Homeless Vet Beaten by Mob

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
So single-parent households [/quote]

Reduction in this ^ = reduction in crime. It’s amazingly simple, but nobody is willing to address this in poor communities. It’s easier to blame “racist cops”, “racist economy”, “racist education system”… If you can not financially support yourself, you have no business getting pregnant. Birth control is not rocket science, or expensive, or racist, or anything other than simple common sense. [/quote]

So, let’s talk about the high percentage of low socioeconomic women (one can extrapolate that to black inner city women) and abortions. I’m curious about their future development, i.e. what proportion of those getting abortions early in life (coming from low socioeconomic areas/upbringings) improve their human capital, move into the middle class and lead happy successful lives? (i.e. economic mobility).

Also, WHY is there such a high proportion compared to the overall population?[/quote]

Never mentioned abortions…

but abortions are not needed if you never get pregnant in the first place. There is nobody forcing anyone to get pregnant. [/quote]

ya know what … let’s stay away from this topic for this thread … I can see it going down a road no one intended[/quote]

I’m not discussing abortions, I’m not discussing abortions, im making the point that it’s common sense to not let some dude raw dog you if you’re not financially stable.

This women had 6 children. Why? Common sense would say after the first one, you should maybe stop letting guys finish inside. Instead her kids are participating in riots.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/us/baltimore-riot-mom-smacks-son/[/quote]

Look man, I tend to agree with you - I’m going to argue, though, that, sure, you didn’t mention abortion by name, you mentioned birth control overall - I brought up abortion due to it being a form of birth control (which it is - regardless of your stance on the subject). I didn’t want to continue talking about it due to the touchiness of the subject and it’s tendency to cause discussion to devolve into shit shows.

But, regardless of this, you’re putting a lot of assumptions regarding this subject which haven’t yet been discussed - specifically access to quality education to include an environment conducive to learning as well as emphasis and a culture which encourages self improvement. These things tend to correlate strongly with lower birth rates, better quality of life, lower crime rates, higher rates of economic mobility, etc. It’s not enough to say keep your legs closed - it MAY not be that obvious in certain environments. I understand the trends, but there’s more to it than that.

You’re right, it does seem like common damn sense, and it seems to circle back to a nuclear family with traditional values (education, independence, compassion, etc).[/quote]

Have either of you ever read the book freakonomics? It credited a significant portion of the crime rate drop in the 90s to legal abortion.

Not getting into whether abortion is legal or not. That derail is not for here, but the book they essential did the analysis to try to attribute causality to variables related to crime. The book evaluated the crime drop in the 90s and evaluated possible factors: Innovative policing strategies, Increased reliance on prisons, Changes in drug markets, Aging of the population, Tougher gun-control laws, Strong economy, Increased number of police.

Increased imprisonment (33%), changes in the drug markets (15%), and increased number of police (10%) all helped reduce crime along with abortions.

I agree that the reduction in crime starts with having good family values. Regardless of race, economic standing, drugs, and family stability greatly impact the chance of one becoming a criminal.

62

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
So single-parent households [/quote]

Reduction in this ^ = reduction in crime. It’s amazingly simple, but nobody is willing to address this in poor communities. It’s easier to blame “racist cops”, “racist economy”, “racist education system”… If you can not financially support yourself, you have no business getting pregnant. Birth control is not rocket science, or expensive, or racist, or anything other than simple common sense. [/quote]

So, let’s talk about the high percentage of low socioeconomic women (one can extrapolate that to black inner city women) and abortions. I’m curious about their future development, i.e. what proportion of those getting abortions early in life (coming from low socioeconomic areas/upbringings) improve their human capital, move into the middle class and lead happy successful lives? (i.e. economic mobility).

Also, WHY is there such a high proportion compared to the overall population?[/quote]

Never mentioned abortions…

but abortions are not needed if you never get pregnant in the first place. There is nobody forcing anyone to get pregnant. [/quote]

ya know what … let’s stay away from this topic for this thread … I can see it going down a road no one intended[/quote]

I’m not discussing abortions, I’m not discussing abortions, im making the point that it’s common sense to not let some dude raw dog you if you’re not financially stable.

This women had 6 children. Why? Common sense would say after the first one, you should maybe stop letting guys finish inside. Instead her kids are participating in riots.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/us/baltimore-riot-mom-smacks-son/[/quote]

Look man, I tend to agree with you - I’m going to argue, though, that, sure, you didn’t mention abortion by name, you mentioned birth control overall - I brought up abortion due to it being a form of birth control (which it is - regardless of your stance on the subject). I didn’t want to continue talking about it due to the touchiness of the subject and it’s tendency to cause discussion to devolve into shit shows.

But, regardless of this, you’re putting a lot of assumptions regarding this subject which haven’t yet been discussed - specifically access to quality education to include an environment conducive to learning as well as emphasis and a culture which encourages self improvement. These things tend to correlate strongly with lower birth rates, better quality of life, lower crime rates, higher rates of economic mobility, etc. It’s not enough to say keep your legs closed - it MAY not be that obvious in certain environments. I understand the trends, but there’s more to it than that.

You’re right, it does seem like common damn sense, and it seems to circle back to a nuclear family with traditional values (education, independence, compassion, etc).[/quote]

Have either of you ever read the book freakonomics? It credited a significant portion of the crime rate drop in the 90s to legal abortion.

Not getting into whether abortion is legal or not. That derail is not for here, but the book they essential did the analysis to try to attribute causality to variables related to crime. The book evaluated the crime drop in the 90s and evaluated possible factors: Innovative policing strategies, Increased reliance on prisons, Changes in drug markets, Aging of the population, Tougher gun-control laws, Strong economy, Increased number of police.

Increased imprisonment (33%), changes in the drug markets (15%), and increased number of police (10%) all helped reduce crime along with abortions.

I agree that the reduction in crime starts with having good family values. Regardless of race, economic standing, drugs, and family stability greatly impact the chance of one becoming a criminal.

[/quote]

Yes, I read it - I found the section on sumo wrestlers better thought out :slight_smile:

Be careful with your interpretation of what they were saying - they don’t say abortions caused a reduction in crime - merely illustrated the correlation and offered an interpretation of the two. As you pointed out, there are stronger variables associated with improved (lower) crime statistics.

63

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Yes, I read it - I found the section on sumo wrestlers better thought out :slight_smile:

Be careful with your interpretation of what they were saying - they don’t say abortions caused a reduction in crime - merely illustrated the correlation and offered an interpretation of the two. As you pointed out, there are stronger variables associated with improved (lower) crime statistics.[/quote]

Actually they say exactly that. It was one of a few factors that lowered crime, but it was a factor. It’s the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, that legalized abortion in the 1970s explains a substantial part of the crime decline in the 1990s:

“We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to
recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion
legalization”

Here’s the study:

Here’s a blog post about critics and rebuttles:

64

Again, not trying to get into an abortion debate. Just saying that there are proven factors that decrease crime, and race is not one of them. The issue is that certain races have higher populations of people who have criminal related traits (low income, low education, drugs, no family structure…etc).

The problem is not the color of your skin, its the culture in which you were raised and the circumstances of your upbringing.

65

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Which brings me to my next question -

So single-parent households (specifically single-mother households?) yield a higher percentage of criminals? What percentage? Would you then control for single-mother households collecting welfare and see the proportion of criminals (are we specifically talking about murderers still or has the conversation moved towards criminality?) produced from these conditions compared to the population stats?

TooHuman: You mentioned poor populations outside of the US and their crime rates - as we both know crime rates only consider crimes reported and recorded. I’ve been through Dahravi in Mumbai (you want to talk about poverty - holy shit) and, from what I’ve read and been told about it (by inhabitants) they largely police themselves and most of their crimes go largely unreported/unrecorded, plus there’s inherent cultural and legal differences which make it difficult to really compare those numbers.[/quote]

These are all good and relevant question: Your best source for answers in detail as well as the supporting evidence is here:

and here…

[/quote]

Thanks bud … I’d like to dick around with the numbers too but I’ll do my own digging into that realm[/quote]

“Dick around with the numbers?” What are you talking about? All the sources are in the description of the videos. Are you saying you’re going to go and do hundreds of hours of research to reproduce the scope of data in these videos?

If you’re not willing to do at least a few hours worth of watching the video and verifying the sources, you’re never going to get anywhere near actually answering any of the questions you asked.[/quote]

A bit touchy? See my edit man. If you’re not willing to objectively question the info in ANYTHING you watch then you’re losing the battle. I’m not making any value judgement on any of the info you’ve posted regarding any of the questions I’ve asked - you’ve been more than forth right and I appreciate it. I haven’t watched the videos yet (said I will) and if I have questions regarding sources, presentation or content I’ll seek out the answers is all I meant…[/quote]
Well alright. looks like I simply misunderstood you.

It seems the only way to objectively question the meaning of such a thorough and well sourced presentation would be to find logical fallacies in the arguments and/or find errors in the methodology of the sources and/or look for a larger(or more methodologically sound) body of evidence that supports an alternate hypothesis.

The method of exposing logical fallacies is the only method that wouldn’t take as much or more time than compiling this presentation did and attempting to find a larger or more sound body of evidence would take significantly more time, so unless your saying that you’re going to put at least as much effort into a rebuttal as Stefan put into this presentation(assuming there are no logical fallacies), then any alternative hypothesis you present can be discarded as purely conjecture.

That’s how the scientific method works. Provide a better more empirically verified argument or accept the best empirically supported argument available to you as valid.

There’s no other alternative that doesn’t involve a rejection of empiricism fundamentally.

66

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Yes, I read it - I found the section on sumo wrestlers better thought out :slight_smile:

Be careful with your interpretation of what they were saying - they don’t say abortions caused a reduction in crime - merely illustrated the correlation and offered an interpretation of the two. As you pointed out, there are stronger variables associated with improved (lower) crime statistics.[/quote]

Actually they say exactly that. It was one of a few factors that lowered crime, but it was a factor. It’s the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, that legalized abortion in the 1970s explains a substantial part of the crime decline in the 1990s:

“We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to
recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion
legalization”

Here’s the study:

Here’s a blog post about critics and rebuttles:

[/quote]

You’re correct - they do make that claim. Not sure if you read the entire paper they published but I thought their closing remark was rather poignant to the point I was trying to make:

“While falling crime rates are no doubt a positive development,
our drawing a link between falling crime and legalized
abortion should not be misinterpreted as either an endorsement
of abortion or a call for intervention by the state in the fertility
decisions of women. Furthermore, equivalent reductions in crime
could in principle be obtained through alternatives for abortion,
such as more effective birth control, or providing better environments
for those children at greatest risk for future crime.”

That’s what I was trying to say when I said “be careful how you interpret the study”

67

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Yes, I read it - I found the section on sumo wrestlers better thought out :slight_smile:

Be careful with your interpretation of what they were saying - they don’t say abortions caused a reduction in crime - merely illustrated the correlation and offered an interpretation of the two. As you pointed out, there are stronger variables associated with improved (lower) crime statistics.[/quote]

Actually they say exactly that. It was one of a few factors that lowered crime, but it was a factor. It’s the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, that legalized abortion in the 1970s explains a substantial part of the crime decline in the 1990s:

“We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to
recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion
legalization”

Here’s the study:

Here’s a blog post about critics and rebuttles:

[/quote]

You’re correct - they do make that claim. Not sure if you read the entire paper they published but I thought their closing remark was rather poignant to the point I was trying to make:

“While falling crime rates are no doubt a positive development,
our drawing a link between falling crime and legalized
abortion should not be misinterpreted as either an endorsement
of abortion or a call for intervention by the state in the fertility
decisions of women. Furthermore, equivalent reductions in crime
could in principle be obtained through alternatives for abortion,
such as more effective birth control, or providing better environments
for those children at greatest risk for future crime.”

That’s what I was trying to say when I said “be careful how you interpret the study”[/quote]

Fair enough, they (and I) do not propose it as a solution for reducing crime, they only notice that it does.

68

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Yes, I read it - I found the section on sumo wrestlers better thought out :slight_smile:

Be careful with your interpretation of what they were saying - they don’t say abortions caused a reduction in crime - merely illustrated the correlation and offered an interpretation of the two. As you pointed out, there are stronger variables associated with improved (lower) crime statistics.[/quote]

Actually they say exactly that. It was one of a few factors that lowered crime, but it was a factor. It’s the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, that legalized abortion in the 1970s explains a substantial part of the crime decline in the 1990s:

“We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to
recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion
legalization”

Here’s the study:

Here’s a blog post about critics and rebuttles:

[/quote]

You’re correct - they do make that claim. Not sure if you read the entire paper they published but I thought their closing remark was rather poignant to the point I was trying to make:

“While falling crime rates are no doubt a positive development,
our drawing a link between falling crime and legalized
abortion should not be misinterpreted as either an endorsement
of abortion or a call for intervention by the state in the fertility
decisions of women. Furthermore, equivalent reductions in crime
could in principle be obtained through alternatives for abortion,
such as more effective birth control, or providing better environments
for those children at greatest risk for future crime.”

That’s what I was trying to say when I said “be careful how you interpret the study”[/quote]

Fair enough, they (and I) do not propose it as a solution for reducing crime, they only notice that it does.[/quote]

Man, I referenced this study a few years ago on this site and it just went straight to hell … this was a much better discussion

69

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Yes, I read it - I found the section on sumo wrestlers better thought out :slight_smile:

Be careful with your interpretation of what they were saying - they don’t say abortions caused a reduction in crime - merely illustrated the correlation and offered an interpretation of the two. As you pointed out, there are stronger variables associated with improved (lower) crime statistics.[/quote]

Actually they say exactly that. It was one of a few factors that lowered crime, but it was a factor. It’s the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, that legalized abortion in the 1970s explains a substantial part of the crime decline in the 1990s:

“We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to
recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion
legalization”

Here’s the study:

Here’s a blog post about critics and rebuttles:

[/quote]

You’re correct - they do make that claim. Not sure if you read the entire paper they published but I thought their closing remark was rather poignant to the point I was trying to make:

“While falling crime rates are no doubt a positive development,
our drawing a link between falling crime and legalized
abortion should not be misinterpreted as either an endorsement
of abortion or a call for intervention by the state in the fertility
decisions of women. Furthermore, equivalent reductions in crime
could in principle be obtained through alternatives for abortion,
such as more effective birth control, or providing better environments
for those children at greatest risk for future crime.”

That’s what I was trying to say when I said “be careful how you interpret the study”[/quote]

Fair enough, they (and I) do not propose it as a solution for reducing crime, they only notice that it does.[/quote]

Man, I referenced this study a few years ago on this site and it just went straight to hell … this was a much better discussion[/quote]

I don’t think there is anything particular controversial here and the study seems to be sound with all the relevant caveats in place.

Of course to more fully understand the movement to decriminalize abortion and subsidize it through the state, you need to examine the context of the rapid increase in black criminality following the expansion of the welfare state via the Great Society and Civil Rights legislation in the 60’s.

In the post war period black families were stronger than ever and rapidly closing the economic gap despite Jim Crow. The economic effects of the welfare cliff coupled with the communist propaganda of the Civil Rights movement destroyed black families and trapped black people in a multi-generational serfdom to the Democratic party.

The response to the uncontrollable rise in crime was the black Eugenics movement via Sanger/Planned parenthood and Roe V. Wade.

In 150 years the Democratic party has gone form breeding black slaves for labor to breeding them for votes achieving the depths of human tragedy rarely seen throughout human history.

70

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

In 150 years the Democratic party has gone form breeding black slaves for labor to breeding them for votes achieving the depths of human tragedy rarely seen throughout human history.[/quote]

BINGO!

71

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

In 150 years the Democratic party has gone form breeding black slaves for labor to breeding them for votes achieving the depths of human tragedy rarely seen throughout human history.[/quote]

I’m not disagreeing that the programs the Democratic party have used have hurt the people they were supposed to be helping, but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that being poor in America today is at the depths of human tragedy rarely seen throughout human history. Really? Have you ever been to India? Numerous poor South American countries? That’s today. Do you really want to compare the poor in current America who have with A/C, cell phones, TV, heat, shelter, and food with all of history??

72

Shooting at a playground in New Orleans. Anyone hear about it? Doubtful because it goes against the narrative …

73

One more of many against the narrative

Few have heard about this. No horde of white people marching in the streets.

74

PonyWhisperer,
According to the very easy to read chartâ?¦
Black on white murders numbered 431, while white on black murders numbered 193… 431/193=2.233 Meaning there were more than twice as many black on white murders as there were white on black murders.
Secondly, there were a total of 1,804 + 1,045+26 = 2,875 white murderers in 2012, compared with 2,257 + 622+17 = 2,896 black murderers in 2012. Meaning more than half of all murders in 2012 were committed by the black population.
Lastly, and perhaps most relevant, the black population in the U.S. is just 12.5 percent of total.
My math isnâ??t great eitherâ?¦but Iâ??m guessing that this was the pointâ?¦
So��