Why do Black men rape White women?

[bush_cheney2004]

Mo man should rape any woman, period (or any man, and no woman should rape anyone).

If your posting is a reflection of a belief that I am attempting to highlight hatred of other groups as a factor in some rapes, you are knocking at the wrong door (and of course, if I misread you, my apologies).

No, I am challenging the basic premise entirely. It's like asking bank robbers why they rob banks..."Because that's where the money is". If we are to have rapists (of any race), then the issue is sexual assault, not just sexual assault of white women by black men. Turns out that there are more white women in the general US population.

[benny]

Mo man should rape any woman, period (or any man, and no woman should rape anyone).

If your posting is a reflection of a belief that I am attempting to highlight hatred of other groups as a factor in some rapes, you are knocking at the wrong door (and of course, if I misread you, my apologies).

Wishful and pious thoughts are not enough.

[Argus]

Sure...why not?

Which makes you, what, a member of an institution - or someone who ought to be in one?

[bush_cheney2004]

Which makes you, what, a member of an institution - or someone who ought to be in one?

I'm not a Republican, if that's what you're getting at. Racism is alive and well in many places...your OP is proof enough of that.

[Argus]

I can't believe it, but I read (pretty much) this whole thread. I think this thread proves that statistics on race are provocative, at least.

Yes, I'm quite pleased. There were no interesting discussions so I hoped this one would prosper.

1. The study is based on telephone surveys of Americans. The cited `table 42` (from my math) bases its statistics on sexual assault on telephone interviews with perhaps 3 or 4 people by my count. That is why the result has an asterisk beside it. The sample is far too small to be meaningful.

I haven't looked into the methodology, but I find it hard to believe the US government would put out statistics based on a sample size anywhere near that small.

I believe even Argus himself makes the mistake of jumping from correlation (crime vs race) to causation.

This is a fatal flaw in his argument. He goes from a fact based discussion (blacks commit proportionally more crimes) to personal assumptions (it`s because of such-and-such a reason). I may have missed it, and I hope I have, but I don`t think I saw a study that proved root causes.

Well naturally much of what we have to say here is personal opinion, hopefully personal opinion based on something of substance, or at least logic. My belief in "root causes" insofar as black crime goes is based on reading a number of articles, studies and thoughtful analyses by people considerably more educated on the topic than I am.

Look, Black crime is a fact. So then we get into causes. Either you presume there is some kind of racial, ie genetic reason for such behaviour, or you examine cultural baggage and upbringing.

If Argus indeed is interested in the truth, then he must be open to the logical end of where the truth takes us - a path to improve the situation. If it turns out, for example, that poverty is indeed the root cause of problems, will he be willing to look at improving our social programs or will that not be the path that open mindedness is supposed to take us to ?

You would have to convince me that it was the cause, and that the proposed solutions have a significant chance of success. I don't believe poverty is the problem at the moment. I believe the problems are single mothers/absent fathers, and a lack of education. There are a number of contributing factors, and even these are not the absolute "root" of the problem. You have to get into cultural values which cause so many absent fathers, and such a high number of high school dropouts to occur for that. And even all that only deals with some parts of the Black community. The problems of Somali crime can't be traced to absent fathers. There are entirely different factors at play in that community.

Of course, if no one keeps statistics we can't really examine and possibly deal with these factors.

Another objection I have is the use of race statistics for challenging the definition of 'hate crime'. If white people beat up a black person because they are black then that's a 'hate crime' by definition. Do blacks commit these types of crimes too ? Of course they do, but we know that. Why do we have to go tit-for-tit on this ?

When was the last time you heard even a suggestion a Black man who beat up a white man ought to be charged with a hate crime?

Argus - really ? What about Listor's posts ? Do you not think that he goes a little far in inserting his own biases and unsubstantiated opinions into his arguments ?

I usually don't read Listor's posts. He is, in some ways, arguing for some of the same ends as I am (as far as I can tell) but for different reasons - and usually quite ineffectively.

[Argus]

The fatal flaw is the conclusion that Blacks, as a group, have a predilection for rape, specifically raping white women. Predilection means preference. Even the worst statistics on the issue of rape do not support that conclusion and, quite frankly, it does not make sense.

Predilection does not mean preference. It means that Blacks - as a group - is more, for lack of a better word, predisposed towards crime than Whites - as a group. And yes, I acknolwedge that's a generality but based upon the observed criminal acticities of Blacks in Canada, the US, and UK. In all three areas, Blacks have commit crime, particularly violent crime, out of all proportion to their numbers in the general population.

[Argus]

....or the simple number of "White women" in the general population. So entrenched is the OP's bias, the ludicrous assumption is that "Black men" should only rape "Black women" ?

No, the assumption is that, given the number of blacks in the population is X, the number of rapes of white women which are done by Blacks should also be X. If it is a higher number, then we can ask why.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Predilection does not mean preference. It means that Blacks - as a group - is more, for lack of a better word, predisposed towards crime than Whites - as a group. And yes, I acknolwedge that's a generality but based upon the observed criminal acticities of Blacks in Canada, the US, and UK. In all three areas, Blacks have commit crime, particularly violent crime, out of all proportion to their numbers in the general population.

Main Entry: pre·di·lec·tion

Pronunciation: \ˌpre-də-ˈlek-shən, ˌprē-\

Function: noun

Etymology: French prédilection, from Medieval Latin praediligere to love more, prefer, from Latin prae- + diligere to love — more at diligent

Date: 1742

: an established preference for something

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predilection

Edited August 7, 2009 by TrueMetis

[bush_cheney2004]

No, the assumption is that, given the number of blacks in the population is X, the number of rapes of white women which are done by Blacks should also be X. If it is a higher number, then we can ask why.

Lots of reasons irrespective of race.....including the number of "white women" in the population of available sexual assault victims.

"done by Blacks".....very scientific!

[benny]

Lots of reasons irrespective of race.....including the number of "white women" in the population of available sexual assault victims.

"done by Blacks".....very scientific!

Since you all want science, go post in the science section.

[bush_cheney2004]

Since you all want science, go post in the science section.

Who died and left you king?

[benny]

Who died and left you king?

And when it's about me, go post in my private mailbox.

[M.Dancer]

Who died and left you king?

Rainman?

[bush_cheney2004]

And when it's about me, go post in my private mailbox.

Is that you....Kim Il Jong?

[GostHacked]

Who died and left you king?

We should throw a party when he hits 4000 posts. Ohh wait .. crap we missed it.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

I haven't looked into the methodology, but I find it hard to believe the US government would put out statistics based on a sample size anywhere near that small.

I believe there's a note to that effect on table 42. That's why the statistic is so absurd at 100% vs 0%.

Well naturally much of what we have to say here is personal opinion, hopefully personal opinion based on something of substance, or at least logic. My belief in "root causes" insofar as black crime goes is based on reading a number of articles, studies and thoughtful analyses by people considerably more educated on the topic than I am.

Well, all data needs to be interpreted, which brings in a bias of course. But you're starting with facts and adding the explanation for those facts yourself, which is only marginally better than stating incorrect facts.

Example 1:

"Women are terrible drivers."

Example 2:

"The statistics showed that in 2007 women caused less collisions per capita than men per mile driven, but that's because they're timid drivers."

Example 1 and Example 2 are both opinions, although Example 2 is ostensibly 'fact based'. Neither statement is likely correct, although Example 2 is probably unprovable.

Look, Black crime is a fact. So then we get into causes. Either you presume there is some kind of racial, ie genetic reason for such behaviour, or you examine cultural baggage and upbringing.

There are other reasons, for example the fact that families were uprooted and lived as slaves for 200+ years but let's not digress.

In any case, if your purpose is to find the actual root cause, then you had better be prepared to do something about it - otherwise your motivation for looking into this is self-serving.

You would have to convince me that it was the cause, and that the proposed solutions have a significant chance of success. I don't believe poverty is the problem at the moment. I believe the problems are single mothers/absent fathers, and a lack of education. There are a number of contributing factors, and even these are not the absolute "root" of the problem. You have to get into cultural values which cause so many absent fathers, and such a high number of high school dropouts to occur for that. And even all that only deals with some parts of the Black community. The problems of Somali crime can't be traced to absent fathers. There are entirely different factors at play in that community.

And, again, what are you going to do when you find a "cause" ?

Of course, if no one keeps statistics we can't really examine and possibly deal with these factors.

When was the last time you heard even a suggestion a Black man who beat up a white man ought to be charged with a hate crime?

This is a problem with public perceptions and specifically how the press or 'liberals' view things.

There's a collective guilt and abhorrence around racial violence, as there are with crimes involving children, that give a reaction that at times is out of proportion to the scale of the crime.

What do you think can be done about that ?

I would say if we emphasize fact-based discussion, but still recognize that humans are emotional and emotions will fuel any discussion, then we might get started on the right path.

I usually don't read Listor's posts. He is, in some ways, arguing for some of the same ends as I am (as far as I can tell) but for different reasons - and usually quite ineffectively.

He openly posts racist views and puts an open bias into everything he writes. You have stated that you want to base your opinion on facts and (I think) analysis.

So my challenge still is:

If Argus indeed is interested in the truth, then he must be open to the logical end of where the truth takes us - a path to improve the situation. If it turns out, for example, that poverty is indeed the root cause of problems, will he be willing to look at improving our social programs or will that not be the path that open mindedness is supposed to take us to ?

The implication for you is that if you discover that a certain group causes more problems for society than another, you have to - as Tawasakm has done - keep asking 'why' until you have an answer that is either cultural or biologically based. And we already know that culture is what makes us behave as we do.

By asking for the facts, so that you can analyze the problem, you're already taking steps towards becoming something of a (wince) social engineer, aren't you ?

[Malaclypse the Younger]

(In reference to the thread topic) What a piece of trash of a question.

Why do random numbers of people do horrible things to other random numbers of people, regardless of skin colour? Will we ever know? Probably not! Take your racist garbage elsewhere, boneheads!

Edited August 7, 2009 by Malaclypse the Younger

[tango]

Thank you. I agree and reported the OP, to no avail.

welcome.

[benny]

Is that you....Kim Il Jong?

Always act like if I was a dictator from a visible minority.

[Argus]

Thank you. I agree and reported the OP, to no avail.

welcome.

Freedom of speech is a real bitch, ain't it? People saying things and talking about things without your approval all over the damned place! Oh if only you could put a stop to it!

Oh if only YOU had something interesting to say so people would talk about that instead!

Alas.

Btw, I happened to run across this old email from way back in 1996 (Yes, I'm a packrat). It's from the former network administrator where I used to get people like you all worked up. You see how long I've been doing it.

[email protected] writes:

> This is a formal complant about xxxx Argus ([email protected])

> who have spread anti-immigrant and anti-asian posts throughout the

> Internet in newsgroup such as can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada,

> can.general and can.community.asian. Besides spreading his exetreme ideas,

> he verbally offense anyone who oppose to his ideas. In one of his post,

> he even claimed that the freenet will not discontinue his account based

> on his acts and imply that his actions are fully supported by your

> organization.

>

> I would like to ask you to disconnect his account regarding his irresponsible acts on the Internet who have disturbed a lot of people. I will followup to this

> and will seek higher and boarder assist if no action was made by your organization.

[email protected] is not the proper place to send this type of

complaint, however I would be quite happy to share my personal feelings

with you.

I have seen Argus's postings on occasion and I did go and look in

the newsgroups you listed above. My conclusion is that Argus's postings

fall well inside the acceptable boundaries of free speech. What you are

asking us to do is censor Argus just because you don't like his

postings.

It's time for you to grow up and accept the fact that other people do

not necessarily act and think the same way you do.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

I believe there's a note to that effect on table 42. That's why the statistic is so absurd at 100% vs 0%.

You have, I believe, mistaken the intent of the asterisk next to the column on White on Black crime. It states that this figure, which is basically zero, is based on ten or fewer cases. That is, there were so few reported cases of white on black sexual assault that the data is essentially meaningless. However, that does not apply to the Black on White sexual assault. There is no asterisk next to that one.

In fact, the number of those involved in the survey is presented on another page

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the Nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of 76,000 households comprising nearly 135,300 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States.

So of a sample size of 135,300 people, there were fewer than 10 reported incidents of White on Black sexual assault.

There are other reasons, for example the fact that families were uprooted and lived as slaves for 200+ years but let's not digress.

Not in Canada. And yet we have the same sorts of crime problems among the Black community here.

In any case, if your purpose is to find the actual root cause, then you had better be prepared to do something about it - otherwise your motivation for looking into this is self-serving.

Well, clearly.

And, again, what are you going to do when you find a "cause" ?

That would depend, would it not, on the cause?

This is a problem with public perceptions and specifically how the press or 'liberals' view things.

Yes, we see it right here.

There's a collective guilt and abhorrence around racial violence, as there are with crimes involving children, that give a reaction that at times is out of proportion to the scale of the crime.

What do you think can be done about that ?

Well, as with the video, you can smack them in the face with the double standard, and maybe the smarter ones will begin to clue in.

[benny]

Freedom of speech is a real bitch, ain't it? People saying things and talking about things without your approval all over the damned place! Oh if only you could put a stop to it!

Oh if only YOU had something interesting to say so people would talk about that instead!

Alas.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to hate.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, Tango

Thank you. I agree and reported the OP, to no avail.

welcome.

You should see that there is value to addressing the types of arguments Listor makes head-on, rather than banning those types of discussion.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Not in Canada. And yet we have the same sorts of crime problems among the Black community here.

No slavery in Canada? Guess again......

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

You have, I believe, mistaken the intent of the asterisk next to the column on White on Black crime. It states that this figure, which is basically zero, is based on ten or fewer cases. That is, there were so few reported cases of white on black sexual assault that the data is essentially meaningless. However, that does not apply to the Black on White sexual assault. There is no asterisk next to that one.

Few cases of sexual assault of black victims were reported within the sample, yes. Also - too few cases to project the result to any kind of national statistic, hence the asterisk.

I believe you know this next bit, but for others reading this I will restate it: The report isn't compiled from police reports, it's a telephone survey whereby they call households and ask questions about the types of crimes respondents were victim to.

By my count 8 victims of the thousands of people surveyed were black, and they all indicated that they were assulated by whom they perceived to be black men.

In fact, the number of those involved in the survey is presented on another page

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the Nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of 76,000 households comprising nearly 135,300 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States.

So of a sample size of 135,300 people, there were fewer than 10 reported incidents of White on Black sexual assault.

I didn't catch the fact that questions are asked for the 'household' and in fact it's not clear whether they are. In this file, which specifically referenced the 2005 study, on page 130 it states clearly that 67,000 individuals were interviewed that year.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf

There where 67,000 individuals interviewed. That means that each person in the survey represents about 4477 Americans. That is, if I report being assaulted, then the number of assaults over the whole US is projected upwards (added to) by 4477 incidents. That situation happens because they're interviewing only 67,000 people to get statistics for about 300 million people.

The conclusion from those 67,000 interviews is that 36,620 victims here projected for the entire USA.

This means, by my count, that they had 8 black victims out of 67,000 people reporting having been sexually assaulted. That is 36,620 divided by 4477. I had stated 3 or 4 black victims before, but I think it was because I was dividing by 2 for gender, which is a bad assumption.

Not in Canada. And yet we have the same sorts of crime problems among the Black community here.

We did have slavery in Canada, but not as late as we had it in the US. Furthermore, blacks in Canada fled slavery in the US and other countries, or - like other refugees - fled negative situations in other countries.

It's pretty difficult to control for race as a factor without controlling other cofactors. I certainly believe that income and poverty is a significant factor, from what I've read in the past.

QUOTE

And, again, what are you going to do when you find a "cause" ?

That would depend, would it not, on the cause?

My point is: If the cause involves changing social programs, does the interest in 'fixing the problem' end ?