That'd be pretty impressive if you could throw either that far.
Start a new thread with that question, since you just moved the goal posts.
You didn't actually read it.No it isn't actually. I didn't see anything about Latin Americans or Africans.
I did.It isn't bull in the sense that the ideas behind it are based on scientific theory. It's bull in your proposed use of it. Still waiting for your take on African and Latin American genetics.
But for your ADD;
Since Africans (where they live now is irrelevant) commit crime at a disproportionate rate to their white counterparts, assuming that genetic factors play about the same role in all persons with the genetic trait, blacks by default have the genetic trait more than whites, Asians and other races. Latin Americans fall just behind blacks.
From UT research:
What turns people into criminals? In the longstanding debate over nature vs. nurture, new research published in the journal Criminology suggests that genes play a key role in determining who leads a life of crime and who stays on the straight and narrow.
The research, conducted by University of Texas at Dallas criminologist J.C. Barnes and colleagues, analyzed the genetic and environmental influences on criminal traits of 4,000 people. The researchers discovered a strong link between genes and criminality.
The scientists based their research on the 1993 theory of Duke professor Dr. Terrie Moffitt that says people will generally fall into three different types: life-course persistent offenders (lifelong criminals), adolescent-limited offenders (who grow out of their bad behavior), and law-abiding abstainers (non-criminals).
According to the paper:"If we're showing that genes have an overwhelming influence on who gets put onto the life-course persistent pathway, then that would suggest we need to know which genes are involved and, at the same time, how they're interacting with the environment, so we can tailor interventions," Dr. Barnes said.
- For life-course persistent offenders, genes influenced criminal behavior more than the environment.
- For abstainers, it was roughly an equal split: genetic factors played a large role and so too did the environment.
- For adolescent-limited offenders, the environment was the most important factor.
But don't expect police to start locking people up based on their genomes anytime soon. Researchers say there is no single gene to predict criminality; there are likely to be hundreds, if not thousands of genes that will affect your likelihood of being involved in crime. And even then, it may only increase that likelihood by 1 percent.
But that doesn't mean the genetic link should be taken lightly, Barnes points out.
"Honestly, I hope that when people read this, they take issue and start to debate it and raise criticisms, because that means people are considering it and thinking about it," Barnes said.
See also:
From Wiki
The frequency distribution of variants of the MAOA gene differs between ethnic groups.[17][18] 59% of African-American men, 56% of Maori men, 54% of Chinese men, and 34% of Caucasian men carry the 3R allele. 5.5% of African-American men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carry the 2R allele.
An association between the 2R allele of the VNTR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found.[6][5][7] (emphasis mine)
Classification of Hispanics
The UCR classifies most Hispanics into the "white" category. The NCVS classifies some Hispanic criminals as "white" and some as "other race". The victim categories for the NCVS are more distinct. (gee I wonder why the discrepancy?)
Let me know when you catch up, and don't ever question me again, boy.
Last edited by DMC; 12-28-2012 at 12:38 AM.
Nope you did by assuming the gun isn't loaded. Nice try though.
I did.You didn't actually read it.
Oh and we're basing this on what? Prison populations?I did.
But for your ADD;
Since Africans (where they live now is irrelevant) commit crime at a disproportionate rate to their white counterparts
So crime is based purely on this THEORETICAL gene/gene sequence. Nice to know. Let the eugenics begin I guess.assuming that genetic factors play about the same role in all persons with the genetic trait, blacks by default have the genetic trait more than whites, Asians and other races. Latin Americans fall just behind blacks.
Oooooo a strong link. Let me know when you've sequenced everyone's individual genetic code.From UT research:
What turns people into criminals? In the longstanding debate over nature vs. nurture, new research published in the journal Criminology suggests that genes play a key role in determining who leads a life of crime and who stays on the straight and narrow.
The research, conducted by University of Texas at Dallas criminologist J.C. Barnes and colleagues, analyzed the genetic and environmental influences on criminal traits of 4,000 people. The researchers discovered a strong link between genes and criminality.
wikipediaThe scientists based their research on the 1993 theory of Duke professor Dr. Terrie Moffitt that says people will generally fall into three different types: life-course persistent offenders (lifelong criminals), adolescent-limited offenders (who grow out of their bad behavior), and law-abiding abstainers (non-criminals).
According to the paper:"If we're showing that genes have an overwhelming influence on who gets put onto the life-course persistent pathway, then that would suggest we need to know which genes are involved and, at the same time, how they're interacting with the environment, so we can tailor interventions," Dr. Barnes said.
- For life-course persistent offenders, genes influenced criminal behavior more than the environment.
- For abstainers, it was roughly an equal split: genetic factors played a large role and so too did the environment.
- For adolescent-limited offenders, the environment was the most important factor.
But don't expect police to start locking people up based on their genomes anytime soon. Researchers say there is no single gene to predict criminality; there are likely to be hundreds, if not thousands of genes that will affect your likelihood of being involved in crime. And even then, it may only increase that likelihood by 1 percent.
But that doesn't mean the genetic link should be taken lightly, Barnes points out.
"Honestly, I hope that when people read this, they take issue and start to debate it and raise criticisms, because that means people are considering it and thinking about it," Barnes said.
See also:
From Wiki
The frequency distribution of variants of the MAOA gene differs between ethnic groups.[17][18] 59% of African-American men, 56% of Maori men, 54% of Chinese men, and 34% of Caucasian men carry the 3R allele. 5.5% of African-American men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carry the 2R allele.
An association between the 2R allele of the VNTR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found.[6][5][7] (emphasis mine)
Classification of Hispanics
The UCR classifies most Hispanics into the "white" category. The NCVS classifies some Hispanic criminals as "white" and some as "other race". The victim categories for the NCVS are more distinct. (gee I wonder why the discrepancy?)
I'm sorry but I haven't laughed this much in a while. I thank you.
Let me know when you catch up, and don't ever question me again, boy.internet smack is always the funniest.
I'll translate that for people who can't see past your bull :
There are some gene sequences that seem to have an association with increased likelihood of committing what we deem "crimes". These genes may or may not be more prevalent in certain populations. The fact that prison populations and do ented crimes are higher amongst people in said populations is being used as evidence the genetic code is the determining factor in the lives of said people. DMC is using this scientific information to form a theory that certain ethnic groups are more likely to commit crime based on their genetic code. DMC is stupid. That is all.
its blatant lying to say asians are less hostile than other races imho, when 9/10 of the most infamous massacres in the world's history happened in asia
lol "what we deem".
No, they are more prevalent in blacks.These genes may or may not be more prevalent in certain populations.
No it's not. There is scientific research linked to those claims. My preface would be for the layperson to use as a possible correlation, though not necessarily a cause. I then nailed it shut with the cause, and even showed where the "latinos" were hidden.The fact that prison populations and do ented crimes are higher amongst people in said populations is being used as evidence the genetic code is the determining factor in the lives of said people.
I showed you an existing set of data from many different higher learning ins utions, many of them well respected with Nobel prizes in different categories among the accolades of these schools. Scoff all you like, and feel free to debunk the data.DMC is using this scientific information to form a theory that certain ethnic groups are more likely to commit crime based on their genetic code. DMC is stupid. That is all.
guys like DMC cannot think with their brains, but most times they use their asses to think and speaks for where their ass is at. there's no biological evidence to indicate a certain association between people's gene and the likelihood of commiting crimes, but the history book tells us the exact opposite to what DMC attempts to propagate imho. asians are more hostile than any other race but the lonely old immigrant turns a blind eye to that shining fact
Yes what we deem. Can you go through and pick out all the crimes in our country and compare them to crimes in every other country on earth? Thanks I'll be waiting.
Define "black" please.No, they are more prevalent in blacks.
I'm debunking your assertion that "africans" and "latin americans" are more violent than other races. Because you have yet to define those terms (other than to claim latin america is a countryNo it's not. There is scientific research linked to those claims. My preface would be for the layperson to use as a possible correlation, though not necessarily a cause. I then nailed it shut with the cause, and even showed where the "latinos" were hidden.
I showed you an existing set of data from many different higher learning ins utions, many of them well respected with Nobel prizes in different categories among the accolades of these schools. Scoff all you like, and feel free to debunk the data.) and give proof. Not association. PROOF. Still waiting.
1. I've never purchased a loaded gun.
Nope you did by assuming the gun isn't loaded. Nice try though.
I did.
Oh and we're basing this on what? Prison populations?
So crime is based purely on this THEORETICAL gene/gene sequence. Nice to know. Let the eugenics begin I guess.
Oooooo a strong link. Let me know when you've sequenced everyone's individual genetic code.
wikipedia
I'm sorry but I haven't laughed this much in a while. I thank you.
2. Crime statistics are there for your viewing pleasure, tallied by conviction rates.
3. Genetics are a factor, and the correlation with crime rate is staggering.
4. Gravity is also theoretical
5. Poisoning the well won't save you
6. There's no need to check everyone to see the ratios. Like everything else in medicine and research, sample sizes are used. We know smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer, but we haven't checked all smokers.
7. What part of the Wiki article is false or do you just feel you're saving some face by challenging the credibility of an article you aren't educated enough to refute?
8. I think so
Crime is well defined based on the laws of the respective country.
AfricanDefine "black" please.
I've shown proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all I really need to show.I'm debunking your assertion that "africans" and "latin americans" are more violent than other races. Because you have yet to define those terms (other than to claim latin america is a country
Hey, whether you're black or latino, you still have a choice to not commit what we deem as a crime.
I must suck for you, you were home free. I let you off the hook because, as I said, I don't feel like educating you. Now you're shocked by science, pure fact, and you try to move your sensitive terms to other spaces on the board to protect them but it's too late. Regardless what I say from now on, you're convinced. I see it in your responses.
Have you ever fired a unloaded gun?
Because everyone knows our judicial system works flawlessly2. Crime statistics are there for your viewing pleasure, tallied by conviction rates.
Never taken statistics eh?3. Genetics are a factor, and the correlation with crime rate is staggering.
No it isn't.4. Gravity is also theoretical
Exactly. Sample sizes. Statistics never prove anything.6. There's no need to check everyone to see the ratios. Like everything else in medicine and research, sample sizes are used. We know smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer, but we haven't checked all smokers.
Oh I was just laughing at you resorting to wikipedia when you attempted to make fun of me for doing the same (when I was actually just not at my computer).7. What part of the Wiki article is false or do you just feel you're saving some face by challenging the credibility of an article you aren't educated enough to refute?
My bad. It's funny for other people. We laugh at you.8. I think so
Indeed it is. So tell me if your theory on africans and latin americans holds up in every country on earth. I'll wait.
African
I'm sorry but you haven't. I know you think you're a lawyer but that is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not even beyond an unreasonable doubt.I've shown proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all I really need to show.
I'm convinced you're a racist? Yes you're right. You should look up "fact", "africa", "black", and have a general knowledge of statistics before I continue to talk to you.I must suck for you, you were home free. I let you off the hook because, as I said, I don't feel like educating you. Now you're shocked by science, pure fact, and you try to move your sensitive terms to other spaces on the board to protect them but it's too late. Regardless what I say from now on, you're convinced. I see it in your responses.
They are, for being injured by accident. It's very difficult for a person with an above room temperature IQ to accidentally shoot himself. A knife is always loaded.I guess DMC still thinks a knife is more dangerous than a gun.
A new game to play! It's called "African or Not"? I post a picture and DMC has to tell me whether he thinks the person is African or not.
You call that site legitimate?
Right away, I had two ads I had to click to remove.
that.
Tripod... LOL... Seriously???
I suggest you do a little research on the validity of such internet sites. I saw no "source links" on that page, and I'm not going to explore that blog.
Really?
As if you think you can tell someone is from Africa or not from their looks.
It's true I probably shouldn't have used that site but it's late and I'm lazy. I'll find the sources for the numbers or correct them if incorrect.
Don't tell me that. Tell DMC who proclaimed black = african.
From DMC's favorite site wikipedia:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claimed that, on average, one child died every three days in accidental incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2005.
There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000
And this is from an article published by the University of Pennsylvania:
• Unintentional firearm death disproportionately affects children, with 16% of the
unintentional deaths occurring among youth under age 20.3
• Unintentional gun injuries account for 14% of all firearm deaths under age 15.3
• A gun in the home is a risk factor for household members to be shot fatally in their home.
• The risk of being killed appears particularly high among women, which reflects the increased
likelihood for a woman to be killed by her spouse, partner or family member rather than a
stranger.124
• People with a family member who has purchased a handgun are at increased risk of being
shot and killed.125
• Owning a gun may moderately increase the likelihood of fatally shooting another person.126
• On the whole, carrying a firearm does not guarantee protection and may increase injury
risk.127**While individual cir stances vary, persons should take this into account this when
making decisions about firearm possession. Considering safety plans that provide alternatives
to firearms may be in order for individuals with minimal firearms experience.
It's a self inflicted ID thing I think, seeings how the US blacks want to be called "African-American" rather than Negro, or Black.
That's what Political Correctness run-amok does.
The gun isn't loaded?
DMC getting desperate.
Well, it's nice that we can group DMC and WC together as eugenicists that literally would have made Galton proud.
He linked an unrelated UTD study and some random psychologist making up categories with some vague references he found on wiki about criminal behavior and the so called warrior gene in order to claim broadly that black people are criminals. It's amazing what you can tell by their google fueled confirmation bias. He sure found what he wanted.
less and dishonorable. Intellectual cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.
WC, you and DMC are kindred spirits.
Always the Fuzzy Troll...
You are so adorable (not).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800)