please do tell, where is the strawman?
Your strawman is here:
Also, your logic is faulty. it is basically
> cultural component exists
> therefore biological component cannot exist
> and is also anathema
This is especially obnoxious, as you later admit I don't actually use this kind of logic here:
Your third point is to say you can't prove a negative beyond any reasonable doubt. but we can tell that it is "at least mostly cultural".
which I addressed by pointing out that we can't really tell if it is mostly cultural or not due to the ban on research.
As to 'anecdote:'
Your second point is to repeat an anecdote by thomas sowell.
I addressed this by pointing out we are all just using our anecdotes.
If someone is trying to make a definitive claim 'X, not Y, is the cause of Z,' it only takes a
single counter-example to disprove that definitive claim.
If the root problem was biological, then
under no circumstances could you find a case where a shift in culture removed the problem. When certain scientists claimed it was impossible to break the speed of sound, it only took one flight that went faster than the speed of sound to prove them wrong.
Similarly, if there is a single case where you have a racially integrated community and there is no discrepancy in rates of criminality, that proves that it is, at a minimum, not primarily an issue of biology, because if it was, such community could not exist.
There is further supporting evidence in how communities of different ethnicities that have similar problems; single-parent homes, inter-generational welfare dependency, etc, also have high crime rates, but it only takes the one counter-example to disprove the claim.
Now, a discerning observer can say 'Perhaps in a sufficiently structured and disciplined community, a higher propensity towards criminality is suppressed to the point where it can no longer have a noticeable impact.' This is why I specifically addressed that while evidence shows the issue is
primarily cultural, a biological element cannot
100% be ruled out.
And to be fair to you, the toxic political environment around such research is exactly the reason that more detailed research can't be done on the issue. But at the same time, this also means that no further evidence
supporting the idea 'it's inextricable to biology' can't be done either, and the current weight of evidence is
very clearly against such an idea.