It's Cultural Deviancy NOT Guns

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

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 b****" 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]

How is your tax evasion going?

[Requiem]

That avatar of Kaylore gets me every time.

[Pony Boy]

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]

Originally Posted by Meck77

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.

[txtebow]

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]

Originally Posted by Requiem

None of the above means anything to me. 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]

I don't see a lot of Real Man behavior here.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by W*GS

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]

And there it is, an echo from the past...

The Promise Keepers...

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

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]

Originally Posted by Blart

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...



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:



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/...l.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_Ans..._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, someone asked him about the lead hypothesis and he apparently addressed it back in 2007:

Lead and Crime

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

Over the weekend, the Washington Post published an article 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 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 at Amherst has put together what appears to me to be the most persuasive evidence 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, a professor at Dartmouth, has also been doing interesting research on this subject, 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]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

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]

Originally Posted by W*GS

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.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

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.

Thus sayeth negative rep boy.

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

[Blueflame]

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]

[txtebow]

[txtebow]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...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]

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/2013/02/2...ough-the-door/

[cutthemdown]

just shoot people through the door with your shotgun.....you don't need a semi automatic rifle. is he serious? No way the dems nominate this clown in 4 yrs.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Meck77

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/2013/02/2...ough-the-door/

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

[barryr]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

just shoot people through the door with your shotgun.....you don't need a semi automatic rifle. 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]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

just shoot people through the door with your shotgun.....you don't need a semi automatic rifle. 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.