make is that the Jews should have built the Knesset in the shape of a massive swastika to commemorate the fact that the holocaust provided the impetus for the creation of the Israeli state The Holocaust did provide the impetus for the creation of the Israeli state, so Hitler, whilst one of the most loathsome figures in history, unwittingly did more for Zionism than almost any other human being. Yes... and I've been to Israel a few times and never seen a single statue of him. Ungrateful bastards  |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 14, 2022 12:12:24 GMT
Yes... and I've been to Israel a few times and never seen a single statue of him. Ungrateful bastards  Whilst the argument you raise is an interesting one, it's not directly comparable to slave traders and Africans. Jews already had a modern technological existence before the Nazis began their persecution. Had Naziism not occurred, they would be living a very similar existence today, but mainly in Eastern Europe rather than Israel. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jan 14, 2022 12:20:43 GMT
Yes... and I've been to Israel a few times and never seen a single statue of him. Ungrateful bastards Jews already had a modern technological existence before the Nazis began their persecution. As I have already pointed out, they would have still been strumming on lyres in the 1980's instead of enjoying pop hits on handy cassette players had it not been for the largesse of BASF. Never mind Zyklon B and all that. |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 14, 2022 12:23:20 GMT
Jews already had a modern technological existence before the Nazis began their persecution. As I have already pointed out, they would have still been strumming on lyres in the 1980's instead of enjoying pop hits on handy cassette players had it not been for the largesse of BASF. Never mind Zyklon B and all that. We've covered this territory already, Zeo. The Nazis' human experimentation, aside from being monstrous, was so poorly conducted and recorded that it revealed nothing of any scientific value. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jan 14, 2022 12:46:39 GMT
Today 41% of under-18s in custody are from minority backgrounds, compared with 25% a decade ago.
Young black people are now nine times more likely to be in youth custody than young white people.Has that innate tendency towards criminality become even more innate in the last 10 years? Are black people nine times as likely to be criminals than their white counterparts? Think about it Black gang culture has risen as has white, but probably a lot more due to a much higher degree of Black people living in the poorest and most ignored boroughs where it and the "county lines" drug culture exists and continues to grow. The people who are "not wanted" by society always reflect more in these figures, as they used to in poor East End and South areas of London when gangs were run by good old fashioned white thugs (those Krays and Richardsons were loverly boys, you could keep your back door unlocked in them days) football may have replaced Boxing as a way out but poverty is still the main factor behind these things. I think that there is no doubt a problem with the number of single mother families in black communities which I believe is quite a bit higher than whites and where unlike single white mums they prefer to work for a living (I worked for the DSS for a number of years in South London and always found black single mums were far more likely to want a job than their white counterparts) so are more likely to have "latch key kids" who are bored and easy prey for the gangs. There is no such thing as pre disposition to crime, just exterior factors that create these "nine times" discrepancies, and among them looms large societal racism such as we see in sweeping statements about intelligence or tendency to crime. You treat people like shit, take away their futures and when the inevitable occurs, turn round and say, "see, they're all criminals" and then call it "facts". Very eloqently written Doug These are precisely the points that Pol's assertions gloss over It's one thing to point at stats and say see - black culture = greater criminality Quite another to interrogate the stats and think about the myriad reasons why this is so Policy needs to take a more holistic approach which is precisely what Lammy argued in his report There are no quick fixes but one thing's for sure, just shrugging your shoulders and blaming it on race or culture will just excacerbate the situation, fuel racism and mean £££ is wasted on imprisoning and criminal justice instead of helping people to realise their potential and become useful members of society |
|
