Greetings from a White Nationalist

[talloulou]

No I didn't. I didnt say a whole group of people are less intelligent then me personally. I just said certain races overall are not as intelligent then others which is true. If it wasnt then you wouldnt have all the third world races inundating white countries. They would be able to establish their own successful countries.

I've made it a new rule not to talk to men who don't masturbate.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

No I didn't. I didnt say a whole group of people are less intelligent then me personally. I just said certain races overall are not as intelligent then others which is true. If it wasnt then you wouldnt have all the third world races inundating white countries. They would be able to establish their own successful countries.

:good_job: Way to go boy. That's probably one of the most uninformed things I've ever read. You should do you and your "race" a favor and get some education, but I guess you can't read a book, if you even can, seeing as how the "jews" own all of the publishing companies.

 

[Sir_Alec]

I've made it a new rule not to talk to men who don't masturbate.

Well now you can't talk to a lot of the ultra conservatives on this site. :rofl Although, I'm up for conversation if you get my jist :mrgreen:

 

[teacher]

I just said certain races overall are not as intelligent then others which is true.

Correct. Whites are smarter than blacks. Which I'm sure you have no problem dealing with. But then Asains are smarter than whites. So...?

So in other words you just want me to be politically correct?

Not in my Basement.

So how'd you like your DITLO?

 

[teacher]

I've made it a new rule not to talk to men who don't masturbate.

You can talk to ALL men then. But some may pretend they can't talk to you.

And does that mean you talk to Billo a lot?

 

[taxedout]

I use my left hand, while thinking about my right. :2bow:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by taxedout
I use my left hand, while thinking about my right.

Do you ever use the off-hand and act like your on a first date?

 

[Voidwar]

Coorilation does not prove causation.

Correlation,,, and if this is true . . .

Aren't you doing the same below, somehow implying that poverty causes or justifies crime ? Wasn't the context who commits crime, not who is poor ? Where is your proof of the causal connection betwixt poverty and crime ? Its pretty easy to find stats that correlate the two, but can you find evidence of a causal connection ?

Look over the history of blacks in the United States, and you can find many reasons that would explain why a larger percentage of their population is impoverished, including generations of being taught that education is a white thing to do, being enslaved for hundreds of years, and not being able to compete on anything even resembling an equal playing field up until the last 40 or so years. Now, unless you wish to claim that history plays absolutely no role in cultural practices, then you have to admit that your statistics are absolutely worthless, and if you had the logical faculties of a 4 year old you'd already know that.

 

[Voidwar]

By the way, Hi All, I'm new, and heading to make my own Intro post now, just started reading this one and got the itch that must be scratched

(by the way, yes, I know they make a cream for that now )

 

[Kelzie]

Correlation,,, and if this is true . . .

Aren't you doing the same below, somehow implying that poverty causes or justifies crime ? Wasn't the context who commits crime, not who is poor ? Where is your proof of the causal connection betwixt poverty and crime ? Its pretty easy to find stats that correlate the two, but can you find evidence of a causal connection ?

Of course not. Causation can only be proven in a controlled experiment and scientists aren't about to perform one on humans to examine the relationship between poverty and crime. However, when two variables are highly correlated, it is standard to say they are connected.

 

[Voidwar]

"It is standard to say they are connected".

Yes, we call this a correlation, and specifically not a connection, because we are mapping the fine territory of the difference between correlations and causal connections.

So, if you make it "standard" to put it that way, you give the same "terminological freedom" to Uncle, or those arguing his position.

Your response above seems to deny my accusation, and then repeat the offense , kind of like this ?

No, its not doing what I'm doing again right now

 

[Kelzie]

"It is standard to say they are connected".

Yes, we call this a correlation, and specifically not a connection, because we are mapping the fine territory of the difference between correlations and causal connections.

So, if you make it "standard" to put it that way, you give the same "terminological freedom" to Uncle, or those arguing his position.

Your response above seems to deny my accusation, and then repeat the offense , kind of like this ?

I don't give a rat's *** what you or Uncle are arguing, that's not the point. Causation is almost entirely reserved for the hard sciences (some exceptions in psychology) because the independent variables must be altered in a controlled experiment, something that is usually not possible in the real world.

However, with a high degree of correlation, it is possible to make a statement stonger than "these things seem to go together". For example, with the vast amount of studies done on poverty and crime along with the high degree of correlation between the two, it would perfectly alright to say that crime is influenced by poverty, especially when you take into account that regression models were run on the equation.

 

[talloulou]

Correlation,,, and if this is true . . .

Aren't you doing the same below, somehow implying that poverty causes or justifies crime ? Wasn't the context who commits crime, not who is poor ? Where is your proof of the causal connection betwixt poverty and crime ? Its pretty easy to find stats that correlate the two, but can you find evidence of a causal connection ?

Nope he is not doing the same thing. If someone argues that black people commit more crime because they are black then they are arguing that it is the race or skin color that makes one prone to crime. Galenrox is pointing out that such an assumption would be flawed due to the fact that you have failed to take other factors into consideration. Things that may be more influential than skin color or race.

If Galenrox said "poor people are criminals" than you could argue he was doing the same thing as Uncle.

Anotherwards Uncle answers the question, "Why are the jails filled with so many young black men?" by claiming....'duh 'cause they're black. Galenrox isn't replying, "no it's cause they're poor, " instead he is asking how do you know that's the answer without looking at all the other factors that may play a part.

For instance you could say drowning is a common cause of death for children in the State of Washington because their parents are morons who don't teaching swimming as well as parents in other states while completely ignoring the fact that the State of Washington has a ridiculous amount of lakes and rivers compared to other places. Thus your interpretation of the "data" or "facts" is flawed 'cause you failed to take everything into consideration.

Did that help explain why Uncle's an idiot?

 

[Voidwar]

Hold your horses there.

I don't claim to be on Uncle's team here or anything, but what you have stated, works just as well for him... or anyone arguing the opposite position. Allow me to demonstrate more demonstrably

For example, with the vast amount of studies done on poverty and crime along with the high degree of correlation between the two, it would perfectly alright to say that crime is influenced by poverty, especially when you take into account that regression models were run on the equation.

Becomes . .

For example, with the vast amount of studies done on race and crime along with the high degree of correlation between the two, it would perfectly alright to say that crime is influenced by race, especially when you take into account that genealogies were run on the sample pool.

Aren't both sides arguing a causal relationship from mere correlation ?

 

[talloulou]

Hold your horses there.

I don't claim to be on Uncle's team here or anything, but what you have stated, works just as well for him... or anyone arguing the opposite position. Allow me to demonstrate more demonstrably


Becomes . .


Aren't both sides arguing a causal relationship from mere correlation ?

Well first let me just say upfront I have no idea what the term "regression model" implies.

Anyway if you were to make a claim that blacks commit more crime than whites because......they are black then you would have to have data to back up that interpretation. This data would have to evaluate blacks raised in wealthy settings, middle class, and poor. It would have to consider drug users vs non drug users. It would have to study blacks in big cities vs blacks in smaller towns. You'd also have to research the criminal justice system to ensure that you had data showing that blacks weren't treated with bias. Only then when all those things and possibly more have been considered can you interpret the data to answer the question: Why are so many young black men in jail.

The same thing with the poverty question. You can't just claim poverty = criminal because alot of poor people commit crimes. You'd have to study poverty on different levels, drug addiction, poor parenting, city vs town, adequate schooling vs neighborhoods with crappy schools. Not all poor people are criminals so the answer to the question isn't as simple as poor people commit crimes because they are poor.

If you are seriously interested in solving a problem you'd want to look at as many contributing factors as possible in order to figure out the best way to actually solve the problem.

 

[Kelzie]

Hold your horses there.

I don't claim to be on Uncle's team here or anything, but what you have stated, works just as well for him... or anyone arguing the opposite position. Allow me to demonstrate more demonstrably


Becomes . .


Aren't both sides arguing a causal relationship from mere correlation ?

Absolutely not because your second example is a spurious relationship. When a second variable is introduced into a spurious relationship, it proves the original relationship false.

x-->y originally, but it was actually x<---z--->y A real world example is gun control and partisanship. Many people think that Democrats are more supportive of gun control, but it is actually a spurious relationship. In actuality, women, regardless of party, support gun control. Women though, tend to be Democrat more often. So an untrained eye would see a relationship between Democrats and gun control, when the relationship was actually Democrats<---women--->gun control. What you (and not that you believe it) are saying is that race--->crime, ignoring the evidence that the relationship is actually race<---poverty--->crime. Poverty is what affects crime, and minorities are more likely to be poor. Therefore they commit more crimes.

 

[Voidwar]

Poverty is what affects crime,

Part of my point is that your poverty ---> crime "connection" is actually a correlation, and not a causal connection.

When you say it "affects" crime, you are asserting a causal connection.

This causal connection, that poverty causes crime, I have not yet seen proven.

 

[Kelzie]

Well first let me just say upfront I have no idea what the term "regression model" implies.

Anyway if you were to make a claim that blacks commit more crime than whites because......they are black then you would have to have data to back up that interpretation. This data would have to evaluate blacks raised in wealthy settings, middle class, and poor. It would have to consider drug users vs non drug users. It would have to study blacks in big cities vs blacks in smaller towns. You'd also have to research the criminal justice system to ensure that you had data showing that blacks weren't treated with bias. Only then when all those things and possibly more have been considered can you interpret the data to answer the question: Why are so many young black men in jail.

The same thing with the poverty question. You can't just claim poverty = criminal because alot of poor people commit crimes. You'd have to study poverty on different levels, drug addiction, poor parenting, city vs town, adequate schooling vs neighborhoods with crappy schools. Not all poor people are criminals so the answer to the question isn't as simple as poor people commit crimes because they are poor.

Sorry to go OT here for a minute, but to answer your question, that is exactly what a regression model does. It allows a researcher to take information from a variety of studies and attach numbers to how much each independent variable affects the dependent variable. So in this instance it might like like:

crime=2.54 + 1.67(drug) + 3.4 (poor parents) + .07(cities), etc...

The final equation would give you the liklihood that any individual would be involved in crime (it's never zero, hence the constant 2.54). What's cool about this is that you can isolate any single independent variable's affect on the dependent variable by "turning off" the other independent variables because they're either a 1-value (for present) or a 0-value (for not present). Anywho...that's just a little quantitative research methods dorkiness for you. :2wave:

 

[Voidwar]

If you are seriously interested in solving a problem you'd want to look at as many contributing factors as possible in order to figure out the best way to actually solve the problem.

So if you are seriously interested . . . would you look at race as one of these possible contributing factors ?

 

[talloulou]

Sorry to go OT here for a minute, but to answer your question, that is exactly what a regression model does. It allows a researcher to take information from a variety of studies and attach numbers to how much each independent variable affects the dependent variable. So in this instance it might like like:

crime=2.54 + 1.67(drug) + 3.4 (poor parents) + .07(cities), etc...

The final equation would give you the liklihood that any individual would be involved in crime (it's never zero, hence the constant 2.54). What's cool about this is that you can isolate any single independent variable's affect on the dependent variable by "turning off" the other independent variables because they're either a 1-value (for present) or a 0-value (for not present). Anywho...that's just a little quantitative research methods dorkiness for you. :2wave:

Thanks Kelzie. I had no idea what "regression model" meant. :mrgreen:

 

[talloulou]

So if you are seriously interested . . . would you look at race as one of these possible contributing factors ?

Sure I don't see why you couldn't. However looking at race you would really have to biologically look at race. You can't just look at "people" and call them colored so to speak. Most of the racist claims are idiotic because they just call it like they see it. Anotherwards there are tons of people walking around today that you can't adequately define their race. Has it even been proven that race is more than a political construct? Or is it just an aesthetic difference like blue eyes or blond hair? And if "race" is something more than a political construct than surely any studies that involve race would have to deal in blood samples and DNA vs mug shots wouldn't they?

From my viewpoint racists like Unlce aren't seriously interested in solving anything. They are more interested in the blame game or the I'm better than you BS. I personally believe if you looked at everything you'd find skin color less of a factor if a factor at all when it comes to crime while geography, $$$$, and drugs would play larger roles.

Could I be wrong? Certainly. It happens all the time.

But the point is Uncle hasn't proven I'm wrong. :rofl

 

[Voidwar]

A real world example is gun control and partisanship. Many people think that Democrats are more supportive of gun control, but it is actually a spurious relationship. In actuality, women, regardless of party, support gun control. Women though, tend to be Democrat more often. So an untrained eye would see a relationship between Democrats and gun control, when the relationship was actually Democrats<---women--->gun control.

The Democratic party is not all women.

The Democratic party has gun control as part of its published party platform, & hundreds of male legislators with voting records that reflect more gun control, not less.

 

[Voidwar]

Sure I don't see why you couldn't.

This part seems disingenuous when followed by a paragraph trivializing this variable and explaining away its relevance

However looking at race you would really have to biologically look at race. You can't just look at "people" and call them colored so to speak. Most of the racist claims are idiotic because they just call it like they see it. Anotherwards there are tons of people walking around today that you can't adequately define their race. Has it even been proven that race is more than a political construct? Or is it just an aesthetic difference like blue eyes or blond hair? And if "race" is something more than a political construct than surely any studies that involve race would have to deal in blood samples and DNA vs mug shots wouldn't they?

So now that you have blown the concept of "race" out of the water, do you then take the next logical step, and call for your government representatives to abolish all legal and governmental consideration or recognition of this meaningless superfluous characteristic ?

 

[Kelzie]

Part of my point is that your poverty ---> crime "connection" is actually a correlation, and not a causal connection.

When you say it "affects" crime, you are asserting a causal connection.

This causal connection, that poverty causes crime, I have not yet seen proven.

Aight, if you want to get into it, we will. The way social sciences "proves" things is by creating these regression models. They add as many independent variables as they can to try and explain the dependent variable. Now their final regression model will never 100% explain the dependent variable, this is real life. Even if you are poor, with bad parents and into drugs, a sociologist can not guarantee that you will be a criminal. What they can offer is a probability. Making up another equation, we might get:

crime= 2.43 + 9.56 (poverty) + 5.28 (bad parents) + 3.48 (drugs)

A person with a 1-value on all of these would end up with a 20.75% chance of being a criminal. That means that in all the thousands of surveys they conducted, someone with all these values were criminals 20.75% of the time. Poverty will not make you a criminal, but it will increase the chances you are one.

We could also get into Z-scores for all the variables to show you that they are all in fact accurate and representative of a population, but I would have to have the actual values. In social sciences though, it is standard practices not to include an independent variable if it has a Z-score below 1.96 (or above -1.96 depending on the relationship you're looking at). In other words, the chances that variables present in any study do not represent the population (ie. that poverty does not explain a certain amount of crime) is less than 5%.

 

[talloulou]

This part seems disingenuous when followed by a paragraph trivializing this variable and explaining away its relevance



So now that you have blown the concept of "race" out of the water, do you then take the next logical step, and call for your government representatives to abolish all legal and governmental consideration or recognition of this meaningless superfluous characteristic ?

I did trivialize race and I did admit when it comes to crime I'd expect skin color to play a smaller role than other factors. I also admitted it's possible that I'm wrong. As to whether there is a such thing as race or whether race itself is a "political construct" I was seriously asking that as a question. Has it been proven that "race" is more than an aesthetic like eye color? I really don't know the answer thus I asked. Certainly not trying to trivialize it so much as I really don't know. Furthermore I said if race is "real" and not an aesthetic like eye color than certainly any studies involving race would have to involve DNA and blood samples vs someone just looking and making a judgement call as to what race they feel the person they are looking at fits. Is there something wrong with that?

And as far as government.....I really don't believe the government should constantly be asking about race on all their forms.. at a certain point it does get ridiculous. As far as affirmative action goes I can certainly understand why there was a need for it at a certain time. Whether there is still a need for today is beyond me as I haven't researched it enough to know. I do think affirmative action and benefits based on race can actually do more harm than good in certain situations especially when standards are lowered in certain circumstances. Personally if I were a minority I would be offended by some of the stuff that has gone on in the name of affirmative action. But despite flaws with such programs people like Uncle ensure that an argument can always be made for why they are needed.

Personally I favor merit over skin color.