Slashdot Mirror

That being the case, how do you explain the lack of women/certain races/people from certain economic backgrounds?

I have no idea. Fortunately, the burden of proof is not on me...

As far as women go, to stay on topic of TFA, my only speculation is that the burdens of reproduction is what prevents females from a better showing in science and other pursuits. But we can't say with any higher degree of certainty, because to even pose the question is enough to be thrown out of today's "scientific" circles.

Genetically less intelligent?

This is why I mentioned "dogma" in my original post. For you kind, races being genetically identical is even more of an axiom, than Earth rotating around the Sun. You discount our obviously visible differences — eye-shape, skin-color — as superficial. The less obvious ones — like resistance to certain diseases and ability to digest milk — are less known and you quietly ignore them.

But to suggest, that, maybe, some other such differences may play part in differences between academic and other achievement — as you are baiting me to do — is a more reliable way to lose an argument, than even tripping the Godwin's Law would be.

So, I will not make any such statement. The woeful underperformance of Blacks in today's America is much better explained by the scandalous rate of single-parenthood in Black families, for example. And let me preempt your saying "persecution" by pointing out the sad story of Jews — persecuted for centuries throughout Europe, they have a lot to complain about. But not about being underrepresented in Science (nor Chess)...

That said, we are veering off topic here, from differences between sexes to those between races. I shall not continue.

NC is 36th by education attainment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

28 by some other metric
http://datacenter.kidscount.or...

8th here:
http://www.urban.org/urban-wir...

USA Today — the newspaper — are doing their job. The legal organizations — governmental and NGOs alike — do not.

their patronizing attitude toward my wife and daughter

Your daughter has the great advantage over a sad number of other Black kids — a father... But let's no descend any further off-topic.

Whenever statistics is used to talk about discrimination (sexual, racial, religious), two conflicting sets of axioms are employed by the people arguing. Allow me to enumerate:

• All groups of people (genders, races, religions) are, on average, the same and any statistically-observed differences in their behavior or treatment can only be due to bigotry.
• All groups of people (genders, races, religions) are, on average, treated the same and any statistically-observed differences in their behavior or treatment can only be due their own differences from others.

Obviously, the first axiom — and conclusions — is the politically-correct official stance championed by the government. And I'd like to share it too. But it contradicts some of the well-known facts:

1. Vastly more Black kids (67%!) are growing up in single-parent households than any other race.
2. Asian kids — who should be, if the "Whites-are-racists" narrative is to be believed, be suffering just as well — are, in fact, doing so well, college admission boards (adherents of the first axiom) penalize them by about 140 points compared to Whites. It is so ugly, some Asians choose to not answer the "race" question on their application at all.

So, the first axiom is shot by reality...

Maybe, it is all about single-parenthood — all human cultures were highly suspicious of bastard children (the very term is a derogatory one). And not because the mother "sinned" — if that were the case, her subsequent marriage would not have absolved the child — but because it is much harder for a single parent to raise a child into a decent human being. So, the "preconditioned" response this study exposed may not be so much about race per se, as about the likelihood of the person to be not right in the head — they are about 2.5-3 times more likely to have grown up without a father.

It'd be interesting, if the study used Whites, who've grown up in those parts of the world, where Blacks' incidence of single-parenthood is not so awfully lopsided. And compared them with the American Whites.

Imaginary reality to "prove" imaginary racism. How fitting...

Hint: it ain't the skin-color. If "whitey" really were racist, Asians would've suffered from it too. But they are doing rather well. So well, in fact, that schools and colleges alike deduct points from applicants, who identify themselves as "Asians".

The most likely explanation is single-parenthood rate: children growing up with only a mother (which is still the overwhelming majority of single-"parent" households) are much likelier to grow up with problems live sucky lives — all human civilizations knew this and frowned upon unwed mothers. Not because "sex is a sin", as is the common Illiberal's strawman, but because bringing a child into this world without a loving father is a sin... Heck, we know it too!

For some reason, currently 67% of Black kids grow up in such families — compared with merely 17% of Asians and 25% of Whites... But only the KKKonservative Libertarians connect the dots.

Not for some reason. The dads are all criminals and in prison.

Imaginary reality to "prove" imaginary racism. How fitting...

Hint: it ain't the skin-color. If "whitey" really were racist, Asians would've suffered from it too. But they are doing rather well. So well, in fact, that schools and colleges alike deduct points from applicants, who identify themselves as "Asians".

The most likely explanation is single-parenthood rate: children growing up with only a mother (which is still the overwhelming majority of single-"parent" households) are much likelier to grow up with problems live sucky lives — all human civilizations knew this and frowned upon unwed mothers. Not because "sex is a sin", as is the common Illiberal's strawman, but because bringing a child into this world without a loving father is a sin... Heck, we know it too!

For some reason, currently 67% of Black kids grow up in such families — compared with merely 17% of Asians and 25% of Whites... But only the KKKonservative Libertarians connect the dots.

I can tell you that Asians aren't known for criminality like young male blacks are.

Well, there you go... If Asians aren't known for criminality, but (male) Blacks are — is it evidence of racism or of something genuinely wrong with the young male Blacks? Such as, for example, the horrendous rate of kids Black kids growing up without fathers (17% for Asians, 25% for Whites, 67% for Blacks)?

I posted it. You didn't accept it.

I could not accept it, because I could not access it...

Hell, I pointed out that the studies show that being young/male is a bigger factor than being black.

That would seem to support my argument — that the "racism" of law-enforcement is not to blame. But, again, I can not "accept" it without reading it...

Root cause being people? How best to fix people?

The primary purpose of government regulation is to protect society from inept and unethical people.

Through education? Should we regulate that?

Thankfully, we do. We should not need national regulations on curricula, but ignorant voters in the Southwest have a direct impact on educated voters in the Northeast.

Root cause being people? How best to fix people?

The primary purpose of government regulation is to protect society from inept and unethical people.

Through education? Should we regulate that?

Thankfully, we do. We should not need national regulations on curricula, but ignorant voters in the Southwest have a direct impact on educated voters in the Northeast.

And I'm sure I'll get hate for pointing this out but its easy to see why and its NOT because of law enforcement. When you look at the single parent homes by race frankly blacks are pretty far ahead when it comes to that metric and its pretty well known and documented by now that single parent homes produce more kids that end up incarcerated than two parent homes.

Now we can sit here and argue all day as to the "why" that is, whether its culture or a side effect of poverty or what but in any case you can't bitch about the numbers just because you don't like what they say. If someone with "X" for a name is more likely to be arrested then that is what the search engine is gonna return, can't blame the engine for crunching numbers as that is what they do. Whether we like it or not more blacks are born to single parent homes and those that are raised in single parent homes are more likely to be criminals than those that have 2 parents, that's just the way it is folks.

referendums against gay marriage passing

Hilariously, this is almost entirely the black effect on American politics: blacks are the only uniformly socially conservative group left in the Democratic Party. They turned out in droves for Obama, and they voted against the gay marriage amendment.

Fun corollary: the ridiculously high out-of-wedlock birth rates in most of the South are also black-dependent. Look here. The five states with the highest single parenthood rates were DE, LA, MS, NM, and SC. DE doesn't have a race breakdown, so we'll just note the white rate of 31% single parenthood and move on. The white population of the other four states has single parent rates very similar to the rest of the country - national average 25%, highest among these 28%. All lower than famously trailer-trash Oregon, which has a white single parenthood rate of 30%, or Vermont, 31%. But the blacks? West Virginia at 34% and Maine at 33% lead the pack among white populations, while the lowest among blacks in the country is 57% in Minnesota.

Those seem to be the only two options,

They're not; the option I choose is "I hate school shootings but am extremely uncomfortable with the government removing the right of citizens to arm, and think the negatives outweigh the positives especially in light of how rare of an issue school shootings are."

Really, you would have a stronger case to make about homicide in general, since that is far far far more common than school shooting deaths.

So passing a law against guns in violation of the Amendment is bad, but if the Amendment wasn't there, then that objection would be gone. So logically the solution is to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

That is my first and foremost objection, so yes that objection would be gone. Yes, youre darn tooting that passing a law in violation of an amendment is very much "bad", especially since it keeps being tried. I do have other reasons why Im not so hot on the "lets repeal second amendment" idea tho.

Also, cars are seen as a necessity. Banning them will be much much worse than the dead children we get from using them....Compare and contrast that with guns.

This was where I got my assumption that you wanted to ban guns; if I misunderstood my apologies, but the intent seemed to be that a gun ban was of a different nature than a hypothetical car ban.

If, as you say 90% of americans support a gun ban then the issue is moot; it can be put to a popular vote where if my memory serves a 75% popular vote will overturn the 2nd amendment. I think though that that will not happen in my lifetime.

My assertion that the threat is small is based on the fact that there are literally about 10000 things that are about 100 times more likely to kill you than a school shooting. For perspective... (after looking up stats it looks like the actual number is about 25 per year)
~2.5million total deaths per year in United states, which makes the ~25 deaths per year from school shootings 0.001% of the nations mortality rate
~10,000 children deaths (under 14) per year in the US (2009), and there were ~10 pre-highschool deaths per year, which is 0.1% among children (under 14).
~53000 "child" deaths (under 19) per year in the US (2007). All fire-arm, non-suicide, deaths total ~2200. Thats about 4%, which is higher than I like, but its also a lot lower than a lot of other causes. Non-firearm homocide is another 1100 for reference.

All this to say, if we could prevent 4% of child deaths without any downside, yea Im all for that. But to repeal an amendment is a major thing, and to remove the ability for someone to defend themselves in their own home using the weaponry of the day-- which is an incredibly long-standing right recognized by societies-- seems a really drastic move IMO, and not one that I take so lightly. I also do not much like the idea of the government being the sole arbiter of force; perhaps again it is my american upbringing but I have a deep-seated distrust of any person or group who has too much power and not enough restraint.

Sources... (not all for same year, ranging from 1999-2011; did the best I could in ~10 minutes)
http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?loct=2&by=a&order=a&ind=22&dtm=286&tf=38