|
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. |
What's this talk about breeding?
is this about cattle, cabbage or humans?
|
On February 10 2017 20:30 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 20:14 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 19:54 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:25 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:11 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 18:51 Dapper_Cad wrote:
[quote]
I don't get how you don't get it.
Immigrants commit crimes as soon as their barbarous feet stumble onto sacred European soil. Babies, of any and all extractions, are exactly the same, it just takes longer.
i totally disagree with that part. there are a lot of predispositions, susceptibilities, traits(yes, even behavioral) coming directly from nature; not everything is nurture as you make it out to be(but that's a different topic). So you know how to raise / genetically alter babies so that as adults they are guaranteed to commit zero crimes? Does this wondrous technique have a name? first you study if it's heritable ... you know, instead of assuming things. I am assuming that any large sample of human beings of any race/creed/religion will contain individuals that, at some point in their lives, contravene the laws of any given modern nation state. Was this too much? it's to vague, pointless to argue. laws differ, people differ, populations differ, environments differs. unless you have statistics spread across populations, environments, cultures, legal systems ... i'm done here; to many ifs and buts even for me. It's not hard and, ultimately, we're on the same side. You say, rightly, that we should compare immigrant crimes to zero as any and all immigrant crimes committed add to the total number of crimes in a country (I mean it's not like an immigrant could ever prevent a crime, so we should ignore that possibility). I agree, I am just willing to make the following reasonable assumptions: a. Native born populations breed. b. The results of this breeding grow up. c. Greater that 0% of these grown up natives commit crimes. Therefore we need to keep a close eye on native breeding and limit it as and when we can to reduce absolute levels of criminality. We all, of course, desire zero criminality, unless you think some level of criminality is desirable. Is that what you want? Do you want more criminality? Again, I'm really struggling to see what's confusing about this. even if i consider your argument a tangent, on that [b] part: - nope; native+refugee breeding(maybe controlled in some way) and environmental change would be enough to not have breeding alone as an issue. @Simberto: - reductio ad absurdum, impracticability doesn't exist when postulating futures. The problem is that you are using statistics that are utterly useless when investigating what you want to investigate. What people care about is "What is the chance that someone commits a crime on me". And what you need to look at for that are relative numbers, not absolute numbers. Absolute numbers are mostly an indicator of population size. And of course population size increases when you bring in more people. This means that refugees increase population size, and thus increase the absolute number of crimes being committed. It is irrelevant how criminal the refugees are. If 100000 don't commit any crimes, but one little boy steals an apple, absolute crime has still gone up. But relative crime has gone down, and thus your chance of being victim of a crime has decreased. It they, on average, commit more crimes than the native population, relative crime has gone up, and your chance of being a victim of a crime has increased (Not even this is sure, because refugees are also more likely victims of crime). And if you increase the total population through another mean, like for example, reproducing, some of the new humans will commit crimes, and that means that total crime numbers will go up. But relative crime numbers don't have to go up. And those are what is important. This whole discussion about babies, which you absolutely don't seem to grasp, tries to explain this point to you. Absolute crime mostly measures population size, and is not important when gouging your individual risk. Relative crime numbers are what you should care about. that is missing the point and i claimed that in my first reply. babies come one at the time and statistically(in some cases) less than one in a lifetime. nothing absurd there just something completely different. to link it to my posts he needs to have statistics on heritability.
This is infuriating.
You have no idea what people are even talking about.
What you claim to be a problem with the argument has nothing at all to do with the argument, whatsoever. I have no idea how to explain it to you. It is possible that there is a language barrier in the way, but you just don't understand other peoples arguments, and then claim that they are wrong.
Please, please, try to understand peoples arguments before claiming that they are wrong. And then try to understand them again, because you are going to get it wrong the first time around.
|
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 10 2017 20:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 20:30 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 20:14 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 19:54 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:25 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:11 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]i totally disagree with that part. there are a lot of predispositions, susceptibilities, traits(yes, even behavioral) coming directly from nature; not everything is nurture as you make it out to be(but that's a different topic).
So you know how to raise / genetically alter babies so that as adults they are guaranteed to commit zero crimes? Does this wondrous technique have a name? first you study if it's heritable ... you know, instead of assuming things. I am assuming that any large sample of human beings of any race/creed/religion will contain individuals that, at some point in their lives, contravene the laws of any given modern nation state. Was this too much? it's to vague, pointless to argue. laws differ, people differ, populations differ, environments differs. unless you have statistics spread across populations, environments, cultures, legal systems ... i'm done here; to many ifs and buts even for me. It's not hard and, ultimately, we're on the same side. You say, rightly, that we should compare immigrant crimes to zero as any and all immigrant crimes committed add to the total number of crimes in a country (I mean it's not like an immigrant could ever prevent a crime, so we should ignore that possibility). I agree, I am just willing to make the following reasonable assumptions: a. Native born populations breed. b. The results of this breeding grow up. c. Greater that 0% of these grown up natives commit crimes. Therefore we need to keep a close eye on native breeding and limit it as and when we can to reduce absolute levels of criminality. We all, of course, desire zero criminality, unless you think some level of criminality is desirable. Is that what you want? Do you want more criminality? Again, I'm really struggling to see what's confusing about this. even if i consider your argument a tangent, on that [b] part: - nope; native+refugee breeding(maybe controlled in some way) and environmental change would be enough to not have breeding alone as an issue. @Simberto: - reductio ad absurdum, impracticability doesn't exist when postulating futures. The problem is that you are using statistics that are utterly useless when investigating what you want to investigate. What people care about is "What is the chance that someone commits a crime on me". And what you need to look at for that are relative numbers, not absolute numbers. Absolute numbers are mostly an indicator of population size. And of course population size increases when you bring in more people. This means that refugees increase population size, and thus increase the absolute number of crimes being committed. It is irrelevant how criminal the refugees are. If 100000 don't commit any crimes, but one little boy steals an apple, absolute crime has still gone up. But relative crime has gone down, and thus your chance of being victim of a crime has decreased. It they, on average, commit more crimes than the native population, relative crime has gone up, and your chance of being a victim of a crime has increased (Not even this is sure, because refugees are also more likely victims of crime). And if you increase the total population through another mean, like for example, reproducing, some of the new humans will commit crimes, and that means that total crime numbers will go up. But relative crime numbers don't have to go up. And those are what is important. This whole discussion about babies, which you absolutely don't seem to grasp, tries to explain this point to you. Absolute crime mostly measures population size, and is not important when gouging your individual risk. Relative crime numbers are what you should care about. that is missing the point and i claimed that in my first reply. babies come one at the time and statistically(in some cases) less than one in a lifetime. nothing absurd there just something completely different. to link it to my posts he needs to have statistics on heritability. This is infuriating. You have no idea what people are even talking about. What you claim to be a problem with the argument has nothing at all to do with the argument, whatsoever. I have no idea how to explain it to you. It is possible that there is a language barrier in the way, but you just don't understand other peoples arguments, and then claim that they are wrong. Please, please, try to understand peoples arguments before claiming that they are wrong. And then try to understand them again, because you are going to get it wrong the first time around.
I'm not sure understanding is high on his agenda. It does seem more and more like he's trolling which is disappointing.
"Babies come one at a time". Let's just sit with that for a bit and marvel.
|
they are not wrong.
i do not accept their analogy/comparison as an ad absurdum point to my argument because the intrinsic mechanics differ.
you can agree to disagree(or start a different argument).
|
On February 10 2017 20:30 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 20:14 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 19:54 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:25 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:11 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 18:51 Dapper_Cad wrote:
[quote]
I don't get how you don't get it.
Immigrants commit crimes as soon as their barbarous feet stumble onto sacred European soil. Babies, of any and all extractions, are exactly the same, it just takes longer.
i totally disagree with that part. there are a lot of predispositions, susceptibilities, traits(yes, even behavioral) coming directly from nature; not everything is nurture as you make it out to be(but that's a different topic). So you know how to raise / genetically alter babies so that as adults they are guaranteed to commit zero crimes? Does this wondrous technique have a name? first you study if it's heritable ... you know, instead of assuming things. I am assuming that any large sample of human beings of any race/creed/religion will contain individuals that, at some point in their lives, contravene the laws of any given modern nation state. Was this too much? it's to vague, pointless to argue. laws differ, people differ, populations differ, environments differs. unless you have statistics spread across populations, environments, cultures, legal systems ... i'm done here; to many ifs and buts even for me. It's not hard and, ultimately, we're on the same side. You say, rightly, that we should compare immigrant crimes to zero as any and all immigrant crimes committed add to the total number of crimes in a country (I mean it's not like an immigrant could ever prevent a crime, so we should ignore that possibility). I agree, I am just willing to make the following reasonable assumptions: a. Native born populations breed. b. The results of this breeding grow up. c. Greater that 0% of these grown up natives commit crimes. Therefore we need to keep a close eye on native breeding and limit it as and when we can to reduce absolute levels of criminality. We all, of course, desire zero criminality, unless you think some level of criminality is desirable. Is that what you want? Do you want more criminality? Again, I'm really struggling to see what's confusing about this. even if i consider your argument a tangent, on that [b] part: - nope; native+refugee breeding(maybe controlled in some way) and environmental change would be enough to not have breeding alone as an issue. @Simberto: - reductio ad absurdum, impracticability doesn't exist when postulating futures. The problem is that you are using statistics that are utterly useless when investigating what you want to investigate. What people care about is "What is the chance that someone commits a crime on me". And what you need to look at for that are relative numbers, not absolute numbers. Absolute numbers are mostly an indicator of population size. And of course population size increases when you bring in more people. This means that refugees increase population size, and thus increase the absolute number of crimes being committed. It is irrelevant how criminal the refugees are. If 100000 don't commit any crimes, but one little boy steals an apple, absolute crime has still gone up. But relative crime has gone down, and thus your chance of being victim of a crime has decreased. It they, on average, commit more crimes than the native population, relative crime has gone up, and your chance of being a victim of a crime has increased (Not even this is sure, because refugees are also more likely victims of crime). And if you increase the total population through another mean, like for example, reproducing, some of the new humans will commit crimes, and that means that total crime numbers will go up. But relative crime numbers don't have to go up. And those are what is important. This whole discussion about babies, which you absolutely don't seem to grasp, tries to explain this point to you. Absolute crime mostly measures population size, and is not important when gouging your individual risk. Relative crime numbers are what you should care about. that is missing the point and i claimed that in my first reply. babies come one at the time and statistically(in some cases) less than one in a lifetime. nothing absurd there just something completely different. to link it to my posts he needs to have statistics on heritability.
Aha! I got it now. We should make migrants form a line so that they come in one at a time. Moreover, we should have a strict control that there are at most 1 migrant for each native. Then we're good, because now babies and migrants are comparable, and we can proceed with Dapper's Modest Proposal.
We still have a problem with twins (let alone triplets or more), but I suggest we just randomize which one gets to survive in this case to satisfy the one baby at a time rule.
On the plus side, if we block all migrants and cull all babies, neither come in at all (one at a time or otherwise), and I absolutely guarantee that with the decrease in population, there will be a decrease in absolute crime. It will be great. I promise.
|
On February 10 2017 20:48 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 20:30 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 20:14 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 19:54 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:25 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:11 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]i totally disagree with that part. there are a lot of predispositions, susceptibilities, traits(yes, even behavioral) coming directly from nature; not everything is nurture as you make it out to be(but that's a different topic).
So you know how to raise / genetically alter babies so that as adults they are guaranteed to commit zero crimes? Does this wondrous technique have a name? first you study if it's heritable ... you know, instead of assuming things. I am assuming that any large sample of human beings of any race/creed/religion will contain individuals that, at some point in their lives, contravene the laws of any given modern nation state. Was this too much? it's to vague, pointless to argue. laws differ, people differ, populations differ, environments differs. unless you have statistics spread across populations, environments, cultures, legal systems ... i'm done here; to many ifs and buts even for me. It's not hard and, ultimately, we're on the same side. You say, rightly, that we should compare immigrant crimes to zero as any and all immigrant crimes committed add to the total number of crimes in a country (I mean it's not like an immigrant could ever prevent a crime, so we should ignore that possibility). I agree, I am just willing to make the following reasonable assumptions: a. Native born populations breed. b. The results of this breeding grow up. c. Greater that 0% of these grown up natives commit crimes. Therefore we need to keep a close eye on native breeding and limit it as and when we can to reduce absolute levels of criminality. We all, of course, desire zero criminality, unless you think some level of criminality is desirable. Is that what you want? Do you want more criminality? Again, I'm really struggling to see what's confusing about this. even if i consider your argument a tangent, on that [b] part: - nope; native+refugee breeding(maybe controlled in some way) and environmental change would be enough to not have breeding alone as an issue. @Simberto: - reductio ad absurdum, impracticability doesn't exist when postulating futures. The problem is that you are using statistics that are utterly useless when investigating what you want to investigate. What people care about is "What is the chance that someone commits a crime on me". And what you need to look at for that are relative numbers, not absolute numbers. Absolute numbers are mostly an indicator of population size. And of course population size increases when you bring in more people. This means that refugees increase population size, and thus increase the absolute number of crimes being committed. It is irrelevant how criminal the refugees are. If 100000 don't commit any crimes, but one little boy steals an apple, absolute crime has still gone up. But relative crime has gone down, and thus your chance of being victim of a crime has decreased. It they, on average, commit more crimes than the native population, relative crime has gone up, and your chance of being a victim of a crime has increased (Not even this is sure, because refugees are also more likely victims of crime). And if you increase the total population through another mean, like for example, reproducing, some of the new humans will commit crimes, and that means that total crime numbers will go up. But relative crime numbers don't have to go up. And those are what is important. This whole discussion about babies, which you absolutely don't seem to grasp, tries to explain this point to you. Absolute crime mostly measures population size, and is not important when gouging your individual risk. Relative crime numbers are what you should care about. that is missing the point and i claimed that in my first reply. babies come one at the time and statistically(in some cases) less than one in a lifetime. nothing absurd there just something completely different. to link it to my posts he needs to have statistics on heritability. Aha! I got it now. We should make migrants form a line so that they come in one at a time. Moreover, we should have a strict control that there are at most 1 migrant for each native. Then we're good, because now babies and migrants are comparable, and we can proceed with Dapper's Modest Proposal. We still have a problem with twins (let alone triplets or more), but I suggest we just randomize which one gets to survive in this case to satisfy the one baby at a time rule. On the plus side, if we block all migrants and cull all babies, neither come in at all (one at a time or otherwise), and I absolutely guarantee that with the decrease in population, there will be a decrease in absolute crime. It will be great. I promise. see, at least this guy turns it into a joke which is fine, i think, for him ... it satisfies him somehow.
nothing to do with the point and he expects nothing from his ridicule but at least i get it.
|
On February 10 2017 20:47 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 20:36 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 20:30 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 20:14 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 19:54 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:25 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:
[quote]
So you know how to raise / genetically alter babies so that as adults they are guaranteed to commit zero crimes? Does this wondrous technique have a name? first you study if it's heritable ... you know, instead of assuming things. I am assuming that any large sample of human beings of any race/creed/religion will contain individuals that, at some point in their lives, contravene the laws of any given modern nation state. Was this too much? it's to vague, pointless to argue. laws differ, people differ, populations differ, environments differs. unless you have statistics spread across populations, environments, cultures, legal systems ... i'm done here; to many ifs and buts even for me. It's not hard and, ultimately, we're on the same side. You say, rightly, that we should compare immigrant crimes to zero as any and all immigrant crimes committed add to the total number of crimes in a country (I mean it's not like an immigrant could ever prevent a crime, so we should ignore that possibility). I agree, I am just willing to make the following reasonable assumptions: a. Native born populations breed. b. The results of this breeding grow up. c. Greater that 0% of these grown up natives commit crimes. Therefore we need to keep a close eye on native breeding and limit it as and when we can to reduce absolute levels of criminality. We all, of course, desire zero criminality, unless you think some level of criminality is desirable. Is that what you want? Do you want more criminality? Again, I'm really struggling to see what's confusing about this. even if i consider your argument a tangent, on that [b] part: - nope; native+refugee breeding(maybe controlled in some way) and environmental change would be enough to not have breeding alone as an issue. @Simberto: - reductio ad absurdum, impracticability doesn't exist when postulating futures. The problem is that you are using statistics that are utterly useless when investigating what you want to investigate. What people care about is "What is the chance that someone commits a crime on me". And what you need to look at for that are relative numbers, not absolute numbers. Absolute numbers are mostly an indicator of population size. And of course population size increases when you bring in more people. This means that refugees increase population size, and thus increase the absolute number of crimes being committed. It is irrelevant how criminal the refugees are. If 100000 don't commit any crimes, but one little boy steals an apple, absolute crime has still gone up. But relative crime has gone down, and thus your chance of being victim of a crime has decreased. It they, on average, commit more crimes than the native population, relative crime has gone up, and your chance of being a victim of a crime has increased (Not even this is sure, because refugees are also more likely victims of crime). And if you increase the total population through another mean, like for example, reproducing, some of the new humans will commit crimes, and that means that total crime numbers will go up. But relative crime numbers don't have to go up. And those are what is important. This whole discussion about babies, which you absolutely don't seem to grasp, tries to explain this point to you. Absolute crime mostly measures population size, and is not important when gouging your individual risk. Relative crime numbers are what you should care about. that is missing the point and i claimed that in my first reply. babies come one at the time and statistically(in some cases) less than one in a lifetime. nothing absurd there just something completely different. to link it to my posts he needs to have statistics on heritability. This is infuriating. You have no idea what people are even talking about. What you claim to be a problem with the argument has nothing at all to do with the argument, whatsoever. I have no idea how to explain it to you. It is possible that there is a language barrier in the way, but you just don't understand other peoples arguments, and then claim that they are wrong. Please, please, try to understand peoples arguments before claiming that they are wrong. And then try to understand them again, because you are going to get it wrong the first time around. I'm not sure understanding is high on his agenda. It does seem more and more like he's trolling which is disappointing. "Babies come one at a time". Let's just sit with that for a bit and marvel. strawmanning; that is a perfectly valid argument when comparing it with hundreds of refugees coming off a train. it's visual not literal.
i already said i see no difference between refugee babies and native navies(within regulations) so if you can make me see how a grown person = baby(in its immediate impact) i'm all ears/eyes.
|
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 10 2017 20:53 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 20:48 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 20:30 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 20:14 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 19:54 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:25 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:
[quote]
So you know how to raise / genetically alter babies so that as adults they are guaranteed to commit zero crimes? Does this wondrous technique have a name? first you study if it's heritable ... you know, instead of assuming things. I am assuming that any large sample of human beings of any race/creed/religion will contain individuals that, at some point in their lives, contravene the laws of any given modern nation state. Was this too much? it's to vague, pointless to argue. laws differ, people differ, populations differ, environments differs. unless you have statistics spread across populations, environments, cultures, legal systems ... i'm done here; to many ifs and buts even for me. It's not hard and, ultimately, we're on the same side. You say, rightly, that we should compare immigrant crimes to zero as any and all immigrant crimes committed add to the total number of crimes in a country (I mean it's not like an immigrant could ever prevent a crime, so we should ignore that possibility). I agree, I am just willing to make the following reasonable assumptions: a. Native born populations breed. b. The results of this breeding grow up. c. Greater that 0% of these grown up natives commit crimes. Therefore we need to keep a close eye on native breeding and limit it as and when we can to reduce absolute levels of criminality. We all, of course, desire zero criminality, unless you think some level of criminality is desirable. Is that what you want? Do you want more criminality? Again, I'm really struggling to see what's confusing about this. even if i consider your argument a tangent, on that part:
- nope; native+refugee breeding(maybe controlled in some way) and environmental change would be enough to not have breeding alone as an issue.
@Simberto: - reductio ad absurdum, impracticability doesn't exist when postulating futures. The problem is that you are using statistics that are utterly useless when investigating what you want to investigate. What people care about is "What is the chance that someone commits a crime on me". And what you need to look at for that are relative numbers, not absolute numbers. Absolute numbers are mostly an indicator of population size. And of course population size increases when you bring in more people. This means that refugees increase population size, and thus increase the absolute number of crimes being committed. It is irrelevant how criminal the refugees are. If 100000 don't commit any crimes, but one little boy steals an apple, absolute crime has still gone up. But relative crime has gone down, and thus your chance of being victim of a crime has decreased. It they, on average, commit more crimes than the native population, relative crime has gone up, and your chance of being a victim of a crime has increased (Not even this is sure, because refugees are also more likely victims of crime). And if you increase the total population through another mean, like for example, reproducing, some of the new humans will commit crimes, and that means that total crime numbers will go up. But relative crime numbers don't have to go up. And those are what is important. This whole discussion about babies, which you absolutely don't seem to grasp, tries to explain this point to you. Absolute crime mostly measures population size, and is not important when gouging your individual risk. Relative crime numbers are what you should care about. that is missing the point and i claimed that in my first reply. babies come one at the time and statistically(in some cases) less than one in a lifetime. nothing absurd there just something completely different. to link it to my posts he needs to have statistics on heritability. Aha! I got it now. We should make migrants form a line so that they come in one at a time. Moreover, we should have a strict control that there are at most 1 migrant for each native. Then we're good, because now babies and migrants are comparable, and we can proceed with Dapper's Modest Proposal. We still have a problem with twins (let alone triplets or more), but I suggest we just randomize which one gets to survive in this case to satisfy the one baby at a time rule. On the plus side, if we block all migrants and cull all babies, neither come in at all (one at a time or otherwise), and I absolutely guarantee that with the decrease in population, there will be a decrease in absolute crime. It will be great. I promise. see, at least this guy turns it into a joke which is fine, i think, for him ... it satisfies him somehow. nothing to do with the point and he expects nothing from his ridicule but at least i get it.
How is that a joke? He's just reading what you wrote and comprehending it, and good on him. The sooner we reduce absolute crime in our great nations the sooner we can sleep safe at night knowing we're on the right path. I really don't understand why you won't engage.
Unless of course you're trolling, in which case - shame on you.
I mean, if I squint a bit, it sort of looks like you're just peppering word salad with words like "data" and "hereditary", but I refuse to believe that's the case.
[B]On February 10 2017 21:01 xM(Z wrote: Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 20:47 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 20:36 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 20:30 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 20:14 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 19:54 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:25 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:17 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]first you study if it's heritable ...
you know, instead of assuming things.
I am assuming that any large sample of human beings of any race/creed/religion will contain individuals that, at some point in their lives, contravene the laws of any given modern nation state. Was this too much? it's to vague, pointless to argue. laws differ, people differ, populations differ, environments differs. unless you have statistics spread across populations, environments, cultures, legal systems ... i'm done here; to many ifs and buts even for me. It's not hard and, ultimately, we're on the same side. You say, rightly, that we should compare immigrant crimes to zero as any and all immigrant crimes committed add to the total number of crimes in a country (I mean it's not like an immigrant could ever prevent a crime, so we should ignore that possibility). I agree, I am just willing to make the following reasonable assumptions: a. Native born populations breed. b. The results of this breeding grow up. c. Greater that 0% of these grown up natives commit crimes. Therefore we need to keep a close eye on native breeding and limit it as and when we can to reduce absolute levels of criminality. We all, of course, desire zero criminality, unless you think some level of criminality is desirable. Is that what you want? Do you want more criminality? Again, I'm really struggling to see what's confusing about this. even if i consider your argument a tangent, on that [b] part: - nope; native+refugee breeding(maybe controlled in some way) and environmental change would be enough to not have breeding alone as an issue. @Simberto: - reductio ad absurdum, impracticability doesn't exist when postulating futures. The problem is that you are using statistics that are utterly useless when investigating what you want to investigate. What people care about is "What is the chance that someone commits a crime on me". And what you need to look at for that are relative numbers, not absolute numbers. Absolute numbers are mostly an indicator of population size. And of course population size increases when you bring in more people. This means that refugees increase population size, and thus increase the absolute number of crimes being committed. It is irrelevant how criminal the refugees are. If 100000 don't commit any crimes, but one little boy steals an apple, absolute crime has still gone up. But relative crime has gone down, and thus your chance of being victim of a crime has decreased. It they, on average, commit more crimes than the native population, relative crime has gone up, and your chance of being a victim of a crime has increased (Not even this is sure, because refugees are also more likely victims of crime). And if you increase the total population through another mean, like for example, reproducing, some of the new humans will commit crimes, and that means that total crime numbers will go up. But relative crime numbers don't have to go up. And those are what is important. This whole discussion about babies, which you absolutely don't seem to grasp, tries to explain this point to you. Absolute crime mostly measures population size, and is not important when gouging your individual risk. Relative crime numbers are what you should care about. that is missing the point and i claimed that in my first reply. babies come one at the time and statistically(in some cases) less than one in a lifetime. nothing absurd there just something completely different. to link it to my posts he needs to have statistics on heritability. This is infuriating. You have no idea what people are even talking about. What you claim to be a problem with the argument has nothing at all to do with the argument, whatsoever. I have no idea how to explain it to you. It is possible that there is a language barrier in the way, but you just don't understand other peoples arguments, and then claim that they are wrong. Please, please, try to understand peoples arguments before claiming that they are wrong. And then try to understand them again, because you are going to get it wrong the first time around. I'm not sure understanding is high on his agenda. It does seem more and more like he's trolling which is disappointing. "Babies come one at a time". Let's just sit with that for a bit and marvel. strawmanning; that is a perfectly valid argument when comparing it with hundreds of refugees coming off a train. it's visual not literal. i already said i see no difference between refugee babies and native navies(within regulations) so if you can make me see how a grown person = baby(in its immediate impact) i'm all ears/eyes.
Here I think you're a little lost. You're comparing one mother with one train. Couldn't we put a bunch of mothers on a train? Would we be making more sense then?
|
The immeditate or delayed impact has nothing to do with what the argument is about. At all.
The argument is about the fact that absolute crime numbers are not what you should look at. That is literally all there is. Stop making it more complicated.
Edit: Also, you guys are bad at making plans for reducing absolute crime. Just nuke all major cities. Instant drop in crime, none of your delayed effect antics.
|
xmz's posts are like the inverse of fluidrone's; all of the lunacy in fluidrone's thinking is plainly evidenced by his use of spoilers and fragmented sentences. xmz's is a more mischievous, latent inanity. After all, most of us just can't grasp the insight in saying that babies can't commit crimes the same way adults can, so we really should be thankful that xmz is here to bring trains into the mix as well.
On a related note, what are your thoughts on this clip, xmz? I think Frank is on to something.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 10 2017 21:10 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 20:53 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 20:48 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 20:30 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 20:14 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 19:54 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:25 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:17 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]first you study if it's heritable ...
you know, instead of assuming things.
I am assuming that any large sample of human beings of any race/creed/religion will contain individuals that, at some point in their lives, contravene the laws of any given modern nation state. Was this too much? it's to vague, pointless to argue. laws differ, people differ, populations differ, environments differs. unless you have statistics spread across populations, environments, cultures, legal systems ... i'm done here; to many ifs and buts even for me. It's not hard and, ultimately, we're on the same side. You say, rightly, that we should compare immigrant crimes to zero as any and all immigrant crimes committed add to the total number of crimes in a country (I mean it's not like an immigrant could ever prevent a crime, so we should ignore that possibility). I agree, I am just willing to make the following reasonable assumptions: a. Native born populations breed. b. The results of this breeding grow up. c. Greater that 0% of these grown up natives commit crimes. Therefore we need to keep a close eye on native breeding and limit it as and when we can to reduce absolute levels of criminality. We all, of course, desire zero criminality, unless you think some level of criminality is desirable. Is that what you want? Do you want more criminality? Again, I'm really struggling to see what's confusing about this. even if i consider your argument a tangent, on that part:
- nope; native+refugee breeding(maybe controlled in some way) and environmental change would be enough to not have breeding alone as an issue.
@Simberto: - reductio ad absurdum, impracticability doesn't exist when postulating futures. The problem is that you are using statistics that are utterly useless when investigating what you want to investigate. What people care about is "What is the chance that someone commits a crime on me". And what you need to look at for that are relative numbers, not absolute numbers. Absolute numbers are mostly an indicator of population size. And of course population size increases when you bring in more people. This means that refugees increase population size, and thus increase the absolute number of crimes being committed. It is irrelevant how criminal the refugees are. If 100000 don't commit any crimes, but one little boy steals an apple, absolute crime has still gone up. But relative crime has gone down, and thus your chance of being victim of a crime has decreased. It they, on average, commit more crimes than the native population, relative crime has gone up, and your chance of being a victim of a crime has increased (Not even this is sure, because refugees are also more likely victims of crime). And if you increase the total population through another mean, like for example, reproducing, some of the new humans will commit crimes, and that means that total crime numbers will go up. But relative crime numbers don't have to go up. And those are what is important. This whole discussion about babies, which you absolutely don't seem to grasp, tries to explain this point to you. Absolute crime mostly measures population size, and is not important when gouging your individual risk. Relative crime numbers are what you should care about. that is missing the point and i claimed that in my first reply. babies come one at the time and statistically(in some cases) less than one in a lifetime. nothing absurd there just something completely different. to link it to my posts he needs to have statistics on heritability. Aha! I got it now. We should make migrants form a line so that they come in one at a time. Moreover, we should have a strict control that there are at most 1 migrant for each native. Then we're good, because now babies and migrants are comparable, and we can proceed with Dapper's Modest Proposal. We still have a problem with twins (let alone triplets or more), but I suggest we just randomize which one gets to survive in this case to satisfy the one baby at a time rule. On the plus side, if we block all migrants and cull all babies, neither come in at all (one at a time or otherwise), and I absolutely guarantee that with the decrease in population, there will be a decrease in absolute crime. It will be great. I promise. see, at least this guy turns it into a joke which is fine, i think, for him ... it satisfies him somehow. nothing to do with the point and he expects nothing from his ridicule but at least i get it. How is that a joke? He's just reading what you wrote and comprehending it, and good on him. The sooner we reduce absolute crime in our great nations the sooner we can sleep safe at night knowing we're on the right path. I really don't understand why you won't engage. Unless of course you're trolling, in which case - shame on you. I mean, if I squint a bit, it sort of looks like you're just peppering word salad with words like "data" and "hereditary", but I refuse to believe that's the case. Show nested quote +[B]On February 10 2017 21:01 xM(Z wrote: On February 10 2017 20:47 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 20:36 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 20:30 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 20:14 Simberto wrote:On February 10 2017 19:54 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 19:25 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 19:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:
[quote]
I am assuming that any large sample of human beings of any race/creed/religion will contain individuals that, at some point in their lives, contravene the laws of any given modern nation state. Was this too much?
it's to vague, pointless to argue. laws differ, people differ, populations differ, environments differs. unless you have statistics spread across populations, environments, cultures, legal systems ... i'm done here; to many ifs and buts even for me. It's not hard and, ultimately, we're on the same side. You say, rightly, that we should compare immigrant crimes to zero as any and all immigrant crimes committed add to the total number of crimes in a country (I mean it's not like an immigrant could ever prevent a crime, so we should ignore that possibility). I agree, I am just willing to make the following reasonable assumptions: a. Native born populations breed. b. The results of this breeding grow up. c. Greater that 0% of these grown up natives commit crimes. Therefore we need to keep a close eye on native breeding and limit it as and when we can to reduce absolute levels of criminality. We all, of course, desire zero criminality, unless you think some level of criminality is desirable. Is that what you want? Do you want more criminality? Again, I'm really struggling to see what's confusing about this. even if i consider your argument a tangent, on that part:
- nope; native+refugee breeding(maybe controlled in some way) and environmental change would be enough to not have breeding alone as an issue.
@Simberto: - reductio ad absurdum, impracticability doesn't exist when postulating futures. The problem is that you are using statistics that are utterly useless when investigating what you want to investigate. What people care about is "What is the chance that someone commits a crime on me". And what you need to look at for that are relative numbers, not absolute numbers. Absolute numbers are mostly an indicator of population size. And of course population size increases when you bring in more people. This means that refugees increase population size, and thus increase the absolute number of crimes being committed. It is irrelevant how criminal the refugees are. If 100000 don't commit any crimes, but one little boy steals an apple, absolute crime has still gone up. But relative crime has gone down, and thus your chance of being victim of a crime has decreased. It they, on average, commit more crimes than the native population, relative crime has gone up, and your chance of being a victim of a crime has increased (Not even this is sure, because refugees are also more likely victims of crime). And if you increase the total population through another mean, like for example, reproducing, some of the new humans will commit crimes, and that means that total crime numbers will go up. But relative crime numbers don't have to go up. And those are what is important. This whole discussion about babies, which you absolutely don't seem to grasp, tries to explain this point to you. Absolute crime mostly measures population size, and is not important when gouging your individual risk. Relative crime numbers are what you should care about. that is missing the point and i claimed that in my first reply. babies come one at the time and statistically(in some cases) less than one in a lifetime. nothing absurd there just something completely different. to link it to my posts he needs to have statistics on heritability. This is infuriating. You have no idea what people are even talking about. What you claim to be a problem with the argument has nothing at all to do with the argument, whatsoever. I have no idea how to explain it to you. It is possible that there is a language barrier in the way, but you just don't understand other peoples arguments, and then claim that they are wrong. Please, please, try to understand peoples arguments before claiming that they are wrong. And then try to understand them again, because you are going to get it wrong the first time around. I'm not sure understanding is high on his agenda. It does seem more and more like he's trolling which is disappointing. "Babies come one at a time". Let's just sit with that for a bit and marvel. strawmanning; that is a perfectly valid argument when comparing it with hundreds of refugees coming off a train. it's visual not literal. i already said i see no difference between refugee babies and native navies(within regulations) so if you can make me see how a grown person = baby(in its immediate impact) i'm all ears/eyes. Here I think you're a little lost. You're comparing one mother with one train. Couldn't we put a bunch of mothers on a train? Would we be making more sense then?
A visual aid:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9Ub7bCu.jpg)
[B]On February 10 2017 21:11 Simberto wrote:
The immeditate or delayed impact has nothing to do with what the argument is about. At all.
The argument is about the fact that absolute crime numbers are not what you should look at. That is literally all there is. Stop making it more complicated.
Edit: Also, you guys are bad at making plans for reducing absolute crime. Just nuke all major cities. Instant drop in crime, none of your delayed effect antics.
I follow your logic, but it seems a little extreme.
|
absolute crime numbers have no relevance on an individual basis. focusing on it is the reason you lose elections, church members or perspective for that matter(that, plus credibility coming from other people(often affected by crime) are worth more than your media snippets).
i told you how people perceive crime and you're telling me nope, you should see it like this ... because statistics.
 at the conversation but it's apples and oranges.
Edit: and the immediate impact has everything to do with it.
|
United Kingdom964 Posts
Another visual aid:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2znLnWF.jpg)
If everyone involved in this conversation could just give a number out of 100 for where they stand I think we'll all make a lot more sense.
|
Nice graph, though it fails to appropriately represent the "one at a time, babies on trains" concept; perhaps another axis will have to do.
|
On February 10 2017 21:26 xM(Z wrote:
absolute crime numbers have no relevance on an individual basis. focusing on it is the reason you lose elections, church members or perspective for that matter(that, plus credibility coming from other people(often affected by crime) are worth more than your media snippets).
But...but...but...but...
YOU WERE THE ONE THAT FOCUSED ON ABSOLUTE CRIME NUMBERS
You have to be trolling here.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
OK people this was all fun, but can we return back on topic please.
|
On February 10 2017 17:48 xM(Z wrote:
a note here - you people are comparing crimes of refugees vs crimes of natives and i think that's wrong. you should compare crimes of refugees with 0 because they're on top of.
native crimes would've happen regardless but refugee crimes are forced upon, are an added bonus. On February 10 2017 21:26 xM(Z wrote:
absolute crime numbers have no relevance on an individual basis.
Actually I want to take step and congratulate xM(Z for actually engaging with the forum, as opposed to merely talking crap and then leaving.
|
United Kingdom964 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +On February 10 2017 21:45 farvacola wrote:
Nice graph, though it fails to appropriately represent the "one at a time, babies on trains" concept; perhaps another axis will have to do. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZSsKCmk.jpg) I tried, but I think it's beginning to get a bit too cluttered to be genuinely useful. And if people somehow start having babies 3 at a time it's just going to get worse. On February 10 2017 21:51 zatic wrote:
OK people this was all fun, but can we return back on topic please. spoilered and I'm out.
|
Request to please extract the conversation starting at post #13236 and ending here into a new topic, which can be closed for immediate archiving in the closed thread lounge?
|
I think we missed the key, immigrant problem is not only about proving statistics. We need statistics to make a clear barriers and visualisation of a problem. And even tho all the problems in our society comes from cultural/wealth/religion/any other minor thing differences we need to make a specific "rules" for such problems, these rules should be able to be shifted fast enough in order for better people adaptation.
So we got two different groups of immigrants, the ones who looking for sanctuary let's say, and the others who is looking for an "american dream". While second group obviously would have better and more useful impact on locals overall, the first one may cause some issues and that's why it would be important to make a closer look. And if u want to prevent any kinds of threats from group #1 - u have to make it with specific regulation.
As an example:
- country "A" creates special quota for refugees considering it's own population and country size and economical power let's say for a 500,000 of units for 5 years
- these quota may be separated for refugees from different let's say continents
- if any refugee stays employed for let's say 3 years and has no crime activity - gets citizenship so that clears overall quota for 1 unit
In order to get to the sanctuary in county "A" any refugee needs to
- prove it's identity (age, name, nationality, religion) - so this is the way to check for anything bad those person already made or related with
- pass the language test on local/english language - in order for a smooth and faster integration to a society
- pass specific culture exam or test that related to local country/region
- if a refugee stays unepmployed withit let's say 6 moths - deportation
- if a refugee commits the smallest crime within 12 months - deportation
- making a specific flexible regulations for single females/pregnant females/disabled people
In other words this list looks like VISA conditions, but that's much less conditions needed in comparison to wealthy group 2 of immigrants i'd say.
That's just my thoughts but when I started to write down these examples it was easier than I though by the end.
Providing some kind of these policies potentially helps any who involved, locals and refugees, cause those would be mostly "useful" refugees, the problem comes what to do with the rest who wasn't able to pass the tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
