Arrest in Killing of White Anchor in Ark.

[catzmeow]

I'd like to talk about this seriously with you, so I hope you can take me that way.

What are you talking about when you say "something" happened in the 60s and 70s? It seems like that was a pretty good time for blacks what with the civil rights movement and black power movements and all. Can you explain what you mean?

I don't think that the civil rights era was particularly good for blacks. One thing that happened was that the black family became increasingly splintered.

Widely reviled in its time, the Moynihan Report, released in 1965, detailed how marriage and family played an increasingly small role in black life. Here is a good overview that you can read, if you'd like:

Issues & Views: The Moynihan Report

I think it is even more true in 2008 than it was in 1965. Here is another article on it:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html

the basic cultural insight contained in the report: that ghetto families were at risk of raising generations of children unable to seize the opportunity that the civil rights movement had opened up for them.

The reason I say that "something" happened is that there are many possible scapegoats: the welfare system, which rewarded unwed mothers; the white and black liberals who pushed blacks away from skilled trades and provided a disincentive to work that remains to this day (it is so common in the inner city to hear kids say, "I deserve better than minimum wage in a fast food restaurant," even though many of us grew up doing that work, and thought nothing of it); the liberal policies that pretended that black families were not the linchpin of black society; and black men who abandoned their children and families. It was a clusterfuck of all of the above, in my opinion...and the civil rights era was the framework which allowed the criticisms raised in the Moynihan Report (legitimate, correct, serious criticisms) to be silenced and shamed.

 

[Red Dawn]

Thornhill and Palmer argue that it is possible that the underlying motivations of rapists evolved because they were at one time conducive to reproduction. One of the primary facets of their research is an analysis that the overwhelming majority of rape victims are of childbearing age, suggesting that childbearing ability is involved in a rapist's choice of victims. Thus, men are at least somewhat sexually, and therefore reproductively, motivated.

The problem with this assumption is that their research is based upon FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED data on victims, as virtually ALL analyses of rape are, whether it is feminists alleging that rape is a crime that reflects historic male violence and repression, or Thornhill/Palmer.

So, while trying to rebut the feminist portrayal of rape as a crime of violence and control, Thornhill/Palmer rely on THE SAME FLAWED DATA, which is no more trustworthy in their hands than it is in the hands of feminists.

As I've pointed out, there are two sets of data relating to rape: victim self-report data, which tends to skew younger based upon the feminist definition of rape, which includes categories of sexual contact that even the victims themselves DON'T CONSIDER TO BE RAPE (and which include penetration, a key component of Thornhill/Palmer's assumptions), and police incident reports, which have similar data integrity issues.

You're so convinced, Agna, that you inhabit a world in which you are the smartest person you know, and thus, you feel entitled to be incredibly dismissive of other people's experiences and knowledge. You have no idea on the relative scale how much you have to learn.

It's a shame you never took a debate class in high school, it would have taught you to recognize the massive holes in your argument by switching sides and arguing the counter.

This is what is incredibly humorous about your schooling/educational assessment. You believe that because you've read books that other teenagers haven't read, that you have a superior intellect, and that you didn't need schooling.

What you seemingly don't understand is that a solid school provides not only information on specific subject areas of interest to the student, but also requires students to learn about areas that they AREN'T interested in so as to create a well-rounded person. A sixteen year old in almost every case simply has no idea how much he doesn't know, and thus, is incapable of making informed decisions about his own education.

Like many self-educated people, you are not well-rounded. You're just hyper informed in one subject area, with little to no awareness of how that subject relates to the rest. In fact, the person you remind me of the most on this board is, ironically, William Joyce, the author of this thread. Because he has specialized in reading material that feeds his beliefs about the worst of darker hued humanity, he has curious blind spots in his sources.

Here's the thing you need to understand about this dude william.

He's a racist who lives in perpetual fear of some black boys beating up on his white ass. He lives in total fear of black men, and paranoia about violent crime perpetrated by blacks.

And the important thing to note is, "violent crime" is all the racists ever talk about.

They will never discuss the crime rate in general, including white collar crime like fraud, embezzelment, indentity theft, credit card fraud.

Because those are overswhlemingly committed by whites.

And the ironic thing is, it is almost a certainty that dudes like william have never once in their lives been mugged or jacked by a black man.

But every month when they open their 401(k) account statement, see the interest rates get jacked on their credit cards, watch their insurance rates go up or watch the value of their proprty plummet, its almost always, at least indirectly, cause by white collar malfesance and corporate crime committed by overwhelmingly by white people.

So, pretty much most of the bad shit that happens to racists in their real lives, is a direct or indirect result of white collar corruption or white collor crime rates.

But, living in fear of getting their ass kicked by the black man is just a way of rationalizing their racial hatred.

 

[Amanda]

I don't think that the civil rights era was particularly good for blacks. One thing that happened was that the black family became increasingly splintered.

Widely reviled in its time, the Moynihan Report, released in 1965, detailed how marriage and family played an increasingly small role in black life. Here is a good overview that you can read, if you'd like:

Issues & Views: The Moynihan Report

I think it is even more true in 2008 than it was in 1965. Here is another article on it:

The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies by Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal Summer 2005

So what do you think the way out of this is?

 

[catzmeow]

So what do you think the way out of this is?

I don't know, to be honest. I had a long conversation with a black co-worker right after Obama was elected. He grew up in the ghetto with a single mom (his dad was absent virtually from day one), and I have worked in the ghetto for almost 20 years now.

He told me, "the black community now has no more excuses for failure." What he meant by that was that throughout his life, he'd seen that racism was alive and well, and that was an excuse that was valid for the black community to give for failing to succeed. He would tell his kids that if they worked hard and studied hard, they could be anything. But still, in his own mind, he doubted the truth of that statement. Seeing Obama elected was a sign for him, at least, that racism is no longer a valid excuse for blacks failing to succeed.

Addressing that issue is huge. It is no longer racism that holds African Americans back, it is their own choices and values.

However, having worked a long time on programs designed to deal with inner city youth, I will tell you...there is no replacement for solid families. There isn't now, and there never will be. Kids HAVE to be socialized appropriately in their homes. That doesn't mean that only having one parent means a family is doomed, but it does mean that that single parent must overcompensate to a considerable degree. I know this well, because I'm a single mom, and 70% of the time, I have to be both mom and dad to my kids.

We do have to do some key things:

Fix urban schools and hold them to the same standards that we hold suburban schools to.
Push parents to become more involved in their child's education.

But, at present, there are some urban areas that are so broken and dysfunctional that the task of fixing them is overwhelming, and frankly, I'm not sure government programs CAN fix these areas. Some of the change, perhaps most of it, must come from within the black community itself.

And, in order to fix these problems, black leaders must acknowledge and openly address the elephant in the room: kids need to grow up in stable families where they learn the values of hard work, self discipline, and good ethics. And, the black community itself must foster and cultivate this value.

But, I do not believe, as William Joyce does, that black people are inherently less capable, moral, or good than white people. I just think they face more obstacles, and in this day and age, many of those obstacles are of their own making (or were made for them by their parents/grandparents).

 

[catzmeow]

See? That wasn't so hard.

I try hard to always be honest in what I post here, even if the information is unsettling to some. That sets us apart, because you have no interest in intellectual honesty.

You can always spin that as "and whites are the ones to blame because they're racist" if you want. Whites are increasingly tired of that argument, though.

Actually, I'm equally tired of attempts to dehumanize blacks by people like yourself that have an axe to grind and no interest in real discussion.

 

[catzmeow]

He's a racist who lives in perpetual fear of some black boys beating up on his white ass. He lives in total fear of black men, and paranoia about violent crime perpetrated by blacks.

I've encountered William, in one of his many guises, or his clones, a hundred times on bulletin boards like this. I had him pegged after reading his first post. He is afraid of people of color, and he needs other people to join him in his paradigm so he'll be less alone and scared.

 

[Godboy]

They will never discuss the crime rate in general, including white collar crime like fraud, embezzelment, indentity theft, credit card fraud.

Because those are overswhlemingly committed by whites.

I dont think people arent talking about those crimes because they are "largly committed by white people". I dont think any of the crimes listed above scare people, where assaults, car jackings, robberies, rapes and murders scare EVERYONE.

 

[Godboy]

Fix urban schools and hold them to the same standards that we hold suburban schools to.
Push parents to become more involved in their child's education.

But, at present, there are some urban areas that are so broken and dysfunctional that the task of fixing them is overwhelming, and frankly, I'm not sure government programs CAN fix these areas. Some of the change, perhaps most of it, must come from within the black community itself.

And, in order to fix these problems, black leaders must acknowledge and openly address the elephant in the room: kids need to grow up in stable families where they learn the values of hard work, self discipline, and good ethics. And, the black community itself must foster and cultivate this value.

On top of that, something needs to be done about welfare. Its a double edge sword, because it helps people who are in desperate need, yet it draws the attention of young people who dont need it yet, and then those people get stuck in a situation where they've been taking welfare for years, and now they dont have any job experience so they cant get hired for any jobs, so they continue to collect wlefare instead.

The problem is, these mothers have these kids, then they cant support them without a job or welfare, and since they have no job experience, they wont get paid hardly anything and it would probably equal to about the same amount they get for free every month from welfare, so why not sit at home instead of busting their ass. The reason they shouldnt sit on their ass is so that they can gain work experience and start getting better jobs with better pay, but old habits are hard to break out of.

Unfortunately you cant just remove all welfare and force them to go get their own jobs, because the black community couldnt survive such a sudden hit like that. I think its going to be a slow process getting these people out of the welfare trap, and will probably take a couple generations to do.

I dont want to sound like a typical Republican on a rant about Democrats, but this welfare thing hurts people, and the only reason the Democrats love it, is because thats how they buy the poor minority vote, but they are paying these people off with poison.

 

[catzmeow]

Unfortunately you cant just remove all welfare and force them to go get their own jobs, because the black community couldnt survive such a sudden hit like that. I think its going to be a slow process getting these people out of the welfare trap, and will probably take a couple generations to do.

I dont want to sound like a typical Republican on a rant about Democrats, but this welfare thing hurts people, and the only reason the Democrats love it, is because thats how they buy the poor minority vote, but they are paying these people off with poison.

I have to agree. It's just slavery of a different sort.

 

[William Joyce]

And the important thing to note is, "violent crime" is all the racists ever talk about.

They will never discuss the crime rate in general, including white collar crime like fraud, embezzelment, indentity theft, credit card fraud.

Because those are overswhlemingly committed by whites.

And the ironic thing is, it is almost a certainty that dudes like william have never once in their lives been mugged or jacked by a black man.

One, I think you are, to use a word, stereotyping when you say it's whites who commit white-collar crimes. As a law student at the U.S. Attorney's office, I thought the same thing going in... but most of our embezzlements, stock frauds, etc. were perpetrated by blacks.

But assuming it's true that blacks stick to violence and whites to subterfuge, that's still good reason to be wary of blacks on the street instead of whites, no?

And when you say things like "dudes like william have never once in their lives been mugged or jacked by a black man," you need to be extremely careful. This is not, to put it gently, a strong talking point for your side of the issue. Many whites have indeed been mugged by blacks, and my own personal experience includes a half-dozen harrowing encounters with blacks on the New York City subway. Bernie Goetz wasn't a hero -- even among white liberals in the city -- for nothing. So, just cross that one of your list for your next venture out on the board, OK?

 

[Doug]

Crime Does Not Discriminated. Coincidence That It Was A Black Man That Killed The Anchor Woman And A Black Man Stalking Your Wife. Being In A Southern State I Can Understand Why You Feel It About Race But It Is Not.
Whites Stalk And Whites Rape And Kill. Blacks Stalk And Blacks Rape And Kill. Simple As That. Whites Rape And Kill Black And Blacks Rape And Kill Whites.
So Do Not Try To Make Any Of This About Race. I Don't Think You Know What A Race Crime Is.
Is Black Crime All You Have In Little Rock?

Actually, in point of fact, nowadays, whites don't rape Blacks. At least not in statistically-noticeable numbers.

 

[jgbkab]

I'll probably get slammed for saying this but most black men scare me. It's the way they look at me, it just terrifies me. They look like they want to hurt me and make me suffer. Very few haven't given me "that look". Even most black women are pretty rude to me. I don't understand it at all. I don't think I do anything to provoke this response.

Read about Mandingo and you'll know why....

 

[jgbkab]

You failing to recognize something. If black people make up about 12% of the population and whites are 72% (yet they commit nearly the same amount of rapes), then that means if you have a white man and a black man in a room, the woman in the room with them is like 3 or 4 times more likey to be raped by the black man.

That is a misleading stat...most "reported" crime happens in urban areas where blacks make up more than the 12 percent you say. A lot of petty crimes and even some major crimes like say...rape don't get reported for various reasons in urban and rural areas alike.

What this says (obviously) is black men rape far more often then any other racial group, which is a serious problem they need to deal with. I mean really, SERIOUSLY, they are raping WAY too much, whats that about? That is an ugly fact black people need to address. They also murder, rob, steal and assault far more then any other racial group. Is it because their skin is black? Of course not, its because black culture has taken a very bad turn, which started in the late 60-70s. Its sad too, because thats right when they finally had equal rights. Before this time period, black unemployment was lower, fatherless households and divorce was very rare, and they committed les crime.

No, it obviously says you obviously think black men rape more than white men but you say they rape about the same number of women. Crimes and statistics are two different things. Don't confuse people by lumping them into one meaning.... Also, black people do need to address values in their communities more. BUT, that is not whole solution. There are still inequalities that remain in the black communities even with a black/biracial/half white POTUS.

Its like they finally got the rights they wanted, but they turned the empowerment they got from it into something negative. Suddenly they could voice their complaints about they way they were treated, and they kept on complaining, and then their children grew up hearing all the terrible things their parents endured, and they hear about all the proud civil rights leaders and they want to be a part of that movement too, so they start complaining about race, and anytime they have a disagreement with a white man, or a white man treats them badly, they blame it on racism. What people fail to recognize is, if you see a bunch of gangbangers walk into a store dressed all thugged out, they are going to be watched closely. Now of course they will say they are being watched because they are black, but its more about the clerk having common sense then anything else..

Us? Nooo! I don't complain, but I'm no fool either. I have been discriminated against and even steroetyped (some people think I'm more likely to rape a white woman in the room), but it's all in how you deal with it. That's where the difference is. It started in my home with my single mother.

The black community really needs to stop the false cries of racism too. I used to work in downtown Seattle doing hip hop nights at clubs, and i cant tell you how many times i saw someone pull out the race card when he, and everyone around knew full and well it had nothing to do with race. Often times when they get kicked out for fighting "Its because im black!" is a typical response you hear, which is absurd because everyone else in the place (with the exception of the bar staff), is black too and they are more then welcome to stay. These false accusations not only enrage white people, it destroys the credibility of the guy who truly IS being treated unfairly because of his race. It makes people far less likely to believe it when its true, and thats not good for anyone.

Racism is alive and well in both blacks and whites. I never hear anyone cry racism in my community but they do scream discrimination...sometimes with merit and sometimes baseless. But some whites also scream reverse discrimination with merit sometimes. The point is that you are talking about blacks in a club...which is not the black community. We really don't live in clubs. I live in the suburbs.

Ignoring the facts doesnt do anyone any good, and it sucks that any time you point out the faults of another race, youre labled a racist. Sometimes criticism can be constructive. If you could just take a moment to listen to what people are saying before you whip out the race card, you might learn something you didnt consider or know about before.

What you are saying is that gangbangers and clubgoers are blacks and scream racism every time someone follows them in the store or the club and they need to stop until you feel that it is racism?

 

[Anguille]

One, I think you are, to use a word, stereotyping when you say it's whites who commit white-collar crimes. As a law student at the U.S. Attorney's office, I thought the same thing going in... but most of our embezzlements, stock frauds, etc. were perpetrated by blacks.

But assuming it's true that blacks stick to violence and whites to subterfuge, that's still good reason to be wary of blacks on the street instead of whites, no?

And when you say things like "dudes like william have never once in their lives been mugged or jacked by a black man," you need to be extremely careful. This is not, to put it gently, a strong talking point for your side of the issue. Many whites have indeed been mugged by blacks, and my own personal experience includes a half-dozen harrowing encounters with blacks on the New York City subway. Bernie Goetz wasn't a hero -- even among white liberals in the city -- for nothing. So, just cross that one of your list for your next venture out on the board, OK?

As a counterpoint to your personal experience, WJ, and as another white person, I have suffered far more in my life as a result of white collar crime, most of it committed by corporations headed by white male CEO's than crime at the hands of any minority. I've been ripped off by AOL, the gas utility co, a car rental agency, employers and a landlord. And these were only criminal acts which came to my attention. The behind the scenes stuff, bribery of polititians, for example affects our lives in ways we barely understand.

 

[William Joyce]

[I have suffered far more in my life as a result of white collar crime, most of it committed by corporations headed by white male CEO's than crime at the hands of any minority. I've been ripped off by AOL, the gas utility co, a car rental agency, employers and a landlord.

Hmmm... I think I'd need the details of your being a "crime victim" of these white males before I could pass judgment here...

 

[Agnapostate]

Thornhill and Palmer argue that it is possible that the underlying motivations of rapists evolved because they were at one time conducive to reproduction. One of the primary facets of their research is an analysis that the overwhelming majority of rape victims are of childbearing age, suggesting that childbearing ability is involved in a rapist's choice of victims. Thus, men are at least somewhat sexually, and therefore reproductively, motivated.

The problem with this assumption is that their research is based upon FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED data on victims, as virtually ALL analyses of rape are, whether it is feminists alleging that rape is a crime that reflects historic male violence and repression, or Thornhill/Palmer.

So, while trying to rebut the feminist portrayal of rape as a crime of violence and control, Thornhill/Palmer rely on THE SAME FLAWED DATA, which is no more trustworthy in their hands than it is in the hands of feminists.

As I've pointed out, there are two sets of data relating to rape: victim self-report data, which tends to skew younger based upon the feminist definition of rape, which includes categories of sexual contact that even the victims themselves DON'T CONSIDER TO BE RAPE (and which include penetration, a key component of Thornhill/Palmer's assumptions), and police incident reports, which have similar data integrity issues.

You're so convinced, Agna, that you inhabit a world in which you are the smartest person you know, and thus, you feel entitled to be incredibly dismissive of other people's experiences and knowledge. You have no idea on the relative scale how much you have to learn.

It's a shame you never took a debate class in high school, it would have taught you to recognize the massive holes in your argument by switching sides and arguing the counter.

This is what is incredibly humorous about your schooling/educational assessment. You believe that because you've read books that other teenagers haven't read, that you have a superior intellect, and that you didn't need schooling.

What you seemingly don't understand is that a solid school provides not only information on specific subject areas of interest to the student, but also requires students to learn about areas that they AREN'T interested in so as to create a well-rounded person. A sixteen year old in almost every case simply has no idea how much he doesn't know, and thus, is incapable of making informed decisions about his own education.

Like many self-educated people, you are not well-rounded. You're just hyper informed in one subject area, with little to no awareness of how that subject relates to the rest. In fact, the person you remind me of the most on this board is, ironically, William Joyce, the author of this thread. Because he has specialized in reading material that feeds his beliefs about the worst of darker hued humanity, he has curious blind spots in his sources.

I'll detail several of the numerous mistakes you made in this post in a few weeks, when I have regular Internet access again. In the meantime, I'd advise you to consult the relevant research on the topic other than that of Thornhill and Palmer (Hagen 1979, Symons 1979, Shields & Shields 1982) so that you might be familiar with at least one of the more elementary errors that you made.

 

[Swoop187]

Too bad whites are not a member of a protected class. If so, it would have been ruled a hate crime.

My (white) wife was stalked by a black man for some time. We tried to get the Little Rock police to do something, but they were no help at all. Eventually, it stopped. We have security cameras on our house, an alarm system and we are always armed. A black man was recently killed in a neighborhood close to ours for trying to rob a white man. Two days later, friends of the robber returned and shot-up the house. Thankfully, nobody was home.

Yep and lets blame it all on Black men and not the fact that for a century they were tortured in that backward ass state better known as Arkansas and thats why the blacks there hate the white including racist idiots like you. aybe one day they can stop by your house and you can scream all that BS that you do on this board and lets see what happens. Cmon, lets just try it once?

I love all the excuses to justify despicable and anti-social behavior by blacks.

Every time a black does something wrong some liberal or black always has an excuse as to why its justified.

Using this logic, me being Sicilian I have every right to go around committing violent acts against blacks because centuries ago the Moors invaded, raped, occupied and murdered their way through Sicily.

 

[Agnapostate]

All right, time to offer a more detailed criticism of this piss-poor "analysis."

Thornhill and Palmer argue that it is possible that the underlying motivations of rapists evolved because they were at one time conducive to reproduction. One of the primary facets of their research is an analysis that the overwhelming majority of rape victims are of childbearing age, suggesting that childbearing ability is involved in a rapist's choice of victims. Thus, men are at least somewhat sexually, and therefore reproductively, motivated.

The problem with this assumption is that their research is based upon FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED data on victims, as virtually ALL analyses of rape are, whether it is feminists alleging that rape is a crime that reflects historic male violence and repression, or Thornhill/Palmer.

So, while trying to rebut the feminist portrayal of rape as a crime of violence and control, Thornhill/Palmer rely on THE SAME FLAWED DATA, which is no more trustworthy in their hands than it is in the hands of feminists.

As I've pointed out, there are two sets of data relating to rape: victim self-report data, which tends to skew younger based upon the feminist definition of rape, which includes categories of sexual contact that even the victims themselves DON'T CONSIDER TO BE RAPE (and which include penetration, a key component of Thornhill/Palmer's assumptions), and police incident reports, which have similar data integrity issues.

That is not an accurate summary of the data available regarding evolutionary theories of rape. Firstly, you're obviously confused as to the distinctions between ultimate and proximate explanations of rape. Ultimate origin analyses of rape cannot be contested by those who dispute evolutionary theories of rape because forced copulation is routinely observed as a reproductive strategy of nonhuman animals.

Even in dealing with data regarding the possible evolutionary motivations for rape in humans, you are deluded, the primary reason for which being that you only have a vague familiarity with a very minute sample of data regarding evolutionary theories of rape, despite attempting to pretend that you have some expansive knowledge of the topic. I shall present a more extensive summary of evidence indicating that evolutionary motivations for rape exist so that you don't make a similar error in the future.

Firstly, I would advise you to consult E. Kanin's work in An examination of sexual aggression as a response to sexual frustration and Date rapists: Differential sexual socialization and relative deprivation The abstract of the latter is particularly revealing:

Deviant sexual behavior has often been portrayed as the consequence of the frustration of legitimate sexual outlets. This study of date rapists reveals that these men, as a result of a hypersexual socialization process, are sexually very active, successful, and aspiring. These exaggerated aspiration levels are seen as responsible for instituting a high degree of sexual frustration. This acute relative deprivation, it is hypothesized, is a significant process responsible for precipitating these rape episodes.

Hence, deviant sexual behavior (specifically, sexual coercion), is likely precipitated by exaggerated sexual aspiration levels. Though these men experience little in the way of actual sexual deprivation, the relative deprivation that they experience likely results in sexual frustration, as Kanin noted. On those grounds, sexual coercion can be observed to be related to some degree of sexual frustration, which indicates a motive of extreme lust, not a mere desire for power or control.

Moreover, analyses of the motivations of rapists, specifically of the sexual response of rapists to alternate depictions and narratives of consensual sexual encounters and coercive sexual encounters have indicated that they are typically not more stimulated or aroused by violent encounters than by nonviolent ones, as opposed to non-rapists, who were most stimulated by narratives of nonviolent encounters and least stimulated by narratives of violent encounters. This research has been conducted in studies such as Abel, Barlow, Blanchard, and Guild's The components of rapists' sexual arousal and Quinsey, Chaplin, and Varney's A comparison of rapists' and non-sex offenders' sexual preferences for mutually consenting sex, rape, and physical abuse of women.

In Quinsey and Chaplin's Stimulus Contro! of Rapists' and Non-sex Offenders' Sexual Arousal, they document the following:

Fifteen rapists and fifteen non-sex offenders’ penile circumference responses to audiotaped narratives were compared. These narrative involved neutral heterosocial scenes, consenting heterosexual activity in which the female partner was active or passive, and rape scenes. The rape scenes varied according to whether the victim assertively refused or pleaded for mercy and according to whether the victim ultimately experienced pain or pleasure in the assault. Non-sex offenders responded most to the consenting sex narratives and least to the stories in which the victim suffered whereas rapists’ responses did not vary over the various categories of consenting and nonconsenting heterosexual activity. These data are consistent with the theory that nonrapists’ sexual responses are inhibited by nonsexual cues given by the female whereas those of rapists are not.

If rapists were motivated primarily by desires for domination and control of women, then they would have experience greater arousal from the audio narratives of violent sexual encounters, but there was no indication of any variation between their responses to narratives of violent sexual encounters and consensual sexual encounters, indicating a sexual motive, a proclivity for rape being related to a lack of inhibitions regarding the use of violence or coercion.

Inasmuch as you were obviously unaware of this research, you lack the capacity to pass judgment on the merits of evolutionary theories of rape, since you are uninformed as to the extent of the research in the area, and are only vaguely acquainted with a small degree of data used by Thornhill and Palmer.

You're so convinced, Agna, that you inhabit a world in which you are the smartest person you know, and thus, you feel entitled to be incredibly dismissive of other people's experiences and knowledge. You have no idea on the relative scale how much you have to learn.

It's a shame you never took a debate class in high school, it would have taught you to recognize the massive holes in your argument by switching sides and arguing the counter.

This is what is incredibly humorous about your schooling/educational assessment. You believe that because you've read books that other teenagers haven't read, that you have a superior intellect, and that you didn't need schooling.

What you seemingly don't understand is that a solid school provides not only information on specific subject areas of interest to the student, but also requires students to learn about areas that they AREN'T interested in so as to create a well-rounded person. A sixteen year old in almost every case simply has no idea how much he doesn't know, and thus, is incapable of making informed decisions about his own education.

Like many self-educated people, you are not well-rounded. You're just hyper informed in one subject area, with little to no awareness of how that subject relates to the rest. In fact, the person you remind me of the most on this board is, ironically, William Joyce, the author of this thread. Because he has specialized in reading material that feeds his beliefs about the worst of darker hued humanity, he has curious blind spots in his sources.

On the contrary, your arrogant assumptions are related to your inaccurate belief that you have specialization or expertise that others have not. For instance, you consider yourself sufficiently qualified to make vastly differing judgments regarding my age and life experience, the majority of them being flagrantly inaccurate, on the sole grounds that you have "worked with troubled youth." This has led you to wildly inaccurate assumptions. (Such as your claim that I was "suburban" and unacquainted with the experiences of minority and poor youth.)

You also have the audacity to claim that you have "eviscerated" my views regarding education, despite the fact that you have essentially no familiarity with the topic of libertarian education styles at all, and have likely read nothing of A.S. Neill, John Holt, or Ivan Illich. You certainly haven't read Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis's work regarding the purpose of authoritarian schooling functioning as a form of indoctrination for students entering the hierarchical workplace.

Most egregiously, you claim, on the basis of a New York Times article that studied the pro-pedophile movement and their claims to favor "children's rights," that I have sympathy or connections with that movement, thus revealing your extensive ignorance of the most basic and rudimentary issues, such as the elementary distinction between "children's rights" and "youth rights." You are therefore absurdly uninformed and in absolutely no position to make value judgments on the ethical nature of my beliefs regarding youth rights, inasmuch as you are completely unfamiliar with the topic.

But then again, that ignorance and unfamiliarity is but a small manifestation of your ignorance of all varieties of social and political topics, and indeed, about life in general.

 

[manu1959]

Too bad whites are not a member of a protected class. If so, it would have been ruled a hate crime.

My (white) wife was stalked by a black man for some time. We tried to get the Little Rock police to do something, but they were no help at all. Eventually, it stopped. We have security cameras on our house, an alarm system and we are always armed. A black man was recently killed in a neighborhood close to ours for trying to rob a white man. Two days later, friends of the robber returned and shot-up the house. Thankfully, nobody was home.

Yep and lets blame it all on Black men and not the fact that for a century they were tortured in that backward ass state better known as Arkansas and thats why the blacks there hate the white including racist idiots like you. aybe one day they can stop by your house and you can scream all that BS that you do on this board and lets see what happens. Cmon, lets just try it once?

well i had a civilian realative die in the zulu attacks in africa so do i get a pass if i want to start killing blacks in retaliation....

 

[B94]

I don't think anyone knows the reasons why, though I would suggest that because blacks are more likely than whites to live in disintegrated families in poor urban areas that have heavier concentrations of crime, kids are more likely to grow up feeling that crime is somehow normal. However, something happened in the black community in the 1960s and 1970s, and it was exacerbated in the 1980s and 1990s. I don't believe that blacks are inherently more criminal than whites. But, they are definitely impacted by risk factors that the average white kid isn't.

I'd like to talk about this seriously with you, so I hope you can take me that way.

What are you talking about when you say "something" happened in the 60s and 70s? It seems like that was a pretty good time for blacks what with the civil rights movement and black power movements and all. Can you explain what you mean?

Could the change have to due with some of the black soldiers coming back from Vietnam? Creating the black gangs (drugs and guns)?