Kids should work...

"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article , Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.



You're not being very politically correct. Remove the black statistics for
CPS, crime, public aid, and welfare.
Go a step further... elimiate the cost illegal immigrants our costing this
country.

bobb

"bobb" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article , Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.



You're not being very politically correct. Remove the black statistics for
CPS, crime, public aid, and welfare.
Go a step further... elimiate the cost illegal immigrants our costing this
country.

So what ARE the costs that illegal immigrants levy on this country?

We get far more them than they take from this country dummy. Or you
can go pick your own tomatos, learn to become a yard man or sew in a
sweatshop for your own clothes.

The only costs going on right now to the american public is that there
is still someone to do all the scut work we white's have forgotten,
and are too soft, to do any more. That and the rapid offshore movement
of our formerly higher paying jobs to lower wage countries. The latter
is the big reason for our economic problems.

And in fact the behavior of the holders of this country's capitol
goods, the wealthy, have always done this. In fact they came from
Europe just to do that in new fertile ground.

You are a victim of greed bobb, and those who empty our pockets have
successfully propagandized YOU, the dummy, using your deepseated
racial bigotry and xenophobia to make you think it's the little
darkskinned folks that are the problem.

You are soooooo dumb.

bobb

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
m...
"bobb" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.



You're not being very politically correct. Remove the black statistics
for
CPS, crime, public aid, and welfare.
Go a step further... elimiate the cost illegal immigrants our costing
this
country.

So what ARE the costs that illegal immigrants levy on this country?

We get far more them than they take from this country dummy. Or you
can go pick your own tomatos, learn to become a yard man or sew in a
sweatshop for your own clothes.

Tomatos. if I were to buy them today, are around $2.50 lb. Not much of a
savings.

Even so, if the wages are so very low as everyone says, they can hardly be
'giving back' much to the society that supports them. Crunch the numbers
and see for yourself.

If you are talking about mexican illegals then you should also be aware that
there is a huge movement to 'legally' take over the U.S. California and
other border states are well aware of what's happening. Legislators have yet
to worry they they are looking for votes.. illegals votes.. to keep
themselves in office.

bobb



The only costs going on right now to the american public is that there
is still someone to do all the scut work we white's have forgotten,
and are too soft, to do any more. That and the rapid offshore movement
of our formerly higher paying jobs to lower wage countries. The latter
is the big reason for our economic problems.

And in fact the behavior of the holders of this country's capitol
goods, the wealthy, have always done this. In fact they came from
Europe just to do that in new fertile ground.

You are a victim of greed bobb, and those who empty our pockets have
successfully propagandized YOU, the dummy, using your deepseated
racial bigotry and xenophobia to make you think it's the little
darkskinned folks that are the problem.

You are soooooo dumb.

bobb

Kane

On 23 Nov 2003 20:02:29 GMT, Ignoramus22857
wrote:

In article k.net,
bobb wrote:


"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the
50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a
"race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in
1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a
small
fraction of the population.

That's why it's expressed as a percentage.

I think I feel a bigot baggin' comin' on.

Do you know anything at all about the black experience in this country
beyond Rochester, Step and Fetchit'and Shaft movies?


In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy
access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of
desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

Like whites began to notice the prevalent black and black crime that
had always been around. Funny, how when you press people into a Ghetto
with each other the crime rate for ghetto dweller upon ghetto dweller
goes up.

I don't suppose proximity has much to do with it though. "Those folks"
can just mount up and go out to the burbs to do their crime where the
police presence and response is not as high...oh wait...

You apparently haven't known any blacks well enough for them to
familiarize you with DWN or DWB...Driving While ****** or Driving
While Black is the common experience of black people, men especially
(the women are though to be just servants coming and going to work)
have of being rousted when they leave the Ghetto.


A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported
in
1950s, either.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the
difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes.

Now you are on to something.

I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.

More or less. What has the race of someone got to do with it, given
your prior examples?




You're not being very politically correct. Remove the black
statistics for
CPS, crime, public aid, and welfare.
Go a step further... elimiate the cost illegal immigrants our
costing this
country.

Um, with all due respect, what does the cost of illegal immigration
have to do with what I was discussing?

Let's say that illegal immigration is very expensive.

When it is slowed or stopped anywhere, you betcha. Those farmers and
clothing sweat shops get real ****ed at the loss in profits their low
low wages to illegals afforded them.

Does it change
anything in regards to what I said? Or let's say that it was
cheap. Would it change anything in regards to what I said?

I think so, if you can get your head around bobb's rabid racism. He
thinks that if the hispanics and blacks would get out there would be a
world of jobs for whites. Yeah, I can see all those white tomato
pickers now, and the landscape yard men, the ditch diggers and
cleaners, the chemical farm spray workers...sure.

All would be white....and all would be pulling down better wages or
we'd see the 30's all over again and the rise of unions big time.

Immigrants and blacks, brought as slaves or snuck in over our boarders
are the foundation of our economy. If you stopped all blacks and other
minorities from working right this instant, this would be a third
world country in a month.

Whites would just sit and whine about the lazy darkies not doin' their
jobs.

Welcome to Usenet Bigot Country...and I used to think these ngs were
about parenting and CPS.

Best.

Kane

"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article , Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.


I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is compared
to whites.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.

i

Stephanie and Tim wrote:

"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article , Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.


I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is compared
to whites.


This whole topic is so huge, but on the point of "conviction"
investigating officers
when they discovery youth or adults committing a crime, they can give
purputrator a warning
depending on circumstances. The prosecutor may exercise discretion
whether to proceed to
prosecute or not, subject to some guidlines. The judge may convict or
find reasonable doubt
depending on whether or not he believes the credability of the accused.
All of the above
may be related to a lot of factors including race and affect the
statistics that follow.
So comparing black and white conviction rates is not an ideal picture.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.

i

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:36:50 GMT, "Stephanie and Tim"
wrote:


"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article , Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.


I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is compared
to whites.

I assume you meant poverty line, not crime line above.

And as to the conviction rate, note that the research into the death
penalty in Illinois showed that 13 innocent men were on death row.
Most of them were black.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.

i

Interestingly, if the crime rate is an indicator, it would seem to
indicate the ineffectiveness of punishments particularly spanking,
but other punishments as well. This may also explain why more
men commit crimes than women do also.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2075217/#ContinueArticle

racial differences are more pronounced for spanking than
for allowance denial: In both cases blacks punish the most,
then whites, then Hispanics, but the gaps between racial
groups are much bigger for corporal than for financial
punishment.

My note: Historically, this is a leftover from slavery when
black parents felt they had to be very harsh with their
children so the children would not be harmed by the
slavemasters. It was a way of teaching the children
how to get along in a society controlled by white people
who considered them to be less than human.

Boys are punished more than girls, with substantially more
spankings and a bit more in the way of allowance withdrawals.
Single mothers spank a little less, and withdraw allowances
quite a bit less, than other parents. Older and better-educated
parents are a bit less likely to spank and a bit more likely to
withdraw allowances. Bigger families spank less and
withdraw allowances more. But Weinberg's study finds
that the poor spank more even after you've accounted for
all of these effects. The question is why.

Here's one good alternative to the economic explanation:
University of New Hampshire sociologist Murray Straus
has published multiple studies concluding that children
who are spanked are less successful as adults. If the link
is causal—that is, if being spanked actually lowers your
earnings potential —and if spanking runs in families, then
we have an alternative explanation for Weinberg's numbers:
Low-income parents are more likely to spank their children
because low-income parents are more likely to have been
spanked themselves. Or maybe it's as simple as this:
Poverty breeds frustration, and frustrated parents lash
out at their kids. Does any reader have a better story?

My note: the child then learns that lashing out at someone
smaller and weaker is the way to deal with his frustration
and anger.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, toto wrote:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:36:50 GMT, "Stephanie and Tim"
wrote:


"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article , D=
oan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.


I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is compa=
red
to whites.

I assume you meant poverty line, not crime line above.

And as to the conviction rate, note that the research into the death
penalty in Illinois showed that 13 innocent men were on death row.
Most of them were black.

Also note that the 5 teens in the much publicized Central Park jogger
"wild thing" case turned out to be falsely convicted!

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.

i

Interestingly, if the crime rate is an indicator, it would seem to
indicate the ineffectiveness of punishments particularly spanking,
but other punishments as well. This may also explain why more
men commit crimes than women do also.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2075217/#ContinueArticle

Nope! If crime rate is an indicator, it showed that punishments is
very effective. Remember the rising crime rate in the 90's until
the government, with the approval of the people, started to get "tough
on crime". As Chris Dugan pointed out: "lowest level in 33 years"! :-)
Then there is always Singapore with a very low crime-rate!

racial differences are more pronounced for spanking than
for allowance denial: In both cases blacks punish the most,
then whites, then Hispanics, but the gaps between racial
groups are much bigger for corporal than for financial
punishment.

There were also similar claim about the IQ differences among
races.

My note: Historically, this is a leftover from slavery when
black parents felt they had to be very harsh with their
children so the children would not be harmed by the
slavemasters. It was a way of teaching the children
how to get along in a society controlled by white people
who considered them to be less than human.

Nice theory but it doesn't explain why whites spank their kids
also -especially in the South!

Boys are punished more than girls, with substantially more
spankings and a bit more in the way of allowance withdrawals.
Single mothers spank a little less, and withdraw allowances
quite a bit less, than other parents. Older and better-educated
parents are a bit less likely to spank and a bit more likely to
withdraw allowances. Bigger families spank less and
withdraw allowances more. But Weinberg's study finds
that the poor spank more even after you've accounted for
all of these effects. The question is why.

Dorothy citing social studies??? Yikes! ;-)
I am interested in this Weinberg's study. Can you provide some
details, Dorothy? How large is the sample? How was the sample
obtained? What confounding factors were accounted for?....

Here's one good alternative to the economic explanation:
University of New Hampshire sociologist Murray Straus
has published multiple studies concluding that children
who are spanked are less successful as adults.

Then how does he explained the Maurer study in which 98% of
college freshmen were spanked and 95% of professionals were
spanked? Were Ted Turner spanked?

If the link
is causal=97that is, if being spanked actually lowers your
earnings potential =97and if spanking runs in families, then
we have an alternative explanation for Weinberg's numbers:
Low-income parents are more likely to spank their children
because low-income parents are more likely to have been
spanked themselves. Or maybe it's as simple as this:
Poverty breeds frustration, and frustrated parents lash
out at their kids. Does any reader have a better story?

Could it be that poor parents just can't afford to give their
kids the advantages in life - like a private education....
There are just too many confound factors here, Dorothy.
Why are you citing studies now?

My note: the child then learns that lashing out at someone
smaller and weaker is the way to deal with his frustration
and anger.

Then you are assuming the the child is stupid! ;-)

Doan

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:42:57 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 24 Nov 2003, Ignoramus3100 wrote:

I think that I am being dragged into a debate in which I have
little
interest. I came here when I saw a statement that said that less
child
beating means more crime. And now somehow I am being dragged into a
discussion as to whether illegal immigration is a good thing.

Then you are mistaken! Nowhere did I ever say that less "beating"
means
more crime. The issue here is whether spanking (not beating) leads
to
crime - as the anti-spankings claimed. All I said is there is no
evidence of it and if you look at the studies they cited, the
'correlations" is even stronger for non-cp alternatives!

Shall we kindly put aside your Singapore example then. Or is caning
just another form of spanking?

Or might there be some "confounding" factors in the Singapore
experience, eh?


Doan

What a child you are Doan.

Kane

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:36:50 GMT, "Stephanie and Tim"
wrote:


"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.


I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is
compared
to whites.

I assume you meant poverty line, not crime line above.

And as to the conviction rate, note that the research into the death
penalty in Illinois showed that 13 innocent men were on death row.
Most of them were black.

Apart from the fact that I totally agree that black innocent men are
arrested and are jailed for minor crimes with a higher frequency than white
men there still remains an unexplained racial crime rate.


I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.

i

Interestingly, if the crime rate is an indicator, it would seem to
indicate the ineffectiveness of punishments particularly spanking,
but other punishments as well. This may also explain why more
men commit crimes than women do also.

We, as a society, have developed strange and inappropriate punishments for
'crimes'. Our only answer is jail. Men, in all societies, are seen as
law-breakers and women are more conforming . Jail, as a punishment often
serves little purpose. Jail was supposed to protect society from dangereous
people. I've forgotten the percentage of truely dangerous people in jail
but it's quite low.

I wrote about the black kid in jail for 8 years for having sex with a girl 2
years younger than himself. Society is destroying a person with the
potential of living a very productive life. High grades, athletic, good
family, etc. There have indications that it is a race issue but other
examples were given of white being tretated similuarly.




http://slate.msn.com/id/2075217/#ContinueArticle

racial differences are more pronounced for spanking than
for allowance denial: In both cases blacks punish the most,
then whites, then Hispanics, but the gaps between racial
groups are much bigger for corporal than for financial
punishment.

My note: Historically, this is a leftover from slavery when
black parents felt they had to be very harsh with their
children so the children would not be harmed by the
slavemasters. It was a way of teaching the children
how to get along in a society controlled by white people
who considered them to be less than human.

Interesting thought...

Boys are punished more than girls, with substantially more
spankings and a bit more in the way of allowance withdrawals.
Single mothers spank a little less, and withdraw allowances
quite a bit less, than other parents. Older and better-educated
parents are a bit less likely to spank and a bit more likely to
withdraw allowances. Bigger families spank less and
withdraw allowances more. But Weinberg's study finds
that the poor spank more even after you've accounted for
all of these effects. The question is why.

Here's one good alternative to the economic explanation:
University of New Hampshire sociologist Murray Straus
has published multiple studies concluding that children
who are spanked are less successful as adults. If the link
is causal-that is, if being spanked actually lowers your
earnings potential -and if spanking runs in families, then
we have an alternative explanation for Weinberg's numbers:
Low-income parents are more likely to spank their children
because low-income parents are more likely to have been
spanked themselves. Or maybe it's as simple as this:
Poverty breeds frustration, and frustrated parents lash
out at their kids. Does any reader have a better story?

The common thread is lower in-come and poverty which suggests , as a group,
they are not the brightest light bulbs. Spanking occurs at all social
levels so I'm left to beleive it cannot be used as a criteria for bad
behavior in later life. It's all too easy to associate a common behavior
with something we find unacceptable.

For a while there was a cry because too many kids read comic books, then it
was television, now it's playing video games.. and, of course, spanking.


My note: the child then learns that lashing out at someone
smaller and weaker is the way to deal with his frustration
and anger.

What about learning respect for both people and property. Of the lower
income people I've known there seems to be a sense of irresponsibility. Walk
into a house cluttered with toys and junk and you'll find kids who are a bit
beyond control. Christmas toys are broken before New Years... and generally
there is a lot of fighing, yelling, and disorder. The one who screams the
loudest gets their way. You know the old adage... but it seems to me to be a
learned behavior. To be denied his way develops into that sense of
frustration and anger you allude to. Everything anyone needs to know can be
learned in the sand box... and it's all about getting along with others and
learning limitations. It would be senseless to attack someone larger and
bigger... which is a learning experience in itself.



bobb



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits