Total posts: 382
-->
@Best.Korea
Oooohh. You dont want -
Well I did just follow a link that didnt show anything. I guess that works out.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yeah it can be that way.
The job scene is so different too. Sometimes the most educated person or most qualified is passed on a position. Shesh
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I was still waiting for response to link provided. Oh well. Cant stay on topic
Created:
Do you think the poverty is causing low intelligence and rashness?Do you think it's impossible that any of the poverty could be explained by low intelligence or impulsiveness?
111 Poverty, among other factors, prevents adequate resources for education in the U.S. Along with other areas.
Many schools depend on property taxes (in us. ) Which are determined by property value. A poor area will house a poor school which is not able to sustain positive environment because a) low resources b) other factors.
Fr second question, are we talking individual or geoup? Group is based more on external factors. Individual may be in poverty because they are not able to have high enough paying job due to low IQ.
Payment level has always been based on skill and education. Higher education can expect to see higher pay. However, there is nothing that indicates an entire race will inherently have lower IQ than another race.
22
I don't understand how you can say "research done" and not cite any of it at all
Well its pretty easy really. I started on this thread criticizing the information already provided. The evidence I did provide is aimed to counter information provided.
What I speak on now was a documentary on PBS. I did not foresee my need to record said documentary but it presented enough evidence in itself. Looking for it has not been fruitful. Finding the exact same thing but under different title or production has not helped either. Oh well. Thats ok. Like I said before I am limited and at first wasnt going to mention it.
Then why did I mention it? I was asked or at least thought it answered a question that described my thought process not a persuasive argument.
333
So, 100% of human behavior is environmental? Is that your stance?
Lol. No.
44.
Other predictions are based on genetic clustering.Other predications are based on the hormonal aspect of skin color and how that is related to aggression, or increased testosterone levels resulting in more violence.
What evidence or stats says a more tanned or dark skinned person is more agressive?
A ) Okay, so you think that the only genetic cause for poverty are disabilities?B) You think the genetic aspect of intelligence has nothing to do with it?C)) You think the genetic aspect of impulsivity has nothing to do with it?
A). Yes
B) a person with disability conpromises their inherent intelligence.
How are you measuring intellegence, is it IQ?
C) I think a person's impulsivity is based on their environment. There is an average for all people (regardless to race) and their environment shapes it while a disability prevents a person from being compatable with the average.
5. I seen that link already. I dont agree with the conclusion that a percentage that indicates group a is more violent to group b than group b is violent to group a indicates that 100% of the population from group a is stupid because their skin colour.
Thats not rational or true. I see a fallacy in there if anyone were to concern themselves with it.
66.You understand that skin produces hormones, right? You understand that hormones can effect human behavior, right?
Thyroids and other glands produce hormones. Now we are getting into human biology but I dont see the pro producing evidence for their argument.
What about me? My only stance thus far is to express disbelief. As said above, thats why I am criticizing more than providing substance fory own personal viewpoint. Among the other inescapable factor(s).
7. Skin does that ? Ok I will read your new link and respond to it. Thanks.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
The point I made was that 100% correlation (e.g. breathing) can come from something that doesn't at all cause the outcome (e.g. crime). So, even if poverty was highly correlated to crime (it's not), that wouldn't necessarily be meaningful unless causation was shown.
I agree. Same is true for skin colour or pigmentation or culture or heritage.
Criminals are typically low I.Q. and impulsive, and so a lot of crime is little more than a rash, thoughtless act.
And some would say the same for those in poverty. They pertain a low I.Q., impulsive, etc.
What you are describing is a vanishingly small group of people -- it is nowhere near the mean.
I respectufly disagree. I came to a different conclusion years ago based on varied evidences from research done at universities and recorded/produced by public broadcast station(s) by contributions from viewers like you. There are several other articles and the such about the such as well. Perchance it is a bias to overcome but for now I see no evidence to conclude otherwise.
Their thoughtless reasoning may indicate their poor genetics, but taking literal interpretations of interviews/surveys will only give you surface level (wrong) answers.
If a person is thoughtless, they woud not be able to forumalte a response. Kids do it all the time.
" Why did you kick Joe?"
"I dont know.".
This is a biological occurance because low brain development. We see it in kids, who would have a low IQ but more importantly low brain functionality. Kids cant always comprehend the whys and therefore can not explain them.
Same for adults who for one reason or another are unable to convey why.
What demographics are known to have low iq?
"People of color"
Im sure that is a legitament response for you but lets try this. What monetary (money related) demographics is associated with a low IQ?
The poor.
Why?
Low to no schooling. Low to no intervention or assistence. Etc. Etc.
Some how each point to be made from your position still points to poverty or poor.
An objective, statistical analysis doesn't require people to be totally honest and candid with you, hence why it is superior.
Statistical analysis doesnt go into why a person does x.
Unless you believe that all racial groups are precisely the same genetically (wtf), different racial groups have different clusters of genetics. We should expect different outcomes in societal achievement partly due to these genetic differences. When we control for relevant environmental effects (something you can't do in surveys or interviews), we find that race is an excellent predictor of crime -- that's how genetic cause is demonstrated (no assumptions involved).
Again this points to social darwinism. Thats been debunked already. No biology or science accepts it.
Also, the predictor in crime is based on stitics in who is being arrested. Blacks and hispanics are more likely to be wrongfully arrested and accused. Stats in one area will not determine or seperate errors in another.
But I want to be super clear with your stance: do you believe that there is no genetic cause (even partial) for poverty at all?
I'd say partial because of disabilities like autism or cerebal palsey where our society has not adapted to include these individuals or they are not able to adapt to society. These mental and physical diseases occur among all "races" and are not restricted to a single race. However we do see more people suffer from these diseases while in poverty because they do not have resources for clean safe water, or food, or environment in some manner.
Which again circles us to nurture over nature for my position.
You can't because some of my studies are showing some degree of causation, either through variable control or genetic cluster analysis.
I havent seen it.
What I'm suggesting is that some people's genetics don't allow them to function well in society. Some people's genetic make them stupid and impulsive, of which negatively predict financial success.
That seems to be sociopaths and psycopaths or some other minority group that is not affected by malatone.
Are you saying that humans were not subjected to evolution?
Im saying social darwinism doesnt explain the factual presence and affect seen in evolution for humans. Our skin tone is a genetic resource for surviving in areas where there is more sun, compared to areas where there is less sun. This (our skin) has nothing to do with nor does it affect our behavior or thought patterns.
In contrast, the lack of vitamin D from the sun or in general does affect our behavior and mood. Hm...
It makes it untrue. An invalid argument is untrue.
No. Look at logic. An invalid arguement means the premises that lead to the conclusion do not lead to the conclusion. I can still have a claim or conclusion that is factual/true but come to that conclusion in error.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Some put Mary's age between 13 to 15.
Persons over here under the age of 16 are considered to be stupid to think for themselves and are at it like rabbits
Tad bit different setting no? Age of technology with everyone doing things for you vs. Learning a trade, combat, familial responsibilities, etc.
I always figured kids stopped being a kid earlier in their lives during ancient times. Definitely died sooner.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Okay, so show us where the Bible says that.
You want me to show you where in the bible it says who is of a marrying age?
You know, it would be very nice if you stopped confusing your words with words of the Bible.
Ditto.
Bible says to multiply. Children can get pregnant. But you dont see me claiming that Bible says that people should marry children.
Im not sure what you are saying.
May you clarify by explaining what our take away should be?
I also have not seen a response to link provided, is there a reason for why?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What the fuck
My sentiment exactly.
The topic isnt "author's explanation of the Bible". The topic is "Bible says".
Irrelevant! The bible is no different then any book or message in the sense that it is a message written by an author who developed a medium for their message. Regardless to whom or who or what ever that message is interpreted in order to be conveyed.
If we are trying to convey the author's message (what the bible says) then we look to the author. Although the bible has many author and spans thousands of years, we can still maintain author's message and intent.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I think you should criticize the opportunity lost in New voters.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
We cant reproduce many technologies and buildings that ancient peoples had. Like roman concrete. Sometimes their things were better.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Tell us which law in the Bible says that its wrong to have sex with children
Again, laws do not need to say specificly x is wrong, and then go through an entire list, a to z, what is wrong.
Here are scriptures that apply to your question. https://www.openbible.info/topics/pedophiles
Then why are other laws mentioned?
Because those are the laws that:
A. Cover a variety of sins under an umbrella system. Like how fornication is a sin and children are not of marrying age - therefore one sins if they have sex with children. Its a given.
B. Law stated was a greater issue. Where as homosexuality. May have been more popular and a greater issue than pedophilia.
Consder Greece demographics. Athens was known to have pedophilia, it was popular there. Sparta did not have pedophilia historically routed in their society. Neither did Judiasm. However, the surrounding areas and gods were known to concentrate more heavily on homosexuality/sex with same gender and human sacrafice. Ergo these things were a greater concern.
Use words of the Bible, not words of followers of the Bible
I use the words of those who created the bible and sustained tradition for thousands of years. They wrote it, they can explain it. Just as any author can explain his or her own written book.
But nnnooooo. Too much evidence that conflicts with o.p. We can'ts have that now. We mustn't negate precious! Silly hobbits.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
1. Comparing breathing to poverty is like comparing apples to oranges. There is more similarity in comparing breathing to skin tone because they are conditions we do not control.
Our bodies develop to breath and develop to have malatone based on genetics. Although we can be born into poverty, we can navigate/escape poverty.
What else seems to be missed is that I am sayin poverty/being poor is a cause because a person decides they need to commit crimes to navigate/escape poverty.
Studies that look at percentages does not determine a person's decision. Only their demographics. Im not basing my position on percentages but real interviews and surveys.
In contrast, the evidence you provided comes to a brick wall because you use demograpics. Demographics that also indicate that "blacks" and "hispanics" have higher percentages in poverty. Some how we are to forget or ingore this but assume that the mere presence in demographics demonstrates genetics as a cause.
We can easliy reference social darwinism and how it failed to demonstrate that genetics is a causation.
2.
Our bodies develop to breath and develop to have malatone based on genetics. Although we can be born into poverty, we can navigate/escape poverty.
What else seems to be missed is that I am sayin poverty/being poor is a cause because a person decides they need to commit crimes to navigate/escape poverty.
Studies that look at percentages does not determine a person's decision. Only their demographics. Im not basing my position on percentages but real interviews and surveys.
In contrast, the evidence you provided comes to a brick wall because you use demograpics. Demographics that also indicate that "blacks" and "hispanics" have higher percentages in poverty. Some how we are to forget or ingore this but assume that the mere presence in demographics demonstrates genetics as a cause.
We can easliy reference social darwinism and how it failed to demonstrate that genetics is a causation.
2.
I think your big issue is that you assume all people have good justification for their actions.
.
I never said poverty is a justification for crime. I look at it like alcoholism. Treat alcoholism and then other issues can be addressed. Treat poverty and other issues can be addressed. If these things are not treated, then you will not prevent the abusive husband from being abusive and you won't prevent the poor kid from going to jail.
Does everyone who drinks alcohol or is an alcoholic develop abusive behaviors? No. But for the person who is abusive needs to address the alcoholism. Same for poverty. The poor person stealing has a greater need to steal. Decrease the need first and that person will have an easier time navigating life, staying out of jail, etc.
2B I dont have the survey because no one makes the survey. I also have a limit to time that allows navigating world wide web. Last night I got 4 hrs sleep to hold my kid to sleep because they have been sick. Life happens. This is an online forum. Everybody gets it.
But, anyone can argue your evidence is doing same as you blame me. Morphing correlation into a cause. I prefer a different route since most have already said it.
2c
White people owe us this', rather than extensive, valid, desperate reasons about their dire poverty requiring drastic measures.
You express a person's thought. Same as I do in point 1 above.
You also highlight a people and "their dire poverty." Somehow these people are in poverty and are in your demographics but we again are to ignore their poverty?
3. Genetics
They can say it was x or y, but I doubt any of them will factor in their genetic makeup into their explanation
Thats because social darwinism has already been debunked.
4.
This is a negative proof fallacy. It's not logically valid.
Thats ok. This thread is not based on validity. That doesnt make a claim untrue though. Correct?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Lol. I already responded to o.p. why ask again?
Christians are not irrelevant. From a third party/neutral position on religion, christians formulated the bible. Christian theology and bible go hand and hand. You cant rule one with out the other.
Thats like playing a game without that game's set rules. Or to use the rules without the board or pieces.
Other people already pointed out that some laws overlay and would apply to children. Thats nothing new and is why HISTORICALLY you dont see sex with "child" a practice relevant to judiasm Or christianity.
Those who did practice the act were punished. If we see this in history and people who follow bible say its morrally wrong. Then its wrong.
Again what is your point?
Created:
What is the point in this thread?
No christian group says it is ok to sex a child
No christian group formulates 100% from bible alone.
Bible does not need to explicitly say "no sex child" in order for us to know bible/god/christians are against it.
Bible does not explicitly say it is right (opposite of wrong)
There are indirect links from talks on adultry and marriage practices that present it as wrong or not done
Bible does not say direct or indirect that it is right/good/ok either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Yeah. Definitely. The books banned from being sold for private use are a different topic and concern, I feel that as well.
There does seem to be mix opinions and information out there about this incident. Strangely enough, a similar claim occured in 2022. In florida as well.
Strange coincidence.
Created:
Posted in:
What is your take on this?
Is this a scandal, is it news-worthy, or is this fake news?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
It was a hobbiest that misjudged their capabilities.
" Yeah I can totally fly through that window. I think somebody's naked up- oh shit. "
Created:
Posted in:
Bible does not command death penalty for homosexuals, you troll.
I suspect brother has hacking abiliters or someone got bored
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
the general argument you're making appears to be that because abortions are expensive, and because my source said that abortions decrease crime rates, poverty causes crime (to some extent).
What I am pointing out is this:
A. ) the source provided is suggesting abortions and incarcerations influence how much crime occurs.
Where as Higher abortions & incarcerations will result in lower crime rates. As suggested.
B) the demographics for abortions and incarcerations show us that the majority users are poor or in poverty.
C) although anyone from any background can and do commit crimes, the correlation should show us that the main influencers in crime rates are the poor & poverty stricken people.
D) Does this mean there is a cause? Although I never stated my position before, I will be clear now. Poverty is a cause. A cause is a personal decision.
There have been plenty of people to say they commited a crime because they do not have x or are dealing with poverty. I don't have a survey to express this. Thats ok. I dont think I'll be changing minds if I did.
E.) Those who say poverty is a cause normally do not say it is the only cause.
F) no evidence provided to suggest poverty is not a cause.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well this is just circular reasoning now. You say x but pertain no substantial evidence. What is provided is suported by opinion. Well done then.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Oi.
1. Again. Intent is desire to commit an action because of its results. Intent is not used in the way you suggest.
Except that loaded gun kills people and circumcision kills people.
People die after receiving many medical treatments and surgeries. You have not provided a reason to separate circumcision from the rest.
2. You are providing a reason someone may be considered guilty of sin. This has nothing to do with intent. Nor have we concluded circumcision should be considered a sin.
As said before, Jewish people were directed to perform circumcision and this is viewable in the bible. Moving away from this was necessary because there is a new method to acknowledge God's people. We see this in everything as we switch from o.t. to n.t.
From physical to spiritual.
But where is the call out for circumcision being a sin now?
3.
Well, its not for the health of the baby
For you, its not for the health of the baby. That is your position. Doesn't have to he mine nor anyone elses.
Since you basically said that people dont own their bodies, that is just proof of how far you are willing to go in defending circumcision.
No. Personal belief. I don't own my body.
4.
If you cannot explain it, it will be really awkward for you.
No. Not at all. Many people are able to see or believe in something they can not explain or articulate.
Ownership is something that can change hand. For one reason or another. If I own my body then I can loose ownership. Maybe because I do not have mental capabilities to consent or navigate life.
Regardless, I am responsible for my body just as I am responsible for my actions, my wife, my child, my friendships, etc. I am responsible for many things and these things do not rely on ownership. My choices influence them and affect them. Therefore there are limitations to what I or anyone else should do.
5.
If you do have a right to cut that which you dont own, then why is me cutting off your ear wrong?
I never said anything about a right. We are performing a medical or surgical procedure that provides a benefit. Although that benefit may increase or decrease depending on where you live, there is still a benefit.
As a parent I make choices for my children to benefit them. This is not a right but an responsibility for parenthood. I associate it with maintaining health and wellbeing.
Cutting off an ear is not explicitly wrong . A doctor can cut off my ear. If there is a personal benefit or medical reason, then we do not consider it wrong. If you are a prick just cutting off a person's ear, then there are no benefits. Not much of a challenge in comparison.
Created:
I sure as hell care about the feelings of a retard like you.You are going around cutting baby's dicks, but yes lets pretend that your feelings matter.
Are we to pretend these sentences do not contradict each other? Its ok. Typo maybe.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Oh no. Did I hurt your feelings?
Like I said. It only displays your ignorance and lack of credibility.
If you want to look bad, thats on you.
Of course, I use Bible's laws and regulations, and not the witchcraft that you are using. Thats why the Bible defines intent as having knowledge of the action's results and still desiring to do it. Thats why a person cannot say "he didnt have an intent to kill them. He just wanted to point a gun at them and shoot." Yeah said the worst lawyer ever
Proof please? Where in bible does it define intent? I am in disbelief.
Otherwise. Yes. Some incidences have been proven to occur by accident or without intent.
If a person is unable comprehend reality, they would have capability to point a gun, shoot, and do not have intent to kill.
However, surgery is not a loaded gun nor is circumcision. Again I see no acknowledgment for the delima presented. A doctor is performing cosmetic surgery on a patient. This does not "save a life," but there is still risks involved. How is that doctor possess intent to kill if the goal is to alter the skin and preserve a patient's life?
2. You are paraphrasing and possibly putting your own position into the story. Christianity is fullfilment of Judiasm. However God still recognizes the chosen people who have not followed Jesus. Please provide adequate evidence that suggests God did not command the Jewish people to circumcise and/or determined a moral wrong in being circumcised.
3. I already gave you the definition, and I dont plan to change it any time soon. Plus, touching a baby's penis for your pleasure is a sexual activity. Cutting it for your pleasure is rape that has no benefits for the baby.
Lol. Where is the pleasure? Who is having pleasure? The doctor or the parent, and then please prove your position that a doctor is obtaining pleasure.
You really just shot yourself in the foot here. Was that intent?
Also I responded to the foreskin question, "who owns it." If I do not believe we "own" our body parts/organs just as no one "own" our body parts/organs, then I will not be able to say anyone "owns" foreskin. Rape or bodily harm is not morally wrong because someone "owns" their body.
4. Happily. Scratch my back and I scratch yours (figure of speech) . Some questions I asked earlier were skipped over. (Not figure of speech,). What are your answer(s)?
what it means to be human and a person" is a question.
Lol. More name calling expresses incapability to address issues presented. Now is that a question? No.
You have grammar wrong.
In question form, that sentence would look like this:::
What does it mean to be a himan and a person?
See difference?
Yiu are also missing the entire quote. Which would reflect the use of what same as this sentence::'
“We must prioritize and clearly identify what these top infrastructure issues are and make a meaningful decision about where we spend the money as it relates to infrastructure.”
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
2
: having the mind, attention, or will concentrated on something or some end or purpose
Please provide any source that supports what you suggest. Everyone uses "intent" to express that a person had a desired plan for a desired outcome.
2. Where does bible say circumcision is morally wrong and a law by God that expresses thou shall not do?
3. Some of them (surgeries/medical procedures) have the intent to save lives but have a mortality rate.
Seems to be an omission that some surgeries do not save lives. We include the surgeries that are for cosmetics and failed operations where patients may pass away from or during surgery. Like open heart surgery.
4. I dont know what kind of drugs are you using, but "is included into" means its included into definition.
You clearly gave information that contradicted your original definition. But since you are so sincere that something is included with a definition, may you please provide evidence for it? There must be a dictionary that lists circumcision among possible examples. A neutral article that expresses the same concern.
By definition rape involves unlawful sexual activity. The sexual application is the intent in a given action that is sexual. Although some people find cutting to be sexual, performing any kind of surgery on penis or vagina does not constitute rape if consent is not present.
Consider two links above. Both medical situations where treatment involves surgery on an infant's genitals. Infants can not provide consent so both would be, under your presented logic, automatically identified as rape. How or why?
7. Sorry I dont follow your circular meaningless logic. "What it means to be human" is a retarded premise, since that premise is a question. Please try to make more sense next time.
If you do not follow the logic then do not make a claim on what the logic is. There are no premises that are questions. If you do not know what it means and have to ask, that's ok. Do not be shy about it or hide it.
The word "retard" is also outdated and discriminatory. Please refrain from use, it only displays your ignorance and lack of credibility.
I see no objection to the last paragraph?
However, anyone can argue God owns the body and consents circumcision where as He does not consent rape.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
1. Not sure if anyones said this. Who's law are you talking about?
Sounds like you mentioned commandment, "thou shall not murder."
A few follow up questions.
A) if we are following Abraham's God, circumcision is allowed but not spiritually necessary because it was commanded and then replaced.
B.) The word "murder" is english. Some translations do not have "murder" in the bible when translating to english. The word may not be represented or accurately used in translation.
C) even as christians navigate away from circumcision as a physical representation of a spiritual belonging, jewish people are still recognized as God's people. How do you reconcile this?
2. Circimcision in most cases does not cause death either.
However, it is done to prevent harm from developing in the future like removing a mole or skin tag to prevent damage to these parts or if they could develop into a cancer.
There is not a gaurantee to this but if it can be prevented, then that is necessary measure. If you do not think so, that is fine. Circumcission is considered cosmetic or preventive care depending on who we talk to. So you do not need to like it. If you want to call it something it is not, however, it meeds to be backed up. Right now that is not the case.
3. Intent is when:
1) You know circumcisions will result in death
2) You know circumcisions will not save life
Since you know these 2, then choosing to do mass circumcision is murder.
You know very well intent is when a person desires a given outcome. Otherwise you just call all medical procedures (including cosmetics) murder if the doctor knows there is a risk for death and the patient dies. This includes doctors operating on hearts and brains.
4. No.
Thats what the rape includes. Hence the difference between "same" and "is (included into)".
Great. Glad you concede to agree that rape is not defined as you presented.
Once more you provide a generic definition that can apply to any surgical procedure. What you are missing is sexual application.
Male Infants can require surgery on their genitalia to prevent serious harm. You said your self they are ok because they can save lives. But in this given definition, operating on them is rape.
5.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about circumcision. Circumcision in most cases does not save lives and countries that do mass circumcision arent any better in health than countries who dont
Comparing and contrasting your ideals to identify contradictions. So you are okay for circumcision to occur in the not most case to save life? Why not prevent individuals from experiencing that all together?
As for country reference, its hard to say because the countries that would benefit have various underlined diseases not related to male genitalia. If there is an issue, may be too hard to tell because something else has greater death rate or impact.
6. Again you talk about laws of corrupt countries.
Can you prove they are corrupt?
Can you prove that even a corrupt country is impossible to develop or have a legal system that is accurate? Usually corruption meas people are breaking the laws that were put into place. Which means law would be accurate and moral but violated because corruption violates the law.
7. Rape is not morally wrong because of who owns what. If that were the case then anyone can develop the means to own another person and provide their own consent. Now rape is legal. Instead, rape violates what it means to be human and a person.
However, anyone can argue God owns the body and consents circumcision where as He does not consent rape.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Ah. I see. I'd say exposure for sure. I feel like you can put that on a graph chart where x is exposure and y is quantity or legnth of time a person is exposed to x.
I still want to push that the individual who is suspicious is the cause of that suspicion because they are the ones interpreting what is being done.
I doubt the avg. person considers statistics or much less knowledgable in it. You are clearly higher than avg. in how you articulate a message- and considering stats or any info on a given topic (as expressed in this topic).
Moral or not, We dont need to look at person a = person b.
However I do understand how appearance is part of our natural way to determine danger. Along with repitition.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Although I disagree with sentiment for what is relevant, we can move on because I agree that Wealth/poverty is not the only explanation for the causes of crime. Im not saying it is. I object to the idea that a person's poverty should never be included with possible cause for crime.
The fault for that kind of treatment lies with other people in his group who commit crimes
Ah... What? The people to blame and are at fault for looking at you as piece of shit are the people who are looking at you as a piece of shit.
Apply that same logic to being lynched. Yes its an extreme but a starting point. Who do we blame if someone kills us? You and me. Do we blame ouselves, our family, or the people who actually killed us?
Im pretty sure the blame is on the suspect. Right?
We can then dial it down from murder to assault. Who do we blame for a holes beating us? Who is at fault when we get mugged or called names?
To think that an entire group is guilty of x because a minority percentage perform x is a fallacy just as much as assuming one person is guilty of x if a group performed x. Fallacy either way and for a good reason. This type of reasoning does not bring us to thd truth.
Created:
-->
@thett3
The NYT attributes this to racism but that’s pretty ridiculous to me. Anyone growing up in the top 1% is in a place of extreme privilege regardless of race
Not really. My brother is well to do as a broker. Easily wealthy although not 1%. He gets dirty looks at his own apartment complex, has been asked if he was a pro basketball player, asked to show that he lives in his own apartment complex, and has said multiple times - he will be watched up and down the isles at a store.
If you are suspected to commiting a crime just by your race, thats not privlidge.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Meanwhile, there was a study which performed analysis of over half a million Swedish people looked into income levels and future criminality. They looked specifically at crime rates between poor kids who stayed poor into adulthood, and poor kids who become wealthier as they aged. For both groups, the criminality rates were virtually the same. This shows that poverty isn't a cause of crime, but rather a correlation http:/bjp.rcpsych.org/content/early/2014/08/14/bjp.bp.113.136200.abstract
Site does not allow access. Also this is to a magazine. We need something that is easier to access like this link.
Study provided by journal of economic structures looks into multiple countries and multiple statistics to see if results can be viewed across multiple countries. A serious benefit considering not two countries will experience the same economic/social environment. Policies will differ along with the practice of justice/law.
Sweden carry more socialist policies. Today the difference between incomes is not as large as it is in US or other countries. What govt. considers to be poverty may not be the same in other countries. There are many factors that can influence a study's conclusion, but we can not see the study to determine how it influences the discussion.
Our experiences with poverty is not the same either.
In this study, researchers break down poverty as something a person can leave, fall into, have chronically, and more. Those who had fallen into poverty had a higher risk in using drugs to cope with their misfortune.
If this study translates to american experience, then those in poverty would be more likely to do drugs, which is a crime. Still the goal is to recognize different aspects about poverty and how to research it.
During the roaring 20's (i.e. economic boom and great wealth generation), crime increased, but as soon at the Great Depression took hold, crime rates actually went down (the opposite of what your hypothesis predicts) #2 - Homicide in the United States, - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library Crime and the Great Recession | The Great Recession Effects (city-journal.org)
Interesting read indeed!
There is so much information. I find it interesting that the roaring 20's - the prohibition ERA - well known corruption in law enforcement saw a great decrease in crime. Who knew making America's past time a crime would some how shift crime away from murder, theft, etc. to supplement the people's needs. Maybe it was bad for business?
Anyways the last article is interesting. Their conclusion is abortion and increased imprisonment decreased overall crime rates, while same time disproving other factors. Including poverty. Anyone correct me if Im wrong. That is what is suggested yes?
The decreased and increase in crime is influenced by decrease and increase of incarcerations and abortions. Lets take a closer look into these things.
This article claims poverty is #2 reason for abortion because the women "cant afford" having a kid.
59% of women who seek abortions are already mothers;
- Women who seek abortions are more than three time as likely to be poor; 49% are poor while the national poverty rate is about 12%;
- 75% of women who seek abortions are low income
While it is difficult to ascertain whether poverty makes someone more likely to commit a crime, data show it does make a person more susceptible to being arrested and more likely to be charged with a harsher crime and to receive a longer sentence. Adults in poverty are three times more likely to be arrested than those who aren’t, and people earning less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level are 15 times more likely to be charged with a felony
Some researchers find links between high incarceration rates among men of color and policy changes that criminalized social problems experienced by many people living in poverty (who are disproportionately people of color). These challenges include homelessness, mental illness, and drug or alcohol problems. The result, these researchers suggest, perpetuates poverty and racial inequality both within and across generations.[5]
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/links-between-mass-incarceration-and-poverty
Although causes of crime are layered and possess multiple factors, we should still be able to see how poverty and inequality are included as factors for crime.
None of the effect sizes between crime and poverty could be considered strong or even moderate. A meta-analysis of 153 studies found the effect size to be .253 (weak correlation) with only 59% of the studies being statistically significant Assessing Macro-Level Predictors and Theories of Crime: A Meta-Analysis on JSTOR
I followed the provided link to read this:
Across all studies, social disorganization and resource/economic deprivation theories receive strong empirical support; anomie/strain, social support/social altruism, and routine activity theories receive moderate support; and deterrence/rational choice and subcultural theories receive weak support.
What is your take on these sentences?
Also real kicker. Disappointment. Cant access information. Oh darn. I guess this is further evidence for @KichiroMS
Created:
Posted in:
Just raise taxes and implement more public services. Problem solved.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Did I say they are? Again. Someone else talked on a specific time. Between civil war to civil rights. Im talking about that time frame.
As for "prove" citizenship...we should also see how or where someone proves citizenship and if that crosses to other races. There are mixed reports as to how all that occurs. Luckily I dont think its a national issue.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I do not see the connection between someone's views on todays situation vs how conditions were between the civil war to the civil rights movement.
Let met just say, I already agreed with that man's sentiment and comments. The real issues today are not systematic racism. That is because of activists like those you mention who did something to change society. They did not do it alone but with many people (regardless of race).
With that said, it is very important in this discussion to aknowledge that the famous successful people in provided list are on the list because of their activism. They spoke up and against racial discrimination which did exist at their time and they themselves had said existed. This is not irrelevant because it demonstrates a disconnect from what really happened.
Past tense, "happened." You mentioned a specific time frame, 100 years after civil war and civil rights movement. Those dates are not today. Capisce?
And yes I get it. You can list more people from different dates and eras that mean something. We are still looking at a populas as a whole. The historical concensus still reflects that the majority (larger than 20% ) was not thriving under several different conditions after the civil war to the civil rights movement.
Here is an article Im sure you can get behind.
more than 40 percent of African Americans now consider themselves members of the middle class. Forty-two percent own their own homes, a figure that rises to 75 percent if we look just at black married couples. Black two-parent families earn only 13 percent less than those who are white. Almost a third of the black population lives in suburbia.
Because these are facts the media seldom report, the black underclass continues to define black America in the view of much of the public. Many assume blacks live in ghettos, often in high-rise public housing projects. Crime and the welfare check are seen as their main source of income. The stereotype crosses racial lines. Blacks are even more prone than whites to exaggerate the extent to which African Americans are trapped in inner-city poverty.
We can also see from article how much poverty and discrimination did exist.
[More than] Fifty years ago most blacks were indeed trapped in poverty, although they did not reside in inner cities. When Gunnar Myrdal published An American Dilemma in 1944, most blacks lived in the South and on the land as laborers and sharecroppers. (Only one in eight owned the land on which he worked.) A trivial 5 percent of black men nationally were engaged in nonmanual, white-collar work of any kind; the vast majority held ill-paid, insecure, manual jobs—jobs that few whites would take. As already noted, six out of ten African-American women were household servants who, driven by economic desperation, often worked 12-hour days for pathetically low wages. Segregation in the South and discrimination in the North did create a sheltered market
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Many people do not like affirmative action. Myself included. I didnt mention it either.
That doesnt mean everything was honky dory for african american community before x date. That doesnt mean the black community is not disenfranchised or discriminated against by a large scale.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
What is more troublesome; That you try to use a handful of people to demonstrate a large demographic or that every person you listed are known activists who would oppose your statement today?
William Harvey Carney (one of the first awarded the Medal of Honor)
Served during time when groups were segregated. Black units were always put on front lines to receive majority of casualties.
Examines several causes to crime and social injustice, attributing them to black community being rejected by society.
Jackie Robinson ::: broke color barrier. He is famous for steps to improve black community integration and acceptance into american culture and society.
Muhammad Ali :::"I ain't got no quarrel with those Vietcong," he said. "They never called me nigger."
Langston Hughes:::In the 1930s he turned his poetry more forcefully toward racial justice and political radicalism.
MLK Jr ::: marched against segregation. Killed for anti racist activism
Robert Smalls : In 1877 Smalls was convicted of having taken a $5,000 bribe while in the state Senate, and he was sentenced to three years in prison, but the case against him was clearly politically motivated. He was pardoned by South Carolina’s governor in 1879.
John R Lynch = argued against anti reconstruction propaganda.
Im surprised you list mlk jr. He is known for speaking out against the thing you say did not exist.
Now.
2. What evidence exists that african americans "thrived" during reconstruction ?
3.
Pre civil rights blacks thrived.... How?
Majority was in poverty, were not allowed to vote, prevented from voting, lynched/killed often for just being black, banks practiced "red line" to prevent blacks from moving or opening busoness outside black neighborhoods/ low income areas, the list goes on and on.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I didnt say that circumcision is same as murder, theft and rape.I said that circumcision is murder, theft and rape.
Same difference. How are these things the same? Thanks for addressing the question.
1. It is murder. Deaths are caused intentionally by those who perform circumcision, since they know circumcision can result in death.2. It is rape. Rape is penetration of sexual organs with no consent.3. It is theft. The foreskin is baby's property
I think this is helpful in general. No point to make.
1. Murder refers to legality in a person's intent to kill another. If someone dies from medical procedure and negligence is on the doctor, then the law uses different terms like manslaughter to identify a specific action or event.
Why are we ignoring legalities and how a term is used to apply murder to an incident (where someone dies) not evidenced to include intent?
There are many procedures like abortion, c-section, heart surgery, etc. that carry risk to death. Some procedures have a higher risk than others.
2. Is that how rape is defined? Mouth, anus is not a sex organ but very much involved if a person is raped.
How can we reconcile other genetial related surgeries for/on children as not being rape where surgergical instraments may perform tasks inside the body?
3. Theft
Again, theft like the word murder refers to criminal actions. If a thing is legal, then it should not be included with illegal acts. Theft is an unlawful action. Circumcision is lawful.
We can compare and advocate that there is similarities or call for a move to make something illegal, but lets be honest in how we use words.
The foreskin is taken with out consent like when an item is stolen from you without consent.
Ok so lets consider what is taken. Money, tv, kidney. These things can be stolen?
Sure.
Can a kidney be stolen if there is a medical reason to remove that kidney despite the kid's opposition or inability to consent ?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
There is nothing wrong about it if we assume that theft, murder and rape arent wrong.
Why are we assuming they are the same thing?
Can we see evidence to their similarities?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont see these as absolute moral objections. So seperating it from other post.
1. First, some babies die from circumcision.2. Second, there is no results that show how universal circumcision has any benefits to life. Countries that have universal circumcision arent any better than countries who dont have it. In terms of health, circumciser countries are usually worse.3 Of course, circumcision can damage a penis, which would result in depression for the person.4. Not to mention that the amount of pain itself from circumcision is damaging to the brain.
1. Some people die from botch operations and plastic surgeries. Even removing a mole can have devistating affects. Death too? Yes because in some cases the doctor didnt do emough to identify a cancerous mole which then spread to body after removal.
Doctors should highlight the issues and risks. This would include the likilihood of death from the surgical act of being circumcised vs parent's ability to keep the child's circumcision clean afterwards. My parents were told the risks as was I for my kid.
As a parent you weigh the options of what you can do vs cant.
2. Are we weighing economic and social benefits? There is a clear health benefit in reducing risk of infection. Thats why circumcision was made universal or a national requirement after ww1 in many countries.
Uk and america to name two that practiced universal circumcisions. Did these two countries experience downfall in overall mens health after starting their law ?
Yes, our primary rejection to better health is "just clean it." This usually looks at it from an adults perspective who is talking about their own privates.
Instead a parent has to consider what they can and cant do in a given situation. I knew a kid in grade school who pissed himself, then decided not to take shower to go along his day playing and running. This was at science camp. Kids dont always do the right hygiene practices and parents cant (in some cases should not) hover over every action.
I want to do some good camping with my kid too. So having an easier way to stay clean helps. That was something on my mind when making dicision.
3. Circumcision has been going on for centuries. If a penis gets damaged in the process then its a botched operation and doctor is to blame.
However, I cant help see silliness or irony in a person who thinks all ccircumcisions are wrong and therefore damaging reinforcing the idea that circumcisions are damaging.
4. Evidence?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You are too generalized. Some circumcisions occur later in life.
What is wrong about it? Foreskin removal is morally same as skin tag or mole removal.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Sometimes it can be 3d or 4d or 2d.
Created:
Posted in:
The biggest factor in this is how we are living. A person who is 179 amd has the body of 18 year old would probably want to keep living. But sometimed our bodies are older than our age. Being Biologically 200 at 90 can be horrific. What ever our bodies could do or be like would determine how we look at this/these questions.
Created:
So what do we take away from these statistics?
One possible solution to your question at the end...Black community is among if not the most impoverished community in America. Historically this community observed the most financial and social barriers compared to any other community. All these things impact crime.
Created:
Crime is everywhere. Why show special concern for individual states?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Lol.
Im saying the presence of a weapon, like a gun, increases the chance of a person killing another. Just like anger and drugs can increase the chance of murder in a situation.
So im not saying its an absolute.
how can you say you agree with me and differ in the reason why?
THe way we explain our conclusion can be different along with our premises.
Sounds like you are saying a gun makes a person more likely to kill because its easy to use "press a button."
Im saying a gun does the same thing but because a gun is a weapon to use.
So our conclusion is same, gun = more killing. But our reasons why are different. Button smashing vs accesability.
you keep changing your position. the whole premise for us debating is that your position is that the presence of a gun makes no difference in whether someone ultimately dies. you can't negate your own position and then pretend we're disagreeing.
I dont think Im changing my position at all. There is something off about what you are saying in terms of what my position is. A gun does make a difference, but that difference is interchangable with other weapons. Take away the weapon, then of coarse no one will use the weapon.
Im not acting like we are disagreeing either. I gave my opinion about the o.p. issue.
Now I am trying to clarify my position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
How has the us tried to change that mentality?
Sex ed is introduced earlier and earleir in school. Average age for puberty is younger now than 10 years ago. There are numberous movies and pop culture that increasingly introduce or mention things like porn, bdsm, etc.
If there is any effort to change the mentality of how men look at women, it is coming from a minority. Probably religious which contradicts a secular narative.
Sex ed is introduced earlier and earleir in school. Average age for puberty is younger now than 10 years ago. There are numberous movies and pop culture that increasingly introduce or mention things like porn, bdsm, etc.
If there is any effort to change the mentality of how men look at women, it is coming from a minority. Probably religious which contradicts a secular narative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Platypi
Im using sarcasm to criticize the thread. Thats not spam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Thats a lot of fluff just to say someone used a word to agrivate. If that is your message.
Nothing took my breath away from text. Just asking for clarity.
Created: