Rather, you described statistics without pulling on anything in service of explaining them beyond what they immediately indicated, and used that in support of an incomplete-- talk less of insufficiently tested-- thesis. You demonstrated that a racial group that could be called "black" committed more crime versus others in a few other region yet you made no effort to equate them for the sake of your argument (could you? African-Americans are anywhere from 0% to 30% European white due to historical trends, distinct from Africans elsewhere-- even in Europe; the kind of people Europeans are taking in and how they're being taken in is obviously something to consider in group analysis) and you failed to isolate anything in particular about the racial factor you continued to talk about in order to fully demonstrate your thesis.
It isn't really a matter of "it's complicated", since I proposed a theory about the problems of African-Americans specifically regarding crime stem from the explosion of single motherhood fueled by the war on poverty, which is why crime among non-whites was steadily declining until the war on poverty and the sexual revolution-- it's that all you've demonstrated is that a certain group that can be classified as "black" (no discussion on the importance or lack thereof of ethnicity or genetic pecularities between ethnicities, if any) commits more crime in multiple regions, and you don't attempt to explain why. You just say "race has something to do with it", but you don't actually describe what about the reality of race has to do with it, just like you failed to describe what about the reality of poverty makes it so poor people commit more violent crime. You mutter something about "biology and genetics" but you never bothered to describe those factors. All the while, you lambast me for what you claim is me using "it's complicated" rhetoric, while I actually provided several falsifiable points in a theory narrative-- points you never tried to falsify, likely because the only thing you're used to is refuting "muh poverty causes crime". You challenge me to prove my point by demonstrating that a white person raised by a single mother is just as likely as a black person raised by a single mother to commit crime, except that I never claimed any such thing-- even in implication-- because my point has merely been that 1) it makes one more likely, and 2) the black community has a massive single motherhood problem that 3) makes it so that they're more likely even without factoring the cascading effects of widespread single motherhood that also foment crime.
Your theory isn't untested-- it's incomplete. Rather than me disprove that race and biology aren't important, you need to describe distinct qualities about race and biology that make it so that they're (principally, you no doubt think) important, demonstrably more so than anything else. That's how you prove what you at least think you're getting from those correlation graphs. Being able to propose a full chain of cause and effect is something that I've done in my theory, which is why it's a better theory (if only in form) than yours.
It's laughable that you tell me that my statements lead nowhere while you make statements that are only remotely complete when decoded with effeminate /pol/-ish rhetorical frameworks.
lol horse paste.... that doesn't work on pigeons, sign me up Pfizer!
