BF2S Forums You be the judge! Trayvon Martin vs George Zimmerman

how does the article victim-blame for rape?

i wonder possibly why african-americans haven't integrated in 5-6 generations. hmm if only there was some clue in the history books ... some statistics to fill out this picture ... some sort of analysis with which to avail oneself from economists, or sociologists, or policy makers ... gee, i'm really stumped!

i guess it's just their GENES!

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-10 20:05:26)

alcohol is the main drug implicated in murder, rape, and serious crime. not 'naughty illegal' ones.

alcohol lowers inhibition.

i don't think pointing out that being intoxicated increases your risk of rape is 'victim-blaming'. creepy and insensitive of you to try and twist it that way. clearly the research was undertaken to demystify the topic of rape with regards to ethnicity/substance use: the conclusion is that ethnicity has little to do with it, but the drug being consumed does.

i don't think you understand regression analysis. the 'being black' was not the operative predictive factor. taking 'illegal drugs' was, which, incidentally, as a category includes everything from marijuana to xtc to heroin (alcohol trumps them all individually in the actual substance–rape stats).

your claims are that blacks commit more rape because 'they are black', which is nonsensical racist blather, as if black-ness contains within it genes to be innately violent, to be predisposed to rape, etc.

analysing the circumstances and factors surrounding rape victims is not 'victim blaming'. the study repeatedly takes pains to point out that its findings could be used to devise better educative/interceptive strategies to better protect the victims of rape, not shame them. only you in your ridiculous moral universe would automatically assume that drug use made someone blameworthy.

the point of me posting the study was that environmental and circumstantial factors affect these statistics a lot more than 'born with it'. keep that shit to lady gaga PRIDE-adjacent concerts.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-10 22:23:49)

studies have to necessarily be limited. i'm not sure how you'd go about devising a meaningful methodology to unpick, once and for all, 'the cause of rape' in the course of a journal article. that's a vast criminological and sociological question that would take in about 13 different disciplines. maybe a book-length treatment could make a run at it.

the study is admittedly modest in its scope but i picked it as an example to show that external factors affect the rates of rape, not inherent genetic ones.

i'm sure that white girls being predated upon by well-hung big black men is a thing that occupies you a lot. racists do tend to obsess over inter-racial sex and the 'purity of our little girls'. take it up with your therapist.

you honestly talk about black people as if they are a subspecies of human with barely restrained ape impulses. your entire grasp of the concept of 'race' is illiterate and incoherent: you seriously think that racial phenotypes determine radically different types of human behaviour. they do not. changes in skin tone, hair/eye colour, facial shape and build, etc, are not paramount to 'more violent, especially likes rape'. we are the same species and have more-or-less the same cognitive hardware (i'm not going to get into the IQ score debate here for the umpteenth time).

in the genetic view, modern africans are a more recent appearance in the human family than european caucasians. they are a 'newer model' in your misguided evolutionary biology claptrap. in the historical view, europeans were bloodletting each other and continually re-halving the size of the continent's population all the way up until 1945. you simply can't make any credible claim that 'africans are especially violent, because they are atavistic and genetically inferior'.

again: proven externalities determine crime rates, whether they be cultural or acquired/learned behaviours, economic privations, social disadvantages, geographic proximity to existing crime or dysfunction, etc. black people aren't born with a penchant for rape. these claims are purely fucking outrageous. the fact you think that the legion of experts and researchers who post this stuff are 'slaves to ideology' just shows how far you are down the rabbithole of so-called 'scientific racism'. you're the racial equivalent of climate change deniers.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-10 22:44:57)

i don't see anything particularly wrong in being virulently opposed to racism. it's an ugly and unhelpful ideology that serves no good purpose. just look at the results with your own character.

no one is denying that the prevalence of rape and violent crime are higher amongst blacks than whites. jesus christ.

Dilbert_X wrote:

once against you've deflected to distort the argument.

what i have corrected you upon is the idea that 'blacks can murder whites and it's no big deal' or that 'african immigrants are running riot on our shores in crime sprees'. it's hysterical, sensationalist tabloid nonsense.

your 'method' of 'looking at the data' seems to be 'ignore all the expert academic research and assert, prima facie, that it's because of their genetics'. to which you can offer absolutely no substantial proof or grounding in the discipline of genetics.

great job chap.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-10 22:55:33)

wow it's like you don't even read the posts that KJ, macbeth, unnamed and myself produce on this topic.

yes, 9.9% of rape offenders. 'running riot'! it's a significant over-representation when considered against their total population, certainly, and deserves some analysis (not cod-science generalizing about genetics, nota bene). but i would hardly say 9.9% of rapists being black means society is facing a public crisis. the total number of prosecuted offenses was 9042, which means there were 900 rapes involving a black citizen in 2012. talk about running riot! 

interestingly, the statistics for those cautioned for a sexual offense paints a different picture.

87.8 per cent were White (compared with 85.8 per cent of offenders of a known ethnicity for all cautions);
4.7 per cent were Black (compared with 7.5 per cent of all cautions)

so black people were prosecuted at twice the rate for sexual offences as cautioned. i guess white people are just more gentle and polite about it? /shrug

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-11 00:04:14)

gang violence in london is bad, yep, but again it's black-on-black and highly localised to turf wars in their inner boroughs.

of course it's not inherent. if it was inherent, why would the crime rate be worse in the capital city than elsewhere? are people more 'black' in london? surely the offending rate would be near-universal, or at least comparable, across the entire population with those genes? make u think doesn't it. crime rates are worse ... in the most deprived areas ... in a city where a high proportion of their white neighbours are the very richest in the country ... hmmm ... help me connect the dots here ...

i really can't understand why rates of crime by ethnicity would vary according to city or region! if our behaviour is determined by our genes, what's going on?

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-11 00:27:18)

Chicago is 30% black, 70% of murderers are black, multiple of 2.3 higher than expected.

Weird, must be faulty data.

What does that have to do with rape and murder?

Crime also correlates with race in every single industrialized nation on earth.

Its whichever gene allele these guys have

Grooming gang review kept secret as Home Office claims releasing findings ‘not in public interest’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h … 44896.html

Strange no?

it has been at least 3 months since dilbert started ranting again about 'muslim grooming gangs' and the imminent threat to the UK/europe/civilization from islam, so i'll give him some small credit where it's due.

did local councils in the north and the police bungle their handling of it? yes, i think so. they deemed it politically sensitive and it incurred something of a streisand effect on the whole issue. labour-leaning councils in the affected cities were particularly incompetent in their due process.

but do i think all muslims in the UK are a threat because of a few tabloid-heading-grabbing gangs? lol please. and how would a muslim be 'genetically' predisposed to sexual crimes, considering islam is, erm, a voluntary faith ... and not an ethnicity? a grooming gang could be composed of people from 4 different countries and 12 different ethnic groups, derp.

uziq wrote:

ranting again about 'muslim grooming gangs'

Yes yes - Facts don't fit ideology - facts must be wrong

they deemed it politically sensitive and it incurred something of a streisand effect on the whole issue. labour-leaning councils in the affected cities were particularly incompetent in their due process.

Er no, the home office commissioned a report into racial and cultural aspects of these rape gangs, then the conservative home secretary thought the results would cause riots so didn't publish.
Left-leaning regions let rape gangs run riot for decades to avoid being accused of racism by racist rapists.

but do i think all muslims in the UK are a threat because of a few tabloid-heading-grabbing gangs? lol please. and how would a muslim be 'genetically' predisposed to sexual crimes, considering islam is, erm, a voluntary faith ... and not an ethnicity? a grooming gang could be composed of people from 4 different countries and 12 different ethnic groups, derp.

They're pretty well all Pakistani muslims.