Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
I do
List of U.S. states by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
State - Population Density Rank:
Maine - 38
North Dakota - 47
Vermont - 30
New Hampshire - 21
South Dakota - 46
Utah - 41
Rhode Island - 2
Wyoming - 49
Idaho - 44
Montana - 48
4 of the 5 least populous states are in the 10 states with the least crime
5 of the 7 least populous states are in the 10 states with the least crime
7 of the 13 least populous states are in the 10 states with the least crime
The pattern that I see there is a correlation between population density and crime.
I see another pattern.
When charting Population Density Rank to 'White Alone' (whatever that is) Rank (from the link you provided  ) there is a correlation of .41. Ergo, living far from your neighbors must cause people to be white. Correct? 
No. Probably not. Just because two things are correlated doesn't mean that one is the cause of the other. |
You aren't exactly making fair comparisons in terms of actual population density vs relative population density. And what I mean is, if you look at Alaska. Its population density is the lowest in the country, with an extremely low 1.22 persons per sq mile. Yet, it is the 6th most violent state in the country. On the other hand, you have Rhode Island which is the second most densely populated state in the country, with a density of 1,008 persons per sq mile. And it is the 7th most safe state in the country.
Secondly, you are saying that only 7 of the top 13 least densely populated states are the safest states. Not really statistically important in my opinion.
And obviously living far from your neighbors doesn't cause people to be white. But there are far more white people living far from their neighbors than minorities. Why? Because more white people seem to want to live in rural/suburban/exurban communities.
Rural America in the 2000s: Population | Daily Yonder | Keep It Rural
Whites are about 60% more likely to live in rural areas than blacks, and about 100% more likely to live in rural areas than hispanics. So a state with high percentages of white people will of course tend to have a much lower population density than states with larger numbers of minorities.
So instead of looking at the population of the entire state, we should look at relative population density. Because while Alaska's population density seems low, about half of the entire state lives in the Anchorage metropolitan area. In Nevada(which has the third highest crime rate in the country), more than 80% of the entire population of Nevada lives in Las Vegas, the rest of the state is basically empty. On the other hand, the largest city in Rhode Island, Providence, actually has more population in its metropolitan area than the entire state of Rhode Island, because it also includes parts of Massachusetts.
It is pretty difficult to draw a line from population density to crime rate. Japan for instance has some of the highest population density in the world, and one of the lowest crime rates in the world. While, as you said, many of the states with the lowest crimes rates also have some of the most dispersed populations(The Dakota's, Nebraska, Vermont, etc). And rural areas in general tend to have lower crime rates than urban areas.
There is only one thing that is consistent across the entire country. Wherever there is a sizeable population of poor blacks, there is high crime. There is no where in this country that breaks that mold. The only state where there are high numbers of poor minorities and relatively low crime rates, is Hawaii. But the minorities there are Pacific Islanders(basically Southeast Asians).
Like I said, I would like to find more information about average crime rates of affluent blacks vs average crime rates of affluent whites. I have not been able to find such statistics. I can link here, which discusses "white-collar crime"(and sure, it is wikipedia, I am sure I could find the actual page the information comes from, if I want to bother).
Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It states that 33.4% of all embezzlers are African-Americans(who are only 13% of the population). Emblezzling is usually more an "affluent" crime. That statistic could mean that general crime rates would be that much higher in affluent black areas than in affluent white areas. And since we know the school dropout rates of affluent blacks tend to be much higher than in affluent whites. It would not surprise me if that was the outcome.
That still isn't enough "proof" to give a definitive reason for why crime is so common in the black demographic. There are plenty of other factors that could be used to explain away part of the gap. Such as black culture, legacy of slavery/racism, white favoritism, police bias, etc.
I personally believe it is a lot of different things.
I think it is A) Black culture, B) A level of police bias(especially racial profiling). C) Not as much poverty, but more severe income disparity in a single region/district(income diversity if you will). D) Certain genetic risk factors, such as the impulsivity generally associated with high levels of testosterone(in which blacks tend to have much higher levels than whites, and asians much lower than whites). Or relative intelligence gaps, which might make people more likely to commit crime(not fully realizing the risks, or understanding the effects of their actions). Or even that the lower intelligence persons are more likely to get caught, while more intelligent people may never be convicted of the crime, so in effect, their relative crime numbers could just appear lower.
Quote:
|
Yes. I do believe that there is no rational reason to oppose immigration based upon race. I also believe that there is no rational basis for opposing interracial couplings.
|
Honestly, the only rational argument for why immigration and interracial couplings shouldn't be an issue. Is a matter of freedom. In that, people should be free to travel where they want, and marry who they want.
I could unroll a whole slew of arguments for why both have a negative effect on this country, and us individually.
If you don't understand how terribly violent and divided this country is, you obviously don't look much around much. To believe that throwing in millions upon millions of more "outsiders" into this country, and for that to mean we will become somehow more peaceful and more tolerant of each other, is an ideal that just hasn't panned out in reality.
Schools are more seggregated today than in the 1950's. They are doing a full-scale repeal on forced bussing and other forced integration of school districts, as it has been a dismal failure. More and more states are declaring affirmative-action programs to be unconstitutional. And the backlash against illegals, and the surge of far right-wing politics into the national discourse, should be an indication that such an ideal is simply not working.
Our economy is failing, the gap between rich and poor continues to grow. The income disparity will continue to grow, and without government to try to uphold some semblence of income-equality, minorities will inevitably fall more and more into that economic chasm of despair. There has already been huge discussion over the stark drop in minority enrollment once affirmative-action polices were repealed in some of our US colleges.
Diversity in Higher Education: Research: Pursuing Campus Diversity After Affirmative Action: An Assessment of Class Rank Plans for College Admissions
Diversity is not some magic word that brings sunshine and happiness wherever it goes. Diversity should be a curse-word, for it brings nothing but misery and exploitation wherever it goes.
Ask yourself why so many immigrants come to this country to begin with. Why are the illegal immigrants here? Sure, you could make the argument that "they want to make a better life for themselves and their families". And sure that is true to an extent. But the real reason they are here, is because they are cheap labor. Plus, they are so desperate to stay in their "better lives", that they are more likely to stick with the company that provided them employment, and to work harder than their American counterpart.
We want cheap labor, the only reason we ever opened up immigration from non-European countries, was because Europeans weren't coming to America anymore. And the Europeans that were, didn't come out of desperation, and so they wouldn't work for the really cheap wages we were offering(no more Irish potato famine /cry).
Look at the "Great migration", which occurred during World War II. Where large numbers of southern blacks moved to cities in the North. Do you think it was because the Northern blacks were happy to have them? No. Its because we were in a war, and we needed cheap, readily available labor. And Northern industry was more than happy to exploit those poor blacks.
To businesses, thats all minorites are, cheap labor. China doesn't allow immigration because China doesn't need immigration. It has plenty of poor rural Chinese to exploit, and plenty more non-Han chinese to exploit.
Interracial marriages have proven to be nothing more than completely destabilizing to this country. With the highest divorce rates in the country being black/white marriages(even higher than black/black marriages). And with other cross-racial marriages also being of higher likelihood for divorce than same-race couples of any demographic.
The children of interracial couples are more likely to have mental illness, to abuse drugs, to commit suicide, and to have many other issues.
A POSITIVE APPROACH TO IDENTITY FORMATION OF BIRACIAL CHILDREN (http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/final.paper.pub/_pwfsfp/00000085.htm - broken link)
Biracial Asian-Americans Twice As Likely To Have Psychological Disorders
Illicit Drug Use, by Race/Ethnicity, in Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Counties: 2004 and 2005, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies
The question isn't whether or not all of this is true. The question is, "So what?" What kinds of options do we realistically have? Being racist/xenophobic/isolationist/seggregationalist? Dividing the country(or the world) up into non-diverse enclaves, with basically no freedom to travel?
There are already many countries that have "Balkanized" in recent years. Dividing themselves up ethnically or religiously(former Yugoslavia). You have part of the Sudan, which should be breaking off into a new country soon. The Kurds in northern Iraq/Eastern Turkey have been wanting to create their own country for a very long time. You have Chechnya in Russia that wants to break away. You have Tibet in China. Even Quebec has been threatening to break away from Canada for years and years and years. Then you have Texas and other states that have tossed around the idea. It just surprises me that people are so adamantly opposed to the notion of secession. When Americans should be more inviting to the concepts of secession than most any other people on this earth. But we aren't.
The problems we have in this country are very real, but they are also unfixable based on our current values. So, in many ways we are better off pretending these problems don't exist at all, because it is easier to deal with the world if we aren't obsessing over its negative aspects all the time.
Basically, ignorance is bliss. I know I was a lot happier before I found out what the world was really like.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Do you think he really wants to take the guns away from the MINORITIES though?
