But you are a racist [1].
I wonder how common it is to do these brief checks through the comments of users that seems just a bit off. Too often there's a pattern.
You said (verbatim) : "Holding black people to the same standard as white people when they are genetically incapable of meeting that standard seems like a much bigger problem"
True, you did not define "standard". Then you attack people when they infer you're talking about ethics, or crime rate, or whatever other interpretation. Sure, but you were definitely not talking about the ability to cook a Thanksgiving turkey. If you do not want your writings to be open to interpretation, then be specific.
> When someone states the objective fact that black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, that is not racism.
No, but saying that this is because of their genetic is. Because you have no reasoning backing that other than "they're black, so there could not be any other reason explaining the lower IQ". Same thing for crime rate. Crime rate is a fact, not racist in itself. But facts do not make discussions. No one brings a fact just to leave it there. You bring it to back up an opinion. And this opinion can definitely be racist.
That is something you conspicuously failed to do dozens of times on this page. The other person is always missing the point, didn't read what you said, falling victim to one myth or another, disingenuous, irrelevant, fixating, making absolutely no sense, slipping in thing at the end after the red herrings, seem eager to put words in your mouth ...
It makes for super-tiresome reading. This is not a productive method of communication. (That was you complaining about the other guy yet again.)
Please consider that you are just one person among many on here, and that you may seem as ignorant, misguided, irrational, unfair, impossible-to-argue-with, prejudiced to them as they apparently seem to you. And please be more considerate in future. Be civil. Don't be snarky.
> Black crime rate being high explains black arrest rate being high.
Where is the causality here? Sure, there is a correlation and sure, it may be seen as a reasonable argument, but like your point before about CO2 not being a problem, you completely overlook that there could be many causes for the same event.
How is your fact about crime rates invalidating the position "there is racism amongst police forces"? The effect of the higher crime rates _and_ racism are not mutually exclusive.
But you choose to rather adopt a point of view where every situation can apparently be 100% explained by a single cause. And that cause is that black people are not "up the standard" -- whatever standard you are talking about.
Yup, that's racism.
Kindergarden.
> It is very concerning to me that I am now a thought criminal and therefore anything I say is incorrect.
And rightly so after that comment.
CO2 is a problem.
This year's Nobel prize in economics was awarded to Bill Nordhaus [1] for figuring out the economic impact of carbon based emissions. He, along with many climate scientists and economists, think that this is the most market-aligned way to reduce the impact of climate change.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nordhaus#Nobel_Memoria...
Not the problem the article is talking about.
No it isn't. That is based on a single observation, increasing standards of living in the 20th century in western nations. Living standards in western nations were increasing before that and birth rates were not declining. Living standards stopped increasing decades ago, and birth rates have not gone back up. So the evidence that this is even true in western nations is quite poor, but there is no evidence at all that it holds true in other cultures.
>We can't just exploit the world and then blame those who live in systems that offer no alternative.
It isn't about blame, it is about solving the problem. You can not give 5 billion Africans a western standard of living, that is not a physical possibility. So we need to prevent the 5 billion Africans from happening while there's still only 1 billion Africans. We're not trying to prevent 5 billion Europeans from happening because the European population is falling, not rising.
In fact, where is it not true?
No it isn't.
>In fact, where is it not true?
Everywhere? Nothing in your link contradicts what I said already. You can only make the correlation if you cherry pick start and end dates, and cherry pick western nations or nations that had coincidental birth rate declines like China. If the correlation is real and not spurious, then why doesn't it hold now? Why didn't it hold before the 1930s? Why has it never existed in Africa?
The inverse relationship is obvious in South Korea:
https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp-per-capita
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINKOR
Before the 1930s, every country was "developing" my modern definitions. (US real GDP/capita was ~$9k in 1929 just before the recession). Also, other factors are necessary for this to happen (e.g. women empowerment)
CO2 is absolutely a problem, and promoting birth control does not get you called a nazi klansmen.
What are you going on about?
- CO2, as a greenhouse gas, increase the Earth surface temperature
- This temperature increase causes droughts/floods/other extreme meteorological events
- Lands that used to be arable aren't anymore, because of these events.
- People need to feed themselves, so they need new lands.
- They burn forests, wipe out ecosystems, and kill millions of animals in the process.
You'll have a hard time in this world if you believe that every problem has a single source...
Proximate vs. root cause nitpickery isn't a solution either.
It's entirely possible to get carbon output down to sustainable levels without genocide. You're simply wrong here.