Doan wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

You aren't aware we have a population that just passed 300 million?

300,423,906, as of a few minutes ago, according to the population clock
at: http://www.census.gov/

In fact, the 2000 census showed a 13.2% increase in population in just
ONE decade. That would make the percentage of "Murders, robberies and
other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent"
as an increase over the previous year kind of wimpy by comparison. And
likely pretty much a normal curve over the decade...considering the
other variables you just sort of kinda maybe forgot to include....R R R
R R R R
Hahaha! Once again, you exposed your STUPIDITY in public! It doesn't
matter what the population is, Kane. Since the rate computed is ALWAYS
per 100,000!
Yes, and it's a percentage, which matters how? Crime tends to go up in
crowded surroundings, bright boy. Go and look at the cities and towns
data.

Hahaha! Still exposing your stupidity, Kane? According to you, until
recently, crime has been declining for the past 40 years!
Nope. Never said that. Quote me exactly by link to the post, and see
what I actually said.

Here it is:

Kane:
CNN.com - FBI: Violent crime rate declines again - Oct 17, 2005
The US violent crime rate declined 2.2 percent last year, continuing a
decade-long downward trend in serious offenses, the FBI said Monday.
www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/17/crime.rate/index.html - 40k - Cached -
Similar pages

Was I wrong on the claim of 30 - 40 years? Depends entirely on which
crime figures you track, how far back you go, and what the methods of
collection of information were then and now.

AF:
Yup! It's all depended on what the meaning of "is" is, right? ;-)
Boy! You make Clinton looked like an amatuer!

Remember that,
Kane?
Sure. I remember that's not what I said.

Hahaha! Reagan had problem remembering too! Maybe you should be the next
president!

Here's your statement:

"According to you, until recently, crime has been declining for the past
40 years!"

Notice the word "crime" and no adjective? No "violent crime?"

Here's what I actually said from the old post you are quoting:

First the quote of CNN: "The US violent crime rate "

Then my comment: "Depends entirely on which
crime figures you track,"

And my leading question, NOT a claim: "Was I wrong on the claim of 30 -
40 years?"

Which, of course, as usual, you failed to answer, Doan.

You are constructing yet another lie little boy.

What I said recently does compute though. YOU see what YOU want to see,
and then make YOUR arguments on your delusional reconstruction of the
actual thing the other person said.

Hihihi! I spoke the truth and exposed not only your STUPIDITY but LIES
after LIES after LIES!

You speak the "truth" you construct, just as you did with the stupidity
above of trying to say I was mistaken or lying when I asked a QUESTION
YOU, Doan, failed to answer.

So was the population declining or increasing during that 40 years?
Increasing, of course. But I made no such claim that "crime has been
declining for the past 40 years.' I did mention 40 years or so, though.

Yup! All depended on what the meaning of "is" is!

For you I would suppose. Not for me. I made a claim, based on the CNN
piece of VIOLENT CRIME declining.

And you still haven't responded to that claim. You dodged then, and you
dodge again now. Taking a comment out of context. Typical liar.

YOU ARE STUPID and so is your claim that you are "published"!!!
I am published.

And I didn't make the claim you say I did.

Hihihi! Of couse you didn't, must be your twin that made it.

Where did I say that "crime" had been going down for 40 years, Doan?
Point to it IN CONTEXT of my entire statement, which would include the
subject under discussion VIOLENT CRIME.

Let's cut to the chase, liar.

An increase over last year of 3.7 percent in violent crimes is not
significant when one considers all the possible variables ... and in
fact isn't much of an increase at all.

Hihihi! It's only 3.7 percent!

Yep, look at the charts I linked to and you'll say drops of as much as
20 points in one year to the next, 10, 15, few less than 5 points.

That makes a rise of 3.7 percent look rather puny. The only rise in fact
since 1991.

You are barking again. Yell some more. It's cute.

I am not a Kane9!

Sure you are. Just pray you don't run into anyone hungry enough to cook
you.

Here's your post, Doan. Let me explain how stupid it was to make your
claim.

"WASHINGTON - Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the
United States jumped 3.7 percent in the first half of the year, continuing
a troubling upswing that began in 2005, the FBI said Monday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497293/

Remember the claim by anti-spanking zealotS like Kane, who said that
violent crimes have been declining steadily for the last 40 years because
of parents are spanking less? Using that logic, parents must be spanking
more now. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually
exclusive? ;-)

Doan "

What would a 3.7 percent change have to do with a 40 year trend?

It exposed you as a STUPID LIAR!

I asked you a question from that old post, you didn't answer. The
subject under discussion, of course, was violent crime.

I am neither stupid, nor a liar. You are both.

As I said, you reconstruct in your deluded mind, what others have said,
even doing so in quoting Straus, and then scream, as you just did, that
someone is stupid because they can't see you delusion for the truth.

Of course they can't. It's YOUR delusion.

See how simple that was?

I suspect you have, as you boys that think you are more intelligent than
others will do, is shoot yourself in the foot.

Notice the upswing didn't start until ONE YEAR AGO. Now go get that
smoking hole in your foot fixed, little fool.

Hihihi! It must be that population increase!

What, in a rate per 100k. R R R R R .

You still don't know how to play chess, and how to feint or protect
yourself from one.

Hahaha! And you just exposed yourself as a STUPID LIAR, as Cindy Lauper
say, time after time.

Well, I asked YOU a question, that you were so stupid as to quote. A
question is not a statement of fact, it's just a question.

The subject, which you forgot to snip, was the CNN piece of VIOLENT
CRIME. Care to explain?

Where did I state that crime, just crime, dropped for 40 years?

I knew you'd bury yourself pretty quickly. Your opening was so
unbelievably stupid.

Hihihi! You are looking in the mirror again.

I don't think so, child.

The trend in violent crime (a little clue there as to what YOU got wrong
about MY claim) for 30 years, up to 2003, had one hump in it, and
overall is far far lower than in 1973. It will take a long time for an
increase of 3.7 percent a year to bring it back up to anywhere near
where it was in 73, bright boy.

Hahaha! Showing your STUPIDITY again. Here are the data from DOJ:

* The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.

Yep. I made no claim otherwise. Notice my mention of a hump...that means
upward, delusional Doan.

* In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell
off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.

The charts I posted include the same thing and I pointed it out.

* It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in
1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.

Yep. I pointed that out from other charts.

Then, Doan, what did the rate do? Did it go down as 2003 approached, or
did it go up?

Come on, liar. Show us.

Thus, I believe my claim still stands.

THAT IS WHY YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

Nope. I pointed to an overall trend and said so, and posted the
increases then the drops.

According to Straus the spanking rate has dropped, not in numbers of
children spanked, but in the amount of spanking that goes on. And for
how long in a child's life. I'd say there is going to be a correlation
found eventually.

The homicide rate in particular has decreased over 42% between its
record high point in 1991 and 2005.

It doubled from the mid 60's to the late '70's, STUPID!

Notice 1991 to 2005?

I notice you avoided posting an URL to your quoted data. Any reason you
didn't want to make it easy for others to see the whole chart?

The homicide rate, Doan, alone, was not the subject of discussion. You
are once again avoiding what I actually said. VIOLENT crime. Homicide is
but one indicator.

Interestingly, as more and more states banned paddling in schools.
Hmmm..I wonder?

You are STUPID!

You are a liar.

You will see, if you care to look, that our most interesting population,
youth, had some amazing changes in arrest rates, for violent crime,
midway from 1970 to 2003. A peak half to two thirds of the way along
over the years, roughly across the all the youth age groups, then
steady, and then dramatic drops in rate to a much lower rate during that
last half to third.

Trying to fit that square peg into a rouhd hole, Kane?

Nope. Youth violent crime rates have often been claimed to be going up,
when in fact they were going down. You spankers really have your heads
up your asses on that one.

Now this is even with burgeoning gang activity throughout those years,
Doan. One reason for the peak, I'd guess.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/violarr.wk1

MS Office or clones will display this spreadsheet. Or the old "Works"
obviously. Are they still selling that crippled thing?

And if you actually look at the charted data for the span from 1960 to
2006, 46 years, you'll find the following:

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...cfm?stateid=52


Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate

1960 - 5.1, 2006 - 5.6, but with a major hump at that 1980 - 10.2, just
26 years ago. Almost three decades. Get the picture yet, brilliant one?

See the figure for 1960, STUPID?

I see it, dummy, and so what. Trends. With increasing gang activity from
60 to 2006 (I believe I corrected that to 2005 in a later post) and
quite an increase, we still saw it drop to almost the same rate. Pretty
impressive. It must be all that spanking going on.

So we have a high, 26 years ago of 10.2, with a 2006 drop to 5.6. Not
bad, eh?

In 1960, it's 5.1, STUPID!

Yep. One indicator. You do not have to have all indicators drop for the
aggregate to be lower.

For a drop in the number one violent crime statistic?

The 0verall numbers are high, but they lump some property crime in
there, and please remember my little hint about your stupid claim about
my claim. When I say violent crime I mean person to person violent. Look
at the other person to person ones.

Forcible Rape had a comparatively similar high, same year, but did not
drop as low as from the 1960 figure. Can you guess why the reports would
be such a low rate in 1960, and so much higher than that (but still
lower than the 1980 rate) in 2006? Think hard about the nature of the
crime.

We are seeing truly dramatic decreases over all in violent crime in this
country, Doan.

Yeah! Lower than they were in the '60's???

Considering the social changes, Doan, you and anyone with a brain knows
that it's significant that it had a huge hump in the middle and then
dropped to near 60's figures.

The assault rate is nearly half now what it was in 1992. Yet another
decade measure. Like all person to person violent crime, it's dropping
steadily. A tic of 3.7 is hardly significant over all. We say much
bigger ones than that in the past.

They must spanked alot in 1992 then! ;-)

In other words you aren't really willing to argue based on facts. Okay.

Those three categories of violent person to person crime have DROPPED,
even in the past year, Doan. Look at the categories of violent crime
that do not show contact with another person that were included to get
that 3.7% increase.

Hahaha!

Translation: "When ever you see me avoid reality, I shall respond with
hahaha or hihihi."

You, stupid, can't even read a chart...or won't. That's the stupid
thing, Doan. To make your claims and NOT have reviewed the data.

Hahaha! What was it back in the 60's, Kane. Read the char for me,
STUPID!

I know what it was.

And in fact, my brilliant little friend, the aggregate violent crime
rate, including those non person-to-person rates has been dropping
steadily from 1991 high of 758.1 to last year's 463.2. Not a single
year, throughout, until this one, did the rate have any increase. None.

What happend from 1960's to 1991, Kane. Were they increase or decrease?

In other words, what is the meaning of "is." R R R R

Trends, Doan. That's all I claimed.

Notice, stupid, that the rate of decrease in rates was accelerated over
the rate of increase. Something was having an effect.

I suspect, though the media would have you think otherwise, Straus'
speculation may have something to do with it. He claims that while the
rate of spanked children remains the same, from those toddler years
spankings, spanking in general has drastically decreased. People are
spanking less, and spanking for a shorter span of years.

Imagine what might happen if spanking were completely done away with.



QED

Now you are exposed again for both a liar AND a fool.

You exposed yourself to be STUPID LIAR!

Afraid not, Doan, but let the reader be the judge.

You built on your delusions. Then you claimed I said things I didn't.

That is either or both a lie or stupid.

Unless of course you just made an honest mistake about my claim, and
what this current FBI report really means in terms of one tiny increase
this year after more than a decade of dropping rates.

Now just a "decade"??? Come on, Kane. You are losing it! ;-)

Trends, stupid boy. The deceleration of rates from 60 to around 1991,
and the acceleration of rates from 91 to the present.



Doan

Spanking? Who knows. There are many variables, but as I recall this all
came out of claims by a cop that wrote a book about the need for more
beating of kids to stop the rising crime rate...that didn't even
actually exist when he wrote the book.

Hahaha!

While I show my willingness to continue the debate, you wish to argue
that your view of what I meant by 30-40 years of reduction in the
overall rate of VIOLENT crime, constitutes a lie.

Here's that skinny, pal. Despite the fact that we have had, for decades,
an increase in population both by immigration and by less than legal
immigration who mostly DO culturally support harsher Corporal Punishment
based parenting practices, we still have had not only a slower increase
in violent crime rates prior to 1991 but a faster deceleration since.

Figure it out yourself, dummy.

That burned your little bunnies when Chris kicked his butt all over the
Web. Didn't it, Doan?

Where is Chris? Is he still think of you as STUPID? ;-)

On the issue of our involvement in Iraq, I would suppose so. Do you
think he thinks I'm a dummy on the issues concerning corporal punishment
of children?

I don't keep track of "where" Chris is. You and your spanking fetish
cronies seemed inordinately interested in that. I wonder why?

Hoping to make trouble for him at his teaching job at the university?


Doan


Doan, your assessment of people reading this, and their capacity for
gullibility makes plain just how stupid you are to lie as you do.

Few but the Gregs and Chris', the latter who choses, despite not having
children to spank, not to spank, are about the only people that will go
for your bull****.

The rest of us can read the data, and draw factual conclusions that
indeed, the overall trend in a country that has drastically reduced CP
as a tool of choice for parenting is very likely to be related to an
overall change in society for the better.

Continue your delusions.

It helps create a counterpoint that makes all the more clear these facts.

We are over all a less violent society than 40 years ago, even against
the odds of it happening based on those variables we have so little
control over -- who comes here with what cultural values for instance
--- and less acceptance of violence in our society and in our parenting.

That's what "is," little boy.

Kane