Arrest in Killing of White Anchor in Ark.

[Godboy]

...by the way, it took quite a bit of research to dig up those official Department of Justice statsitics, because i made the mistake of looking into sources OUTSIDE the offical DOJ website, the reason being that the DOJ website has TONS of information and its like finding a needle in a hay stack. As i was looking for for this information, almost every site i found with info about black crime, was a racist website that exagerated these statistics by cleverly mixing in false info with official DOJ info, and these sites never appeared to be racist sites at first, until i started digging. The claims that black people commit 90% of all rapes is EVERYWHERE on the web, but im here to say that the 90% claim is definitely way over exagerated, dont believe it (i know i USED to), but black crime is still much higher then all other race groups in almost every catagory, and that IS a problem.

 

[Agnapostate]

Rape is an act of violence and has nothing to do with physical attractiveness.

Derailment though it may be, I see no compelling reason to regard that as true. Have you read Thornhill and Palmer's work on the matter? As they mention, the majority of women that are raped are reproductive females of childbearing age, and McCahill 1979 found that gratuitous violence beyond the point necessary to restrain the woman was a factor in 22% or less cases of rape.

 

[del]

Derailment though it may be, I see no compelling reason to regard that as true. <snip>

that's because you're not very bright.

 

[RoadVirus]

The black community really needs to stop the false cries of racism too.

What they need to do is get rid of the yahoos like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who have overused the race card for so long.

 

[Agnapostate]

that's because you're not very bright.

The lesser critic might have supplied evidence and sources to support their view.

Clearly, O wise sensei, you have surpassed that trivial phase.

 

[catzmeow]

...by the way, it took quite a bit of research to dig up those official Department of Justice statsitics, because i made the mistake of looking into sources OUTSIDE the offical DOJ website, the reason being that the DOJ website has TONS of information and its like finding a needle in a hay stack. As i was looking for for this information, almost every site i found with info about black crime, was a racist website that exagerated these statistics by cleverly mixing in false info with official DOJ info, and these sites never appeared to be racist sites at first, until i started digging. The claims that black people commit 90% of all rapes is EVERYWHERE on the web, but im here to say that the 90% claim is definitely way over exagerated, dont believe it (i know i USED to), but black crime is still much higher then all other race groups in almost every catagory, and that IS a problem.

Yes, those statistics are not the easiest in the world to track down. I respect your intellectual honesty in searching for them until you find them, rather than doing what WIlliam Joyce has done, which is to use whatever statistics were easiest to find and reinforced his own prejudices.

Yes, per capita, blacks commit more crimes than whites. So do Hispanics. And whites commit more than Asians, per capita.

 

[catzmeow]

Derailment though it may be, I see no compelling reason to regard that as true. Have you read Thornhill and Palmer's work on the matter? As they mention, the majority of women that are raped are reproductive females of childbearing age, and McCahill 1979 found that gratuitous violence beyond the point necessary to restrain the woman was a factor in 22% or less cases of rape.

It largely depends on how rape is defined. Some feminists advocate including every crime of unwanted sexual contact, no matter how minimal, as rape. As well, they might define rape by terms that women themselves would not use. So, for instance, women themselves would NOT define as rape what some feminists would use as the definition. As a result, "rape" statistics are both artificially inflated, and are also deceptively slanted towards the young.

Young women encounter more instances of sexual groping than do older women. Furthermore, they themselves might not count as rape sexual contacts that are included in those statistics (i.e., sexual encounters that they feel ambivalent about). The term rape, in the minds of most Americans, means a violent sexual assault, including penetration in some form. This is not necessarily how "rape" is defined in a lot of studies.

So, Jillian's point remains. A sexual assault, including penetration, that fits the standard view that most of us have of "rape" is more about violence and control than it is about sex. But, given the wide definition that includes far more types of sexual contacts, the rapes that Thornhill's study is based upon is going to skew inadvertently young.

 

[Agnapostate]

No, that's not an accurate representation of Thornhill and Palmer's thesis, (also that of Richard Felson and James Tedeschi), which is that rape evolved as a reproductive mechanism for males unable to mate with females through conventional means.

I do wonder about your grasp of sociobiology, given that you draw so many conclusions that are inaccurate.

 

[del]

The lesser critic might have supplied evidence and sources to support their view.

Clearly, O wise sensei, you have surpassed that trivial phase.

yes, i have.

 

[catzmeow]

No, that's not an accurate representation of Thornhill and Palmer's thesis, (also that of Richard Felson and James Tedeschi), which is that rape evolved as a reproductive mechanism for males unable to mate with females through conventional means.

I do wonder about your grasp of sociobiology, given that you draw so many conclusions that are inaccurate.

The problem with so many sociobiologists is that they don't use the same terminology to define rape as do law enforcement professionals who arrest and charge the perpetrators, and deal with the victims. Nor do they define rape in the same way that victims do.

I'm sure you've read a dozen or more studies that substantiate your view on things. What I suspect you've never done is worked with victims or crime data. I've done it for almost 20 years. I understand the limitations of such data far better than you do.

By the way, if you consider Thornhill & Palmer definitive on this subject, you don't really understand research as well as you think you do.

It would have been relatively easy for reporters to compare Thornhill and Palmer's claims against the exhaustive research conducted on rape victims and rapists over the past 30 years. According to Dr. Mary Koss, a professor of public health and psychology at the University of Arizona and a leading rape researcher, "The bulk of available data makes fiction of [Thornhill and Palmer's claims], thus eliminating all the data that the authors purport are supportive of their theory except their observations of insect and bird behavior." (Violence, Trauma and Abuse, 4/00) For example, Koss notes, no existing data prove a causal link between a victim's location, attire or time of day and heightened risk of rape. (For a copy of this review, email Dr. Koss at mpk@u.arizona.edu.)

But since feminists' adverse reaction was the popular news hook, Thornhill and Palmer's theory was rarely subjected to scientific criticism.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1034

 

[Agnapostate]

The problem with so many sociobiologists is that they don't use the same terminology to define rape as do law enforcement professionals who arrest and charge the perpetrators, and deal with the victims. Nor do they define rape in the same way that victims do.

To some extent, their definition can function for all varieties of sexual aggression, since lust is a byproduct of the sensory appeal of intercourse that applies to other sexual behaviors.

I'm sure you've read a dozen or more studies that substantiate your view on things. What I suspect you've never done is worked with victims or crime data. I've done it for almost 20 years. I understand the limitations of such data far better than you do.

On the contrary, you have revealed your ignorance of some of the most fundamental tenets of the scientific method through some of the links and studies that you have posted, subject to blatantly obvious methodological errors as many of them are.

By the way, if you consider Thornhill & Palmer definitive on this subject, you don't really understand research as well as you think you do.

In Rape Debate, Controversy Trumps Credibility

I find it interesting that you post links to things that I've read months or even years ago, and believe that you've suddenly made some magical revelation for me. You did it with Hoffman's analysis of Hotz et al., and now you've done it with FAIR's analysis of Thornhill and Palmer. I was aware of FAIR's work ever since I read Manufacturing Consent and became aware of the propaganda model, since Edward S. Herman was involved with FAIR. When it comes to most of the "rebuttals" that you post, I have seen these things before you have. A simple Google search won't grant you access to some magical information that rebuts my position.

In relation to FAIR's analysis, it was an analysis of the manner in which Thornhill and Palmer's ideas were presented, not of the veracity of the ideas themselves. I don't disagree with the analysis, as the media frequently distorts issues to inflate ratings, and presenting this research as a cultural struggle aided them in doing so. But FAIR's analysis is a sign of the left's larger hostility toward sociobiology, associated in the past with social Darwinism as it has been. Those who make this claim clearly need to familiarize themselves with Kropotkin's Mutual Aid or Singer's A Darwinian Left.

 

[catzmeow]

Their study doesn't address lust. It addresses rape.

And, the simple fact of the matter is that it is virtually impossible to do a study that discusses victims of rape, demographically, without defining the term. There are two types of statistical data that deal with rape and rape victims, for the most part. The first type is self-report data. It is a common matter of fact that rape, as defined in self-report studies, is so broad as to be irrelevant in drawing cultural conclusions. The second type of data, police incident report data, would not substantiate the claims of Thornhill and Palmer.

As Thornhill and Palmer DID NOT COLLECT NEW STATISTICAL DATA to draw their conclusions about rape victims, their methodology is irreparably flawed, and their conclusions are suspect, because the EXISTING DATA ITSELF IS FLAWED.

I work with these types of data professionally. The fact that you are not clear on what I'm talking about here shows that you know very little about the logistics of research.

 

[Agnapostate]

These statements have made me increasingly dubious of your knowledge of Thornhill and Palmer's argument. (Also espoused by Felson and Tedeschi, as I noted.)

Could you summarize it to the best of your ability?

EDIT: You have egregiously misrepresented it in the past, of course.

 

[Godboy]

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.

Sorry, correction, i guess if you had a random white man and a random black man, the black man is like 5 times more likely to be a rapist than the white man, not 3-4.

 

[Godboy]

Since we are talking about who a white woman should fear being raped by more, black or white men, if you considered black and white males to be 100% of the population you were considering in the discussion (that means exlcuding all women, hispanic males, asian males, etc), that means black men would make up 14.28% of your considered population, while white men make up the remaining 85.72%. With that said, the 14.28% of the population which is black men, is committing 43.63% of the rapes. In this "black and white men only" situation, where black men are outnumbered by white men 6 to 1, they are committing nearly half the rapes. So yeah, that would make the random black guy about 5 times more likely then the random white guy to rape a woman.

These numbers were figured out with the understanding that black people make up 12% of the US population, and white people are 72%, while only half of them are male. Then you take into consideration that black men commit 33.6% of all rapes, while white men commit 44.5% of all rapes. When you decide that white and black men are 100% of all you are considering, well, you do the math, i dont have the calcualtions saved, so if you want to refute it, youll have to do the math yourself, heh, but im confident its correct.

 

[catzmeow]

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.

 

[William Joyce]

Yes, per capita, blacks commit more crimes than whites. So do Hispanics. And whites commit more than Asians, per capita.

See? That wasn't so hard.

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.

 

[Amanda]

See? That wasn't so hard.

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.

I'm tired of it. I don't think I'm oppressing anyone with my whiteness.

 

[catzmeow]

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.

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.

 

[Amanda]

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?