Morality Question of the Day - 12/01/09

Is it immoral to avoid members of a race with higher murder rates?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • NO

    Votes: 7 70.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Thoreau

Valued Senior Member
This is a special one due to the debates between SAM and I lately. :) Just for you, honey! ;)

If any single race commits more murder than all other race (not combined), is it immoral to avoid members of that race?

(Yes or No, only. If any other opinion, please don't vote.)

EDIT: Sorry about the CAPS on the poll. Finger stuck.
 
well, I know I'd avoid them. If a certain race was committing most of the murders in my area, I'd avoid them. It would be no different than avoiding a certain gang or biker group.
 
well, I know I'd avoid them. If a certain race was committing most of the murders in my area, I'd avoid them. It would be no different than avoiding a certain gang or biker group.

It would be extremely different, people generally CHOOSE to be part of a gang or biker group, so there is a high probability that members of such a group share violent tendencies. People do NOT choose their race, and for you to treat such a group differently because of the actions of a very small, but perhaps highly visible, subset of the group over which the others have no control is immoral in my opinion. I admit that it is very hard to avoid this mindset, but it is an incorrect application of statistics and is scientifically unsound.
 
This is a special one due to the debates between SAM and I lately. :) Just for you, honey! ;)

If any single race commits more murder than all other race (not combined), is it immoral to avoid members of that race?

(Yes or No, only. If any other opinion, please don't vote.)

EDIT: Sorry about the CAPS on the poll. Finger stuck.
That depends.. How much more?

No it wouldn't be immoral. Narrowminded perhaps, but not immoral.
Narrow-minded? Why? Seems like common sense to me.
 
This is very strange. My response to this thread directed at me has been deleted.

Apparently we are not allowed to decide which race has higher murder rates and whether they can be avoided.

I will PM the response to MZ
 
SAM:

I deleted a post by you that started talking about your pet topic: Israel. It was off topic, so I deleted it.

If you wish to post on the topic you may do so.
 
Actually I was referring to American troops but neither was mentioned. It was also a direct response to MZ's [an American troop] pet theory on race avoidance as a measure of self defence.

Please quit misinterpreting my posts.
 
Its okay, I messaged MZ the original post

Ironic that this is a thread on ethics where the admin selectively manipulates the post to only show the responses he agrees with.

edit: its also ironic that you thought of Israel when I did not. :p
 
Last edited:
SAM:

I took another look at your post. Actually, I think you were probably thinking about Pakistan. Either way, it's your usual anti-Israel or anti-American crusade.
 
I think you should quit interpreting my posts, it seems you lack the facility to arrive at the right conclusions. And this is a thread on the justification for racism after all.
 
If any single race commits more murder than all other race (not combined), is it immoral to avoid members of that race?
If any race commits more murders?

orace.png
 
Narrow-minded? Why? Seems like common sense to me.

I said perhaps as in it could be. Would you avoid a 3 year old of that race? If so , that would be silly not common sense. As 3 year olds rarely commit homicide regardless of race. So yes if you avoided all members of that race regardless of age, then your thinking would have to be a bit linear.
 
If any race commits more murders?

orace.png


Based on my own stay in the US I would ask, how do we know that graph does not represent the racism against blacks?

Aren't blacks more likely to be arrested, indicted, convicted and given longer sentences?

It'd be interesting to see what a post-black President graph looks like.
 
You mean as compared to when you kill lots and lots of people :rolleyes:

Around 50% of murder victims are black.

WASHINGTON - Nearly half of the nation’s murder victims in 2005 were black, and the number of black men who were slain is on the rise.

A majority of the black murder victims were relatively young — between 17 and 29, the Justice Department said in a study released Thursday.

The department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics report offers a snapshot of racial disparities among violent crime victims. Black people represented an estimated 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, the latest data available, but were the victims of 49 percent of all murders and 15 percent of rapes, assaults and other nonfatal violent crimes nationwide
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20203888/

As to your question, most homicides are intra-racial

ovrace.png


And most repeat offenders are whites:

bureauofjusticestatisti.png

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
 
Keep in mind people, this is a hypothetical question. I'm not saying that it is true. There isn't really any need to get into specific current crime rates. But hey, if you really want to, go ahead. lol
 
Based on my own stay in the US I would ask, how do we know that graph does not represent the racism against blacks?
I seriously doubt that racism could account for much of the 700 percent difference in murder rates.Consider the fact that Gary IN, Detroit Michigan, and Washinton DC are usually in the running for murder capitals of the world. They are all largely black areas and many (if not most) of the police are black as well. Do you believe the black police are racist against other blacks? Or that they would sit by and let the white police officers frame a bunch of people for murder?
It'd be interesting to see what a post-black President graph looks like.
The murder rate will probably be unchanged or even up.
 
Back
Top