If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Kids should work...
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Kids should work...
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Kids should work...
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Kids should work...
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Kids should work...
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Kids should work...
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Kids should work...
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kids should work...
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kids should work !!! | Kane | General | 57 | December 3rd 03 06:17 AM |
Which work for kids? | Llort Agig | General | 0 | November 22nd 03 01:51 AM |
At wit's end (looooong) | ColoradoSkiBum | General | 70 | October 12th 03 02:48 AM |
FWD bad judgement or abuse Trunk kids begged to ride | Kane | General | 2 | August 5th 03 05:54 PM |
Article on kids and concerts | Bill1255 | General | 6 | July 21st 03 01:16 PM |