Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If it's cultural why are murderers rare in all cultures?
I didn't say "murder is cultural". I'm saying a propensity for gun violence --- which is the topic here --- is cultural.
This is a good time to repost this old chestnut:
I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.
Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.
The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people.
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.
What's going on here?
One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.
I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)
And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.
People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)
704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.
What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?
Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats
(2) Freep.com 1/3/13
A Tale of Two Cities
Murder-Free Two Years
The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.
Minority poplulation.......driven by decades of single teenage girls raising boys without fathers.......give us the out of wedlock birth rate for the two cities......
It would seem to be hard to find a pattern between out of wedlock births, and the murder rate in Europe.
The highest out of wedlock birth rate in Europe is Iceland at over 66%, and the lowest in Greece at over 8%.
While that's a big disparity, there's no such big disparity between murder between the 2.
In fact, the murder rate is higher in Greece at 1.1 out of 100,000 than Iceland at 0.3 out of 100,000.
Sources.
Legitimacy (family law) - Wikipedia
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
If it's cultural why are murderers rare in all cultures?
I didn't say "murder is cultural". I'm saying a propensity for gun violence --- which is the topic here --- is cultural.
This is a good time to repost this old chestnut:
I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.
Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.
The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people.
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.
What's going on here?
One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.
I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)
And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.
People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)
704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.
What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?
Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats
(2) Freep.com 1/3/13
A Tale of Two Cities
Murder-Free Two Years
The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.
Minority poplulation.......driven by decades of single teenage girls raising boys without fathers.......give us the out of wedlock birth rate for the two cities......
It would seem to be hard to find a pattern between out of wedlock births, and the murder rate in Europe.
The highest out of wedlock birth rate in Europe is Iceland at over 66%, and the lowest in Greece at over 8%.
While that's a big disparity, there's no such big disparity between murder between the 2.
In fact, the murder rate is higher in Greece at 1.1 out of 100,000 than Iceland at 0.3 out of 100,000.
Sources.
Legitimacy (family law) - Wikipedia
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
Their culture was able to hold off the effects....I would say this is a result of World War 2 and it's effects on those European societies.....no they have had decades of social welfare programs where single teenage girls are having children by multiple, violent, abusive men, and the young males are not being civilized the way they used to be.........
If it's cultural why are murderers rare in all cultures?
I didn't say "murder is cultural". I'm saying a propensity for gun violence --- which is the topic here --- is cultural.
This is a good time to repost this old chestnut:
I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.
Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.
The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people.
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.
What's going on here?
One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.
I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)
And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.
People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)
704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.
What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?
Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats
(2) Freep.com 1/3/13
A Tale of Two Cities
Murder-Free Two Years
The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.
Minority poplulation.......driven by decades of single teenage girls raising boys without fathers.......give us the out of wedlock birth rate for the two cities......
It would seem to be hard to find a pattern between out of wedlock births, and the murder rate in Europe.
The highest out of wedlock birth rate in Europe is Iceland at over 66%, and the lowest in Greece at over 8%.
While that's a big disparity, there's no such big disparity between murder between the 2.
In fact, the murder rate is higher in Greece at 1.1 out of 100,000 than Iceland at 0.3 out of 100,000.
Sources.
Legitimacy (family law) - Wikipedia
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
Their culture was able to hold off the effects....I would say this is a result of World War 2 and it's effects on those European societies.....no they have had decades of social welfare programs where single teenage girls are having children by multiple, violent, abusive men, and the young males are not being civilized the way they used to be.........
What about the 2 repeating allele on MAO-A linked with criminality, being highest in Blacks, intermediate in Whites, and lowest in Asians, could this have some thing to do with the differences?
and only people like you who are afraid of guns think the mere fact that a person is carrying is a threat
If your theory worked, wouldn't states outlaw concealed carry, and instead have all it's armed citizens go around letting people know they were armed citizens?
and you conveniently ignore the fact that that bb gun looked just like an automatic pistol and no one could have told the difference from a dozen feet awayYou are welcome to shoot black kids carrying BB guns and taking your chances with the jury.OJ and Robert Blake were found guiltless too.Wasn't it already out? Sorry, but the police officer was too quick to shoot. He had cover and the "suspect" wasn't pointing the gun at him. He had time to take control of the situation.No, pulling it out while in front of a police officer is.
Three experienced police officers who testified agreed the situation was mishandled: How to Make a Police Shooting Disappear: The Tamir Rice Story
Nonetheless, extremists are all about "all or nothing". I know the anti-gun, anti-police mob is like that. I hope you aren't likewise. There are over 750,000 LEOs in this nation. Mistakes happen, but they shouldn't be covered up. They also shouldn't be extrapolated by a bunch of anti-gun and/or anti-cop assholes to mean one mistake applies to all concerned.
It's less a question of if it could have been handled better than the question of whether the officer did anything wrong or illegal. The jury found he didn't with the aid of the video tape.
The gun was out but not lifted at the officer yet. As soon as the officer seen the gun, he shot.
OJ and Blake didn't have a video of what took place. The officer did.
A jury does not rule base on their own personal likes or dislikes. A jury does not decide somebody is guilty if they could have done something different. A jury rules whether any laws were broken or not. When a suspect starts pulling a gun on a police officer and that officer responds with deadly force, that is completely legal for police officers and armed citizens alike.
This discussion reminds me of our CCW class. The instructor repeatedly made a point that no matter how good of a shot you are, it's different when it's your life on the line. You can be a good shot shooting at cardboard cutouts of people or pop cans because they are not shooting back. When a gun is pointed right back at you, adrenaline starts to flow, your mind races, you only have a second to think, you could be dead the next second.
Even with the best training, nobody is actually prepared for a real gun fight.
The fact remains, those 3 experienced police officers agreed the situation was mishandled.
FWIW, in my CCW class, the point was made that shooting someone would change your life, the implication being not for the better. Defend yourself against attack, yes, but avoiding that situation is better. Good luck and I truly hope not to see you in the newspapers.
we already have reasonable gun control and quite a bit of unreasonable gun controlJamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.
So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.
However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.
So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.
So you think reasonable gun control is the same as disarming the country. Typical gun nut.
If you are poor, you should take a second job to support your family and upgrade your education so you can get out of your minimum wage job.
No, if you are poor, you shouldn't be having a family you can't support.
How can you work two jobs and be a parent to your children? How can you take classes to get ahead and do homework, work full time, run a house hold and give your children any kind of quality time?
You can't. That's why you don't have kids until you do all those things first.
The problem is "shouldn't" and reality are two very different things.
And that's what really needs to be addressed.
Well, yes. And this is what I'm doing.
It's fine to say parents should be bringing their kids up properly. But the reality is they aren't.
So two choices. The first is to take over and try and put the kids on a good course.
The second is to shrug your shoulders and say "it's the way it is".
The first allows for society to change for the positive. For kids who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to get pushed along the right line. The second allows for the problems to get worse and worse with every generation, with an attitude of "the system is against us" which makes it harder and harder to solve.
Women are always less violent than Men, even though they've historically been more likely to be subjected to oppression, or poverty....
But, Women, and Men both come from the same culture, in many cases, do they not?
So, what's your explanation?
Sure, I guess it's just that we treat Men differently.... Yeah, that must be it.
It must be coincidental that even Male babies tend to be more aggressive than Female babies, even though they've not lived long enough to be taught this behavior.
Also, it must be coincidental that Males have lower MAO-A levels linked to criminality, and lower Dopamine levels linked to impulsivity.
I can't tell who you're addressing but for my part I've already noted, here and elsewhere, that our gun fetishism is a masculinity issue. You are correct, you can count the number of female mass shooters on your thumb.
There's a systemic reason for that, just as there's a systemic reason for the gun culture itself.
The reason is that women are just naturally less violent than men. But here in Ohio, CCW applications by females surpassed those by males. So I don't think your masculinity assumption holds any water. It's not about masculinity, it's about self-defense.
Not exactly --- in that case it's about the how of self-defense. Self-defense can take many forms. Why should it be a gun specifically? Moreover you're assuming a reasoning for these women.
I'm far from the first to see the connection to masculinity power issues. Here's one story of many: Toxic Masculinity and Murder
>> Stemming the violence, then, means deconstructing hate. It means considering every element in the creation and enabling of so many psychopaths. And one that tends to be overlooked— widely known but narrowly considered— is the simple fact that almost all mass murderers are men. As of 2014, Time cited the number at 98 percent. That makes masculinity a more common feature than any of the elements that tend to dominate discourse—religion, race, nationality, political affiliation, or any history of mental illness.
In Salon this week, writer Amanda Marcotte argues that the “national attachment to dominance models of manhood is a major reason why we have so much violence.” She points to the Orlando killer’s history of aggression: his 2013 investigation by the FBI for threatening a co-worker, his reported rage at the sight of men kissing, his physical abuse of his wife, who required help from her parents to escape her own home.
This seems a quintessential case of what has come to be known as toxic masculinity, as Marcotte defines it, “a specific model of manhood geared towards dominance and control.” When men seek that control—when we feel it’s our due—and don’t achieve it, we can resent and hate. Toxic masculinity sets expectations that prime us for disappointment. We turn that disappointment on ourselves and others as anger and hatred.
As the psychologist Arie Kruglanski told The Washington Post this week, the most primal act a human being can take to ameliorate self-loathing is “showing one's power over other human beings.” (As a small, non-masculine philosopher once said, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”) <<
And that is crap...we had manhood all through this countries history.......with extremely low crime levels...then after the 1950s.....what did we have.....single, teenage girls, having children from multiple male partners without any husband...an adult male partner to teach the young males how to actually be men......that is the difference and you can track that from the 1960s going forward when single mother hood became a norm, and accepted.....
You can see the same problem in Britain.....the book....."Life at the Bottom" goes into this in detail....
If you are poor, you should take a second job to support your family and upgrade your education so you can get out of your minimum wage job.
No, if you are poor, you shouldn't be having a family you can't support.
How can you work two jobs and be a parent to your children? How can you take classes to get ahead and do homework, work full time, run a house hold and give your children any kind of quality time?
You can't. That's why you don't have kids until you do all those things first.
The problem is "shouldn't" and reality are two very different things.
And that's what really needs to be addressed.
Well, yes. And this is what I'm doing.
It's fine to say parents should be bringing their kids up properly. But the reality is they aren't.
So two choices. The first is to take over and try and put the kids on a good course.
The second is to shrug your shoulders and say "it's the way it is".
The first allows for society to change for the positive. For kids who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to get pushed along the right line. The second allows for the problems to get worse and worse with every generation, with an attitude of "the system is against us" which makes it harder and harder to solve.
Sorry, but it shouldn't be up to government to take care of other people's kids. If we are going to do that, take them from the parents and put them in an orphanage. At least that way it will take some of the incentive of having children for more government handouts.
Speaking of which, government handouts are the main problem. However dare anybody say cut down on those, the liberals cry "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" Our government even takes care of children who's parents are here illegally. So what the hell, why not have as many children as you like? It's not like you're middle-class or something and have to support them yourself.
Women are always less violent than Men, even though they've historically been more likely to be subjected to oppression, or poverty....
But, Women, and Men both come from the same culture, in many cases, do they not?
So, what's your explanation?
Sure, I guess it's just that we treat Men differently.... Yeah, that must be it.
It must be coincidental that even Male babies tend to be more aggressive than Female babies, even though they've not lived long enough to be taught this behavior.
Also, it must be coincidental that Males have lower MAO-A levels linked to criminality, and lower Dopamine levels linked to impulsivity.
I can't tell who you're addressing but for my part I've already noted, here and elsewhere, that our gun fetishism is a masculinity issue. You are correct, you can count the number of female mass shooters on your thumb.
There's a systemic reason for that, just as there's a systemic reason for the gun culture itself.
The reason is that women are just naturally less violent than men. But here in Ohio, CCW applications by females surpassed those by males. So I don't think your masculinity assumption holds any water. It's not about masculinity, it's about self-defense.
Not exactly --- in that case it's about the how of self-defense. Self-defense can take many forms. Why should it be a gun specifically? Moreover you're assuming a reasoning for these women.
I'm far from the first to see the connection to masculinity power issues. Here's one story of many: Toxic Masculinity and Murder
>> Stemming the violence, then, means deconstructing hate. It means considering every element in the creation and enabling of so many psychopaths. And one that tends to be overlooked— widely known but narrowly considered— is the simple fact that almost all mass murderers are men. As of 2014, Time cited the number at 98 percent. That makes masculinity a more common feature than any of the elements that tend to dominate discourse—religion, race, nationality, political affiliation, or any history of mental illness.
In Salon this week, writer Amanda Marcotte argues that the “national attachment to dominance models of manhood is a major reason why we have so much violence.” She points to the Orlando killer’s history of aggression: his 2013 investigation by the FBI for threatening a co-worker, his reported rage at the sight of men kissing, his physical abuse of his wife, who required help from her parents to escape her own home.
This seems a quintessential case of what has come to be known as toxic masculinity, as Marcotte defines it, “a specific model of manhood geared towards dominance and control.” When men seek that control—when we feel it’s our due—and don’t achieve it, we can resent and hate. Toxic masculinity sets expectations that prime us for disappointment. We turn that disappointment on ourselves and others as anger and hatred.
As the psychologist Arie Kruglanski told The Washington Post this week, the most primal act a human being can take to ameliorate self-loathing is “showing one's power over other human beings.” (As a small, non-masculine philosopher once said, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”) <<
And that is crap...we had manhood all through this countries history.......with extremely low crime levels...then after the 1950s.....what did we have.....single, teenage girls, having children from multiple male partners without any husband...an adult male partner to teach the young males how to actually be men......that is the difference and you can track that from the 1960s going forward when single mother hood became a norm, and accepted.....
You can see the same problem in Britain.....the book....."Life at the Bottom" goes into this in detail....
I was a child in the 60's and I don't recall out of wedlock pregnancy being the norm. That was more like the 70's.
If any single woman became pregnant, she was actually looked down on by society. Today, single pregnant girls get baby showers sponsored by the high school. It's celebrated by family and friends. That's part of the problem.
We've allowed liberalism to turn our great country upside down. It's just like with crime. Years ago it was embarrassing to be arrested by a police officer. Today it's like a badge of honor. People were ashamed of having to use food stamps. Today, they flash their SNAP's card around while they are at the grocery store paying for other things that the card doesn't buy like cigarettes, alcohol, huge bags of dog food, cat litter.......
1) 35.1% puts "whites" in the minority.If you read the linked article, then you'll know they didn't.Wasn't it already out? Sorry, but the police officer was too quick to shoot. He had cover and the "suspect" wasn't pointing the gun at him. He had time to take control of the situation.No, pulling it out while in front of a police officer is.
Three experienced police officers who testified agreed the situation was mishandled: How to Make a Police Shooting Disappear: The Tamir Rice Story
Nonetheless, extremists are all about "all or nothing". I know the anti-gun, anti-police mob is like that. I hope you aren't likewise. There are over 750,000 LEOs in this nation. Mistakes happen, but they shouldn't be covered up. They also shouldn't be extrapolated by a bunch of anti-gun and/or anti-cop assholes to mean one mistake applies to all concerned.
It's hard not to extrapolate when the so called GOOD cops cover for the bad ones. Covering up and excusing such behavior is just as bad as doing it.
If they didn't in this case, I congratulate them. Sadly, you don't see that too often.
As someone from New York, I think what we really need is minority control.
35.1% of NYC is White, while 2.9% of murderers were White.
(Sources)
Demographics of New York City - Wikipedia
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...planning/enforcement_report_year_end_2014.pdf
We could lower the murder rate by about 12 X, by eliminating you know who.
we already spend huge amounts of money on education so throwing good money after bad isn't the solutionNo, if you are poor, you shouldn't be having a family you can't support.
You can't. That's why you don't have kids until you do all those things first.
The problem is "shouldn't" and reality are two very different things.
And that's what really needs to be addressed.
Well, yes. And this is what I'm doing.
It's fine to say parents should be bringing their kids up properly. But the reality is they aren't.
So two choices. The first is to take over and try and put the kids on a good course.
The second is to shrug your shoulders and say "it's the way it is".
The first allows for society to change for the positive. For kids who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to get pushed along the right line. The second allows for the problems to get worse and worse with every generation, with an attitude of "the system is against us" which makes it harder and harder to solve.
Sorry, but it shouldn't be up to government to take care of other people's kids. If we are going to do that, take them from the parents and put them in an orphanage. At least that way it will take some of the incentive of having children for more government handouts.
Speaking of which, government handouts are the main problem. However dare anybody say cut down on those, the liberals cry "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" Our government even takes care of children who's parents are here illegally. So what the hell, why not have as many children as you like? It's not like you're middle-class or something and have to support them yourself.
And again, we're back to "should" and reality. No, it SHOULDN'T be up to the govt to take care of kids, but it is. Why? Well, because something has gone wrong in society and if govt doesn't put it right, then it never will be.
As for orphanages, is this best for the kids? If it is, then yes, they should go, but it would seem orphanages are grim places to grow up in, so.... you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. better to spend the money on educating them, rather than sticking them in orphanages.
Yes, there is a problem with government handouts. But there are lots of problems. The question is, what are the solutions. And yes, there are liberals who scream blue murder if you threaten to take away their funding. I've been accused of being all sorts of things by liberals for my views too.
The "small penis" theory is just an old tactic by the anti-gun Left. There's a reason why they can't back it up with data and facts; there aren't any.Women are always less violent than Men, even though they've historically been more likely to be subjected to oppression, or poverty....
But, Women, and Men both come from the same culture, in many cases, do they not?
So, what's your explanation?
Sure, I guess it's just that we treat Men differently.... Yeah, that must be it.
It must be coincidental that even Male babies tend to be more aggressive than Female babies, even though they've not lived long enough to be taught this behavior.
Also, it must be coincidental that Males have lower MAO-A levels linked to criminality, and lower Dopamine levels linked to impulsivity.
I can't tell who you're addressing but for my part I've already noted, here and elsewhere, that our gun fetishism is a masculinity issue. You are correct, you can count the number of female mass shooters on your thumb.
There's a systemic reason for that, just as there's a systemic reason for the gun culture itself.
The reason is that women are just naturally less violent than men. But here in Ohio, CCW applications by females surpassed those by males. So I don't think your masculinity assumption holds any water. It's not about masculinity, it's about self-defense.
we already spend huge amounts of money on education so throwing good money after bad isn't the solutionThe problem is "shouldn't" and reality are two very different things.
And that's what really needs to be addressed.
Well, yes. And this is what I'm doing.
It's fine to say parents should be bringing their kids up properly. But the reality is they aren't.
So two choices. The first is to take over and try and put the kids on a good course.
The second is to shrug your shoulders and say "it's the way it is".
The first allows for society to change for the positive. For kids who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to get pushed along the right line. The second allows for the problems to get worse and worse with every generation, with an attitude of "the system is against us" which makes it harder and harder to solve.
Sorry, but it shouldn't be up to government to take care of other people's kids. If we are going to do that, take them from the parents and put them in an orphanage. At least that way it will take some of the incentive of having children for more government handouts.
Speaking of which, government handouts are the main problem. However dare anybody say cut down on those, the liberals cry "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" Our government even takes care of children who's parents are here illegally. So what the hell, why not have as many children as you like? It's not like you're middle-class or something and have to support them yourself.
And again, we're back to "should" and reality. No, it SHOULDN'T be up to the govt to take care of kids, but it is. Why? Well, because something has gone wrong in society and if govt doesn't put it right, then it never will be.
As for orphanages, is this best for the kids? If it is, then yes, they should go, but it would seem orphanages are grim places to grow up in, so.... you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. better to spend the money on educating them, rather than sticking them in orphanages.
Yes, there is a problem with government handouts. But there are lots of problems. The question is, what are the solutions. And yes, there are liberals who scream blue murder if you threaten to take away their funding. I've been accused of being all sorts of things by liberals for my views too.
and we get the "society" people want and we are getting that now
yes they do want it because no one is doing anything about it but whining that the government should do somethingwe already spend huge amounts of money on education so throwing good money after bad isn't the solutionAnd that's what really needs to be addressed.
Well, yes. And this is what I'm doing.
It's fine to say parents should be bringing their kids up properly. But the reality is they aren't.
So two choices. The first is to take over and try and put the kids on a good course.
The second is to shrug your shoulders and say "it's the way it is".
The first allows for society to change for the positive. For kids who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to get pushed along the right line. The second allows for the problems to get worse and worse with every generation, with an attitude of "the system is against us" which makes it harder and harder to solve.
Sorry, but it shouldn't be up to government to take care of other people's kids. If we are going to do that, take them from the parents and put them in an orphanage. At least that way it will take some of the incentive of having children for more government handouts.
Speaking of which, government handouts are the main problem. However dare anybody say cut down on those, the liberals cry "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" Our government even takes care of children who's parents are here illegally. So what the hell, why not have as many children as you like? It's not like you're middle-class or something and have to support them yourself.
And again, we're back to "should" and reality. No, it SHOULDN'T be up to the govt to take care of kids, but it is. Why? Well, because something has gone wrong in society and if govt doesn't put it right, then it never will be.
As for orphanages, is this best for the kids? If it is, then yes, they should go, but it would seem orphanages are grim places to grow up in, so.... you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. better to spend the money on educating them, rather than sticking them in orphanages.
Yes, there is a problem with government handouts. But there are lots of problems. The question is, what are the solutions. And yes, there are liberals who scream blue murder if you threaten to take away their funding. I've been accused of being all sorts of things by liberals for my views too.
and we get the "society" people want and we are getting that now
Did I say throwing money at education was the solution? No, I didn't. So....?
You think people want the falling apart society that exists now? If they do... well... I guess there are people who like living among their filth and waste, so everything is possible.
I also guess that some people are so fucking selfish that they'd just love to see other people suffer, makes them feel better about themselves.
yes they do want it because no one is doing anything about it but whining that the government should do somethingwe already spend huge amounts of money on education so throwing good money after bad isn't the solutionWell, yes. And this is what I'm doing.
It's fine to say parents should be bringing their kids up properly. But the reality is they aren't.
So two choices. The first is to take over and try and put the kids on a good course.
The second is to shrug your shoulders and say "it's the way it is".
The first allows for society to change for the positive. For kids who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to get pushed along the right line. The second allows for the problems to get worse and worse with every generation, with an attitude of "the system is against us" which makes it harder and harder to solve.
Sorry, but it shouldn't be up to government to take care of other people's kids. If we are going to do that, take them from the parents and put them in an orphanage. At least that way it will take some of the incentive of having children for more government handouts.
Speaking of which, government handouts are the main problem. However dare anybody say cut down on those, the liberals cry "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" Our government even takes care of children who's parents are here illegally. So what the hell, why not have as many children as you like? It's not like you're middle-class or something and have to support them yourself.
And again, we're back to "should" and reality. No, it SHOULDN'T be up to the govt to take care of kids, but it is. Why? Well, because something has gone wrong in society and if govt doesn't put it right, then it never will be.
As for orphanages, is this best for the kids? If it is, then yes, they should go, but it would seem orphanages are grim places to grow up in, so.... you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. better to spend the money on educating them, rather than sticking them in orphanages.
Yes, there is a problem with government handouts. But there are lots of problems. The question is, what are the solutions. And yes, there are liberals who scream blue murder if you threaten to take away their funding. I've been accused of being all sorts of things by liberals for my views too.
and we get the "society" people want and we are getting that now
Did I say throwing money at education was the solution? No, I didn't. So....?
You think people want the falling apart society that exists now? If they do... well... I guess there are people who like living among their filth and waste, so everything is possible.
I also guess that some people are so fucking selfish that they'd just love to see other people suffer, makes them feel better about themselves.
Charity starts at home
Change starts with the individual
bottom up not top down if people won't make the effort to change then no amount of government spending is going to make a difference
yes they do want it because no one is doing anything about it but whining that the government should do somethingwe already spend huge amounts of money on education so throwing good money after bad isn't the solutionSorry, but it shouldn't be up to government to take care of other people's kids. If we are going to do that, take them from the parents and put them in an orphanage. At least that way it will take some of the incentive of having children for more government handouts.
Speaking of which, government handouts are the main problem. However dare anybody say cut down on those, the liberals cry "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" Our government even takes care of children who's parents are here illegally. So what the hell, why not have as many children as you like? It's not like you're middle-class or something and have to support them yourself.
And again, we're back to "should" and reality. No, it SHOULDN'T be up to the govt to take care of kids, but it is. Why? Well, because something has gone wrong in society and if govt doesn't put it right, then it never will be.
As for orphanages, is this best for the kids? If it is, then yes, they should go, but it would seem orphanages are grim places to grow up in, so.... you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. better to spend the money on educating them, rather than sticking them in orphanages.
Yes, there is a problem with government handouts. But there are lots of problems. The question is, what are the solutions. And yes, there are liberals who scream blue murder if you threaten to take away their funding. I've been accused of being all sorts of things by liberals for my views too.
and we get the "society" people want and we are getting that now
Did I say throwing money at education was the solution? No, I didn't. So....?
You think people want the falling apart society that exists now? If they do... well... I guess there are people who like living among their filth and waste, so everything is possible.
I also guess that some people are so fucking selfish that they'd just love to see other people suffer, makes them feel better about themselves.
Charity starts at home
Change starts with the individual
bottom up not top down if people won't make the effort to change then no amount of government spending is going to make a difference
Basically you're just throwing excuses as to why nothing should happen. Great. Well then live in your own filth and don't come whining when people get shot, or robbed or attacked.
yes they do want it because no one is doing anything about it but whining that the government should do somethingwe already spend huge amounts of money on education so throwing good money after bad isn't the solutionAnd again, we're back to "should" and reality. No, it SHOULDN'T be up to the govt to take care of kids, but it is. Why? Well, because something has gone wrong in society and if govt doesn't put it right, then it never will be.
As for orphanages, is this best for the kids? If it is, then yes, they should go, but it would seem orphanages are grim places to grow up in, so.... you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. better to spend the money on educating them, rather than sticking them in orphanages.
Yes, there is a problem with government handouts. But there are lots of problems. The question is, what are the solutions. And yes, there are liberals who scream blue murder if you threaten to take away their funding. I've been accused of being all sorts of things by liberals for my views too.
and we get the "society" people want and we are getting that now
Did I say throwing money at education was the solution? No, I didn't. So....?
You think people want the falling apart society that exists now? If they do... well... I guess there are people who like living among their filth and waste, so everything is possible.
I also guess that some people are so fucking selfish that they'd just love to see other people suffer, makes them feel better about themselves.
Charity starts at home
Change starts with the individual
bottom up not top down if people won't make the effort to change then no amount of government spending is going to make a difference
Basically you're just throwing excuses as to why nothing should happen. Great. Well then live in your own filth and don't come whining when people get shot, or robbed or attacked.
but you see i don't live in my own filth. I take action to make my life what it is and I don't wait for some government hack to tell me what's good for me.
the people who do nothing want to be where they are and we don't need to waste money on them
True on the maxim about "good money after bad", but that's not a true depiction of education in America.we already spend huge amounts of money on education so throwing good money after bad isn't the solutionThe problem is "shouldn't" and reality are two very different things.
And that's what really needs to be addressed.
Well, yes. And this is what I'm doing.
It's fine to say parents should be bringing their kids up properly. But the reality is they aren't.
So two choices. The first is to take over and try and put the kids on a good course.
The second is to shrug your shoulders and say "it's the way it is".
The first allows for society to change for the positive. For kids who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to get pushed along the right line. The second allows for the problems to get worse and worse with every generation, with an attitude of "the system is against us" which makes it harder and harder to solve.
Sorry, but it shouldn't be up to government to take care of other people's kids. If we are going to do that, take them from the parents and put them in an orphanage. At least that way it will take some of the incentive of having children for more government handouts.
Speaking of which, government handouts are the main problem. However dare anybody say cut down on those, the liberals cry "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" Our government even takes care of children who's parents are here illegally. So what the hell, why not have as many children as you like? It's not like you're middle-class or something and have to support them yourself.
And again, we're back to "should" and reality. No, it SHOULDN'T be up to the govt to take care of kids, but it is. Why? Well, because something has gone wrong in society and if govt doesn't put it right, then it never will be.
As for orphanages, is this best for the kids? If it is, then yes, they should go, but it would seem orphanages are grim places to grow up in, so.... you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. better to spend the money on educating them, rather than sticking them in orphanages.
Yes, there is a problem with government handouts. But there are lots of problems. The question is, what are the solutions. And yes, there are liberals who scream blue murder if you threaten to take away their funding. I've been accused of being all sorts of things by liberals for my views too.
and we get the "society" people want and we are getting that now
Women are always less violent than Men, even though they've historically been more likely to be subjected to oppression, or poverty....
But, Women, and Men both come from the same culture, in many cases, do they not?
So, what's your explanation?
Sure, I guess it's just that we treat Men differently.... Yeah, that must be it.
It must be coincidental that even Male babies tend to be more aggressive than Female babies, even though they've not lived long enough to be taught this behavior.
Also, it must be coincidental that Males have lower MAO-A levels linked to criminality, and lower Dopamine levels linked to impulsivity.
I can't tell who you're addressing but for my part I've already noted, here and elsewhere, that our gun fetishism is a masculinity issue. You are correct, you can count the number of female mass shooters on your thumb.
There's a systemic reason for that, just as there's a systemic reason for the gun culture itself.
The reason is that women are just naturally less violent than men. But here in Ohio, CCW applications by females surpassed those by males. So I don't think your masculinity assumption holds any water. It's not about masculinity, it's about self-defense.
Not exactly --- in that case it's about the how of self-defense. Self-defense can take many forms. Why should it be a gun specifically? Moreover you're assuming a reasoning for these women.
I'm far from the first to see the connection to masculinity power issues. Here's one story of many: Toxic Masculinity and Murder
>> Stemming the violence, then, means deconstructing hate. It means considering every element in the creation and enabling of so many psychopaths. And one that tends to be overlooked— widely known but narrowly considered— is the simple fact that almost all mass murderers are men. As of 2014, Time cited the number at 98 percent. That makes masculinity a more common feature than any of the elements that tend to dominate discourse—religion, race, nationality, political affiliation, or any history of mental illness.
In Salon this week, writer Amanda Marcotte argues that the “national attachment to dominance models of manhood is a major reason why we have so much violence.” She points to the Orlando killer’s history of aggression: his 2013 investigation by the FBI for threatening a co-worker, his reported rage at the sight of men kissing, his physical abuse of his wife, who required help from her parents to escape her own home.
This seems a quintessential case of what has come to be known as toxic masculinity, as Marcotte defines it, “a specific model of manhood geared towards dominance and control.” When men seek that control—when we feel it’s our due—and don’t achieve it, we can resent and hate. Toxic masculinity sets expectations that prime us for disappointment. We turn that disappointment on ourselves and others as anger and hatred.
As the psychologist Arie Kruglanski told The Washington Post this week, the most primal act a human being can take to ameliorate self-loathing is “showing one's power over other human beings.” (As a small, non-masculine philosopher once said, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”) <<
And that is crap...we had manhood all through this countries history.......with extremely low crime levels...then after the 1950s.....what did we have.....single, teenage girls, having children from multiple male partners without any husband...an adult male partner to teach the young males how to actually be men......that is the difference and you can track that from the 1960s going forward when single mother hood became a norm, and accepted.....
You can see the same problem in Britain.....the book....."Life at the Bottom" goes into this in detail....
I was a child in the 60's and I don't recall out of wedlock pregnancy being the norm. That was more like the 70's.
If any single woman became pregnant, she was actually looked down on by society. Today, single pregnant girls get baby showers sponsored by the high school. It's celebrated by family and friends. That's part of the problem.
We've allowed liberalism to turn our great country upside down. It's just like with crime. Years ago it was embarrassing to be arrested by a police officer. Today it's like a badge of honor. People were ashamed of having to use food stamps. Today, they flash their SNAP's card around while they are at the grocery store paying for other things that the card doesn't buy like cigarettes, alcohol, huge bags of dog food, cat litter.......
