So, if subset X of human beings statistically commit a certain crime more than subset Y...

...it's OK to speculate that subset X may be intrinsically morally defective? Even if membership in such subset isn't a matter of choice?

You are answering a questionnaire from the GOP?

:shrug:

Quite the opposite, in fact. It was a bullshit statement to make, and the OP got taken to task by lots of people over it.

and feels more "comfortable" committing said crime, but that does not make all heredity members of Subset X defective.

It's the whole nature vs. nurture argument--and even that breakdown doesn't cover the issue well at all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's a fact that I MAY go buy cat food soon.

It's a fact that you may stop posting forever on DU of your own free will.

It's a fact that many people MAY or CAN not quite grasp the not-so-delicate difference between the words "may" and "can".

if this is a roundabout way of inquring whether the fact that men are much more likely to commit acts of rape and sexual violence. It's not an issue of morality at all but biology; testosterone and greater physical strength, coupled with what have been to some extent and for some subset of the species evolutionarily successful reproductive strategies (in this case, the reproductive strategy of coupling with as many women as possible with minimal to no investment in offspring). It's purely an issue of evolutionary adaptation, not morality. Humans, as much as we may like to think otherwise, are still animals, after all. That said, having reason and intelligence as we do one would like to think that more people in general were able to master their impulses. Unfortunately for the species our evolutionary development has yet to catch up with our social development (at least as it stands in liberal Western democracies).