posted before some hard, unwelcome yet factual statistics, as published by Obama's Justice Department and CDC, on the relative rates of violent crime and STD's per capita for different racial groups.  Specifically, it showed that safety concerns about AA customers by providers are not unfounded, or irrational. There was a reply that implied that I am bad at math and am a member of the National Socialist Worker's Party, and presumably share their genocidal aims.  The reply also contained links to articles and its own statements as counter arguments to my assertions that AA men commit violent crime at 8x the rate per capita of men of all other races combined.  Let's examine those counter arguments.
1- that's not true because Lynching!...which I guess means it is true, but its not AA's fault, it's YT's.  OK, even if we accept the overall blame placement as true, that would be little comfort to any individual woman assaulted or infected, so the point stands.
2- Whites commit more crime!... yes, true in the aggregate, because there are so many more whites, and because that stat included no violent crimes.  AA's actually commit a slight majority of all violent crime though only about 1/8 of the population, and their Per Capita rates are far higher than any other group.  And for risk management, it would be the per capita rates that matter to any individual's relative threat risk.  So, Aggregate and Per Capita are confused here, point still stands, and I recommend Remedial Statistics 101.  Bad at Math indeed.
3- Some guy says that while it is true that AA's commit more violent crime, and are by far the primary threat of violence to each other, he just doesn't like referring to that fact of crime committed against AA's by AA's as "Black on Black Crime".  He thinks it doesn't sound nice for blacks.  OK, this is a point about rhetorical framing, not the underlying facts, which he concedes.  The point stands.

Again, it is not wrong morally, or irrational or unfounded, for providers to manage their risks by boycotting AA's.  Individual screening may be a better way, but Back Page girls don't individually screen generally.  It may be unfair to nice AA hobbyists, but women are rightly more concerned about their safety than the civil right to free and equal opportunity to seek illegal poon tang of potential AA hobbyists.

Provider ads usually note an age, like no AA under 40.  Which makes sense, and goes to the previous discussion on this thread.  Its YOUNG AA men and the screening requirements on back page attest to that number.  Its also young AA because they are now incarcerated and the numbers for crime decline as the demographic ages and 'mellows out'.

The previous cited statistics included ALL black men, which isn't the case as far as crime goes.  In general, older black men over the age of 40 aren't an issue.  

It doesn't make providers racist as a lot of people would like to say or think.  They date black men, just not those under the age of 40/45.

"Reason: Your post is considered innapropriate due to being negative, trouble making, rude, and/or slanderous. Contact the moderator for details."

Mods not allowing me to respond....
Like it ain't negativity and trouble making two post into this thread. If that ain't some lame shit..

/eom.

Was there some sort of control variable in the consensus from which these statistics result from? Did they mention the color of the person's eyes or the length of their fingernails when the crime was committed? Maybe people with brown eyes are more than likely to commit a violent crime than someone who has hazel eyes?  

Sounds stupid when you blame a physical aspect as the reason why someone is violent towards others, doesn't it? It couldn't be that those people are just plain crazy and prone to doing crazy shit right? Your statement about providers managing their risks by avoiding AA men holds no merit.

Maybe people with brown eyes are more than likely to commit a violent crime than someone who has hazel eyes?  

OK, a little hard to parse what the counter argument is here, but I'll try.  I believe it is a restatement of the old contention that 'color is just skin deep', that we assign race based solely on superficial trivial aesthetic characteristics, and we could just as rationally do it based on other traits like eye color or as Jared Diamond said, ear wax texture.  But this is sophistry.  Race being referred to as a color of skin is merely a useful shorthand, choosing one of a large group of characteristics by which populations differ.  The main idea is that populations, long separated by geographic and cultural barriers, become separate breeding pools and diverge, a process that eventually leads to separate populations.

In other words, a person is 'white' not because their skin is literally white, or even because it is pale, but because they come from a shared ancestry and shared genetic pool of which one aspect is the genes for pales skin that easily absorbs vitamin D in low sunlight.    

The other argument appears to be that because the racial membership was not the immediate cause of any individual committing a crime (because others sharing that race did not commit the crime), it should not be viewed as a risk factor.    I think this confuses risk management, which inherently involves prejudice of some sort (one must prejudge before a crime) and assigning guilt (culpability after  crime).

So no, all black people are not guilty for the crimes of some black people.  But, think of it this way.  Men commit about 10x more violent crime than women over all (about the same ratio as black men to white men).  No one man is guilty of the crime of any other one man.  But it is rational of women or men to manage risk by being more wary of men in general.... and therefore also to be even more wary of black men in general

Per your thinking, the subject should get your attention due the linked "statistic."

ROFLMAO!!!!!

If women of color from Detroit count as exotic...seems to be up for dispute its seems.  

Had a mixed race girl recently from Cali, wondering if she counts, too.

Whats the saying, they are all pink on the inside.

-- Modified on 10/16/2014 5:29:36 PM