…Continued

As for the other book you mentioned, I apologise for skimming over that in my haste. That was rude of me. Yes, there does appear to be a genetic factor to criminality. We have no idea to what extent genetics plays a role in criminal behaviour, though, and we can know to a high degree of certainty that it is not tied to “race” (I go back to my first paragraph to you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724).

I too have read Trends & Issues as a part of the curriculum for the Bachelor of Criminology that I am currently studying. I don’t know why you would be surprised that criminologists recognise a genetic factor to criminal behaviour. As I pointed out before, there is no grand leftist conspiracy going on. Some conservatives just don’t like what research often finds and cry conspiracy rather than altering their views - the sort of behaviour that is consistent, after all, with the notion of being ‘conservative’.

The problem with the genetic factor is that it isn’t very useful. There’s no where we can go from there. From a crime prevention aspect, socioeconomic conditions have been by far the most useful in *broadly* determining where intervention is needed.

Regarding the definition of ‘genocide’: okay, let’s say that it only refers to races (how the act is different when it targets, say, religious groups instead, is something you haven’t explained). So what? Again I remind you that it is only “convenient” for the scientifically literate to refer to “race”, when speaking of genocide, because the ignorant generalising of those who have committed genocide necessitates it. The directing of your anger towards primarily those who condemn genocide and your eerie silence regarding the perpetrators of it is telling to say the least. You almost sound like you want certain groups to be able to commit such acts without criticism.

As for the definition of ‘racism’: again, criticisms regarding marginalisation and socioeconomic causes for the apparent dysfunction of certain groups is not an attack any particular race. More importantly, nor is it supposed to be.

Continued…

…Continued

It is in reference to majorities and minorities. So your point regarding the UN is irrelevant. If someone wants to take what research shows to mean that Caucasians are inherently to blame, then that’s their problem. No-one else can be held responsible for that.

<<Now you are claiming that there is only 0.02% of genome difference between breeds of humans but 27% genome difference between breed of dogs. I will let our audience judge the merits of your extraordinary statistics.>>

Yes, because audiences are always the best judges, aren't they.

In my haste and word limits, I didn’t make myself clear there. 27% is not necessarily the genetic variation between a Pitbull and a Labrador; it’s the genetic variation over all dog breeds (http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetics-of-dog-breeding-434). That being said, the variation over humans is not 0.02% and nor have I ever claimed it to be. In comparison, the genetic variation in humans is 5-10%.

But hey, let's forget percentages. They're not even relevant. No, let's go one further. Let's say the genetic difference between a Pitbull and a Labrador is 0.0000001%. So what? Human "races" are not dog breeds. Dog breeds are specifically bred for their looks and personality traits. Human "races" are not. Further to that, the genetic variation that our selective breeding in dogs has produced still baffles scientists to this day. We've been breeding cats for longer and we still can't get that level of variety in them. Moreover, humans have one of the narrowest genes pools of all species that we know of because 70,000 years ago a volcanic eruption reduced our population to a mere 30,000 through years of darkness.

Your 'dog breed' analogy is a false analogy fallacy and a classic old racist furphy.

Sorry LEGO ol’ son. All this talk between us and you are still yet to make any headway. Perhaps now you know why I didn’t want to bother responding.

I think it’s back to the drawing board for you.

My apologies for claiming I had done you over before, Mr Philips. Since you presented that old quote of mine from a few years back, I presumed you were the person whom I jumped all over then.

En guarde.

Now, Mr Phillips. First you claimed that genetics affects our appearance, but not our personalities. Then by some application of doublethink, you then claimed that personality is a factor of nature and nurture. That is a clear contradiction. What is this force of "nature" that you claim affects personality if it is not genetic? Don't try and blame hormones, because hormone production is a factor of genetics. You are a dead duck on that premise alone unless you can explain your way out of that.

Oddly enough, you compounded your error by first saying that you are studying Criminology, and then you admitted that criminologists see a causal link between genetics and criminal behaviour. You just shot yourself in the foot again. You have just admitted that genetics and behaviour are linked.

Now, if genetics and criminal behaviour are linked, and certain races are very disproportionately linked to serious criminal behaviour, then............(join the dots.)

As to a "leftist conspiracy", I do advocate that. My prime exhibit is the Australian Bureau of Criminology, which released another white paper claiming that ethnic criminal behaviour is a figment of the Australian public's imagination. That would be a big surprise to the inhabitants of Sydney, who know for a fact that certain ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in drug trafficking and crimes of violence. But lefty criminologists are not going to let the facts get in the way of their humanitarian theories.

If you are studying Criminology, then the first thing that you should figure out is that crime is not always a product of a poverty linked environment. The poorest areas of Australia are our rural areas, which (if you removed the aborigines) would be almost crime free. Some Australian country towns have never had an armed robbery in their entire history, despite country people always having access to firearms.

.....to be continue

continued

But while poverty can be a factor of location and history, it can be most commonly attributed to low intelligence. Dumb people are usually poor people. Dumb people do stupid things. Dumb people do not care about education. Dumb people routinely get into trouble with the law. While education can make people smarter, no amount of education can make a basically dumb person into a genius. Smart parents usually (but not always) have smart kids. But dumb people almost always have dumb kids. Intelligence is therefore heritable. And if it is heritable, it is genetic.

Finally I get to "The Bell Curve". When it came out, it was greeted by the left wing academics intellectuals with the same hostility as Darwin's theory of Evolution was greeted by the church educated academics in his time. The academics went into overdrive trying to think up something, anything, with which to discredit this famous scientific work that was written by two very respected scientists. These critics claim that IQ testing is wrong, even though IQ testing is accepted throughout governments and industry as the most reliable way of measuring intelligence. This testing, done over a hundred years, clearly displays a difference in bell curve intelligences in different races.

Now, if this is wrong, on the principle that it is easier to prove the truth than to claim that a lie is the truth, why have not these critics won themselves the gratitude of the left wing world by testing the races themselves and proving that all races have equal intelligence? The reason is, because for all their bluster and muddying of the water, they can't do that because they know that the book is correct.

To summarise, genetics and criminal behaviour are linked. Low intelligence and criminal behaviour is linked. A hundred years of IQ testing tells us that certain races generally have low intelligence, and (surprise, surprise), they are the ethnicities who are very disproportionately represented in criminal behaviour.

Bingo.

Erm... No, LEGO. I didn't claim that.

<<First you claimed that genetics affects our appearance, but not our personalities.>>

Although I did say that you cannot genetically attribute certain personality traits to an entire group like you can (at least to a greater extent) attribute physical traits, while later clarifying that personalities have other influences that go well beyond genetics; implying that it was impossible for every member of a "race" to possess the same personality traits - as can be achieved with controlled, selective breeding in dogs.

Please do try to keep up.

<<You just shot yourself in the foot again. You have just admitted that genetics and behaviour are linked.>>

Yes, while never having denied it either. But that doesn't mean that we can generalise about an entire group. Once again, I refer you to my very first paragraph to you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724). Perhaps I should also add that if you think that the 0.02% of our human genes, that control the differences that we see in physical appearance between "races", can have as dramatic effects as those seen between dog breeds, then what of the 85% difference in the 5-10% variation, that I mentioned earlier, between individuals of any "race" or "ethnicity"? If the tiny percentage (as you suspected/claimed) in genetic difference between Pitbulls and Labradors concerns you, then how do you trust any stranger? Could it be that you understand, when it's convenient, that humans are not bred for specific traits as dogs are?

Again, please do try to keep up.

<<Now, if genetics and criminal behaviour are linked, and certain races are very disproportionately linked to serious criminal behaviour, then............(join the dots.)>>

We'll, yeah, if you ignore 90% of what I've... I see your point.

As for your "Leftist conspiracy" that you don't deny, your whole problem is that every time you see differences between "races", you automatically assume that it's genetic despite no evidence to support this and all the evidence pointing to the contrary.

Continued...

...Continued

As a response to this, you then claim that there is some grand Leftwing conspiracy being plotted by a secret brotherhood in academia formed to prevent any evidence that may support your views from surfacing; a secret brotherhood so loyal to The Order that they completely forgo fame and prestige to preserve their ideology.

Well guess what, LEGO? Your taboo views were not always taboo in academia. Decades ago, there were psychologists, sociologists and criminologists that proposed all sorts of crazy hypotheses; hypotheses that, in our more enlightened times, are just plain offensive to most. Everything from racial theories to supposed criminogenic indicators in physical features. But as time went on, and evidence was sought for proposed ideas, certain ones fell by the wayside, while others gained traction. (Nowadays, with no evidence to support so many of their views, social conservatives are left stubbornly clinging to conspiracy theories and junk science from blogs and populist books posing as credible scientific opinion.)

You, on the other hand, would simply claim that Lefties systematically infiltrated our universities and bullied conservatives out by convincing the powers that be to starve them of any funding while somehow managing to suppress all accidental findings that may contradict their "cherished" beliefs.

No prizes for guessing which scenario sounds more conspiratorial and just plain cuckoo.

Regarding this article from the AIC that you speak of, I'd appreciate if you could link me to it. I suspect your description is a very emotive take on it. Did you check their references to validate the accuracy of their claims? Criminologists don't just make stuff up, you know.

<<If you are studying Criminology, then the first thing that you should figure out is that crime is not always a product of a poverty linked environment.>>

There are multiple factors to any situation (hence my emphasis on the word "broadly" in my last post) and never once is jumping to your unsupported 'genetics' assumption necessary. Unlike metropolitan areas, rural communities often have a strong sense of community that helps to negate the criminogenic potential of poverty.

Continued...