PDA

View Full Version : It's Cultural Deviancy NOT Guns


txtebow
02-14-2013, 07:06 AM
http://m.cnsnews.com/blog/walter-e-williams/its-cultural-deviancy-not-guns


There's a story told about a Paris chief of police who was called to a department store to stop a burglary in progress. Upon his arrival, he reconnoitered the situation and ordered his men to surround the entrances of the building next door. When questioned about his actions, he replied that he didn't have enough men to cover the department store's many entrances but he did have enough for the building next door. Let's see whether there are similarities between his strategy and today's gun control strategy.

Last year, Chicago had 512 homicides; Detroit had 411; Philadelphia had 331; and Baltimore had 215. Those cities are joined by other dangerous cities — such as St. Louis, Memphis, Tenn., Flint, Mich., and Camden, N.J. — and they also lead the nation in shootings, assaults, rapes and robberies. Both the populations of those cities and their crime victims are predominantly black. Each year, more than 7,000 blacks are murdered. Close to 100 percent of the time, the murderer is another black person.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it's 22 times that of whites. Coupled with being most of the nation's homicide victims, blacks are also most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery. The magnitude of this tragedy can be seen in another light. According to a Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute study, between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites.

txtebow
02-14-2013, 07:08 AM
the author of this story is obviously an old, out of touch Tea-partier, Klansmen who hates gays and loves GOD.......OH WAIT.....



http://m.cnsnews.com/source/walter-e-williams

Pony Boy
02-14-2013, 08:05 AM
It's the elephant in room that is absolutely off limits to discuss

Requiem
02-14-2013, 08:43 AM
We have a culture that embraces violence. Of course it is part of the problem.

W*GS
02-14-2013, 09:49 AM
One problem with Williams' thesis:

Punishment for criminal behavior is lax.

I guess that explains why so many black men are locked up, ex-cons, or on probation. We're being too easy on them.

orinjkrush
02-14-2013, 10:25 AM
http://cdn.conservativebyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Root-of-Evil.jpg

BroncoInferno
02-14-2013, 10:41 AM
"Cultural deviancy" lol. Every generation has their sanctimonious cranks who insist that society is going to hell in a handbasket and pine for what they imagine were more pristine times.

Tell us, txtebow: how far back do we need to look to find a time when society was at an ideal moral equilibrium? The 1950s? That wonderful time when blacks were prevented from voting and treated as inferiors and women had extremely limited economic opportunities? Where do you look to find Xanadu?

Rohirrim
02-14-2013, 10:41 AM
The root of all evil?

The true portrait of humans...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YK7m7yBjimQ/Tz1WsIWRJUI/AAAAAAAANlE/d-Dmv2gloEY/s1600/Rise-of-the-Planet-of-the-Apes-Theatrical-Still-6.jpg

Think of it this way, and nothing we do will surprise you.

TonyR
02-14-2013, 11:07 AM
"Culturual deviancy"? That may be part of it, but I'd put socioeconomics much higher on the list of explanations. If such a list existed. Socioeconomics is a/the primary cause of any such "cultural deviancy".

DenverBrit
02-14-2013, 11:13 AM
Putting 'guns' in the hands of 'Cultural Deviants' is a real problem.

peacepipe
02-14-2013, 12:00 PM
"Cultural deviancy" lol. Every generation has their sanctimonious cranks who insist that society is going to hell in a handbasket and pine for what they imagine were more pristine times.

Tell us, txtebow: how far back do we need to look to find a time when society was at an ideal moral equilibrium? The 1950s? That wonderful time when blacks were prevented from voting and treated as inferiors and women had extremely limited economic opportunities? Where do you look to find Xanadu?

you gotta understand,for txteblow that is Xanadu.

Play2win
02-14-2013, 12:53 PM
http://cdn.conservativebyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Root-of-Evil.jpg

So all that root-stuff on the bottom... That's the INTERNET, right?

Blart
02-14-2013, 12:54 PM
(Just FYI, the site you linked is funded by Exxon Mobil and a slew of aging bankers & other oil tycoons. Thought you might want to know who's paying the writers.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Research_Center )

The author states that "family" is the cause of crime,

Twenty-nine percent of white children, 53 percent of Hispanics and 73 percent of black children are born to unmarried women. The absence of a husband and father from the home is a strong contributing factor to poverty, school failure, crime, drug abuse, emotional disturbance and a host of other social problems.


Which isn't a "strong contributing factor" - at least not according to statistical evidence, but it's a correlate.

Here are some other correlates of crime:

Unwanted Children
Children whose birth results from an unintended pregnancy are more likely to be delinquents or commit crimes.

Bedwetters
Nocturnal enuresis or bed wetting correlates with criminality.

Loners
Having few friends correlates positively with criminality.

Unemploymed
High frequency of changing jobs and high frequency of unemployment for a person correlate with criminality

Wealth & Education
Higher total socioeconomic status (usually measured using the three variables income (or wealth), occupational level, and years of education) correlate with less crime.

Poor Infrastructure
Poorly maintained neighborhoods correlate with higher crime rates.

Religion
High religious involvement, high importance of religion in one's life, membership in an organized religion, and orthodox religious beliefs are associated with more criminality. Areas with higher religious membership have higher crime rates.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlates_of_crime


Some of the posters in this thread point out that race (in the USA) correlates with crime. Are any of you suggesting this is a cause of crime?

Meck77
02-14-2013, 12:56 PM
More people= greater of odds of aholes.




http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4762/usprojgrowth.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/690/usprojgrowth.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

W*GS
02-14-2013, 02:02 PM
From The Economist, 9 Feb 2013.

Murder rates: Feeling the heat (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21571477-gun-control-getting-increasingly-political-windy-city-feeling-heat)

Yet gun-rights advocates counter that Chicago already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, with little to show for it. The city of Chicago has no gun shops, banned handguns entirely until 2010 (when the ban was struck down by the Supreme Court), and now requires owners to register their guns with the police. Yet it is a trivial matter to drive the short distance to the city limits and buy a gun at one of the many shops conveniently sited there.

Evidence suggests that this is just what many people do. Gun seizures by the Chicago Police Department have been analysed by the University of Chicago. From the start of 2008 to the end of March 2012, 42% of the guns came from within the state—mostly from Cook County, in which Chicago sits. Of the 1,375 recovered guns involved in a crime within a year of purchase, 19.5% came from a single Cook County shop.

El Minion
02-14-2013, 02:15 PM
More people= greater of odds of aholes.




http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4762/usprojgrowth.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/690/usprojgrowth.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Yes but thankfully falling crime (more then half!) since early 1990's is also one of them (where have you gone black criminal culture txtebow misses you :( )

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Violent_crime_rates_1973-2005.jpg

Even during the great recession there was falling crime rate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/chart-why-crime-falls-when-the-economy-goes-down/2011/09/27/gIQAhD601K_blog.html).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/property%20crime.jpg?uuid=64MAOukcEeCWYL6E-yTJeQ

TonyR
02-14-2013, 02:22 PM
It's the elephant in room that is absolutely off limits to discuss

And yet here we are discussing it an you're nowhere to be found. Perhaps because some factual and theoretical data, and <gasp!> some intellectualism, have been introduced into said discussion? I imagine for you it's kind of like the deep end of the pool for a kid who can't swim, isn't it?

Tombstone RJ
02-14-2013, 04:52 PM
Putting 'guns' in the hands of 'Cultural Deviants' is a real problem.

Laws already protect against this right? If you are a deviant, you shouldn't be able to own a gun, right? So basically the deviants will skirt the laws or flat out break the laws anyways. Point being, you are punishing the law abiding citizens for the criminal acts of a few. The criminals don't care, they are going to get their guns or whatever else they can get their hands on to perpetrate their crimes.

Pony Boy
02-14-2013, 05:13 PM
And yet here we are discussing it an you're nowhere to be found. Perhaps because some factual and theoretical data, and <gasp!> some intellectualism, have been introduced into said discussion? I imagine for you it's kind of like the deep end of the pool for a kid who can't swim, isn't it?

So are you ready to discuss that there is a problem with young blacks in urban areas with possession of firearms. Are you willing to racial profile and do random stop-and-frisk on blacks? Like I said it's the elephant in the room and a p***Y like you will cry foul.

The Native Americans at Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota realized that alcohol consumption was devastating to their population so they took it upon themselves to ban the possession and sale of any alcohol on the reservation.
Do you think the blacks will ever take that step with firearms on their own?

DenverBrit
02-14-2013, 05:35 PM
Laws already protect against this right? If you are a deviant, you shouldn't be able to own a gun, right? So basically the deviants will skirt the laws or flat out break the laws anyways. Point being, you are punishing the law abiding citizens for the criminal acts of a few. The criminals don't care, they are going to get their guns or whatever else they can get their hands on to perpetrate their crimes.

A lot of individuals should be barred from guns, but they aren't. The Gun Show loophole is the obvious loophole that needs to be closed, but the gun lobby will keep fighting it.

It's a source for criminals and anyone else who can't pass a background check.

Individuals enjoy the same loophole when they re-sell a gun.

The “Gun Show Loophole” is a gap in federal law that allows private citizens, who are not licensed firearms dealers, to sell guns without conducting background checks or keeping records. These “private sellers” often sell guns at the thousands of gun shows that take place every weekend across the country. But, private sales of guns also take place daily between individuals as people sell guns to family members, friends and strangers without any requirement that the purchaser undergo a background check.


http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-gun-show-loophole-arms-criminals/

W*GS
02-14-2013, 05:36 PM
Do you think the blacks will ever take that step with firearms on their own?

Do you think gun owners will work to weed out the bad apple gun dealers and gun traders?

Besides, if urban blacks account for most with-gun violence, then white folk need not worry. Why do you?

W*GS
02-14-2013, 05:37 PM
Individuals enjoy the same loophole when they re-sell a gun.

Perhaps enforcing liability for gun sellers that don't check on buyers.

txtebow
02-14-2013, 05:40 PM
Putting 'guns' in the hands of 'Cultural Deviants' is a real problem.

Bam! --EXACTLY. Look at Tv shows from the 1950's -60's (Bonanza, the Rifleman) all shows that depicted violence in the form of a man pulling a trigger.....Unfortunately, and a point that some Liberals miss out on, most of the gun crimes that are committed by the 'cultural deviants' in urban america are possessed ILLEGALLY so the gun laws that are being passed in an effort to decrease gun murders in this country does not effect their ability to arm themselves for the purpose of committing violent crime....

txtebow
02-14-2013, 05:47 PM
you gotta understand,for txteblow that is Xanadu.

Hardly--I've never lived in such an America and I have no interest in living in one that doesn't treat everyone as equals---but in equal opportunity comes equal responsibility and a disproportionate number of certain sub population groups comprise a disproportionate amount of prison inmates, food stamp recipients and section 8 housing recipients(cut out SS and medicare and CAUCASIANS DO NOT COMPRISE the majority of government aide recipients--that's a FALLACY of the left--SS and medicare are all programs that EVERYONE has already paid into)---and too large of a percentage of certain sub population groups continue the cycle of poverty, illiteracy and criminality with each passing generation---just look at single parenthood rates in the AA community since the 1960's government welfare programs began....black, white or blue, single parent households are bad for AMERICA's future...

DenverBrit
02-14-2013, 05:48 PM
Perhaps enforcing liability for gun sellers that don't check on buyers.

I really think that each gun owner should be responsible for their weapons, in every sense.

Pony Boy
02-14-2013, 05:49 PM
Perhaps enforcing liability for gun sellers that don't check on buyers.

What percentage of gun dealers are bad apples? The local gun dealers in my area all follow the ATF regulations. They can't keep the products on the shelf and have no problem finding buyers that can pass a background check. You do realize there are no gun dealers in the Chicago area right? Do you think the knuckle draggers with their pants down below their ass are getting their guns from a licensed dealer?

txtebow
02-14-2013, 05:49 PM
Do you think gun owners will work to weed out the bad apple gun dealers and gun traders?

Besides, if urban blacks account for most with-gun violence, then white folk need not worry. Why do you?

"Das' RACIS!!"---a problem in ANY community of American's is a problem for ALL AMERICANS --Wigs...

txtebow
02-14-2013, 05:50 PM
What percentage of gun dealers are bad apples? The local gun dealers in my area all follow the ATF regulations. They can't keep the products on the shelf and have no problem finding buyers that can pass a background check. You do realize there are no gun dealers in the Chicago area right? Do you think the knuckle draggers with their pants down below their ass are getting their guns from a licensed dealer?

not only that but they are of course also registering those weapons before committing their violent crimes....

DenverBrit
02-14-2013, 05:51 PM
Bam! --EXACTLY. Look at Tv shows from the 1950's -60's (Bonanza, the Rifleman) all shows that depicted violence in the form of a man pulling a trigger.....Unfortunately, and a point that some Liberals miss out on, most of the gun crimes that are committed by the 'cultural deviants' in urban america are possessed ILLEGALLY so the gun laws that are being passed in an effort to decrease gun murders in this country does not effect their ability to arm themselves for the purpose of committing violent crime....

Until the gun show and private resale loopholes are closed, the current laws only apply to law abiding citizens.

So why is it a problem closing the obvious loopholes that put the guns in the hands of criminals? Why does the gun lobby keep fighting it??

txtebow
02-14-2013, 05:53 PM
One problem with Williams' thesis:



I guess that explains why so many black men are locked up, ex-cons, or on probation. We're being too easy on them.

Drugs account for a large proportion of incarcerations...

txtebow
02-14-2013, 05:54 PM
Until the gun show and private resale loopholes are closed, the current laws only apply to law abiding citizens.

So why is it a problem closing the obvious loopholes that put the guns in the hands of criminals? Why does the gun lobby keep fighting it??

I'm not a supporter of EVERY NRA stance; I personally believe in universal background checks and some process by which to follow to re-sell those weapons....

Tombstone RJ
02-14-2013, 08:39 PM
A lot of individuals should be barred from guns, but they aren't. The Gun Show loophole is the obvious loophole that needs to be closed, but the gun lobby will keep fighting it.

It's a source for criminals and anyone else who can't pass a background check.

Individuals enjoy the same loophole when they re-sell a gun.



http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-gun-show-loophole-arms-criminals/

I seriously doubt that all these black on black deaths are perpetrated by blacks who go to a gun show and buy a gun. In fact, I'm willing to bet that almost none of the guns used in these homicides were purchased at gun shows.

Gun shows were initially started so that gun enthusiasts, that is, collectors, could go to a place and buy or sell their guns to other gun enthusiasts. Unfortunately gun dealers are now allowed to show up and sell guns too. Point being, if you did NOT allow gun dealers to go to these shows and simply kept the shows for collectors and other gun enthusiasts to go and buy, sell, exchange, etc. then I think this could curb any abuse by someone who is just trying to skirt the system in order to purchase a gun for criminal activity.

I have no idea how many people go to gun shows intending to buy a gun so they can commit a crime, but I speculate very few, if any people go to gun shows for this purpose.

Gun enthusiasts go to gun shows. I don't really think gang bangers and other perps go to the shows because theres a bunch of stuff there they have no interest in. It just doesn't make sense.

DenverBrit
02-14-2013, 09:31 PM
I seriously doubt that all these black on black deaths are perpetrated by blacks who go to a gun show and buy a gun. In fact, I'm willing to bet that almost none of the guns used in these homicides were purchased at gun shows.

Gun shows were initially started so that gun enthusiasts, that is, collectors, could go to a place and buy or sell their guns to other gun enthusiasts. Unfortunately gun dealers are now allowed to show up and sell guns too. Point being, if you did NOT allow gun dealers to go to these shows and simply kept the shows for collectors and other gun enthusiasts to go and buy, sell, exchange, etc. then I think this could curb any abuse by someone who is just trying to skirt the system in order to purchase a gun for criminal activity.

I have no idea how many people go to gun shows intending to buy a gun so they can commit a crime, but I speculate very few, if any people go to gun shows for this purpose.

Gun enthusiasts go to gun shows. I don't really think gang bangers and other perps go to the shows because theres a bunch of stuff there they have no interest in. It just doesn't make sense.

That may well be correct.

This is an interesting article that seems to pinpoint where most guns used in a crime originate.

They come from several sources, what I don't understand is why is it so difficult to prevent these corrupt, licensed dealers? Is this a case of gun dealers needing much more intensive background checks? What kind of liability insurance must they have.....insurance companies are amazingly good at underwriting risk and they and the dealers bear the cost.

The immunity the gun industry enjoys, needs to be looked at much more closely.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

cutthemdown
02-14-2013, 09:32 PM
I really think that each gun owner should be responsible for their weapons, in every sense.

So even if someone breaks into my house and steals gun i should still be responsible if its used in a crime? What if I loan goan to a totally legal citizen. Someone I have always known to be a good person. He is going hunting. Then on hunting trip he accidently shoots someone and kills them. Should i be responsible?

So your phrase in every sense seems illogical to me. Way to many scenarios to say the owner always responsible.

If you loan a car out should be responsible if the person kills someone with it?

DenverBrit
02-14-2013, 09:43 PM
Here's the main reason how corrupt gun dealers are able to operate. Immunity that was passed into law, thanks to the NRA and gun lobby.



NRA Campaigns to Protect Corrupt Gun Dealers

The Bushmaster assault rifle that Lee Boyd Malvo, then 17, used to attack was later discovered to have been "missing" from the Seattle-area Bull's Eye Shooter's Supply. However, the shop never reported it missing or stolen.

Thanks to the Legal Action Project lawyers at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, who brought a lawsuit on behalf of the victims, Bull's Eye paid two million to the families of those killed by the snipers. Bull's Eye's long history of corrupt gun dealing was exposed, and its owner, Brian Borgelt, lost his license.

Yet Borgelt is exactly the kind of gun dealer that the NRA is campaigning to further protect with its so-called "Reform and Modernization Act" for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) (H.R. 2296 and S.R. 941). This legislation would gut commonsense gun laws and policies designed to close down corrupt gun dealers -- the very dealers who supply guns to criminals -- and further weaken the ATF's ability to fight gun crime.

The NRA lobbyists have persuaded the Senate to hold a hearing on this bill Tuesday, September 14, and hopes to persuade the House to hold a hearing September 21. With all the challenges facing the country, and with only a few days left before Congress adjourns to campaign, spending time on this legislation is a bad idea, and a dangerous one, too!

Each time Wayne LaPierre and the NRA bosses are asked about their objections to strengthening, or enacting new, commonsense gun regulations, they evade the question and shoot back, "We should enforce the laws on the books."

But once, again, the truth has been revealed. The NRA bosses don't care about enforcing existing gun laws and they don't care about helping law enforcement stem the tide of blood flowing from violent drug dealers, gangs, felons, or assault-rifle-wielding snipers.

Indeed, the NRA bosses keep proving that they are the best friends of crooked gun dealers, such as Brian Borgelt, and are even closer with shady Sandy Abrams. An NRA board member until the wave of bad publicity and legal investigations drove him out, Abrams was cited by the ATF for more than 900 federal gun law violations at his Valley Gun store in Baltimore.

Coined "Death Valley" by the Brady Center, it ranked in the top 40 among 80,000 gun shops for supplying guns used in crimes. Guns from his store were linked to 483 crimes, including 41 assaults and 11 homicides. One gun was used to shoot at a police officer.

If these bills get hearings and eventually pass, they would devastate the ATF's ability to protect our communities and families from gun dealers who sell guns into the illegal market.

Specifically, the bills would:

1. Cripple the ATF's ability to shut down crooked gun dealers. Before the ATF could revoke a crooked dealer's license and put him out of business, ATF would have to show that the dealer not only violated the law, but had the specific intent to break the specific law. This is an almost impossible standard of proof for law enforcement to meet.

2. Prohibit ATF from revoking licenses of gun dealers who commit many dangerous crimes, for instance, allowing hundreds of guns to "disappear" from their inventory with no record of sale.

3. Cap fines at extremely low levels for violations found during an inspection of a gun dealer. For example, a dealer with 900 federal gun law violations could face a maximum fine of less than $8.50 per violation.

4. Allow most dealers who violate gun laws to continue selling guns for 60 days after their licenses are revoked, even if they had committed willful violations of federal law.

Call or e-mail your congressional representative today, as well as the members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, and tell them to kill this corrupt gun dealer protection act. Tell them to protect our communities and families from the next would-be snipers and gun criminals, and please, tell them now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-campaigns-to-protect_b_710496.html

DenverBrit
02-14-2013, 09:45 PM
Hopefully, this sanity will prevail

Lawmaker Plans Bill To Lift Immunity For Gun Manufacturers And Dealers
Add this to the list of proposals to overhaul the gun industry: Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., says he will introduce legislation this week to roll back legal immunity for gun manufacturers and dealers.

Schiff tells NPR there's no need for the 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to remain on the books. That law gave gun makers, gun dealers and trade groups immunity from most negligence and product liability lawsuits. "Good gun companies don't need special protection from the law," Schiff says, "Bad companies don't deserve it."

Schiff says his proposal would allow lawsuits to move through federal and state courts if plaintiffs could show that gun dealers or makers were negligent, for example, by failing to protect their stores of weapons and failing to keep customers who have felony convictions from getting their hands on guns. Schiff is working with the Brady Center, an organization that has pushed for greater accountability for the gun industry, on his legislation. Schiff and the Brady Center say courts have interpreted the 2005 law too broadly and have dismissed lawsuits by victims and their relatives.

"When someone makes a dangerous product or acts negligently, they ought to be held liable otherwise it encourages irresponsibility," Schiff says.

Any such move is expected to be hotly contested by the National Rifle Association, which has called the 2005 PLCAA law "vitally important" to end efforts by gun control groups to "bankrupt the American firearms industry through reckless lawsuits."

DenverBrit
02-14-2013, 09:50 PM
So even if someone breaks into my house and steals gun i should still be responsible if its used in a crime? What if I loan goan to a totally legal citizen. Someone I have always known to be a good person. He is going hunting. Then on hunting trip he accidently shoots someone and kills them. Should i be responsible?

So your phrase in every sense seems illogical to me. Way to many scenarios to say the owner always responsible.

If you loan a car out should be responsible if the person kills someone with it?

That's why you have liability insurance......you do, don't you? :)

Why not have it for guns? Let the insurance industry specify how guns should be reasonably safeguarded.

The extra business would create jobs in the private sector. What's wrong with that?? Damn, I'm a 'job creator.' ;D

cutthemdown
02-15-2013, 01:55 AM
That's why you have liability insurance......you do, don't you? :)

Why not have it for guns? Let the insurance industry specify how guns should be reasonably safeguarded.

The extra business would create jobs in the private sector. What's wrong with that?? Damn, I'm a 'job creator.' ;D

How about if I loan you my hedge trimmers or my lawnmower. Or how about my bicycle or maybe a chainsaw? If you cut your arm off with chain saw is it my fault, can i be sued in your crazy world. You can't make people buy insurance to get their rights under the Constitution.

DenverBrit
02-15-2013, 07:35 AM
How about if I loan you my hedge trimmers or my lawnmower. Or how about my bicycle or maybe a chainsaw? If you cut your arm off with chain saw is it my fault, can i be sued in your crazy world. You can't make people buy insurance to get their rights under the Constitution.

Say you loan your gun to a friend and he takes out the family next door, should you share any responsibility?

Or you leave your gun collection around the house and your unstable son takes them and kills 26 people, should you share any responsibility?

Being responsible for your weapons seems so fundamentally obvious.

TonyR
02-15-2013, 07:53 AM
So are you ready to discuss that there is a problem with young blacks in urban areas with possession of firearms. Are you willing to racial profile and do random stop-and-frisk on blacks? Like I said it's the elephant in the room and a p***Y like you will cry foul. ?

I'll gladly discuss it. I'm not sure "racial profiling" is any sort of solution to what is a much larger and more complex problem. Like I said before, this is more of an issue of socioeconomics than one of race. The fact that so many lower income African Americans live in crowded, poverty stricken urban areas with a rampant crime, drug and gun problem certainly compounds the issue.


The Native Americans at Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota realized that alcohol consumption was devastating to their population so they took it upon themselves to ban the possession and sale of any alcohol on the reservation.
Do you think the blacks will ever take that step with firearms on their own?

I don't think the comparison between the issue these Native Americans face is very comparable with the issue we're discussing here. If you have a simple solution like what they did in Pine Ridge I'm all ears.

Rohirrim
02-15-2013, 08:37 AM
It has more to do with poverty and hopelessness than it does with race. And the more we build societies based on "survival of the fittest" rather than cooperative communities, the further down this wormhole we can expect to go. When you build a society based on the law of the jungle, you must have the fortitude to accept the reality that sometimes, the jungle is going to come into the living rooms of the "winners" every once in a while. Combine overpopulation, basic resources out of economic reach, failing education, lack of jobs that can sustain basic survival and then toss in hopelessness on top of it and you have a sociological experiment whose conclusions are foregone.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Global_Distribution_of_Wealth_v3.jpg/220px-Global_Distribution_of_Wealth_v3.jpg

Really. What the **** do you expect?

Blart
02-15-2013, 01:20 PM
So are you ready to discuss that there is a problem with young blacks in urban areas with possession of firearms. Are you willing to racial profile and do random stop-and-frisk on blacks? Like I said it's the elephant in the room and a p***Y like you will cry foul.



Why did you come to the conclusion that age & race are the cause, and not say... loners, the unemployed, or those who come from highly religious communities?

All have high correlations with gun violence, I'm just wondering how you determined one to be more causal than the others.

Pony Boy
02-15-2013, 01:22 PM
I'll gladly discuss it. I'm not sure "racial profiling" is any sort of solution to what is a much larger and more complex problem. Like I said before, this is more of an issue of socioeconomics than one of race. The fact that so many lower income African Americans live in crowded, poverty stricken urban areas with a rampant crime, drug and gun problem certainly compounds the issue.

It doesn’t mater if it’s a socio-economics issue, the cold hard facts are that the gun violence is being perpetrated by the young urban blacks.

Here is a breakdown from the Washington Post, of gun violence in New York City. In short, 95.1 percent of all murder victims and 95.9 percent of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic. And 90.2 percent of those arrested for murder and 96.7 percent of those arrested for shooting someone are black and Hispanic.

In the south, the Baton Rouge Advocate published a lengthy analysis of the 2012 murder stats in the city. Last year, 83 people died by homicide in Baton Rouge. Of that number, 87% were black, and 87% were male. Two-thirds had been in trouble with the law before, and one-third had been in trouble with the law for drugs. The median age of victims: 26. Of the perpetrators, the median age was 22. Get this: 96% of them were black, and 90% were male. Almost two-thirds had previous arrests. One out of four had a drug record.
Most of the murders took place in the poorest parts of the city. What can we learn from these statistics? That murder in Baton Rouge is almost entirely about young black men from the poor part of town killing other young black men from the poor part of town. It's mostly a matter of thugs killing thugs.

lonestar
02-15-2013, 01:44 PM
Bam! --EXACTLY. Look at Tv shows from the 1950's -60's (Bonanza, the Rifleman) all shows that depicted violence in the form of a man pulling a trigger.....Unfortunately, and a point that some Liberals miss out on, most of the gun crimes that are committed by the 'cultural deviants' in urban america are possessed ILLEGALLY so the gun laws that are being passed in an effort to decrease gun murders in this country does not effect their ability to arm themselves for the purpose of committing violent crime....

Hey hey hey. You are being way to logical.

So let's see the far left looms change the subject.

Just a few of the excuses are:

the white males are holding down the minority's.

No jobs for blacks..

Education for blacks is less than for whites.

Yada Yada Yada.

Instead of admitting that blacks* kill other blacks* mostly in turf wars for drug distrubution. They will obfuscate till hell freezes over.


* same applies to Asians and Hispanics depending on areas of the county and within various cities they all kill each other in turf wars.

IT IS THE CRIMINALS KILLING EACH OTHER WITH illegal firearms. once y'all understand that then gun control really becomes moot.

Fix the criminal actions going on and 90% of the gun murders are reduced.

Btw the fallacy that crime is down is just that. The DAs office in most cities have decided to make their stastics lower they would just change the charges of the crime.

Rape now equals sexual assault. Which lowers the the violent crime rates but does nothing to fix the real problem.

I hear this all the time from my friends in law enforcement.

About the only one that is not being under charged right now is the murder/assault by firearm. They trying real hard to inflate that number. trying to justify gun control laws.

Blart
02-15-2013, 01:48 PM
It doesn’t matter if it’s a socio-economics issue, the cold hard fact is that gun violence is being perpetrated by people raised in a religious community.


http://globalsociology.com/files/2012/12/Religion-by-Behavior-29p2nsv.png (http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/)

You guys are just to pus$y to talk about it.


And who cares if correlation doesn't equal causation? Ice cream sales cause swimming pool drownings. Period.

lonestar
02-15-2013, 01:54 PM
What percentage of gun dealers are bad apples? The local gun dealers in my area all follow the ATF regulations. They can't keep the products on the shelf and have no problem finding buyers that can pass a background check. You do realize there are no gun dealers in the Chicago area right? Do you think the knuckle draggers with their pants down below their ass are getting their guns from a licensed dealer?

:thumbs:

Why do you even bother trying to converse with the far left lobotomized loons is beyond me, I have most of them on IGGY since they will never have a clue. I do not even want to waste band width, let alone my time reading their crap.

lonestar
02-15-2013, 01:59 PM
It doesn’t matter if it’s a socio-economics issue, the cold hard fact is that gun violence is being perpetrated by people raised in a religious community.

You guys are just to pus$y to talk about it.


And who cares if correlation doesn't equal causation? Ice cream sales cause swimming pool drownings. Period.

Do you really beleive that crap you are pushing.

Been to many churches over the past decade and have yet to see a gang banger in the pews.

There is an old adage that "Figures never lie, but liars always figure. .

I think I pegged what you are with that chart.

Requiem
02-15-2013, 02:13 PM
Teh had to go teh church and I ask God to help me be a better pERsoN deoop Deoeoopdpodpspo m name LOnestar n i lOv JesUSs

txtebow
02-15-2013, 07:39 PM
Cultural DEVIANCY:

Incredibly, the death toll by murder in Chicago over the past decade is greater than the number of American soldiers who have died in Afghanistan since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom: Of the victims of murder in Chicago from 2003 to 2011, an average of 77 percent had a prior arrest history, with a high of 79 percent of the 436 murdered in Chicago in 2010 having arrest histories.
For the same 2003-2011 period, blacks were the victims of 75 percent of 4,265 murders. Blacks also were the offenders in 75 percent of the murders.
According to 2010 U.S. Census information (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html), Chicago has a population of 2,695,598 people. The city is 33 percent black, 32 percent white (not Hispanic), and 30 percent Hispanic or Latino in origin.
For the 2003-2011 period, whites were nearly 6 percent of the victims and accused of carrying out 4 percent of the murders.
For the 2003-2011 period, Hispanics or Latinos were 19 percent of the victims and 20 percent of the offenders.
Chicago murders top Afghanistan death toll | City where no handgun purchases allowed sets pace for violence (http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/chicago-murders-top-afghanistan-death-toll/#5XOfRdK5Hm44cWh6.99), By Mihcael Thompson, WND, January 16, 2013

lonestar
02-15-2013, 08:41 PM
Cultural DEVIANCY:

Incredibly, the death toll by murder in Chicago over the past decade is greater than the number of American soldiers who have died in Afghanistan since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom: Of the victims of murder in Chicago from 2003 to 2011, an average of 77 percent had a prior arrest history, with a high of 79 percent of the 436 murdered in Chicago in 2010 having arrest histories.
For the same 2003-2011 period, blacks were the victims of 75 percent of 4,265 murders. Blacks also were the offenders in 75 percent of the murders.
According to 2010 U.S. Census information (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html), Chicago has a population of 2,695,598 people. The city is 33 percent black, 32 percent white (not Hispanic), and 30 percent Hispanic or Latino in origin.
For the 2003-2011 period, whites were nearly 6 percent of the victims and accused of carrying out 4 percent of the murders.
For the 2003-2011 period, Hispanics or Latinos were 19 percent of the victims and 20 percent of the offenders.
Chicago murders top Afghanistan death toll | City where no handgun purchases allowed sets pace for violence (http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/chicago-murders-top-afghanistan-death-toll/#5XOfRdK5Hm44cWh6.99), By Mihcael Thompson, WND, January 16, 2013


Logic. That is a huge NO NO for the far left loons.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-15-2013, 09:29 PM
The root cause of cultural deviancy is the absent father. Socioeconomic status is a direct reflection of the absent father. Making things worse is state sponsored fatherhood abandonment and the liberal progressive causes to marginalize the role of the father. You show me a violent criminal / school shooter / gang member / drug addict / prostitute / shiatty parent, and I'll show you someone who grew up without a responsible father.

Blart
02-15-2013, 09:37 PM
The root cause of cultural deviancy is the absent father. Socioeconomic status is a direct reflection of the absent father. Making things worse is state sponsored fatherhood abandonment and the liberal progressive causes to marginalize the role of the father. You show me a violent criminal / school shooter / gang member / drug addict / prostitute / shiatty parent, and I'll show you someone who grew up without a responsible father.

How do you come to this conclusion? If you have proof, please provide it. Many criminologists would be happy to know!

Dr. Broncenstein
02-15-2013, 09:38 PM
http://www.exposethetruth.info/2012/08/the-effects-of-fatherlessness-on-the-behavior-and-academic-achievement-of-the-adolescent-african-american-male-2/

Dr. Broncenstein
02-15-2013, 09:41 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054608/Absent-fathers-fuelling-drug-addiction-anti-social-behaviour-crime-young-people-says-charity-report.html

Dr. Broncenstein
02-15-2013, 09:42 PM
http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics

Dr. Broncenstein
02-15-2013, 09:44 PM
“There’s no more important ingredient for success, nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families, which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood,” Obama said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/obama-reflects-on-absent-father-in-gun-violence-appeal/

Dr. Broncenstein
02-15-2013, 09:46 PM
http://www.gwu.edu/~pad/202/father.pdf

Criminologists weigh in.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-15-2013, 09:48 PM
http://library.wcsu.edu/dspace/bitstream/0/527/1/Final+Thesis.pdf/

A thesis on the effects of the absent father on daughters...

Dr. Broncenstein
02-15-2013, 09:50 PM
http://www.insightnews.com/health/8148-growing-up-without-a-father-the-impact-on-girls-and-women

Another article on the impact of absent fathers on girls

Dr. Broncenstein
02-15-2013, 09:53 PM
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED419203&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED419203

Abstract with link to entire paper discussing the absent father and gang affiliation.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-15-2013, 10:00 PM
Who Needs Fathers?

American children are in crisis and families are in need of assistance due to father absence.

Research results show that 24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father.

Other results show that children who live absent their biological fathers are more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.

Thus, reducing father absence via supporting and encouraging fathers to become actively involved in their child's life offers significant potential to reduce the adverse effects of father absence and to empower individual lives, foster families, and contribute to community wellbeing.

https://fatherhood.gov/for-programs/for-your-fathers/father-presence

lonestar
02-15-2013, 10:07 PM
Who Needs Fathers?

American children are in crisis and families are in need of assistance due to father absence.

Research results show that 24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father.

Other results show that children who live absent their biological fathers are more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.

Thus, reducing father absence via supporting and encouraging fathers to become actively involved in their child's life offers significant potential to reduce the adverse effects of father absence and to empower individual lives, foster families, and contribute to community wellbeing.

https://fatherhood.gov/for-programs/for-your-fathers/father-presence



Yo Doc. :thumbs:

Wonder if anyone will step up to debate against facts.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-15-2013, 10:13 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GcSIwBWiPoU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>/

Video evidence on the effect of absent fathers and the correlation on the son's ability to throw like a man.

lonestar
02-15-2013, 10:22 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GcSIwBWiPoU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>/

Video evidence on the effect of absent fathers and the correlation on the son's ability to throw like a man.

Ahahahahahaha

Simply ****ing incredible

txtebow
02-16-2013, 05:17 AM
“There’s no more important ingredient for success, nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families, which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood,” Obama said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/obama-reflects-on-absent-father-in-gun-violence-appeal/

:sunshine: :thumbs:

Meck77
02-16-2013, 05:33 AM
Blart has officially been bent over.

Dukes
02-16-2013, 06:35 AM
Perhaps enforcing liability for gun sellers that don't check on buyers.

How do you plan to enforce a "gun seller" to have liability when that gun seller isn't a FFL? There isn't a single FFL dealer anywhere that is selling guns without a background check.

Is the Federal government prepared to go door to door and register 300 million firearms? Hell, is the Federal government ready to track that many firearms?

Pony Boy
02-16-2013, 08:43 AM
Blart has officially been bent over.


but he enjoys being bent over ........ so I would say more like biach slapped no wait he likes that too.

Pony Boy
02-16-2013, 08:59 AM
How do you plan to enforce a "gun seller" to have liability when that gun seller isn't a FFL? There isn't a single FFL dealer anywhere that is selling guns without a background check.

Is the Federal government prepared to go door to door and register 300 million firearms? Hell, is the Federal government ready to track that many firearms?


Or when grandpa and grandson are hunting and he says “just think little Jimmy”, someday when you’re 21 and can pass a back ground check this shotgun just might be yours”.

TonyR
02-16-2013, 09:08 AM
Video evidence on the effect of absent fathers and the correlation on the son's ability to throw like a man.

Yes, he's been a horrible failure of a person. This certainly bolsters your case...

TonyR
02-16-2013, 09:10 AM
The root cause of cultural deviancy is the absent father. Socioeconomic status is a direct reflection of the absent father. Making things worse is state sponsored fatherhood abandonment and the liberal progressive causes to marginalize the role of the father. You show me a violent criminal / school shooter / gang member / drug addict / prostitute / shiatty parent, and I'll show you someone who grew up without a responsible father.

I agree that absentee fathers are a huge issue. But I'm curious what these "liberal progressive causes to marginalize the role of the father" are.

W*GS
02-16-2013, 09:25 AM
I agree that absentee fathers are a huge issue. But I'm curious what these "liberal progressive causes to marginalize the role of the father" are.

Giving women full political rights. Legalizing abortion.

You know, the stuff that equalizes men and women, instead of maintaining the role of men as Bosses Of Everything, as God intended.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-16-2013, 09:40 AM
I agree that absentee fathers are a huge issue. But I'm curious what these "liberal progressive causes to marginalize the role of the father" are.

http://fumento.com/economy/greatsociety.html

Welfare critics point to a steady decline in family unity since the explosion of the mid-’60s. It’s no coincidence the two are happening at the same time, they say.

According to the Census Bureau, a single-parent family is six times more likely to be poor — and thus a recipient of welfare — than a two-parent family. Women heading families are particularly vulnerable.

In 1980, there were 6.2 million families headed by single women, making up 19.4% of all families with children. By1990, that number had risen to 8.4 million families, or 24.2% of the total.

Blacks have been especially hard hit.

The percentage of black households headed by women grew from 28% to 40% between 1970 and 1980.

At the beginning of World War II, the illegitimate birth rate among black Americans was slightly less than 19%. Between 1955 and 1965 — the year of the Watts riots and also the start of the War on Poverty — it rose slowly, from 22% to 28%.

But beginning in the late 1960s the slow trend rapidly accelerated, reaching 49% in 1975 and 65% in 1989.

Empirical studies have borne out the theory that welfare is behind much of this disintegration.

For example, a study at the University of Washington showed that an increase of roughly $200 a month in welfare benefits per family correlated with a 150% increase in the illegitimate birth rate among teens.

According to the House Ways and Means Committee "Green Book" for 1990, about 40% of parents collecting AFDC were black, 38% white and 17% Hispanic. Blacks make up about 12% of the population, while Hispanics make up about 9% of the population.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-16-2013, 09:50 AM
Yes, he's been a horrible failure of a person. This certainly bolsters your case...

Your hero wears mom jeans and throws like a biatch.

Rohirrim
02-16-2013, 10:23 AM
I agree that absentee fathers are a huge issue. But I'm curious what these "liberal progressive causes to marginalize the role of the father" are.

It's the same people who are trying to kill Christmas.

Pony Boy
02-16-2013, 10:33 AM
Daddy is a Gangsta

"I gota feed my seeds"


<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QoBYOl58PTA" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Tombstone RJ
02-16-2013, 04:27 PM
I agree that absentee fathers are a huge issue. But I'm curious what these "liberal progressive causes to marginalize the role of the father" are.

There're multiple reasons why the liberal progressive movement has marginalized the roles of fathers. I'll start with their latest cause--gay marriage. The institution of marriage has already been damaged by things like no-fault divorce. The father's role is also marginalized by the state, the more babies, the more $. There's no need for a father.

Now the institution of marriage is being again watered down by gay-marriage. There's plenty of data that shows that kids do much, much better with a mother and a father. However, now the progressive liberals want everyone to believe that kids will do just as well with two moms or two dads and that simply is not true. The best way to raise children is with 1 mom and 1 dad, especially when it comes to boys. Also, women who have bad relationships or non-relationships with their fathers do not do as well as women who have good relationships with their fathers.

It's really is a common sense thing. Fathers are vitally important to the health and well being of kids. The inner cities where there's a dissproportionate amount of missing fathers is proof positive that a father's role in the family unit is vital for the well being of society as a whole.

W*GS
02-16-2013, 04:50 PM
What's the solution to make men parents instead of just sperm shooters, then?

No gay marriage? What's that got to do with it?

Make divorce almost impossible? How will that help?

Please elaborate.

Meck77
02-16-2013, 04:59 PM
What's the solution to make men parents instead of just sperm shooters, then?

No gay marriage? What's that got to do with it?

Make divorce almost impossible? How will that help?

Please elaborate.

Personal responsibility is foreign to you isn't it?

Dr. Broncenstein
02-16-2013, 05:00 PM
As evidenced by the dramatic increase in illegitimacy rates in the black community over the past 50 years, and the clearly demonstrable effects on the fatherless children of the great society... the answer is to expand the role of government assistance because there hasn't been enough "investment" into the experiment.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-16-2013, 05:04 PM
Personal responsibility is foreign to you isn't it?

Lol. Liberalism is a religion where the central tenet is the abolition of personal responsibility.

Meck77
02-16-2013, 05:09 PM
Chris Rock on taking care of kids. *Warning* You don't want to play this at your office desk with the volume up...lol

Maybe this sums it up. "You are suppose to take care of your kids you dumb mother ****er" lmao....


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LaPHPQt91w8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tombstone RJ
02-16-2013, 05:13 PM
What's the solution to make men parents instead of just sperm shooters, then?

No gay marriage? What's that got to do with it?

Make divorce almost impossible? How will that help?

Please elaborate.

First, acknowledge that marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the basic building block of society, especially in the West. Progressives won't even do this. Leaving marriage between 1 man and 1 woman will help do this (which you don't understand because you've already asked me what gay marriage has "got to do with it." That's the first thing. Once this is done the institution of marriage will be strengthened by society as a whole. Get rid of no-fault divorces, instead, make sure people go to marriage counseling before they get a marriage license. Why not help the young couple before they get married? Marriage should be for life! Counsel people about this before they get married so that they know the committment they are getting into.

Revamp the welfare state, don't reward single mom's with more money by having more kids. Instead, encourage the fathers to stay in the marriage. I'd rather give a married couple financial assistance for their kids than a single parent home. The chances for that family to get off of welfare are much better with a mother and a father. Give a married couple with kids financial assistence for things like college, I'd have no problem giving an inner city, at risk African American couple free college tuition for their kids. All they have to do is make sure their kids stay in school and can pass the entrance exams.

Then of course, tax breaks and financial assitance for all married couples with kids. If they have problems and they are thinking about divorce, give them access to cheap or even free counseling. If there's obvious abuse, of course, prosecute the perpetrator like an abusive father! But at the very least try to encourage and support the married couple before you let them push the eject button.

There's all sorts of things that can be done to strengthen traditional marriage and to keep fathers at home and active in their kid's lives.

W*GS
02-16-2013, 05:28 PM
Personal responsibility is foreign to you isn't it?

Uhhh, no. How would banning gay marriage make men with kids more responsible?

W*GS
02-16-2013, 05:30 PM
Lol. Liberalism is a religion where the central tenet is the abolition of personal responsibility.

So how come you conservatives won't own up to the total ****job your most recent President perpetrated on the American people?

TonyR
02-16-2013, 05:46 PM
Welfare critics point to a steady decline in family unity since the explosion of the mid-’60s. It’s no coincidence the two are happening at the same time, they say...


Good effort, Doc. But, the intention of welfare wasn't to marginalize the role of the father. So you're being more than a little disingenuous with your implication that the intent of liberals and progressives was to do so.

Further, are you aware that welfare rolls have been greatly reduced by the reforms started under Presdent Clinton? Why didn't this result in a corresponding decrease in single mother households?

Dr. Broncenstein
02-16-2013, 06:17 PM
Good effort, Doc. But, the intention of welfare wasn't to marginalize the role of the father. So you're being more than a little disingenuous with your implication that the intent of liberals and progressives was to do so.

Further, are you aware that welfare rolls have been greatly reduced by the reforms started under Presdent Clinton? Why didn't this result in a corresponding decrease in single mother households?

Didn't say it was the intention. It's an unintended (at least initially) consequence. And welfare is only one of several contributing causes, but the general theme is a culture that embraces the systematic abolition of personal responsibility.

W*GS
02-16-2013, 06:46 PM
Didn't say it was the intention. It's an unintended (at least initially) consequence. And welfare is only one of several contributing causes, but the general theme is a culture that embraces the systematic abolition of personal responsibility.

Republicans, as you are, are some of the most irresponsible folks around.

You won't even own what Bush did to this country (and Iraq, Afghanistan, and others) - so your lectures about responsibility reek of crass hypocrisy.

Requiem
02-16-2013, 08:30 PM
Doc seems to always talk about fatherless black society. Sup with that? U mad?

Pony Boy
02-16-2013, 08:32 PM
Republicans, as you are, are some of the most irresponsible folks around.

You won't even own what Bush did to this country (and Iraq, Afghanistan, and others) - so your lectures about responsibility reek of crass hypocrisy.

The old liberal deflection, when you are intellectually beaten down ........
Blame Bush.

That One Guy
02-16-2013, 08:51 PM
The old liberal deflection, when you are intellectually beaten down ........
Blame Bush.

And if it doesn't work the first time, keep repeating it.

Requiem
02-16-2013, 08:53 PM
W*GS, you are knee deep in a right-wing bukkake party. Wear your mask. Tread carefully.

W*GS
02-16-2013, 09:09 PM
The old liberal deflection, when you are intellectually beaten down ........
Blame Bush.

Ever fix a badly clogged toilet? All it takes is a minute or two of a big dump that can take hours to fix.

Same thing with Bush. He and his policies took a major **** on this country (and the world, too), and that ****up can't be fixed easily or quickly. Add in the fact that your GOP is still ****ting on us, and the plumbing is really ****ed.

W*GS
02-16-2013, 09:11 PM
W*GS, you are knee deep in a right-wing bukkake party. Wear your mask. Tread carefully.

Oh, I know that - blaming blacks attracts right-wingers. They love to disown their role.

cutthemdown
02-16-2013, 09:29 PM
Personal responsibility is foreign to you isn't it?

He doesn't realize as the govt kicked god out of schools satan kicked morality out of peoples hearts. :~ohyah!:

cutthemdown
02-16-2013, 09:30 PM
The Bush screwed everything up not working on people who know better. Bush got screwed by 9-11, Katrina, and the liberals housing mess coming home to roost under his watch.

W*GS
02-16-2013, 09:39 PM
The Bush screwed everything up not working on people who know better. Bush got screwed by 9-11, Katrina, and the liberals housing mess coming home to roost under his watch.

Remember, Bush screwed us.

Bush is hardly an innocent victim of events beyond his control. Get off the weep for Bush act, cut. It's bull**** and you ought to know better.

Rohirrim
02-16-2013, 11:53 PM
The Bush screwed everything up not working on people who know better. Bush got screwed by 9-11, Katrina, and the liberals housing mess coming home to roost under his watch.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2U-HVtFEozBJi9kMohp1UJJMj8eFRs-ZWQAeHUp7Aqdh9NEpT

lonestar
02-17-2013, 01:39 AM
The old liberal deflection, when you are intellectually beaten down ........
Blame Bush.

Change the subject when your beaten like a rented mule. First lesson in Far left loon 101, in most colleges today.

Rohirrim
02-17-2013, 07:56 AM
Reading a rightard thread is like watching troglodytes sitting around the campfire banging each other on the head with rocks.

DenverBrit
02-17-2013, 09:37 AM
Change the subject when your beaten like a rented mule. First lesson in Far left loon 101, in most colleges today.

http://www.bartcop.com/teabagger-crayon.jpg

Meck77
02-17-2013, 03:23 PM
Being a MAN is just that. You can't legislate it. It's something one learns from their father. My gut says you had a father who whined a lot.

W*GS
02-17-2013, 03:39 PM
Being a MAN is just that. You can't legislate it. It's something one learns from their father. My gut says you had a father who whined a lot.

What is being a "MAN"?

These guys with lots of kids with different women might argue that they're more MANly than you.

Rohirrim
02-17-2013, 03:41 PM
Oh boy. There goes Meck again, looking down on us unfortunates from the lofty perspective of his perfect world.

W*GS
02-17-2013, 03:49 PM
Oh boy. There goes Meck again, looking down on us unfortunates from the lofty perspective of his perfect world.

His MANly world...

So very Miles Cowperthwaite (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78rcowperthwaite.phtml)-ish!

Meck77
02-17-2013, 04:13 PM
What is being a "MAN"?

These guys with lots of kids with different women might argue that they're more MANly than you.

Another foreign concept to you.

Ro I'm just living my dream and helping as many people as I can live theirs. Should you ever want to take the leap of faith and start your farm I'd offer all the advice and even resources (have plenty) as I could. I'm not here to battle you.

I think we all know what being a man is. Maybe it's not so clear anymore. The "greatest generation" is fading fast. Hopefully many people on this forum had a chance to learn from them. They were great men.

W*GS
02-17-2013, 04:16 PM
I think we all know what being a man is.

For those of us who are male but ignorant of what it means to be a MAN, fill us in.

You're so hot to help - let's get some help, then.

What is a MAN?

cutthemdown
02-17-2013, 04:26 PM
WIGS first off don't use little old ladies getting raped to make a point. :)

Inkana7
02-17-2013, 07:46 PM
just read this thread; learned that gun violence is caused by people being black and gays existing.

thanks, guys

cutthemdown
02-17-2013, 09:48 PM
just read this thread; learned that gun violence is caused by people being black and gays existing.

thanks, guys

LOL don't forget women having jobs and unions.

Blart
02-18-2013, 12:11 AM
Dr. Broncenstein's "rep" to me:
"Many criminologists agree that you are an ignorant biatch."

Blart has officially been bent over.

but he enjoys being bent over ........ so I would say more like biach slapped no wait he likes that too.


Such emotional reactions to a simple request for evidence! :giggle:


Low parent-child attachment and marital discord are correlates of crime.

However, in your links I haven't found a good argument that the lack of a father is the main cause of crime.

Let me know if I'm just being picky, but I found many of your links to be off-topic, unavailable, and even contradictory.

http://www.exposethetruth.info/2012/08/the-effects-of-fatherlessness-on-the-behavior-and-academic-achievement-of-the-adolescent-african-american-male-2/

Some kid's thesis for a tiny Christian college, which frequently attacks gay families. Somehow it's not winning me over.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054608/Absent-fathers-fuelling-drug-addiction-anti-social-behaviour-crime-young-people-says-charity-report.html

The study mentioned in this UK tabloid wasn't published in any academic journals. It relied entirely on anecdotal evidence (e.g they asked criminals if having a better father would have helped them.)


http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics

Lists a few sources about crime, one isn't father-centric, or even single-parent-centric. The other cited a study about low-income adolescents, which obviously doesn't control for income. The most promising one you linked directly, here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~pad/202/father.pdf

Criminologists weigh in.

Ah, a good first-hand source.

However, your study says step dads have a much higher correlation with crime than single moms.

"Youths in stepparent households faced incarceration odds almost 3 times as high as those in mother-father families, and significantly higher than those in single-parent households, even though stepfamilies were relatively well off on average."

Also the author casts doubt on any aggressive conclusions,

"These results showed that youth incarceration risks in a national male cohort were elevated for adolescents in father-absent households. Much of the apparent risk, however, could be attributed to the disadvantage that tends to accompany both father absence and incarceration. Father absence is more common among disadvantaged populations who contend with myriad socioeconomic difficulties such as teen motherhood, low education, and racial disparities."


http://library.wcsu.edu/dspace/bitstream/0/527/1/Final+Thesis.pdf/

A thesis on the effects of the absent father on daughters...

Doesn't mention crime. Did you read these or were you just barfing out google links?

http://www.insightnews.com/health/8148-growing-up-without-a-father-the-impact-on-girls-and-women

Another article on the impact of absent fathers on girls

But no mention of crime rates among those girls.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED419203&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED419203

Abstract with link to entire paper discussing the absent father and gang affiliation.

Did you even see the entire paper? I'm guessing no - because it's unavailable.

It's almost as if you were just linking anything you found in hopes of providing overwhelming evidence for your belief, without a single care for actual knowledge. Are you even a real doctor?



Here are my main issues with your belief:

1) Income inequality seems to be a better determinant of who will be incarcerated:
(cornell university)
http://www.economics.cornell.edu/et17/Erik%20Thorbecke%20files/Socioeconomic%20impact.pdf


2) This fact:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/hua_hsu/assets_c/2012/11/cohen_singlemomchart-thumb-615x553-106250.png

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/hua_hsu/assets_c/2012/11/cohen_singlemomchart2-thumb-615x590-106252.png

Why, during a time when single motherhood has increased nationally, has violent crime decreased nationally?

Did those ignorant women suddenly learn how to parent?

Did those frightening blacks youths magically turn white?



Not that anyone has asked, but I think every correlate pointed out in this thread, both from intelligent posters and conservatives, isn't actually the main cause.

Why?

Because the biggest cause of crime is chemical.

Lead poisoning. It lowers your IQ and turns you into a selfish, impulsive psycho. Before the EPA banned leaded gasoline, we poisoned an entire generation.


What happens when you expose a generation of kids to high lead levels? Crime and teen pregnancy data two decades later tell a startling story.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/Lead_Crime_325.gif
http://www.motherjones.com/files/Lead_Pregnancy_325.gif

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

The data here blows away "broken window" theory, Freakonomic's "unwanted child" theory, and even "strain" and "labeling" theories when explaining our dramatic crime increase and decrease. (All the aforementioned criminologist theories blow away the overtly racist/sexist myths mentioned in this thread.)

The takeaway? Thank God for the EPA, and replace your old lead-lined windows if you're around children.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 06:21 AM
Lol. It's lead poisoning.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 06:31 AM
Father Factor in Crime

A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency.
Source: Bush, Connee, Ronald L. Mullis, and Ann K. Mullis. “Differences in Empathy Between Offender and Nonoffender Youth.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29 (August 2000): 467-478.

A study of low-income minority adolescents aged 10-14 years found that higher social encounters and frequent communication with nonresident biological fathers decreased adolescent delinquency.
Source: Coley, R. L., & Medeiros, B. L. (2007). Reciprocal longitudinal relations between nonresident father involvement and adolescent delinquency. Child Development, 78, 132–147.

In a study using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1997, the researchers examined father-child relationship and father’s parenting style as predictors of first delinquency and substance use among adolescents in intact families. The results indicated that a more positive father-child relationship predicts a reduced risk of engagement in multiple first risky behaviors. The positive influence of the father-child relationship on risk behaviors seemed to be stronger for male than for female adolescents.
Source: Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K.M., & Carrano, J. (2006). The father-child relationship, parenting styles, and adolescent risk behaviors in intact families. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 850-881.

A study using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health explored the relationship between family structure and risk of violent acts in neighborhoods. The results revealed that if the number of fathers is low in a neighborhood, then there is an increase in acts of teen violence. The statistical data showed that a 1 percent increase in the proportion of single-parent families in a neighborhood is associated with a 3 percent increase in an adolescent’s level of violence. In other words, adolescents who live in neighborhoods with lower proportions of single-parent families and who report higher levels of family integration commit less violence.
Source: Knoester, C., & Hayne, D. A. (2005). Community context, social integration into family, and youth violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 767-780.

Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were at higher risk of status, property and person delinquencies. Moreover, students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents are also at risk.
Source: Anderson, Amy L. “Individual and contextual influences on delinquency: the role of the single-parent family.” Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (November 2002): 575-587.

In a study of INTERPOL crime statistics of 39 countries, it was found that single parenthood ratios were strongly correlated with violent crimes. This was not true 18 years ago.
Source: Barber, Nigel. “Single Parenthood As a Predictor of Cross-National Variation in Violent Crime.” Cross-Cultural Research 38 (November 2004): 343-358.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 06:59 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dBSirsXcAoI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 07:31 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kyHIKGXCKYQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 07:34 AM
I like to joke about Obama's throwing and mom jeans and whatnot... and I certainly don't agree with most of his world view... but I do admire him on a personal level due specifically to his demonstrable family values.

Blart
02-18-2013, 07:34 AM
More studies you haven't read? Don't make me do research for you again :rofl:

Also, I seem to have missed your explanation of why single motherhood nearly doubled while violent crime didn't.

I'm guessing I'll be waiting on that.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/hua_hsu/assets_c/2012/11/cohen_singlemomchart2-thumb-615x590-106252.png

Single motherhood: 10% Violent crime: .004%

Single motherhood: 19% Violent crime: .004%

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 07:44 AM
I seem to have missed your explanation of why single motherhood nearly doubled while violent crime didn't.

I'm guessing I'll be waiting on that.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/hua_hsu/assets_c/2012/11/cohen_singlemomchart2-thumb-615x590-106252.png

So you are saying that and increase in absentee fathers leads directly to a decrease in per capita violent crime rates? That's fantastic. Surely there is a direct correlation there. Probably has nothing to due with law abiding citizens moving away from inner cities and into the suburbs... and I'm sure that every single violent crime that occurs within the urban setting is reported.

Blart
02-18-2013, 07:49 AM
So you are saying that and increase in absentee fathers leads directly to a decrease in per capita violent crime rates?

You seem to have trouble reading data. What you're looking at are two things that do not correlate.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 07:52 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/H3KqngTacgI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I loved Obama's Father's day sermon. Predictably it angered a black liberal professor, specifically because the speech violated the first commandment of Liberalism: Thou shalt not be personally responsible for anything.

Blart
02-18-2013, 07:57 AM
Yes yes, retreat to your youtube videos. I was just curious upon what evidence you formed your opinion - now I know. The murky combination of rage and paranoia.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 08:03 AM
Yes yes, retreat to your youtube videos. I was just curious upon what evidence you formed your opinion - now I know. It was already formed before you saw any, and it can't be changed.



http://cdn3.hark.com/images/000/489/672/489672/original.jpg

It was... it was.... Lead. Poisoning.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 08:14 AM
Describing absent fathers as a contributing factor to gun violence, President Obama told a Chicago audience Friday that he wished his own father hadn’t abandoned him as a child.

“There’s no more important ingredient for success, nothing that would be more important for reducing violence, than strong, stable families,” Mr. Obama said, “which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/15/obama-cites-his-absent-father-gun-control-plea/#ixzz2LGQrXPNE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Meck77
02-18-2013, 08:27 AM
Blart think back to your childhood and the relationship with your father Did you try to make him proud when you were a kid? Did you fear some discipline when you know you ****ed up? Did dad offer you any guidance along the way?

Do you really need statistics to understand what the value of a good father is to his son?

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 08:27 AM
"But we also know that what too many fathers being absent means -- too many fathers missing from too many homes, missing from too many lives. We know that when fathers abandon their responsibilities, there’s harm done to those kids. We know that children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They’re more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. They’re more likely to run away from home. They’re more likely to become teenage parents themselves.

And I say all this as someone who grew up without a father in my own life. He left my family when I was two years old. And while I was lucky to have a wonderful mother and loving grandparents who poured everything they had into me and my sister, I still felt the weight of that absence. It’s something that leaves a hole in a child’s life that no government can fill.

So we can talk all we want here in Washington about issues like education and health care and crime; we can build good schools; we can put money into creating good jobs; we can do everything we can to keep our streets safe -- but government can’t keep our kids from looking for trouble on those streets. Government can’t force a kid to pick up a book or make sure that the homework gets done. Government can’t be there day in, day out, to provide discipline and guidance and the love that it takes to raise a child. That’s our job as fathers, as mothers, as guardians for our children."

-- Barak Obama

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-fathers-day-event

That One Guy
02-18-2013, 08:50 AM
While the lead theory is interesting and may lend some insight to behavior, it can't necessarily be used that way and still be considered a scientific study. It's pure correlation. Unless an increase in lead can be proven, somehow, to make a criminal out of someone that wasn't otherwise a criminal, it's not scientific. The scientific method exists for a reason and there is no control in these studies.

Also, if we're to believe that lead is the culprit for crime and it's based on a 17 year (17 on the chart, 23 in the text) lag, you can't use that to explain why some demographics are huuuuuuugely disproportionately responsible for crime. The crime rate in 17-23 year olds is always found to be higher than that of older people. How can you explain that if it's a chemical reaction?

So it could have an impact just as there likely is a such thing as attention deficit disorder. The difference is some people will feel the struggles of a child with ADD and give up while some people will work harder to overcome the disability and succeed. There is still other factors - even if you consider a predisposition to being a turd.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 08:52 AM
Good fathers help with homework, attend athletic contests, listen to their children, but most important, good fathers guide the moral education of their children. In the Bible, when Moses had just given Ten Commandments to the people of Israel, he said: "And these words shall be in thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children." Today Robert Coles points out in his book, The Moral Intelligence of Children: "The most persuasive moral teaching we adults do is by example: the witness of our lives, our ways of being with others."

Just a glance at statistics tells us that a near majority of American children are learning the lessons of a father's abandonment, when they desperately need the lessons of a father's love.

In the last several months, we have heard horrifying stories of children shooting classmates andclassrooms. And one of the teens held for schoolyard murder had written in a journal entry: "No one ever truly loved me. No one ever truly cared about me."

-- Vice President Al Gore 6/15/98

http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/speeches/fatherhd.html

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 09:17 AM
Obama and Biden at the fatherhood townhall, June 2009

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Absolutely. I think this is really important to emphasize -- 23 percent of young people are growing up without fathers. Now, in the African American community, it's close to 50 percent, maybe a little over, depending on the statistics that you look at. So there is a real crisis going on the African American community on this issue, but it is a more pervasive issue.

And I just went to a wonderful organization called Year Up that has young people who are getting trained after high school, most of them, on specific job-training skills, computer skills, but also how to conduct themselves in an office and write an email, et cetera. And it was wonderful talking to these young people. But one of the things I said specifically to the young men is that you can't use anything as an excuse not to be involved with your children. Because kids -- they won't judge you based on whether you're wealthy or poor. They will judge you if you are abusive to their mother. They will judge you in terms of you not showing up when they need you. That's what makes a difference.

And kids will respect their fathers if their fathers are showing kindness and are modeling -- that they're working hard and trying to do what's right for their families. And kids will understand that sometimes families fall on hard times. They get that. Joe Biden is here -- and, Joe, actually, I want to talk to you, because you had a terrific relationship with your dad, but there was a time where your dad fell on some hard times, and yet you still talk about him all the time as the most important guiding role model in your life.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. President, I think it's great what you're doing, by the way. This is a big deal. Folks, you know, the President said sometimes fathers make mistakes, and I've made my share. But one thing my father told me -- there's a mistake a father should never make, and that is communicating to his child there's anything other than total unconditional love. If there's total unconditional love -- that includes discipline -- but if there's total unconditional love, it doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, whether or not you're a real smart dad or you're not such a smart dad, whether you're handsome or you're not so -- it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Kids need love.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Fatherhood-Town-Hall/

Blart
02-18-2013, 09:28 AM
I wonder why a fatherless black man who was raised by his grandparents wants to convince a white, Christian populace that he believes in the nuclear family. It's almost like he wants their approval or something.

Do you really need statistics to understand what the value of a good father is to his son?

When the data is against you, best to retreat to a data-less realm.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 09:31 AM
I wonder why a fatherless black man who was raised by his grandparents wants to convince a white, Christian populace that he believes in the nuclear family. It's almost like he wants their approval or something.

Lol. I wonder if he let his kids in on the joke.

"Look kids, I don't really believe that stuff I said about being a father. I'm just pandering to crackers for their votes."

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 09:34 AM
I wonder why a fatherless black man who was raised by his grandparents wants to convince a white, Christian populace that he believes in the nuclear family. It's almost like he wants their approval or something.



When the data is against you, best to retreat to a data-less realm.

You missed the blame Bush part. It goes:

1. But, Bush
2. Declare Racism
3. Declare Hompophobia
4. Personal insult
5. Post nonsense graph and/or cartoon

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 11:02 AM
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/TrendsGlobalEmissions.png

Global carbon emissions go up, percapita violent crime rates go down. Can't explain that.

Requiem
02-18-2013, 11:14 AM
What about dead beat dads who beat their children?

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 11:15 AM
What about dead beat dads who beat their children?

What about them?

Requiem
02-18-2013, 11:18 AM
What about them?

Not necessarily good role models for kids.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 11:25 AM
Not necessarily good role models for kids.

Deadbeat:

1. One who does not pay one's debts.
2. A lazy person; a loafer.

Who beat their children:

I assume you are talking about physical abuse, and not competition.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the claim that nobody thinks the combination of the above would make a good role model for kids.

Requiem
02-18-2013, 11:29 AM
Yes, and I'm thinking can play a role in deviancy of children.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 11:44 AM
Yes, and I'm thinking can play a role in deviancy of children.

So basically the lack of a responsible father can be harmful to children. Who knew?

Meck77
02-18-2013, 11:49 AM
When the data is against you, best to retreat to a data-less realm.

My guess is your relationship with your father wasn't so good if you don't understand the value of a good father.

Good dad=priceless!

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2013, 11:54 AM
Yes yes, retreat to your youtube videos. I was just curious upon what evidence you formed your opinion - now I know. The murky combination of rage and paranoia.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gmlR5eG9zP4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That One Guy
02-18-2013, 11:56 AM
So basically the lack of a responsible father can be harmful to children. Who knew?

LOL

Req is such a ****up, he can't even be an annoying asshole without screwing up. And he's a bitch, to boot.

Blart
02-18-2013, 12:05 PM
While the lead theory is interesting and may lend some insight to behavior, it can't necessarily be used that way and still be considered a scientific study. It's pure correlation. Unless an increase in lead can be proven, somehow, to make a criminal out of someone that wasn't otherwise a criminal, it's not scientific. The scientific method exists for a reason and there is no control in these studies.

Also, if we're to believe that lead is the culprit for crime and it's based on a 17 year (17 on the chart, 23 in the text) lag, you can't use that to explain why some demographics are huuuuuuugely disproportionately responsible for crime. The crime rate in 17-23 year olds is always found to be higher than that of older people. How can you explain that if it's a chemical reaction?

So it could have an impact just as there likely is a such thing as attention deficit disorder. The difference is some people will feel the struggles of a child with ADD and give up while some people will work harder to overcome the disability and succeed. There is still other factors - even if you consider a predisposition to being a turd.

Scientists try to tease our causation from correlation, relying on what the data explains best, controlling for factors when they can, and coming up with the best explanation possible...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

But you're right, it's not perfect, and there is no singular reason for crime. There are millions.
Parental involvement, education, community involvement, gun control, incarceration rates, drug control, mental health services, income inequality, access to birth control, etc.

However, despite the best efforts of Jim Manzi (expert statistician and conservative, who found that the above could explain up to 20 percent of the following, but failed to replicate those results based on further evidence) no combination of the known crime correlates could explain this:

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/06/img/violentcrime_fig1.jpg

Steven Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) pleased many liberals, including me, when he published data that showed a probable link between abortion and the drop in crime, which wasn't perfect but explained the phenomenon better than anything else at the time.

That's what I believed up until last month. Call me a flip flopper, but my beliefs change based on evidence.

Cities, states, and countries all over the world have seen a similar rise and decline. The similarity they all share? Not abortion services, not single motherhood, not black youths - just the rise and fall of leaded gasoline, which can explain up to 90% of the crime wave over the late 20th century.
www.nber.org/papers/w13097

The evidence goes further than the national, state, and city level - follow-up studies have found it on the individual level. Childhood blood lead levels are consistently associated with arrest rates for violent crimes.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050101

All that leaded smog didn't completely go away, it's still in our soil - especially around inner-cities where traffic was worst. It's still in old houses, it's especially in old windows.

If you're not convinced, just wait. Western Europe used leaded gasoline longer, so we can expect crime to drop there in the next 20 years, with a drastic drop over the next 10. In Russia, the drop should happen a little later, since the Soviets used leaded gasoline longer. We should see the beginnings of a crime decrease in Latin America (they need it) around 2018, since they used leaded gasoline until 1995.

http://ricknevin.com/uploads/The_Answer_is_Lead_Poisoning.pdf

If crime decreases don't happen in the countries above, we can label the theory false or flawed.



Regardless, this is all much more interesting to me than Ted Nugent's opinions or txtebow's racial stereotypes.

Requiem
02-18-2013, 01:55 PM
So basically the lack of a responsible father can be harmful to children. Who knew?

That One Guy didn't. He's a bad man.

Inkana7
02-18-2013, 06:52 PM
not lookin' very good for you right now, doc. but please, post more youtube videos and zingers.

That One Guy
02-18-2013, 08:06 PM
Scientists try to tease our causation from correlation, relying on what the data explains best, controlling for factors when they can, and coming up with the best explanation possible...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

But you're right, it's not perfect, and there is no singular reason for crime. There are millions.
Parental involvement, education, community involvement, gun control, incarceration rates, drug control, mental health services, income inequality, access to birth control, etc.

However, despite the best efforts of Jim Manzi (expert statistician and conservative, who found that the above could explain up to 20 percent of the following, but failed to replicate those results based on further evidence) no combination of the known crime correlates could explain this:

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/06/img/violentcrime_fig1.jpg

Steven Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) pleased many liberals, including me, when he published data that showed a probable link between abortion and the drop in crime, which wasn't perfect but explained the phenomenon better than anything else at the time.

That's what I believed up until last month. Call me a flip flopper, but my beliefs change based on evidence.

Cities, states, and countries all over the world have seen a similar rise and decline. The similarity they all share? Not abortion services, not single motherhood, not black youths - just the rise and fall of leaded gasoline, which can explain up to 90% of the crime wave over the late 20th century.
www.nber.org/papers/w13097

The evidence goes further than the national, state, and city level - follow-up studies have found it on the individual level. Childhood blood lead levels are consistently associated with arrest rates for violent crimes.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050101

All that leaded smog didn't completely go away, it's still in our soil - especially around inner-cities where traffic was worst. It's still in old houses, it's especially in old windows.

If you're not convinced, just wait. Western Europe used leaded gasoline longer, so we can expect crime to drop there in the next 20 years, with a drastic drop over the next 10. In Russia, the drop should happen a little later, since the Soviets used leaded gasoline longer. We should see the beginnings of a crime decrease in Latin America (they need it) around 2018, since they used leaded gasoline until 1995.

http://ricknevin.com/uploads/The_Answer_is_Lead_Poisoning.pdf

If crime decreases don't happen in the countries above, we can label the theory false or flawed.



Regardless, this is all much more interesting to me than Ted Nugent's opinions or txtebow's racial stereotypes.

I don't disagree with anything you've said and find it quite interesting, to be honest. It's just, at best, a predisposition to these problems. To dismiss what some of the others introduce (socioeconomics or fatherhood, for example) because you found a correlation is a bit overly simplistic. Within the impacted people, some will turn to crime and some won't. So for you to dismiss what Doc is saying outright because you have charts that show general trends is just as ignorant as him blindly dismissing what you say because he might have more localized trends. Heck, even if what he's saying is accurate, it's merely another predisposition.

That's basically what I'm saying. It's not any one thing so anyone arguing that they know the one factor is doing so out of a blind debate rather than a true discussion. And yes, I know you just stated above (and stated before) that lead isn't the end all for whether someone's destined to be a criminal or not but I just think it needed more emphasis.

PS: Req is still an annoying little bitch.

txtebow
02-19-2013, 07:38 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/H3KqngTacgI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I loved Obama's Father's day sermon. Predictably it angered a black liberal professor, specifically because the speech violated the first commandment of Liberalism: Thou shalt not be personally responsible for anything.

:thumbs:

txtebow
02-19-2013, 07:42 AM
not lookin' very good for you right now, doc. but please, post more youtube videos and zingers.

put the ganja down...and then come back after rehab and read this thread again...

Meck77
02-19-2013, 11:00 AM
The blarts and all the b****es here can make all the excuses they want. When our President stands up and says dads need to stop abandoning their children you think that would speak for itself.

When I have a weak male Buck aka Male Goat we lop his nuts off so he can't breed. Just three seconds and the gene pool improves.

It's too bad we can do that to the b****es in America who don't take care of their first kid. They should never be allowed to have a second!

Excuses are most certainly like aholes.

Archer81
02-19-2013, 11:11 AM
Due to some interesting report this post emails from this thread, I am feeling compelled to post this, yet again, as a reminder about this particular subforum:

Goooo "team that reflects my political ideology!" WARNING! This is a loosely moderated forum. Frankly, moderating political discussions is about as fun as sitting in on Raider court proceedings.

This is the descriptor for the WRP forum. This forum is loosely moderated BECAUSE it is a religion and politics subforum. The mods will not handhold certain posters because other posters are being mean to them.

Which brings me to another reminder for certain posters, from the OM Guidelines:

Moderators are volunteers who have demonstrated a love for the Denver Broncos, as well as the Orange Mane community at large. They are tasked with being the standard bearers of this community – though they are all fallible. The mods are just people who love the Broncos, love this discussion forum, and are trying to do the best they can with the tools they have. If you never have anything nice to say about a mod, then you probably shouldn’t say anything at all – and frankly, you might consider finding another community where you think the mods and guidelines are more to your liking. This forum is not going to tolerate the faithful servants of this forum being publically ridiculed for their service any more than it will tolerate the posters being punished arbitrarily. We strive for balance in everything we do – and most of the time, we succeed (nobody is perfect).

We now go back to your regularly scheduled slap fight.

:Broncos:

Archer81
02-19-2013, 11:11 AM
Due to some interesting report this post emails from this thread, I am feeling compelled to post this, yet again, as a reminder about this particular subforum:

Goooo "team that reflects my political ideology!" WARNING! This is a loosely moderated forum. Frankly, moderating political discussions is about as fun as sitting in on Raider court proceedings.

This is the descriptor for the WRP forum. This forum is loosely moderated BECAUSE it is a religion and politics subforum. The mods will not handhold certain posters because other posters are being mean to them.

Which brings me to another reminder for certain posters, from the OM Guidelines:

Moderators are volunteers who have demonstrated a love for the Denver Broncos, as well as the Orange Mane community at large. They are tasked with being the standard bearers of this community – though they are all fallible. The mods are just people who love the Broncos, love this discussion forum, and are trying to do the best they can with the tools they have. If you never have anything nice to say about a mod, then you probably shouldn’t say anything at all – and frankly, you might consider finding another community where you think the mods and guidelines are more to your liking. This forum is not going to tolerate the faithful servants of this forum being publically ridiculed for their service any more than it will tolerate the posters being punished arbitrarily. We strive for balance in everything we do – and most of the time, we succeed (nobody is perfect).

We now go back to your regularly scheduled slap fight.

:Broncos:

TonyR
02-19-2013, 11:41 AM
Tangentially related to this topic, a reminder of the primary force that created the need for the safety net: capitalism!

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/19/how-capitalism-creates-the-welfare-state/

Rohirrim
02-19-2013, 12:46 PM
Tangentially related to this topic, a reminder of the primary force that created the need for the safety net: capitalism!

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/19/how-capitalism-creates-the-welfare-state/

Wow! What a great piece. This deserves its own thread. This is why I keep bringing up that $32 trillion that the uber-rich are hiding offshore. It is just one of the most glaring symptoms of the disease. Just as human beings once pulled a complete paradigm shift away from the divine right of kings, our next shift must be away from greed based economics. Hopefully, we can get serious about that before it destroys us.

That One Guy
02-19-2013, 01:18 PM
Due to some interesting report this post emails from this thread, I am feeling compelled to post this, yet again, as a reminder about this particular subforum:

Goooo "team that reflects my political ideology!" WARNING! This is a loosely moderated forum. Frankly, moderating political discussions is about as fun as sitting in on Raider court proceedings.

This is the descriptor for the WRP forum. This forum is loosely moderated BECAUSE it is a religion and politics subforum. The mods will not handhold certain posters because other posters are being mean to them.

Which brings me to another reminder for certain posters, from the OM Guidelines:

Moderators are volunteers who have demonstrated a love for the Denver Broncos, as well as the Orange Mane community at large. They are tasked with being the standard bearers of this community – though they are all fallible. The mods are just people who love the Broncos, love this discussion forum, and are trying to do the best they can with the tools they have. If you never have anything nice to say about a mod, then you probably shouldn’t say anything at all – and frankly, you might consider finding another community where you think the mods and guidelines are more to your liking. This forum is not going to tolerate the faithful servants of this forum being publically ridiculed for their service any more than it will tolerate the posters being punished arbitrarily. We strive for balance in everything we do – and most of the time, we succeed (nobody is perfect).

We now go back to your regularly scheduled slap fight.

:Broncos:

LOL

Let's take a second and see which little bitch ran to the mods.

That One Guy
02-19-2013, 01:31 PM
Tangentially related to this topic, a reminder of the primary force that created the need for the safety net: capitalism!

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/19/how-capitalism-creates-the-welfare-state/

It has changed the world in three centuries more than at any time in the two hundred millennia that humans have lived on the earth.

I didn't care for the piece, personally, but I know better than to voice my personal thoughts on something like that. That said, this line jumped out at me as to why the piece was ultimately just a crying blamefest. Are we to understand capitalism was magically created 300 years ago? Are we to understand accumulation of wealth didn't exist before that?

The earliest stages of the welfare state are as much to blame for the current welfare state as anything. Add to that a general erosion of principles (as discussed in this thread, on occasion) and you easily have a recipe for the situation we have today. Just because you can dangle a carrot and disrupt someone's life doesn't mean you can blame the carrot for the disruption. Personal responsibility will always be the underlying answer to any of life's dilemmas.

Meck77
02-19-2013, 01:39 PM
I thought I'd seen it all in the WRP forum but never thought I'd see the day where people are actually debating against the importance of being a good father to a child.

I must be out of touch with this New American concept.

Blueflame
02-19-2013, 02:01 PM
LOL

Let's take a second and see which little b**** ran to the mods.

It doesn't matter who contacted the moderator team. Sirhcyennek's point still stands.

1. WRP is a loosely moderated (sub)forum; perhaps not an ideal place for anyone with thin skin. Differences of opinion are going to happen anytime religion and/or politics are the subject of debate.

W*GS
02-19-2013, 02:06 PM
I thought I'd seen it all in the WRP forum but never thought I'd see the day where people are actually debating against the importance of being a good father to a child.

I must be out of touch with this New American concept.

Define what "being a good father" means, first.

Pony Boy
02-19-2013, 04:13 PM
Wow! What a great piece. This deserves its own thread. This is why I keep bringing up that $32 trillion that the uber-rich are hiding offshore. It is just one of the most glaring symptoms of the disease. Just as human beings once pulled a complete paradigm shift away from the divine right of kings, our next shift must be away from greed based economics. Hopefully, we can get serious about that before it destroys us.

So what does it say when Obama heads off to Florida on spring break to play golf with the mega-rich Tiger Woods, who moved to Florida to avoid paying more income tax.

Do you suppose he lectured Tiger on paying his fair share of taxes or maybe Tiger gave him some advice on how to hide money in offshore accounts?

lonestar
02-19-2013, 05:15 PM
So what does it say when Obama heads off to Florida on spring break to play golf with the mega-rich Tiger Woods, who moved to Florida to avoid paying more income tax.

Do you suppose he lectured Tiger on paying his fair share of taxes or maybe Tiger gave him some advice on how to hide money in offshore accounts?

ahahahahahahahaha

:thumbs:

Rohirrim
02-19-2013, 05:21 PM
So what does it say when Obama heads off to Florida on spring break to play golf with the mega-rich Tiger Woods, who moved to Florida to avoid paying more income tax.

Do you suppose he lectured Tiger on paying his fair share of taxes or maybe Tiger gave him some advice on how to hide money in offshore accounts?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zKQo38egvpU/SAca4bchO2I/AAAAAAAAAFE/qys30udNtqg/s400/red-herring.jpg

lonestar
02-19-2013, 05:22 PM
I thought I'd seen it all in the WRP forum but never thought I'd see the day where people are actually debating against the importance of being a good father to a child.

I must be out of touch with this New American concept.

Kind of hard to comprehend is it not..

I suspect many that are whining about it did not have fathers to give them an example or are indeed those that are fathers that are absent..

I can think of no other reason for not taking a very strong stand in favor of having a male in the household to give guidance as well as income..

That One Guy
02-19-2013, 06:17 PM
It doesn't matter who contacted the moderator team. Sirhcyennek's point still stands.

1. WRP is a loosely moderated (sub)forum; perhaps not an ideal place for anyone with thin skin. Differences of opinion are going to happen anytime religion and/or politics are the subject of debate.

I didn't say his point didn't stand. I didn't disagree with him at all.

I guess I don't understand why you responded to me.

Blueflame
02-19-2013, 07:37 PM
I didn't say his point didn't stand. I didn't disagree with him at all.

I guess I don't understand why you responded to me.

It appeared to me that your post was calling-out/bashing/namecalling another poster. And that response (further divisiveness) was not the result that the moderator team was looking for, that's all.

That One Guy
02-19-2013, 07:48 PM
It appeared to me that your post was calling-out/bashing/namecalling another poster. And that response (further divisiveness) was not the result that the moderator team was looking for, that's all.

Ahhh, I think I understand. No, it's not that I have thin skin at all. I get annoyed at the bannings I get from [name excerpted until I get confirmation on name calling rules] whining to the mods but I'm not offended by it. Apparently he gets offended as he always runs to the mod team so I guess I thought the thin skin comment was in response to him crying to the mods, again.

Blueflame
02-19-2013, 08:05 PM
Ahhh, I think I understand. No, it's not that I have thin skin at all. I get annoyed at the bannings I get from [name excerpted until I get confirmation on name calling rules] whining to the mods but I'm not offended by it. Apparently he gets offended as he always runs to the mod team so I guess I thought the thin skin comment was in response to him crying to the mods, again.

Unless you break the rules, there's no reason to fear a banning. The primary rule of thumb... as TJ said repeatedly in the Posting Guidelines thread... is "Use your head". If you think there's any chance a given remark "might be" deemed as a violation, then the wisest course is to just think it; don't say (type) it. No one expects you to like everyone here, but it's not necessary to wage open flame wars over it; you're far less likely to draw moderator attention if you just ignore the posters you don't particularly like.

Requiem
02-20-2013, 07:46 AM
Unless you break the rules, there's no reason to fear a banning. The primary rule of thumb... as TJ said repeatedly in the Posting Guidelines thread... is "Use your head". If you think there's any chance a given remark "might be" deemed as a violation, then the wisest course is to just think it; don't say (type) it. No one expects you to like everyone here, but it's not necessary to wage open flame wars over it; you're far less likely to draw moderator attention if you just ignore the posters you don't particularly like.

True dat. :yayaya:

That One Guy
02-20-2013, 09:13 AM
Unless you break the rules, there's no reason to fear a banning. The primary rule of thumb... as TJ said repeatedly in the Posting Guidelines thread... is "Use your head". If you think there's any chance a given remark "might be" deemed as a violation, then the wisest course is to just think it; don't say (type) it. No one expects you to like everyone here, but it's not necessary to wage open flame wars over it; you're far less likely to draw moderator attention if you just ignore the posters you don't particularly like.

I've never been banned for anything that's defined in the guidelines, first of all.

Second of all, it's not necessarily just a flame war if the action is continually repeated which instigates further comments. Req will troll threads all day long with insults, drive bys, etc but then is not bashful about reporting posts to the mod team. The mods catering to a troll who is in violation of the DEFINED guidelines is just impossible to wrap my brain around.

Finally, I don't often attract the mods attention myself. As was stated in this thread, it's always about the report button. Which... hmm.. is ALSO in the guidelines under the 'your first step should be to put someone that's bothering you on ignore' but, again, that's overlooked.

So, go on, tell me more about how the mod system works...

Requiem
02-20-2013, 09:26 AM
I didn't report anything in this thread until after Chris arrived and you continued with your "little b" comments that you have been doing in WRP and outside of it.

So your original assumption was wrong that I was the reason why Chris came. Blueflame came in after you clearly violated the rules and continued on with your opine against me because you got a chip on your shoulder. You were in the wrong for your banning. Time to acknowledge that and move past it. Being petulant and referring to me in a deragatory manner incessantly doesn't bode well for you.

If you don't like me or what I have to say, the ignore option works wonders. I trust you have the self-control to exercise it. Right?

Right!

That One Guy
02-20-2013, 09:34 AM
I didn't report anything in this thread until after Chris arrived and you continued with your "little b" comments that you have been doing in WRP and outside of it.

So your original assumption was wrong that I was the reason why Chris came. Blueflame came in after you clearly violated the rules and continued on with your opine against me because you got a chip on your shoulder. You were in the wrong for your banning. Time to acknowledge that and move past it. Being petulant and referring to me in a deragatory manner incessantly doesn't bode well for you.

If you don't like me or what I have to say, the ignore option works wonders. I trust you have the self-control to exercise it. Right?

Right!

Well it fits your MO (and it'd be stupid to start reporting something AFTER the mods arrived as you claim) so I'll call bull**** on that fact.

Whether I got banned for a just cause or not either time isn't the question. The issue is that things 10 times worse get said on the Mane but 75% of the time it might go unpunished unless someone reports it. All you're doing at that point is catering to those that cry foul. Consider then, also, that as I pointed out before, they don't punish the ACTUAL violations of the guidelines most of the time and it's not hard to get annoyed at those who click the report button everytime anyone says anything mean about them.

Oh, and, finally, I pretty much hate your online persona's guts but aside from you crying to the mods all the time, you're an afterthought. You say for me to put you on ignore but that doesn't solve the problem which is, again, people crying to the mods and having two standards enforced on the Mane. The correct answer would've been for you to ignore me rather than report the threads all the damn time.

lonestar
02-20-2013, 09:40 AM
I've never been banned for anything that's defined in the guidelines, first of all.

Second of all, it's not necessarily just a flame war if the action is continually repeated which instigates further comments. Req will troll threads all day long with insults, drive bys, etc but then is not bashful about reporting posts to the mod team. The mods catering to a troll who is in violation of the DEFINED guidelines is just impossible to wrap my brain around.

Finally, I don't often attract the mods attention myself. As was stated in this thread, it's always about the report button. Which... hmm.. is ALSO in the guidelines under the 'your first step should be to put someone that's bothering you on ignore' but, again, that's overlooked.

So, go on, tell me more about how the mod system works...

:thumbs:

Pony Boy
02-20-2013, 09:53 AM
I didn't report anything in this thread until after Chris arrived and you continued with your "little b" comments that you have been doing in WRP and outside of it.

So your original assumption was wrong that I was the reason why Chris came. Blueflame came in after you clearly violated the rules and continued on with your opine against me because you got a chip on your shoulder. You were in the wrong for your banning. Time to acknowledge that and move past it. Being petulant and referring to me in a deragatory manner incessantly doesn't bode well for you.

If you don't like me or what I have to say, the ignore option works wonders. I trust you have the self-control to exercise it. Right?

Right!

Uh-Oh ....... Req is all mad....... warning next he wil be throwing the neg rep..:rofl:

Requiem
02-20-2013, 10:07 AM
Oh, and, finally, I pretty much hate your online persona's guts but aside from you crying to the mods all the time, you're an afterthought. You say for me to put you on ignore but that doesn't solve the problem which is, again, people crying to the mods and having two standards enforced on the Mane. The correct answer would've been for you to ignore me rather than report the threads all the damn time.

Yep, it is everyone elses problem and not yours when you clearly commit a violation. :rofl: Don't want people to report you for violations? Don't commit them. Playing the, "Der, derpity derp I don't know what I did wrong." card is just you way of absovling any personal responsibility in the matter. At some point in time you have to understand why you were held accountable and stop playing contrarian like you don't have a clue.

I've been held accountable for what I've done. TJ even was thankful that I took it like a man and didn't whine about it like other members had. (Here's looking at you, kid!) I even got a message from a moderator the other day reminding me of the revised COC. So it isn't like I haven't been told or disciplined.

BTW, I rarely ever use the report function. This message board is very lax (in a good way) re: moderation compared to other forums. Most people who have been here for years understand the other posters, when they are joking, etc. and most things go. You crossed the line and the powers at be agreed. Deal with it and move on.

I'll let you get our last 2 cents in because I know it'd mean the world to you.

cutthemdown
02-20-2013, 10:52 AM
Well it fits your MO (and it'd be stupid to start reporting something AFTER the mods arrived as you claim) so I'll call bull**** on that fact.

Whether I got banned for a just cause or not either time isn't the question. The issue is that things 10 times worse get said on the Mane but 75% of the time it might go unpunished unless someone reports it. All you're doing at that point is catering to those that cry foul. Consider then, also, that as I pointed out before, they don't punish the ACTUAL violations of the guidelines most of the time and it's not hard to get annoyed at those who click the report button everytime anyone says anything mean about them.

Oh, and, finally, I pretty much hate your online persona's guts but aside from you crying to the mods all the time, you're an afterthought. You say for me to put you on ignore but that doesn't solve the problem which is, again, people crying to the mods and having two standards enforced on the Mane. The correct answer would've been for you to ignore me rather than report the threads all the damn time.


He does that all the time. Will call you names then when you fire back he calls the mods. What a little bitch he is.

Archer81
02-20-2013, 10:58 AM
For a forum that is loosely moderated, I am spending alot of time in the WRP.

Stop piling on, please. Req did not report anybody's post.

:Broncos:

That One Guy
02-20-2013, 11:36 AM
For a forum that is loosely moderated, I am spending alot of time in the WRP.

Stop piling on, please. Req did not report anybody's post.

:Broncos:

Did somebody report something again? Maybe rather than tell us to stop piling on Req, you should tell someone to stop crying? This is exactly what I am talking about. Everyone has the same issues with Req (my rep is literally a christmas tree of Req neg repping and others pos repping about how much they hate Req) yet you come into the thread and tell us to stop piling on him?

I'll let this one go just to maintain the peace but you say you are spending a lot of time in the WRP but I honestly can't figure out why. I sent you that message as well but at the very least that makes 3 mods spending time in this thread because we're being mean to Req. This is absolutely not the standard treatment for the board. What gives?

Blueflame
02-20-2013, 02:45 PM
I've never been banned for anything that's defined in the guidelines, first of all.

Second of all, it's not necessarily just a flame war if the action is continually repeated which instigates further comments. Req will troll threads all day long with insults, drive bys, etc but then is not bashful about reporting posts to the mod team. The mods catering to a troll who is in violation of the DEFINED guidelines is just impossible to wrap my brain around.

Finally, I don't often attract the mods attention myself. As was stated in this thread, it's always about the report button. Which... hmm.. is ALSO in the guidelines under the 'your first step should be to put someone that's bothering you on ignore' but, again, that's overlooked.

So, go on, tell me more about how the mod system works...

You've also never received an unjustified ban.

Persistently referring to any other poster with a pejorative term such as "little bitch" is not going to be deemed acceptable. While saying it once "might" be ok (it would depend on the context of the remark), making it a habit is easily recognized as aggressive provocation of another poster; an (unsuccessful) attempt to goad him into a retaliatory violation of forum rules.

Requiem has been banned in the past and any time he violates forum rules, action has been and will be taken.

Again... "use your head" and place the posters whose posts annoy you on ignore.

Side note: Bashing the moderator team is not going to be tolerated either.

Meck77
02-20-2013, 03:32 PM
How is your tax evasion going?:haw!:

Requiem
02-20-2013, 03:43 PM
That avatar of Kaylore gets me every time.

Pony Boy
02-20-2013, 04:07 PM
What separates you from the above posters are they all have families, own homes and have above average incomes. Where as in your case, your are a 20 something worthless kid with none of the above.

You need to "walk the walk" before you "talk the talk", for christ’s sake you even started a thread telling us how worthless your IRA is and then you spout off on economics issues........ what a joke you are.

Now go squirt some tears to the Mods.

txtebow
02-20-2013, 06:36 PM
I thought I'd seen it all in the WRP forum but never thought I'd see the day where people are actually debating against the importance of being a good father to a child.

I must be out of touch with this New American concept.

:thumbs:

txtebow
02-20-2013, 06:47 PM
IRONY: One of the people in this thread who is consistently taking a position against the importance of a hard working, present, and steady male influence (IE: being a REAL MAN and a responsible father instead of a "baby Daddy") is somehow inherently motivated to go and report what they deem a personal slight to the entity which in effect, performs the roll of the "DADDY" of an internet forum, the moderator (s)....America is doomed.

Pony Boy
02-20-2013, 08:56 PM
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/u_172550_2678587.jpg

None of the above means anything to me. :D And by the way, my ROR on my 401(k) is 18%. I was asking if it is wiser to cash out or roll it over to an IRA because it will have just a little over a years worth of contribution to it by the time I move. :)

I'm not sure what this gibberish post means but the best part was the negative rep I received from Req and his decision to put me on ignore.

W*GS
02-21-2013, 06:27 AM
I don't see a lot of Real Man behavior here.

BroncoInferno
02-21-2013, 08:11 AM
I don't see a lot of Real Man behavior here.

I also have yet to see anyone point out where anyone claimed that having a present, responsible father wasn't a good thing. All that was questioned was Doc's contention that absent and/or irresponsible fathers was THE cause of violent crimes (not merely a correlation), which he's yet to provide any evidence for. Plenty of right-wingers in this thread who don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Play2win
02-21-2013, 09:14 AM
And there it is, an echo from the past...

The Promise Keepers...

Hilarious!

nyuk nyuk
02-21-2013, 04:26 PM
What separates you from the above posters are they all have families, own homes and have above average incomes. Where as in your case, your are a 20 something worthless kid with none of the above.

You need to "walk the walk" before you "talk the talk", for christ’s sake you even started a thread telling us how worthless your IRA is and then you spout off on economics issues........ what a joke you are.

Now go squirt some tears to the Mods.

Unfortunately people of that age group - especially male - tend to be loudly arrogant and think they know everything.

El Minion
02-21-2013, 07:06 PM
Scientists try to tease our causation from correlation, relying on what the data explains best, controlling for factors when they can, and coming up with the best explanation possible...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

But you're right, it's not perfect, and there is no singular reason for crime. There are millions.
Parental involvement, education, community involvement, gun control, incarceration rates, drug control, mental health services, income inequality, access to birth control, etc.

However, despite the best efforts of Jim Manzi (expert statistician and conservative, who found that the above could explain up to 20 percent of the following, but failed to replicate those results based on further evidence) no combination of the known crime correlates could explain this:

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/06/img/violentcrime_fig1.jpg

Steven Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) pleased many liberals, including me, when he published data that showed a probable link between abortion and the drop in crime, which wasn't perfect but explained the phenomenon better than anything else at the time.

That's what I believed up until last month. Call me a flip flopper, but my beliefs change based on evidence.

Cities, states, and countries all over the world have seen a similar rise and decline. The similarity they all share? Not abortion services, not single motherhood, not black youths - just the rise and fall of leaded gasoline, which can explain up to 90% of the crime wave over the late 20th century.
www.nber.org/papers/w13097

The evidence goes further than the national, state, and city level - follow-up studies have found it on the individual level. Childhood blood lead levels are consistently associated with arrest rates for violent crimes.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050101

All that leaded smog didn't completely go away, it's still in our soil - especially around inner-cities where traffic was worst. It's still in old houses, it's especially in old windows.

If you're not convinced, just wait. Western Europe used leaded gasoline longer, so we can expect crime to drop there in the next 20 years, with a drastic drop over the next 10. In Russia, the drop should happen a little later, since the Soviets used leaded gasoline longer. We should see the beginnings of a crime decrease in Latin America (they need it) around 2018, since they used leaded gasoline until 1995.

http://ricknevin.com/uploads/The_Answer_is_Lead_Poisoning.pdf

If crime decreases don't happen in the countries above, we can label the theory false or flawed.



Regardless, this is all much more interesting to me than Ted Nugent's opinions or txtebow's racial stereotypes.

Read this on Reddit, where Levitt participated in AMA (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/18tp7t/i_am_steven_levitt_author_of_freakonomics_ask_me/), someone asked him about the lead hypothesis and he apparently addressed it back in 2007 (http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/07/09/lead-and-crime/):

Lead and Crime (http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/07/09/lead-and-crime/)

Steven D. Levitt
07/09/2007 | 10:04 am

Over the weekend, the Washington Post published an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073.html) suggesting that much of the decline in crime in the 1990s may have been due to the reduction of childhood lead exposure after the removal of lead from gasoline and house paint.

This is an intriguing hypothesis. There is evidence on an individual level that high exposure to lead is harmful to both IQ and the ability to delay gratification, two traits that could enhance the attractiveness of crime. There is also some suggestive time-series evidence of a relationship: the rise and fall in lead exposure at the national level match the rise and fall in crime. Still, although both Post reporter Shankar Vendantam and the cited economist, Rick Nevin (whom I’d never heard of), appear quite convinced by the time-series data, I am not. When you have a variable like crime that goes up for a long time then goes down for a long time, it is easy to find other variables that share that pattern and appear to have a causal impact, even though the relationship is completely spurious.

About seven years ago, Michael Greenstone (http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/index.htm?prof_id=mgreenst) and I tried to look into this same issue using airborne lead measures at the local level, as well as other approaches. We ultimately gave up without finding anything. That largely soured me on the lead/crime link.

Recently, however, Jessica Wolpaw Reyes (http://www.amherst.edu/%7Ejwreyes/) at Amherst has put together what appears to me to be the most persuasive evidence (http://www.amherst.edu/%7Ejwreyes/papers/LeadCrimeNBERWP13097.pdf) to date in favor of a relationship between lead and crime. Rather than looking at a national time-series, she tries to exploit differences in the rates at which lead was removed from gasoline across states. I haven’t read her paper with the care that a referee would at an academic journal; but, at least superficially, what she is doing looks pretty sensible. She finds that lead has big effects (and, for what it’s worth, she also confirms that, when controlling for lead, the link between abortion and crime is as strong or stronger as in our initial study, which did not control for lead.)

Roger Masters (http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Ermasters/), a professor at Dartmouth, has also been doing interesting research on this subject (http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Ermasters/tbcba.htm), although I am also not very familiar with his work.

It will be very interesting to see how this research agenda plays out. If it can be shown here and in other areas that environmental factors have powerful and long-lasting impacts on human behavior, it may dramatically change the way we think about public policy.

W*GS
02-21-2013, 07:40 PM
Unfortunately people of that age group - especially male - tend to be loudly arrogant and think they know everything.

Sounds like you.

An arrogant prick.

nyuk nyuk
02-21-2013, 08:31 PM
Sounds like you.

An arrogant prick.

If you can't keep up in discussions, you have only yourself to blame. Either sharpen up on the subject or learn how to read basic English. Either one would do volumes for you and your disposition.

!Booya!

W*GS
02-21-2013, 08:38 PM
If you can't keep up in discussions, you have only yourself to blame. Either sharpen up on the subject or learn how to read basic English. Either one would do volumes for you and your disposition.

!Booya!

Thus sayeth negative rep boy.

Grow the **** up, you pathetic sack of ****.

Blueflame
02-22-2013, 12:13 AM
Just a (nother) reminder that while WRP is a "loosely-moderated" subforum, that does not mean it's unmoderated.

From the Posting Guidelines: "Personal Attacks – Sometimes you think someone is an idiot and you want to tell them as much. But if you’re going to call someone an idiot, you’d better back up your words with something of substance because if an argument devolves into two (or more) people calling each other idiots, none of them are using their heads or showing any amount of respect to the community, and both of them are subject to receiving a ban. While some forums see this issue in black and white will ban over the smallest slight, this forum recognizes that there is a gray area – this is a football discussion forum. Football is a competitive sport. Smack is part of the culture, but there is a line and it will be judged by such criteria as substance, vulgarity, and consistency. If your attacks comes with no substance, are vulgar, or it seems that all you add to the forum is attacks on people who disagree with you, you put yourself at risk for a ban period (or even permanent exile). Mods will have discretion on this. The best way to protect yourself is to moderate your vulgarity, and provide substance: facts and content. "

Let's tone it down a bit, please.

TIA.

txtebow
02-24-2013, 02:04 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DKDj_E0QLNs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/39FAKPI-bgY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ixIKS2JZPsU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

txtebow
02-24-2013, 02:07 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uaH29nFRDCU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

txtebow
02-25-2013, 06:14 AM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NATION_OF_ISLAM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-24-20-48-55

In his speech Sunday, Farrakhan only addressed violence in terms of guns, saying illegal weapons are the problem.

"The Second Amendment has no relevance to the black community in this sense," he said. "All your weapons are illegal and you're using them like a savage people."

Meck77
02-27-2013, 10:42 PM
Joe Biden says "shoot them through the door".

So our Vice President is telling us it's ok to break the law and shoot people you can't even see? What a moron.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/27/more-self-defense-advice-from-joe-biden-just-fire-the-shotgun-through-the-door/

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 04:47 AM
LOL just shoot people through the door with your shotgun.....you don't need a semi automatic rifle. LOL is he serious? No way the dems nominate this clown in 4 yrs.

Pony Boy
02-28-2013, 09:21 AM
Joe Biden says "shoot them through the door".

So our Vice President is telling us it's ok to break the law and shoot people you can't even see? What a moron.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/27/more-self-defense-advice-from-joe-biden-just-fire-the-shotgun-through-the-door/

Oscar Pistorius’s New Defense – I Followed Joe Biden’s Advice, just fire the shotgun through the door.

barryr
02-28-2013, 06:48 PM
LOL just shoot people through the door with your shotgun.....you don't need a semi automatic rifle. LOL is he serious? No way the dems nominate this clown in 4 yrs.

As much as the media protects Obama and acceptance of it by an apathetic public, it could happen though their job would be harder with Biden's daily moronic rants.

mhgaffney
03-01-2013, 11:32 AM
It's the elephant in room that is absolutely off limits to discuss

No the elephant in the room off limits to discuss is Israel armed to the teeth with nukes & chemical and bio weapons.

BroncoBeavis
03-01-2013, 12:09 PM
LOL just shoot people through the door with your shotgun.....you don't need a semi automatic rifle. LOL is he serious? No way the dems nominate this clown in 4 yrs.

No. I heard here on the Mane that Palin with balls is a superlative lifetime public servant who they'd be happy to support. LOL

Meck77
03-05-2013, 02:11 AM
No the elephant in the room off limits to discuss is Israel armed to the teeth with nukes & chemical and bio weapons.

It does appear that Israel is positioning the United States to smash Iran. Oh but your wives should only have shotguns to protect themselves from rapists, thugs, and murderers. Shoot in the air!

Maybe this is the job stimulus plan to put people back to work.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/04/us-israel-iran-netanyahu-idUSBRE92312720130304