You can't say it without attracting flak, because it is not politically correct. It is not a palatable morsel to those who should be ingesting it.
You deserve flak if you incorrectly observe that race correlates to violence. It doesn't.You can't say it without attracting flak, because it is not politically correct. It is not a palatable morsel to those who should be ingesting it.
It's tricky, but I didn't mean to suggest that prevention at any cost is a solution. It is more a question of whether certain things should be done to account for certain categories of problems, and then being open and honest about the statistical likelihood of all the incidents we can't prevent. It needs to be demystified and then accepted as just another of the many dangers of living in a society with other people, not as some new and unlikely trend.That's tricky ground to stand on though. Should we be concerned about the causes and prevention of exceptionally rare negative events? That depends on a couple of factors.
1). Do we have the mental and fiscal capital free to spend it on studying and solving that problem or are we wasting time, money, and public inertia solving irrelevancies while we should be concentrating on more widespread and solvable issues?
2) alternately, is the public perception of the problem such that we must appear to be "doing something" in order to create the working space to further our broader ends?
I'm afraid I have nothing to go on there with that chart to support the conclusion that is claimed, nor that the theory, even it is accepted as completely true, proves anything useful and helps stave off gun control legislation.
I wouldn't say that I'm hugely invested in loyalty to an in group nor in preventing subversion of authority but does that help me or hurt me in my fight against gun control? Help me make the leaps here.
Usually I note that any statement which purports to say liberals are this and conservatives are that accomplishes little beyond yet more self congratulation (which we're already quite good at) and blinkered divisiveness.
Frankly, this is just plain old ad hominem. Someone builds a ridiculous and unscientific social theory about people they don't know so you can undermine their position without actually having to argue anything cogent yourself.The point of me introducing Moral Foundations Theory into this discussion is to point out that antis, who come from the Left, are likely to be morally shallow and narrow; thus, their argumentation is almost certain to be morally flawed.
You deserve flak if you incorrectly observe that race correlates to violence. It doesn't.
As you can see in the stats I posted, violence correlates to poverty. White poor, black poor, same numbers.
Frankly, this is just plain old ad hominem. Someone builds a ridiculous and unscientific social theory about people they don't know so you can undermine their position without actually having to argue anything cogent yourself.
Fascists love doing this to any inconvenient population.
And then you followed that up with specious "correlation" data published by a the racial separatism New Century Foundation.
Meanwhile, the US Bureau of Justice offers this very simple statistic:
Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).
Yes, I think fascist organizations love to use crap science to "prove" that certain races are "unfit", and you are certainly riding those coattails. Perhaps you can offer some stats provided by the Klan, Phineas Priesthood or Volksfront to rebut me. I don't know if the Aryan Nation does stats, but I've heard they publish a great cookbook.
I really don't see any useful point in proceeding with any line of persuasion that stands on calling (even "proving" through applying a social theory) the opposing side "morally flawed." In fact, through a cursory read-over of Moral Foundations Theory, I don't see where the theorists themselves are even claiming a value judgment of that sort. They've merely developed a theory which is a tool to describe the different ways peoples arrive at their own innate senses of morality. You, yourself, seem to be reading the theory and coming to the conclusion that someone who applies these aspects over those in developing a morality are unbalanced or flawed. And that opinion is not really worth more than the paper it is(n't) printed on.The point of me introducing Moral Foundations Theory into this discussion is to point out that antis, who come from the Left, are likely to be morally shallow and narrow; thus, their argumentation is almost certain to be morally flawed.