Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On January 21 2014 04:54 FallDownMarigold wrote: You made the massive claim: "Gun control causes crime rate increase"
You made such a fuss about it being such a hard fact that you went as far as to label anyone "ignoring" the "fact".
Then, when called out on it -- because clearly any fact so certain would be corroborated by many independently peer reviewed journal articles in peer reviewed journals (re: not law reviews) -- and asked for evidence, all you can muster up is .... NOTHING!
Hahaha
Can you show me some peer reviewed journals that conclude "any fact so certain would be corroborated by many independently peer reviewed journal articles in peer reviewed journals"?
Zaqwe, do you realize that your argument is that eugenics is more effective than social programs which are proven to be effective in countries with good social programs?
On January 21 2014 03:56 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. You support gun control out of spite for people who tend to oppose gun control, regardless of the fact that gun control causes crime?
That seems incredibly petty and cruel. The people who suffer most from increased crime rates are not gun rights advocates, but the impoverished you feign sympathy for.
[quote] Gun control increases crime rates. Full stop.
If you had any regard for the facts you wouldn't be pretending otherwise.
provide links to a set of peer reviewed studies concluding "gun control increases crime rates"
The article concludes that gun control cannot be proven to be effective given the available data, and that this conclusion should be taken with a grain of salt. Not that it increases homicide rates.
On January 21 2014 04:23 Zaqwe wrote:
On January 21 2014 04:00 Djzapz wrote:
On January 21 2014 03:56 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. You are suggesting people should support gun control out of spite for people who tend to support gun rights, regardless of the fact that gun control causes crime?
That seems incredibly petty as the people who suffer most from the increased crime rates are not gun rights advocates, but rather the poor people you feign sympathy for.
[quote] Gun control increases crime rates. Full stop.
If you had any regard for the facts you wouldn't be pretending otherwise.
No no, I guess I'm being misunderstood here. I was basically saying that many people who support the political position that there shouldn't be gun control (that I largely agree with) should at least be aware that certain social programs would reduce violence in society. Since gun control doesn't work, turn to something else. Don't just leave the problem as it is.
As for the idea that gun control increases crime rates, I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence of that. I know that areas with gun control have more crime but that could be because high crime areas get gun control legislation first. That said I wouldn't dismiss the evidence if I saw it, and I think it could very well be true in the US.
I was getting criticized for mentioning this rather than going after the 'liberals' who are pro gun control, and I do actually criticize them. I've actually convinced many of my friends and colleagues here in Quebec that gun control wouldn't prevent shootings in the US.
That's a subject for a different thread. But what you are saying is really not true.
Nation's poorest county has low crime rate
Does poverty cause the crime? Or does crime cause the poverty?
Turns out they're both trick questions. It's not a chicken-egg, parent-child; cause-and-effect relationship.
Rather, the two are often siblings, twin children of low intelligence.
Psychologist Arthur Jensen demonstrated that males with IQs between 70 and 90, aged 18 to 49 commit nearly all violent crimes. That same lack of intelligence also causes poverty, though not all poverty is caused by low intelligence.
The low crime rate in Appalachia, for example, reveals that poverty can be circumstantial rather than inherent due to low intelligence and, when that is the case, it is reflected in a low crime rate.
You've just invalidated social sciences with a completely different outlook. I'll cease being a university teacher now solely off of that chicken and egg analogy madness. Fucking psychology and blogspot, jesus fuck.
Did you not read past the first two sentences? It's anecdotal evidence but it certainly contradicts your claims--for which you have provided no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
If you prefer empirical evidence, this graph is taken from a study of more than 11,000 people. You can see that, while increasing SES lowers the risk of incarceration only a little bit, increasing IQ lowers the risk sharply.
Poverty and social inequality are different things. I don't disagree that low IQ can lead to crime.
Why do men have higher crime rates than women?
Is there social inequality between them? What sort of social inequality?
So I mentioned social inequality and you outright assumed that I was saying that social inequality is the only influential factor? What is this, third grade?
Heads up, society is complicated.
You're just dancing around the fact that social programs like welfare are pretty ineffective and probably counterproductive as they assist the worst segments of society in reproducing. Free abortions perhaps would be the best social program possible.
On the other hand letting people arm themselves and shoot criminals--for example when a criminal pins them to the ground and beats them in the head--is relatively much more effective. Maybe after 10,000 years of gun rights and strong self-defense laws America will have a crime rate as low as Japan.
Of course if you wanted to accelerate the process you could just replace the population of America with Japanese people.
How do you explain that societies with relatively strong social programs have low crime rates then :/. I think you've just discredited yourself more than you had before by essentially bringing up eugenics as a solution to criminality.
Sigh.
How do you explain why Appalachia has a low crime rate without the benefit of social programs while inner cities with Section 8 housing and foodstamps have high crime rates?
On January 21 2014 04:58 Djzapz wrote: Zaqwe, do you realize that your argument is that eugenics is more effective than social programs which are proven to be effective in countries with good social programs?
The article concludes that gun control cannot be proven to be effective given the available data, and that this conclusion should be taken with a grain of salt. Not that it increases homicide rates.
On January 21 2014 04:23 Zaqwe wrote:
On January 21 2014 04:00 Djzapz wrote: [quote] No no, I guess I'm being misunderstood here. I was basically saying that many people who support the political position that there shouldn't be gun control (that I largely agree with) should at least be aware that certain social programs would reduce violence in society. Since gun control doesn't work, turn to something else. Don't just leave the problem as it is.
As for the idea that gun control increases crime rates, I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence of that. I know that areas with gun control have more crime but that could be because high crime areas get gun control legislation first. That said I wouldn't dismiss the evidence if I saw it, and I think it could very well be true in the US.
I was getting criticized for mentioning this rather than going after the 'liberals' who are pro gun control, and I do actually criticize them. I've actually convinced many of my friends and colleagues here in Quebec that gun control wouldn't prevent shootings in the US.
That's a subject for a different thread. But what you are saying is really not true.
Nation's poorest county has low crime rate
Does poverty cause the crime? Or does crime cause the poverty?
Turns out they're both trick questions. It's not a chicken-egg, parent-child; cause-and-effect relationship.
Rather, the two are often siblings, twin children of low intelligence.
Psychologist Arthur Jensen demonstrated that males with IQs between 70 and 90, aged 18 to 49 commit nearly all violent crimes. That same lack of intelligence also causes poverty, though not all poverty is caused by low intelligence.
The low crime rate in Appalachia, for example, reveals that poverty can be circumstantial rather than inherent due to low intelligence and, when that is the case, it is reflected in a low crime rate.
You've just invalidated social sciences with a completely different outlook. I'll cease being a university teacher now solely off of that chicken and egg analogy madness. Fucking psychology and blogspot, jesus fuck.
Did you not read past the first two sentences? It's anecdotal evidence but it certainly contradicts your claims--for which you have provided no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
If you prefer empirical evidence, this graph is taken from a study of more than 11,000 people. You can see that, while increasing SES lowers the risk of incarceration only a little bit, increasing IQ lowers the risk sharply.
Poverty and social inequality are different things. I don't disagree that low IQ can lead to crime.
Why do men have higher crime rates than women?
Is there social inequality between them? What sort of social inequality?
So I mentioned social inequality and you outright assumed that I was saying that social inequality is the only influential factor? What is this, third grade?
Heads up, society is complicated.
You're just dancing around the fact that social programs like welfare are pretty ineffective and probably counterproductive as they assist the worst segments of society in reproducing. Free abortions perhaps would be the best social program possible.
On the other hand letting people arm themselves and shoot criminals--for example when a criminal pins them to the ground and beats them in the head--is relatively much more effective. Maybe after 10,000 years of gun rights and strong self-defense laws America will have a crime rate as low as Japan.
Of course if you wanted to accelerate the process you could just replace the population of America with Japanese people.
How do you explain that societies with relatively strong social programs have low crime rates then :/. I think you've just discredited yourself more than you had before by essentially bringing up eugenics as a solution to criminality.
Sigh.
How do you explain why Appalachia has a low crime rate without the benefit of social programs while inner cities with Section 8 housing and foodstamps have high crime rates?
I don't know how I explain that specific example but again a correlation and a tendency doesn't mean that every fucking thing you can think of applies to a rule... This is getting tedious.
There are other ways to reduce crime. Killing all criminals might work too. The downside is that you're killing people. I'm not saying that social equality is the only way, and I'm not saying that social inequality is the only source of criminality. There are plenty of other things which play a role, Appalachia might have a better grasp of those other things or just cultural elements that make criminality less prevalent.
My main concern is that you just nonchalantly bring up eugenics as a solution.
The article concludes that gun control cannot be proven to be effective given the available data, and that this conclusion should be taken with a grain of salt. Not that it increases homicide rates.
On January 21 2014 04:23 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] That's a subject for a different thread. But what you are saying is really not true.
Nation's poorest county has low crime rate
Does poverty cause the crime? Or does crime cause the poverty?
Turns out they're both trick questions. It's not a chicken-egg, parent-child; cause-and-effect relationship.
Rather, the two are often siblings, twin children of low intelligence.
Psychologist Arthur Jensen demonstrated that males with IQs between 70 and 90, aged 18 to 49 commit nearly all violent crimes. That same lack of intelligence also causes poverty, though not all poverty is caused by low intelligence.
The low crime rate in Appalachia, for example, reveals that poverty can be circumstantial rather than inherent due to low intelligence and, when that is the case, it is reflected in a low crime rate.
You've just invalidated social sciences with a completely different outlook. I'll cease being a university teacher now solely off of that chicken and egg analogy madness. Fucking psychology and blogspot, jesus fuck.
Did you not read past the first two sentences? It's anecdotal evidence but it certainly contradicts your claims--for which you have provided no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
If you prefer empirical evidence, this graph is taken from a study of more than 11,000 people. You can see that, while increasing SES lowers the risk of incarceration only a little bit, increasing IQ lowers the risk sharply.
Poverty and social inequality are different things. I don't disagree that low IQ can lead to crime.
Why do men have higher crime rates than women?
Is there social inequality between them? What sort of social inequality?
So I mentioned social inequality and you outright assumed that I was saying that social inequality is the only influential factor? What is this, third grade?
Heads up, society is complicated.
You're just dancing around the fact that social programs like welfare are pretty ineffective and probably counterproductive as they assist the worst segments of society in reproducing. Free abortions perhaps would be the best social program possible.
On the other hand letting people arm themselves and shoot criminals--for example when a criminal pins them to the ground and beats them in the head--is relatively much more effective. Maybe after 10,000 years of gun rights and strong self-defense laws America will have a crime rate as low as Japan.
Of course if you wanted to accelerate the process you could just replace the population of America with Japanese people.
How do you explain that societies with relatively strong social programs have low crime rates then :/. I think you've just discredited yourself more than you had before by essentially bringing up eugenics as a solution to criminality.
Sigh.
How do you explain why Appalachia has a low crime rate without the benefit of social programs while inner cities with Section 8 housing and foodstamps have high crime rates?
I don't know how I explain that specific example but again a correlation and a tendency doesn't mean that every fucking thing you can think of applies to a rule... This is getting tedious.
There are other ways to reduce crime. Killing all criminals might work too. The downside is that you're killing people. I'm not saying that social equality is the only way, and I'm not saying that social inequality is the only source of criminality. There are plenty of other things which play a role, Appalachia might have a better grasp of those other things or just cultural elements that make criminality less prevalent.
My main concern is that you just nonchalantly bring up eugenics as a solution.
Social equality would not eliminate differences in crime rate. Although it would have some impact, it would be little impact at all and still leave a huge gap between the stupid and intelligent.
IQ equality would narrow the gap significantly. But even then between males and females with equivalent IQs, males are more prone to crime.
On January 21 2014 04:34 Zaqwe wrote: [T]his graph is taken from a study of more than 11,000 people. You can see that, while increasing SES lowers the risk of incarceration only a little bit, increasing IQ lowers the risk sharply.
On January 21 2014 04:25 Djzapz wrote: [quote] The article concludes that gun control cannot be proven to be effective given the available data, and that this conclusion should be taken with a grain of salt. Not that it increases homicide rates.
[quote] You've just invalidated social sciences with a completely different outlook. I'll cease being a university teacher now solely off of that chicken and egg analogy madness. Fucking psychology and blogspot, jesus fuck.
Did you not read past the first two sentences? It's anecdotal evidence but it certainly contradicts your claims--for which you have provided no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
If you prefer empirical evidence, this graph is taken from a study of more than 11,000 people. You can see that, while increasing SES lowers the risk of incarceration only a little bit, increasing IQ lowers the risk sharply.
Poverty and social inequality are different things. I don't disagree that low IQ can lead to crime.
Why do men have higher crime rates than women?
Is there social inequality between them? What sort of social inequality?
So I mentioned social inequality and you outright assumed that I was saying that social inequality is the only influential factor? What is this, third grade?
Heads up, society is complicated.
You're just dancing around the fact that social programs like welfare are pretty ineffective and probably counterproductive as they assist the worst segments of society in reproducing. Free abortions perhaps would be the best social program possible.
On the other hand letting people arm themselves and shoot criminals--for example when a criminal pins them to the ground and beats them in the head--is relatively much more effective. Maybe after 10,000 years of gun rights and strong self-defense laws America will have a crime rate as low as Japan.
Of course if you wanted to accelerate the process you could just replace the population of America with Japanese people.
How do you explain that societies with relatively strong social programs have low crime rates then :/. I think you've just discredited yourself more than you had before by essentially bringing up eugenics as a solution to criminality.
Sigh.
How do you explain why Appalachia has a low crime rate without the benefit of social programs while inner cities with Section 8 housing and foodstamps have high crime rates?
I don't know how I explain that specific example but again a correlation and a tendency doesn't mean that every fucking thing you can think of applies to a rule... This is getting tedious.
There are other ways to reduce crime. Killing all criminals might work too. The downside is that you're killing people. I'm not saying that social equality is the only way, and I'm not saying that social inequality is the only source of criminality. There are plenty of other things which play a role, Appalachia might have a better grasp of those other things or just cultural elements that make criminality less prevalent.
My main concern is that you just nonchalantly bring up eugenics as a solution.
Social equality would not eliminate differences in crime rate. Although it would have some impact, it would be little impact at all and still leave a huge gap between the stupid and intelligent.
IQ equality would narrow the gap significantly. But even then between males and females with equivalent IQs, males are more prone to crime.
On January 21 2014 04:34 Zaqwe wrote: [T]his graph is taken from a study of more than 11,000 people. You can see that, while increasing SES lowers the risk of incarceration only a little bit, increasing IQ lowers the risk sharply.
Social equality is one of the major factors. IQ might be another, I don't know. 'IQ equality' probably isn't
The thing is you can work upon social equality. You can't work upon IQ without highly immoral eugenics. Also, is low IQ necessarily hereditary? Can IQ be increased through education? And I'm assuming your study to be legitimate, I haven't read it. But if people with a low IQ do commit more crimes, the solution still isn't to kill them all or oppress them or find a way to weed them out.
If people having a lower IQ means they are more prone to commit gun or violent crime, is that because they have a lower IQ than average, or because of their raw intelligence being lower than some absolute measurement? After all, IQ is set up so that the average is 100.
On January 21 2014 04:34 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] Did you not read past the first two sentences? It's anecdotal evidence but it certainly contradicts your claims--for which you have provided no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
If you prefer empirical evidence, this graph is taken from a study of more than 11,000 people. You can see that, while increasing SES lowers the risk of incarceration only a little bit, increasing IQ lowers the risk sharply.
Poverty and social inequality are different things. I don't disagree that low IQ can lead to crime.
Why do men have higher crime rates than women?
Is there social inequality between them? What sort of social inequality?
So I mentioned social inequality and you outright assumed that I was saying that social inequality is the only influential factor? What is this, third grade?
Heads up, society is complicated.
You're just dancing around the fact that social programs like welfare are pretty ineffective and probably counterproductive as they assist the worst segments of society in reproducing. Free abortions perhaps would be the best social program possible.
On the other hand letting people arm themselves and shoot criminals--for example when a criminal pins them to the ground and beats them in the head--is relatively much more effective. Maybe after 10,000 years of gun rights and strong self-defense laws America will have a crime rate as low as Japan.
Of course if you wanted to accelerate the process you could just replace the population of America with Japanese people.
How do you explain that societies with relatively strong social programs have low crime rates then :/. I think you've just discredited yourself more than you had before by essentially bringing up eugenics as a solution to criminality.
Sigh.
How do you explain why Appalachia has a low crime rate without the benefit of social programs while inner cities with Section 8 housing and foodstamps have high crime rates?
I don't know how I explain that specific example but again a correlation and a tendency doesn't mean that every fucking thing you can think of applies to a rule... This is getting tedious.
There are other ways to reduce crime. Killing all criminals might work too. The downside is that you're killing people. I'm not saying that social equality is the only way, and I'm not saying that social inequality is the only source of criminality. There are plenty of other things which play a role, Appalachia might have a better grasp of those other things or just cultural elements that make criminality less prevalent.
My main concern is that you just nonchalantly bring up eugenics as a solution.
Social equality would not eliminate differences in crime rate. Although it would have some impact, it would be little impact at all and still leave a huge gap between the stupid and intelligent.
IQ equality would narrow the gap significantly. But even then between males and females with equivalent IQs, males are more prone to crime.
On January 21 2014 04:34 Zaqwe wrote: [T]his graph is taken from a study of more than 11,000 people. You can see that, while increasing SES lowers the risk of incarceration only a little bit, increasing IQ lowers the risk sharply.
Social equality is one of the major factors. IQ might be another, I don't know. 'IQ equality' probably isn't
The thing is you can work upon social equality. You can't work upon IQ without highly immoral eugenics. Also, is low IQ necessarily hereditary? Can IQ be increased through education? And I'm assuming your study to be legitimate, I haven't read it. But if people with a low IQ do commit more crimes, the solution still isn't to kill them all or oppress them or find a way to weed them out.
Eugenics isn't all that great mein fuhrer.
Social equality is a very minor factor. Women have not been socially equal to men for most of human history, yet have far lower crime rates. Appalachia has the poorest counties in America but significantly lower than average crime rates. SES increases only slightly reduce criminality.
It's a pie in the sky daydream that "social equality" will fix crime problems. Albeit a very heartwarming daydream. Don't try to smear me as some unfeeling mass murderer. I share the same emotional attachment to your idealism that you do. I just temper my emotions with facts and logic.
The only thing I advocate is freedom. Freedom to bear arms. Freedom to defend yourself when attacked. Freedom to choose (i.e. abortion).
Enacting the "social equality" daydream presumably involves totalitarian redistribution of wealth, unequal rights or privileges based on race or gender classification, reduction of rights like free association and free speech (hurt feelings causes social inequality, right?), and all that for very minimal or no positive gains at all.
You call me Hitler but my views are more similar to the founding fathers of America. I'll let you guess which mass murdering historical figure your views are similar to.
On January 21 2014 05:28 micronesia wrote: If people having a lower IQ means they are more prone to commit gun or violent crime, is that because they have a lower IQ than average, or because of their raw intelligence being lower than some absolute measurement? After all, IQ is set up so that the average is 100.
I don't know what's up but I would hypothesize that perhaps it ties into the social inequality whereby dumb people on average tend to be less productive and therefore less likely to make a good amount of money and therefore more likely to turn to criminality for their subsistence. Perhaps that's PART of it.
Perhaps they're also more likely to have mental issues of various kinds (although I'm no doctor, I'm just brainstorming here). I'm not saying that smart people can't go nuts, that's not it. These kinds of things can also be diminished through the funding of mental institutions. Either way, mental institutions are good to have.
But yeah. Don't go killing dumb people or forcing them to have abortions. The day I have to pass an IQ test to know if my wife can have children is the day I'll start strangling fuckers.
On January 21 2014 05:28 micronesia wrote: If people having a lower IQ means they are more prone to commit gun or violent crime, is that because they have a lower IQ than average, or because of their raw intelligence being lower than some absolute measurement? After all, IQ is set up so that the average is 100.
Presumably because their raw intelligence is below a certain threshold.
I can't imagine an unintelligent person would suddenly be even more likely to commit crime in Japan simply because they fell even further below average.
On February 20 2012 03:21 Romantic wrote: Having lots of guns is not why the US has so much crime.
The US has lots of crime because it has lots of people statistically likely to commit crime.
Thank you! So many parts of the US have gone to complete shit, that guns don't make a difference. With or without guns, there will still be crime, and people will still find a way to kill other people. The problem isn't the guns, it's the people using the guns. And unless something incredible happens to our country in the near future, the problem will not go away. If you take the gun away from a murderer, they are still going to murder people. The only thing gun laws will do is make their victims even more vulnerable/defenseless.
On January 21 2014 04:38 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Poverty and social inequality are different things. I don't disagree that low IQ can lead to crime.
Why do men have higher crime rates than women?
Is there social inequality between them? What sort of social inequality?
So I mentioned social inequality and you outright assumed that I was saying that social inequality is the only influential factor? What is this, third grade?
Heads up, society is complicated.
You're just dancing around the fact that social programs like welfare are pretty ineffective and probably counterproductive as they assist the worst segments of society in reproducing. Free abortions perhaps would be the best social program possible.
On the other hand letting people arm themselves and shoot criminals--for example when a criminal pins them to the ground and beats them in the head--is relatively much more effective. Maybe after 10,000 years of gun rights and strong self-defense laws America will have a crime rate as low as Japan.
Of course if you wanted to accelerate the process you could just replace the population of America with Japanese people.
How do you explain that societies with relatively strong social programs have low crime rates then :/. I think you've just discredited yourself more than you had before by essentially bringing up eugenics as a solution to criminality.
Sigh.
How do you explain why Appalachia has a low crime rate without the benefit of social programs while inner cities with Section 8 housing and foodstamps have high crime rates?
I don't know how I explain that specific example but again a correlation and a tendency doesn't mean that every fucking thing you can think of applies to a rule... This is getting tedious.
There are other ways to reduce crime. Killing all criminals might work too. The downside is that you're killing people. I'm not saying that social equality is the only way, and I'm not saying that social inequality is the only source of criminality. There are plenty of other things which play a role, Appalachia might have a better grasp of those other things or just cultural elements that make criminality less prevalent.
My main concern is that you just nonchalantly bring up eugenics as a solution.
Social equality would not eliminate differences in crime rate. Although it would have some impact, it would be little impact at all and still leave a huge gap between the stupid and intelligent.
IQ equality would narrow the gap significantly. But even then between males and females with equivalent IQs, males are more prone to crime.
On January 21 2014 04:34 Zaqwe wrote: [T]his graph is taken from a study of more than 11,000 people. You can see that, while increasing SES lowers the risk of incarceration only a little bit, increasing IQ lowers the risk sharply.
Social equality is one of the major factors. IQ might be another, I don't know. 'IQ equality' probably isn't
The thing is you can work upon social equality. You can't work upon IQ without highly immoral eugenics. Also, is low IQ necessarily hereditary? Can IQ be increased through education? And I'm assuming your study to be legitimate, I haven't read it. But if people with a low IQ do commit more crimes, the solution still isn't to kill them all or oppress them or find a way to weed them out.
Eugenics isn't all that great mein fuhrer.
Social equality is a very minor factor. Women have not been socially equal to men for most of human history, yet have far lower crime rates. Appalachia has the poorest counties in America but significantly lower than average crime rates. SES increases only slightly reduce criminality.
It's a pie in the sky daydream that "social equality" will fix crime problems. Albeit a very heartwarming daydream. Don't try to smear me as some unfeeling mass murderer. I share the same emotional attachment to your idealism that you do. I just temper my emotions with facts and logic.
The only thing I advocate is freedom. Freedom to bear arms. Freedom to defend yourself when attacked. Freedom to choose (i.e. abortion).
Enacting the "social equality" daydream presumably involves totalitarian redistribution of wealth, unequal rights or privileges based on race or gender classification, reduction of rights like free association and free speech (hurt feelings causes social inequality, right?), and all that for very minimal or no positive gains at all.
You call me Hitler but my views are more similar to the founding fathers of America. I'll let you guess which mass murdering historical figure your views are similar to.
I'm not talking about enacting the 'social equality daydream' you speak of. As for social inequality being a very minor factor, it very clearly isn't - like I said, just crossreference OECD data. The existence of other factors, may they be related to IQ, cultural (gender roles and whatnot), does not allow you to outright dismiss the major differences that are caused by social inequality.
And again, I'm not saying that communism is better. I'm saying that having super broke people in a rich society leads to crime. Don't start killing them and their children.
On January 21 2014 05:28 micronesia wrote: If people having a lower IQ means they are more prone to commit gun or violent crime, is that because they have a lower IQ than average, or because of their raw intelligence being lower than some absolute measurement? After all, IQ is set up so that the average is 100.
I don't know what's up but I would hypothesize that perhaps it ties into the social inequality whereby dumb people on average tend to be less productive and therefore less likely to make a good amount of money and therefore more likely to turn to criminality for their subsistence. Perhaps that's PART of it.
Perhaps they're also more likely to have mental issues of various kinds (although I'm no doctor, I'm just brainstorming here). I'm not saying that smart people can't go nuts, that's not it. These kinds of things can also be diminished through the funding of mental institutions. Either way, mental institutions are good to have.
But yeah. Don't go killing dumb people or forcing them to have abortions. The day I have to pass an IQ test to know if my wife can have children is the day I'll start strangling fuckers.
Why is it you can only think in terms of totalitarianism? Nobody has to be forced to do anything, no matter what the facts show.
I want to analyze the 'reasons' you gave in this post for why social equality is a minor factor in determining what locations will more likely have high violent crime rates, or as you put it, the "pie in the sky daydream" that improving social equality with help combat crime.
On January 21 2014 04:38 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Poverty and social inequality are different things. I don't disagree that low IQ can lead to crime.
Why do men have higher crime rates than women?
Is there social inequality between them? What sort of social inequality?
So I mentioned social inequality and you outright assumed that I was saying that social inequality is the only influential factor? What is this, third grade?
Heads up, society is complicated.
You're just dancing around the fact that social programs like welfare are pretty ineffective and probably counterproductive as they assist the worst segments of society in reproducing. Free abortions perhaps would be the best social program possible.
On the other hand letting people arm themselves and shoot criminals--for example when a criminal pins them to the ground and beats them in the head--is relatively much more effective. Maybe after 10,000 years of gun rights and strong self-defense laws America will have a crime rate as low as Japan.
Of course if you wanted to accelerate the process you could just replace the population of America with Japanese people.
How do you explain that societies with relatively strong social programs have low crime rates then :/. I think you've just discredited yourself more than you had before by essentially bringing up eugenics as a solution to criminality.
Sigh.
How do you explain why Appalachia has a low crime rate without the benefit of social programs while inner cities with Section 8 housing and foodstamps have high crime rates?
I don't know how I explain that specific example but again a correlation and a tendency doesn't mean that every fucking thing you can think of applies to a rule... This is getting tedious.
There are other ways to reduce crime. Killing all criminals might work too. The downside is that you're killing people. I'm not saying that social equality is the only way, and I'm not saying that social inequality is the only source of criminality. There are plenty of other things which play a role, Appalachia might have a better grasp of those other things or just cultural elements that make criminality less prevalent.
My main concern is that you just nonchalantly bring up eugenics as a solution.
Social equality would not eliminate differences in crime rate. Although it would have some impact, it would be little impact at all and still leave a huge gap between the stupid and intelligent.
IQ equality would narrow the gap significantly. But even then between males and females with equivalent IQs, males are more prone to crime.
On January 21 2014 04:34 Zaqwe wrote: [T]his graph is taken from a study of more than 11,000 people. You can see that, while increasing SES lowers the risk of incarceration only a little bit, increasing IQ lowers the risk sharply.
Social equality is one of the major factors. IQ might be another, I don't know. 'IQ equality' probably isn't
The thing is you can work upon social equality. You can't work upon IQ without highly immoral eugenics. Also, is low IQ necessarily hereditary? Can IQ be increased through education? And I'm assuming your study to be legitimate, I haven't read it. But if people with a low IQ do commit more crimes, the solution still isn't to kill them all or oppress them or find a way to weed them out.
Eugenics isn't all that great mein fuhrer.
Social equality is a very minor factor. Women have not been socially equal to men for most of human history, yet have far lower crime rates.
There are other differences between men and women besides levels of social equality. Also, social inequality is very complex... the way in which a social inequality exists (such as the inequalities women have faced during the periods of time where we know men were more 'violent' than women) can directly affect the tendency of a group of people to be violent, even before considering how their level of inequality compares to other groups whose violence levels have been measured. In other words, it's too simple to simply say "women commit less violent crime than men, women have suffered social inequality more than men, therefore inequality doesn't promote violence for a group of people."
Appalachia has the poorest counties in America but significantly lower than average crime rates.
It is most definitely the case that other factors besides how 'poor' a county is, by whatever measure you are using, influence crime rates. If you want to compare Appalachian counties to other high-crime counties you need to account for all of these other factors before the results are comparable.
It's a pie in the sky daydream that "social equality" will fix crime problems. Albeit a very heartwarming daydream. Don't try to smear me as some unfeeling mass murderer.
Whether you are correct here or not, you are lacking both in reasons and evidence to even remotely convince me right now. A complex issue like this cannot be 'solved' with a few apparent counterexamples.
Enacting the "social equality" daydream presumably involves totalitarian redistribution of wealth, unequal rights or privileges based on race or gender classification, reduction of rights like free association and free speech (hurt feelings causes social inequality, right?), and all that for very minimal or no positive gains at all.
This section seems to provide more information about why you are arguing for what you are than any legitimate reasons/evidence you attempted to provide in the post.
On January 21 2014 05:28 micronesia wrote: If people having a lower IQ means they are more prone to commit gun or violent crime, is that because they have a lower IQ than average, or because of their raw intelligence being lower than some absolute measurement? After all, IQ is set up so that the average is 100.
Presumably because their raw intelligence is below a certain threshold.
I can't imagine an unintelligent person would suddenly be even more likely to commit crime in Japan simply because they fell even further below average.
I am far from convinced of this as well. Being below average could as much a cause of certain behavior as just plain being 'dumb.'
On January 21 2014 05:28 micronesia wrote: If people having a lower IQ means they are more prone to commit gun or violent crime, is that because they have a lower IQ than average, or because of their raw intelligence being lower than some absolute measurement? After all, IQ is set up so that the average is 100.
I don't know what's up but I would hypothesize that perhaps it ties into the social inequality whereby dumb people on average tend to be less productive and therefore less likely to make a good amount of money and therefore more likely to turn to criminality for their subsistence. Perhaps that's PART of it.
Perhaps they're also more likely to have mental issues of various kinds (although I'm no doctor, I'm just brainstorming here). I'm not saying that smart people can't go nuts, that's not it. These kinds of things can also be diminished through the funding of mental institutions. Either way, mental institutions are good to have.
But yeah. Don't go killing dumb people or forcing them to have abortions. The day I have to pass an IQ test to know if my wife can have children is the day I'll start strangling fuckers.
Why is it you can only think in terms of totalitarianism? Nobody has to be forced to do anything, no matter what the facts show.
Open your mind to freedom and human rights.
I'm not advocating totalitarianism, what are you talking about? You're the one who's essentially saying that dumb people should largely removed from society. I don't know how you intend to do that but you've never defended yourself when I said you were into eugenics.
Also you seem to think that all social equality measures have to be totalitarian. There are mild and reasonable measures. I'm not saying we should be communists or even socialists.
On January 21 2014 05:28 micronesia wrote: If people having a lower IQ means they are more prone to commit gun or violent crime, is that because they have a lower IQ than average, or because of their raw intelligence being lower than some absolute measurement? After all, IQ is set up so that the average is 100.
I don't know what's up but I would hypothesize that perhaps it ties into the social inequality whereby dumb people on average tend to be less productive and therefore less likely to make a good amount of money and therefore more likely to turn to criminality for their subsistence. Perhaps that's PART of it.
Perhaps they're also more likely to have mental issues of various kinds (although I'm no doctor, I'm just brainstorming here). I'm not saying that smart people can't go nuts, that's not it. These kinds of things can also be diminished through the funding of mental institutions. Either way, mental institutions are good to have.
But yeah. Don't go killing dumb people or forcing them to have abortions. The day I have to pass an IQ test to know if my wife can have children is the day I'll start strangling fuckers.
Why is it you can only think in terms of totalitarianism? Nobody has to be forced to do anything, no matter what the facts show.
Open your mind to freedom and human rights.
I'm not advocating totalitarianism, what are you talking about? You're the one who's essentially saying that dumb people should largely removed from society. I don't know how you intend to do that but you've never defended yourself when I said you were into eugenics.
Also you seem to think that all social equality measures have to be totalitarian. There are mild and reasonable measures. I'm not saying we should be communists or even socialists.
The only thing I have advocated is the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense.
The criminals people need to defend themselves against tend to be unintelligent youths who are male. But that is neither here nor there.
On January 21 2014 05:28 micronesia wrote: If people having a lower IQ means they are more prone to commit gun or violent crime, is that because they have a lower IQ than average, or because of their raw intelligence being lower than some absolute measurement? After all, IQ is set up so that the average is 100.
I don't know what's up but I would hypothesize that perhaps it ties into the social inequality whereby dumb people on average tend to be less productive and therefore less likely to make a good amount of money and therefore more likely to turn to criminality for their subsistence. Perhaps that's PART of it.
Perhaps they're also more likely to have mental issues of various kinds (although I'm no doctor, I'm just brainstorming here). I'm not saying that smart people can't go nuts, that's not it. These kinds of things can also be diminished through the funding of mental institutions. Either way, mental institutions are good to have.
But yeah. Don't go killing dumb people or forcing them to have abortions. The day I have to pass an IQ test to know if my wife can have children is the day I'll start strangling fuckers.
Why is it you can only think in terms of totalitarianism? Nobody has to be forced to do anything, no matter what the facts show.
Open your mind to freedom and human rights.
I'm not advocating totalitarianism, what are you talking about? You're the one who's essentially saying that dumb people should largely removed from society. I don't know how you intend to do that but you've never defended yourself when I said you were into eugenics.
Also you seem to think that all social equality measures have to be totalitarian. There are mild and reasonable measures. I'm not saying we should be communists or even socialists.
The only thing I have advocated is the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense.
The criminals people need to defend themselves against tend to be unintelligent youths who are male. But that is neither here nor there.
Sure whatever, my point is that we have other countries where unintelligent youths who are male don't have as much of a tendency to shoot at people because our first solution to their problems is not to shoot them. The existence of other solutions, even though you consider them to be inferior, are not negligible. The fact that my taxes go toward mental health institutions probably means that a couple of people who might have tried to shot me got treatment instead. And instead of getting shot back, they might be productive members of society now.
On January 21 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote: Sure whatever, my point is that we have other countries where unintelligent youths who are male don't have as much of a tendency to shoot at people
Where is your evidence for this?
You seem to be ignoring demographic differences in intelligence.
On January 21 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote: Sure whatever, my point is that we have other countries where unintelligent youths who are male don't have as much of a tendency to shoot at people
Where is your evidence for this?
You seem to be ignoring demographic differences in intelligence.
I'm unaware of proven genetic differences in intelligence among groups. I know that individuals are not all equal in terms of cognitive abilities but I'm not sure that any countries have people who have lower intellectual capabilities than others on average.
So I'm not convinced that Switzerland or Sweden or Finland's crime is lower than the US's because their youth are inherently smarter.
Where's your evidence for certain classifications of people being dumber? And if you pull the IQ tests that compare uneducated black kids to rich white kids from expensive private schools, I'll be very disappointed. Eugenics inc. Hint: All those studies are strongly contested.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4935/3xuf.png)
