Civil War Doomsday Clock

[StCapps]

London is urban, and quite western. Comparing urban black crime rates in one western country to urban black crime rates in another western country is not proof that race is the explanation for the crime rate. Urban is far more correlative to the urban black crime rate than race.

It's the the culture, stupid.

[Speaker to Animals]

So just to preempt pages of more bullshit from you..


For every black population on planet Earth, you are going to invent some excuse for their higher rates of violence.

We all live in this liberal clown world, so save us the NPC narrative at this point. We hear it every day. It does not impress.

[StCapps]

So just to preempt pages of more bullshit from you..


For every black population on planet Earth, you are going to invent some excuse for their higher rates of violence.

We all live in this liberal clown world, so save us the NPC narrative at this point. We hear it every day. It does not impress.

Assuming the real reason for higher rates of violence is race, when urban and rural are far more correlative, does not impress. No amount of facts will sway you from your race based worldview, we get it. You are too emotionally invested in that race based worldview and you're confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance won't allow to see the light.

Keep on digging that hole deeper though, it's pretty amusing.

[Hastur]

Correlation is not the same as causation. The socio-economic talking point is a typical lefty argument that leads nowhere. If poverty causes crime, how come most poor people don't become criminals? Most people in the history of the earth has been poorer than poor urban Americans are today. There should have been a crime rate of almost 100% if we go back 100 years or older. Why don't we see that?

Envy and resentment will trigger some people with low impulse control into crime. Who, is the question and how do we prevent it? We know that these individuals usually calm down around 28 yo so just locking them up till then will solve a lot of it.
Women stopping to breed with psychopaths should solve a lot of it as well as we can see that it is a large genetic component to criminal behavior.

An interesting study by behavior geneticist Amir Sariaslan.
Exploring the causal nature of neighborhood influences on violent criminality, substance misuse and psychiatric morbidity

Individuals who live in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods, particularly in urban settings, experience elevated risk of being convicted of violent criminality, to engage in substance misuse and to be diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. The causal nature of these associations is questioned in the literature because previous studies have insufficiently accounted for genetic and environmental risks shared within families. The aim of the dissertation was therefore to explore the etiological relevance of neighborhoods in these traits by combining quasi-experimental, family-based research designs with nationwide Swedish registry data.

<---------------->

In conclusion, we found that familial risks simultaneously explained parental selection into high-risk neighborhoods as well as their offspring’s increased risks of adverse outcomes. Methodologically, these studies emphasize the importance of accounting for unobserved familial confounders in pidemiological studies of socioeconomic status and later behavioral and psychiatric outcomes. Substantively, the findings indicate that efficient prevention efforts to decrease the rates of the examined outcomes must consider a broader range of familial and individual risks than merely socioeconomic and demographic measures, at least in the Swedish context.

[StCapps]

Correlation is not the same as causation. The socio-economic talking point is a typical lefty argument that leads nowhere. If poverty causes crime, how come most poor people don't become criminals? Most people in the history of the earth has been poorer than poor urban Americans are today. There should have been a crime rate of almost 100% if we go back 100 years or older. Why don't we see that?

Envy and resentment will trigger some people with low impulse control into crime. Who, is the question and how do we prevent it? We know that these individuals usually calm down around 28 yo so just locking them up till then will solve a lot of it.
Women stopping to breed with psychopaths should solve a lot of it as well as we can see that it is a large genetic component to criminal behavior.

An interesting study by behavior geneticist Amir Sariaslan.
Exploring the causal nature of neighborhood influences on violent criminality, substance misuse and psychiatric morbidity

Individuals who live in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods, particularly in urban settings, experience elevated risk of being convicted of violent criminality, to engage in substance misuse and to be diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. The causal nature of these associations is questioned in the literature because previous studies have insufficiently accounted for genetic and environmental risks shared within families. The aim of the dissertation was therefore to explore the etiological relevance of neighborhoods in these traits by combining quasi-experimental, family-based research designs with nationwide Swedish registry data.

<---------------->

In conclusion, we found that familial risks simultaneously explained parental selection into high-risk neighborhoods as well as their offspring’s increased risks of adverse outcomes. Methodologically, these studies emphasize the importance of accounting for unobserved familial confounders in pidemiological studies of socioeconomic status and later behavioral and psychiatric outcomes. Substantively, the findings indicate that efficient prevention efforts to decrease the rates of the examined outcomes must consider a broader range of familial and individual risks than merely socioeconomic and demographic measures, at least in the Swedish context.

Genetics certainly play a role when it comes to disparities in crime rates, of that there is no doubt. But to then jump to the conclusion that race is the biggest factor that accounts for the disparities in crime rates, that's where I take issues with StA's position.

StA will of course claim that I argued the genetics play no role in crime rates, but anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that is not the case, but that is of course where he will move the goalposts, because arguing against StA's Strawman Capps is a hell of a lot easier than arguing against the position I actually take, that's how he deludes himself into thinking he's getting the better of these exchanges.

[Hastur]

Correlation is not the same as causation. The socio-economic talking point is a typical lefty argument that leads nowhere. If poverty causes crime, how come most poor people don't become criminals? Most people in the history of the earth has been poorer than poor urban Americans are today. There should have been a crime rate of almost 100% if we go back 100 years or older. Why don't we see that?

Envy and resentment will trigger some people with low impulse control into crime. Who, is the question and how do we prevent it? We know that these individuals usually calm down around 28 yo so just locking them up till then will solve a lot of it.
Women stopping to breed with psychopaths should solve a lot of it as well as we can see that it is a large genetic component to criminal behavior.

An interesting study by behavior geneticist Amir Sariaslan.
Exploring the causal nature of neighborhood influences on violent criminality, substance misuse and psychiatric morbidity

Individuals who live in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods, particularly in urban settings, experience elevated risk of being convicted of violent criminality, to engage in substance misuse and to be diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. The causal nature of these associations is questioned in the literature because previous studies have insufficiently accounted for genetic and environmental risks shared within families. The aim of the dissertation was therefore to explore the etiological relevance of neighborhoods in these traits by combining quasi-experimental, family-based research designs with nationwide Swedish registry data.

<---------------->

In conclusion, we found that familial risks simultaneously explained parental selection into high-risk neighborhoods as well as their offspring’s increased risks of adverse outcomes. Methodologically, these studies emphasize the importance of accounting for unobserved familial confounders in pidemiological studies of socioeconomic status and later behavioral and psychiatric outcomes. Substantively, the findings indicate that efficient prevention efforts to decrease the rates of the examined outcomes must consider a broader range of familial and individual risks than merely socioeconomic and demographic measures, at least in the Swedish context.

Genetics certainly play a role when it comes to disparities in crime rates, of that there is no doubt. But to then jump to the conclusion that race is the biggest factor that accounts for the disparities in crime rates, that's where I take issues with StA's position.

StA will of course claim that I argued the genetics play no role in crime rates, but anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that is not the case, but that is of course where he will move the goalposts, because arguing against StA's Strawman Capps is a hell of a lot easier than arguing against the position I actually take, that's how he deludes himself into thinking he's getting the better of these exchanges.

I'm not much for speculating about race. It's a poor predictor of anything. It's still a bell curve once you reach a certain amount of people. The curve might be placed a bit differently for different races/sex/nationality/whatever of that there is no doubt but in the end, if you want to predict something about a certain individual, the labels will give you few clues.

[Speaker to Animals]

So just to preempt pages of more bullshit from you..


For every black population on planet Earth, you are going to invent some excuse for their higher rates of violence.

We all live in this liberal clown world, so save us the NPC narrative at this point. We hear it every day. It does not impress.

Assuming the real reason for higher rates of violence is race, when urban and rural are far more correlative, does not impress. No amount of facts will sway you from your race based worldview, we get it. You are too emotionally invested in that race based worldview and you're confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance won't allow to see the light.

Keep on digging that hole deeper though, it's pretty amusing.

The trend carries over to both urban and rural population. Most blacks in America live in rural areas, and the crime rates are still much higher than rural whites. Nor does economic status matter. Poor whites do not commit violent crime at nearly the same rate. The typical liberal excuses such as the ones you attempted really do not match reality.

Instead of saying "race" caused it, I would point out that it is likely genetics. Blacks are tribal by nature, which means more violence between gangs/groups, and their average IQ is smack dab in that sweet spot for criminality. There does seem to be a subset of blacks in America with an average IQ comparable to the European population, they tend to marry one another, and they tend to do quite well for themselves. It's not just race, but genetics.

The tribal issue I think is actually a virtue, as our "civilized" nature is what led us to destroy ourselves with these open borders and suicidal altruism. We need to recover our tribal nature, in my opinion.

The IQ issue, in my opinion, is the primary underlying factor at play, though not the only one. Thus, the American black population with alleles corresponding to a higher IQ tend to create their own subgroup and do not have the higher rates of criminality.

[Speaker to Animals]

This is what I think is going on:

(1) We know that criminality is strongly correlated to lower intelligence. https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal- ... -and-crime

(2) There seems to be a sweet spot in the IQ distribution (around the high 80s) where a person is smart enough to conceive of crime and carry it out, but not necessarily equipped to effectively weigh the pros and cons and make a rational decision as to whether he should commit the crime.

(3) The average IQ of blacks in America is right at that sweet spot (mid-80s).

Thus, it's more accurate to state that men in that IQ range are more likely to commit crimes, and black men are more likely to fall in that IQ range. Thus the much higher crime rate we see in them everywhere.

Where the "nurture" people have a point is that this calculus of determining where the potential risks and costs of an act are worth the reward come into play is when the person possesses no real moral compass. If this man were raised in an intact family, raised in a religious tradition that teaches respect for others and to not steal, etc., then he is less likely to even engage in that kind of analysis in the first place, regardless of IQ.

The problem there lies in the fact that most of the nurture believers are liberals who are the very people responsible for the destruction of black families and the erosion of morals in general. They actively seek to create a society where we all make such a calculus instead of live according to a moral code, and then they can't understand why low-IQ individuals make stupid decisions all the time.

[Zlaxer]

https://www.governing.com/topics/politi ... tates.html


This is how civil wars usually start - 20 years out....is it 1746 or 1835?

[Speaker to Animals]

https://www.governing.com/topics/politi ... tates.html


This is how civil wars usually start - 20 years out....is it 1746 or 1835?

It's a trap.

They will offload all the debt on Illinois and then break out free and clear as their own state.