View Full Version : Moral conundrum
j4bberw0ck
04-Mar-07, 11:17
Just reading a book called "Freakonomics", basically a sociology text written by an economist.
In one chapter, it discusses the seeming exponential rise in crime - and especially gun crime amongst the young - in the 1980s / 1990s America. New York, 1990 - 2,242 murders. Criminologists warning that by 1995, that would seem like "the good old days". Clinton, 1995 - "We've got about 6 years to turn this juvenile crime thing round or our country is going to be living with chaos".
Then in 1995, crime in all categories started to fall dramatically and completely against expectation. By 2000, the murder count in New York was 540 and the murder rate in the US nationally was the lowest for 35 years - as was the rate for almost every other category of crime.
Why? How?
The Police, of course, said it was due to their new initiatives, zero tolerance, the wonderful officers on the street, their dedication etc etc. The politicians said it was due to the booming economy of the 1990s, their own genius and leadership, the money they poured into the problem.
The real reason, according to the author, is all the way back in Dallas, in 1970; a young, poor, uneducated, alcoholic drug-user who'd given up two children for adoption and who, pregnant a third time, was desperate to get an abortion which was illegal in most American States. The woman, whose name was anonymised to Roe, was the lead plaintiff in a case taken up by powerful pro-abortion lobbyists, resulting in the legalisation of abortion throughout the US - the Roe v. Wade decision. Millions of women went on to get abortions to end unwanted pregnancies, or pregnancies they couldn't afford.
Conclusion: Since study after study has shown that unwanted children in very disadvantaged family situations have a vastly greater chance of becoming criminals, the reduction of crime in 1990s America was due to the Roe v. Wade decision - the pool of potential criminals was reduced dramatically. Action by police and politicians had hardly any effect at all.
Questions: Is the way to stop a criminal underclass from ruling the streets of Britain to make it easier for women in severely disadvantaged family situations to have abortions? Should the benefits system remove financial advantage in having children? Should there be on-demand abortion clinics in each city?
Questions: Is the way to stop a criminal underclass from ruling the streets of Britain to make it easier for women in severely disadvantaged family situations to have abortions? Should the benefits system remove financial advantage in having children? Should there be on-demand abortion clinics in each city?
There is no eveidence of any connection between abortion and crime rate.
The reason for the falling crime rate in America is obvious from the statistics. Even while the crime rate has been falling rapidly the prison population has continued to rise rapidly, at the moment it's still rising by around 600 a week, fewer crimes committed should mean fewer people sent to prison.
People behind bars can't rob petrol stations.
Questions: Is the way to stop a criminal underclass from ruling the streets of Britain to make it easier for women in severely disadvantaged family situations to have abortions? Should the benefits system remove financial advantage in having children? Should there be on-demand abortion clinics in each city?
IMO, definitely NO to questions 1 and 3.
It's not that hard to have an abortion in this country if your circumstances make a pregancy impossible/very difficult to contemplate.
In general I'd like to see adoption discussed more as a viable (no pun intended) alternative to abortion.
The second question - I really don't know enough about the benefits system to answer.....but it sounds rather as if you're talking about women being pressurised into abortion through a lack of alternatives. Maybe I've got that wrong?
I accept that "Ms Roe" did want to have an abortion, but then I don't feel that here and now a woman in a the same situation would have any difficulty obtaining one. I'm curious what happened to her afterwards btw.:confused
I dont doubt there will always be people who will operate on the wrong side of the law. That being said I believe that many people who do, will be doing it as a direct result of the way they have been treated by society.
How come the education system can impose 11 years national service on our children and yet somewhere along that path many children fall off and are given up as hopeless cases? It's easy to blame the parents but they were also likely to have suffered a similar fate where their potential was never acheived because of an educational system that caters for the group rather than the individual. Fit in or fit out and even some of those who do fit in will be left scarred by the experience. Figures on depression and stress in our society will vouch to that fact.
Our social structure is another problem. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Unless we have proper communication with properly trained and self aware individuals as children, how are we going to achieve a potential that can just as easily turn against us as be our saviour?
I worry about the future of people who grow up without the necessary social skills to survive. Ever since Thatcherism people without the necessary communication skills have been seen as a problem rather than the residue from a society that Thatcher said didnt exist.
Unmarried mothers and because of that, their children, the unemployed, the disabled and immigrants and liberal thinking people have all been characterised as the bogeyman in their pursuit of perfection.
Even ordinary people, as the forums of Caithness.org will lay fact to, blame those groups for their own insecurities.
Now, it seems we are blaming the unborn lol.
j4bberw0ck
04-Mar-07, 13:38
I'm curious what happened to her afterwards btw.:confused
Eventually, it seems, she became a "pro-life" activist...........
j4bberw0ck
04-Mar-07, 13:49
.....residue from a society that Thatcher said didnt exist.
That's a selective quote. Full version:
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
(my use of bold)
Not actually far different from what's been expressed on here from time to time - especially the last two sentences. But I'm sure the mere mention of the "T" word will cause some raised blood pressure :lol:
Crime and criminal behaviour will continue to increase as long as there are people who are only too willing to excuse such behaviour and are intent on moving the blame elsewhere.
Leave breeding as the preserve of the rich and there will be no more crime?[lol][lol]
sassylass
05-Mar-07, 06:06
I'm reading that book too, and it crossed my mind that his "solutions" are really just his opinions. Who's to say they are correct?
Questions: Is the way to stop a criminal underclass from ruling the streets of Britain to make it easier for women in severely disadvantaged family situations to have abortions? Should the benefits system remove financial advantage in having children? Should there be on-demand abortion clinics in each city?
How long do we wait for all the other "solutions" to fail before we come back to this one and think........ "Is it too late to give it a go?"
Crime and criminal behaviour will continue to increase as long as there are people who are only too willing to excuse such behaviour and are intent on moving the blame elsewhere.
Could you could give me at least 1 example of anyone excusing criminal behaviour?
There's a big difference between understanding the causes of criminal bahaviour and in your words, excusing it.
j4bberw0ck
05-Mar-07, 10:54
I'm reading that book too, and it crossed my mind that his "solutions" are really just his opinions. Who's to say they are correct?
No one; least of all me! I just thought the concept was interesting and thought I'd try it out in here...........
Just reading a book called "Freakonomics", basically a sociology text written by an economist.
In one chapter, it discusses the seeming exponential rise in crime - and especially gun crime amongst the young - in the 1980s / 1990s America. New York, 1990 - 2,242 murders. Criminologists warning that by 1995, that would seem like "the good old days". Clinton, 1995 - "We've got about 6 years to turn this juvenile crime thing round or our country is going to be living with chaos".
Then in 1995, crime in all categories started to fall dramatically and completely against expectation. By 2000, the murder count in New York was 540 and the murder rate in the US nationally was the lowest for 35 years - as was the rate for almost every other category of crime.
Why? How?
The Police, of course, said it was due to their new initiatives, zero tolerance, the wonderful officers on the street, their dedication etc etc. The politicians said it was due to the booming economy of the 1990s, their own genius and leadership, the money they poured into the problem.
The real reason, according to the author, is all the way back in Dallas, in 1970; a young, poor, uneducated, alcoholic drug-user who'd given up two children for adoption and who, pregnant a third time, was desperate to get an abortion which was illegal in most American States. The woman, whose name was anonymised to Roe, was the lead plaintiff in a case taken up by powerful pro-abortion lobbyists, resulting in the legalisation of abortion throughout the US - the Roe v. Wade decision. Millions of women went on to get abortions to end unwanted pregnancies, or pregnancies they couldn't afford.
Conclusion: Since study after study has shown that unwanted children in very disadvantaged family situations have a vastly greater chance of becoming criminals, the reduction of crime in 1990s America was due to the Roe v. Wade decision - the pool of potential criminals was reduced dramatically. Action by police and politicians had hardly any effect at all.
Questions: Is the way to stop a criminal underclass from ruling the streets of Britain to make it easier for women in severely disadvantaged family situations to have abortions? Should the benefits system remove financial advantage in having children? Should there be on-demand abortion clinics in each city?
Just get them to write out your posting 100 times and that will keep them off the streets for a decade at least!
I take it by their reasoning crime is never committed by the rich just the impoverished. The pompous rich that think they are better than everyone else, there's a bit more to being a decent person than how rich you are.
sassylass
05-Mar-07, 16:26
No one; least of all me! I just thought the concept was interesting and thought I'd try it out in here...........
It's true, his way of looking at things is intriguing.
It's true, his way of looking at things is intriguing.Sounds a bit of a wally.
j4bberw0ck
05-Mar-07, 18:46
You might want to try reading the book, of course............. :lol:
You might want to try reading the book, of course............. :lol:
Why? There's nothing new about it, it's been proposed and even practiced at various times in history.
It's called eugenics.
j4bberw0ck
05-Mar-07, 20:16
Cobblers.
No compulsion, no third parties making decisions for people, no concentration camps, no Swedish government officials.
No eugenics.
Cobblers.
No compulsion, no third parties making decisions for people, no concentration camps, no Swedish government officials.
No eugenics.
I've looked through all my dictionaries and can't see any mention of concentration camps in the definition of eugenics.
If the purpose of providing abortion on demand to the lower classes is to improve the human race by having fewer lower class babies born then that is eugenics.
I take it by their reasoning crime is never committed by the rich just the impoverished. The pompous rich that think they are better than everyone else, there's a bit more to being a decent person than how rich you are.
I wonder how many poor people it takes to steal as much as an Enron executive.
j4bberw0ck
06-Mar-07, 15:27
I take it by their reasoning crime is never committed by the rich just the impoverished. The pompous rich that think they are better than everyone else, there's a bit more to being a decent person than how rich you are.
study after study has shown that unwanted children in very disadvantaged family situations have a vastly greater chance of becoming criminals
I think you missed the point, darkman. It's not primarily about "rich" - it's about "very disadvantaged family situations".
'Course, if you want to go off at a tangent about the rich and the poor, that's up to you. Do you not accept the studies which show that disadvantaged children have a higher rate of criminal behaviour? Or are you suggesting that it we just handed out taxpayer's money on street corners to every chav wandering by, there'd be no more crime?
Some might feel, of course, that that's pretty much what some of the present arrangements amount to.
j4bberw0ck
06-Mar-07, 15:34
Maybe, but not exclusively. BTW, you might want to zap the word-masking before a mod spots it :lol:
<edit> ah! Done by the time the flood control let me thru </edit>
I think you missed the point, darkman. It's not primarily about "rich" - it's about "very disadvantaged family situations".
'Course, if you want to go off at a tangent about the rich and the poor, that's up to you. Do you not accept the studies which show that disadvantaged children have a higher rate of criminal behaviour? Or are you suggesting that it we just handed out taxpayer's money on street corners to every chav wandering by, there'd be no more crime?
Some might feel, of course, that that's pretty much what some of the present arrangements amount to.Every measure put in place is just coincidental to falling crime rates except his theory of aborting the children of the poor, he seems to think he's found some sort of panacea for crime by delving into eugenics, very dangerous ground when roughly half the prison population in america are african-american.
He stated that if you live in poverty and come from a single parent background then it doubles the chances of you committing a crime and having an uneducated mother increases those odds.
The guy is a muppet and a dangerous minded one at that.
Kaishowing
06-Mar-07, 17:03
It's a very VERY dodgy area. In my opinioin it's a very small step for Eugenics to rear it's evil head again.
In America starting about 100 years ago the idea of forced steralization took hold, and resulted in 65,000 cases to date.
There's still an active law over there that allows such evil to be imposed on a woman just by having the courts decide that she's an unfit parent, and shouldn't have the right to bear any more offspring.
In reference to that law, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr who was a member of the Supreme Court said "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
It seems that the original proposal given at the start of this thread isn't too far away from such thinking for the 'greater good'.
Incidentally, the same way of thinking led to over 350,000 forced steralizations in Germany and opened the door to forced euthanasia of individuals with birth defects. Not long after the law was extended to include Jews, gypsies, and other "undesirable elements."
j4bberw0ck
06-Mar-07, 21:54
Every measure put in place is just coincidental to falling crime rates except his theory of aborting the children of the poor, he seems to think he's found some sort of panacea for crime by delving into eugenics, very dangerous ground when roughly half the prison population in america are african-american.
He stated that if you live in poverty and come from a single parent background then it doubles the chances of you committing a crime and having an uneducated mother increases those odds.
The guy is a muppet and a dangerous minded one at that.
Can I ask, have you actually read the piece in question? There's no theory here; just an interpretation of observed, provable fact. Do calm down.
I have no idea at all where you get this stuff about "he's found some sort of panacea" by "aborting the children of the poor". It's not advocated. It's not suggested as a solution. Roe v. Wade is suggested as one reason why crime reduced, given that it was not legally possible to get an abortion in most of the US in the 1970s.
And like any other market, if you try to make it illegal, you hand it to the criminals. Our own problems with the record amounts of heroin on the streets and the price reducing all the time is testament to the ultimate stupidity of trying to regulate things people want. So if you're poor and WANT an abortion, and can't get one because of legislation, you'll not readily get one from the criminals controlling the illegal alternative because it costs money.
And you thought the muppet was the author.... :roll: .
Can I ask, have you actually read the piece in question? There's no theory here; just an interpretation of observed, provable fact. Do calm down.
I have no idea at all where you get this stuff about "he's found some sort of panacea" by "aborting the children of the poor". It's not advocated. It's not suggested as a solution. Roe v. Wade is suggested as one reason why crime reduced, given that it was not legally possible to get an abortion in most of the US in the 1970s.
And like any other market, if you try to make it illegal, you hand it to the criminals. Our own problems with the record amounts of heroin on the streets and the price reducing all the time is testament to the ultimate stupidity of trying to regulate things people want. So if you're poor and WANT an abortion, and can't get one because of legislation, you'll not readily get one from the criminals controlling the illegal alternative because it costs money.
And you thought the muppet was the author.... :roll: .
How can an interpretation be anything less than a theory, obviously he's not so bold as to advocate abortion of the kids of under priviliged families but he does put it forward as a possible solution to growing crime when he dismisses all other ideas that have been put in place over the years to combat crime.
On marketable items, if you price it too high you create a black market, maybe the law makers could consider that.
On heroin, poppy production in afghanistan is in full flow again so maybe they should address that problem when they are bombing uninhabited mountain ranges.
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 09:53
he does put it forward as a possible solution to growing crime when he dismisses all other ideas that have been put in place over the years to combat crime.
Ah. Clearly you haven't read the source from which I drew the original question. He doesn't put it forward as a possible solution to growing crime. What he does is point out that the observed reduction in crime figures can be linked - if one is so minded - to the timing of the Roe v. Wade decision. You might like to read it (http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/203-1832874-0942314?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=freakonomics&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go).
<edit>Sorry, I should just add that I converted his supposition into the question because I thought (hoped?) it might stimulate some intelligent discussion and it's an interesting moral area. The author of the book did not advocate it, advise it, or comment on it.</edit>
On marketable items, if you price it too high you create a black market, maybe the law makers could consider that.Law makers and free markets are non-too-compatible bedfellows. Price controls by law failed in all the centrally-planned economies of the former Eastern bloc both at the micro- and macro-level.
On heroin, poppy production in afghanistan is in full flow again so maybe they should address that problem when they are bombing uninhabited mountain ranges.Perhaps they should; trouble is, of course, you end up bombing Afghan peasant farmers who are growing it because (a) they have no cash crop alternative that makes them anything like the same amount of money, and (b) because the Taliban, ah, encourage them to grow it because they (the Taliban) see it as a way of weakening the West. They're right, too.
Where??? I have not seen any facts put forward?!?
The facts referred to are those studies - endlessly referred to in the media - which show that children from criminal or desperately underprivileged backgrounds are more likely, statistically, to fail at school and to become both victims and perpetrators of crime.
The facts referred to are those studies - endlessly referred to in the media - which show that children from criminal or desperately underprivileged backgrounds are more likely, statistically, to fail at school and to become both victims and perpetrators of crime.
The facts arn't true.
There are many types of crime, blue collar, white collar, corporate, state. There are many types of criminal each one limited by the situation they are in as to what type of crime they will commit.
The lower classes do not have a monopoly on crime, Lewis Libby didn't come from an underpriviledged background, he didn't fail at school and neither did his victim, to single out lower class crime is class discrimination.
The facts arn't true.
Pure brilliance Fred. ;)
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 12:29
The facts arn't true.
I've noticed that about you. They never are when it offends your view of the world.
There are many types of crime, blue collar, white collar, corporate, state. There are many types of criminal each one limited by the situation they are in as to what type of crime they will commit.That we can agree on.
The lower classes do not have a monopoly on crime, Lewis Libby didn't come from an underpriviledged background, he didn't fail at school and neither did his victim, to single out lower class crime is class discrimination.This "class" stuff really gripes. Libby has absolutely sod-all to do with the topic at hand. No one is accusing your "lower classes" (which in my view is a disgraceful, dismissive phrase) of being criminals per se.
But if you're suggesting that children exposed from an early age to deprivation, parental neglect, poverty, poor education, drugs, abuse and bullying - or some combination thereof - are no more likely to become victims or perpetrators of crime than anyone else then you'd better tell all the Social Services departments, sociologists, criminologists and educators, but quickly; by the time they've finished laughing at you they'll be drawing their pensions.
You'd better let all the gang kids in London know about it to; they'd be relieved. There they are, living in appalling poverty in many cases, with sink schooling and almost no chance of breaking the mould, and they join street gangs because otherwise they'll be beaten up and intimidated. And the ones with guns coerce younger kids (youngest so far has been 8, according to Radio 4) into holding the guns for them.
Where on earth do they go after that? Downhill all the way.
Ah. Clearly you haven't read the source from which I drew the original question. He doesn't put it forward as a possible solution to growing crime. What he does is point out that the observed reduction in crime figures can be linked - if one is so minded - to the timing of the Roe v. Wade decision. You might like to read it (http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/203-1832874-0942314?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=freakonomics&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go).
Sorry, I should just add that I converted his supposition into the question because I thought (hoped?) it might stimulate some intelligent discussion and it's an interesting moral area. The author of the book did not advocate it, advise it, or comment on it.He describes abortion of the poor as the only real option at the expense of every other measure put in place, (which he dismisses too lightly), to lower crime figures even using Ceausescu's regime to back his 'suppositions'.
Law makers and free markets are non-too-compatible bedfellows. Price controls by law failed in all the centrally-planned economies of the former Eastern bloc both at the micro- and macro-level.High prices cause black markets, hardly rocket science, our governments should address that fact.
Perhaps they should; trouble is, of course, you end up bombing Afghan peasant farmers who are growing it because (a) they have no cash crop alternative that makes them anything like the same amount of money, and (b) because the Taliban, ah, encourage them to grow it because they (the Taliban) see it as a way of weakening the West. They're right, too.The crops could be easily destroyed but they choose not to, why?
Could these 'farmers' not be compensated for not growing their life destroying crop?
The facts referred to are those studies - endlessly referred to in the media - which show that children from criminal or desperately underprivileged backgrounds are more likely, statistically, to fail at school and to become both victims and perpetrators of crime.So, instead of addressing the issue of poverty it could be made to disappear by aborting the children of the impoverished, no poor, no crime, problem solved.
I could compile a list of some of the greatest minds that ever lived, all from poor backgrounds and the world would be a poorer place if they had never been born.
This "class" stuff really gripes. Libby has absolutely sod-all to do with the topic at hand. No one is accusing your "lower classes" (which in my view is a disgraceful, dismissive phrase) of being criminals per se.
It only gripes because you're pretending this is about crime not class and it isn't.
But if you're suggesting that children exposed from an early age to deprivation, parental neglect, poverty, poor education, drugs, abuse and bullying - or some combination thereof - are no more likely to become victims or perpetrators of crime than anyone else then you'd better tell all the Social Services departments, sociologists, criminologists and educators, but quickly; by the time they've finished laughing at you they'll be drawing their pensions.
There again you keep sliping that "victims" in first to try and make it look like you'd be doing the poor things a favour breeding them out of existence. In my experience the person most likely to be a victim of crime is the person with something worth stealing, a nice new car is more likely to be stolen than a beat up old Ford Mondeo.
You'd better let all the gang kids in London know about it to; they'd be relieved. There they are, living in appalling poverty in many cases, with sink schooling and almost no chance of breaking the mould, and they join street gangs because otherwise they'll be beaten up and intimidated. And the ones with guns coerce younger kids (youngest so far has been 8, according to Radio 4) into holding the guns for them.
Where on earth do they go after that? Downhill all the way.
While Terry Wogan can get £1,500 an hour presenting Children in Need, criminal.
Again you're just focusing on one type of crime and one class of criminal, you seem to have it in for oinks from council estates. If you were to ask any of them if they would be happier if someone had persuaded their mother to have an abortion what do you think their answer would be?
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 14:32
Where are the authors statistics of abortion before Roe vs. Wade as I mention 2 posts back? What does he use as his comparision? It's quite simple to build theories/hypotheses around cloudy statistics.
Roy, perhaps you might be better off emailing him to ask? What am I? His editor? His agent? This started off as an interesting (I thought) look at a social phenomenon and it should be abundantly obvious from the rather careful way that I worded the original post (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=22332) that I was inviting a discussion based on the information given. I'm not advocating anything. As I said, I'd rather hoped it might stimulate some interesting opinions, thoughts and insights - based around the concept and phrases such as "if we accept for a moment...." or "assuming the statistics to be true...."
So, instead of addressing the issue of poverty it could be made to disappear by aborting the children of the impoverished, no poor, no crime, problem solved.
That is such a monumentally, wilfully stupid interpretation I'm left (almost) speechless. Doesn't happen often, darkman, and it puts you in some very undistinguished company :lol: .
It only gripes because you're pretending this is about crime not class and it isn't.Eugenics and genocide are very much at the forefront of this idiots theories.
That is such a monumentally, wilfully stupid interpretation I'm left (almost) speechless. Doesn't happen often, darkman, and it puts you in some very undistinguished company :lol: .I'm not the one stating abortion of the poor help solve the crime rate in america.
So, for the benefit of the stupid, i.e, me, then perhaps you could explain what this guy is really on about.
The author of the book did not advocate it, advise it, or comment on it.Then
The real reason, according to the author, is all the way back in Dallas, in 1970; a young, poor, uneducated, alcoholic drug-user who'd given up two children for adoption and who, pregnant a third time, was desperate to get an abortion which was illegal in most American States. Make your mind up pal.
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 15:14
Again you're just focusing on one type of crime and one class of criminal, you seem to have it in for oinks from council estates.
Well, since I qualify as a former "oink" from a council estate, as you charmingly put it, have I got it in for me? What is an "oink", by the way?
Can I refer again to the original post which talked about crime levels, a statistical link about likelihood of becoming involved in crime which is taken as read by any concerned government or social care department, and a possible link to an important socio-legal event, about which I wondered whether anyone had any views.
If in the fred / darkman continuum, debate about issues isn't allowed because of political correctness, or because people like to talk dismissively of the "lower classes", or because people are so inclined to reductio ad absurdum techniques that bog the debate down in meaningless drivel, then you're welcome to your shared world.
If you were to ask any of them if they would be happier if someone had persuaded their mother to have an abortion what do you think their answer would be?
This is in danger of stepping into darkman territory! Who's advocating abortion? Not me. Not the author. I guess from darkman's comments, though, he's been scrabbling round the Freakonomics website, looking for damning stuff...... but reading only the bits and extracts, perhaps misunderstanding. Yes! Ceaucescu is mentioned!
Knock yourselves out....... (http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php)
It would be interesting to know whether sassylass shares darkman's interpretation of what's said.
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 15:24
Make your mind up pal.
Oooh, you are a one, darkman :lol: .
Has it not yet dawned on you that arriving at a conclusion does not mean you automatically have to put it into practice?
Let's say someone asks you to study traffic deaths. You conclude - amongst other things - that if there were no cars or trucks on the road, there'd be few or no traffic deaths. Therefore you immediately want to ban all motor vehicles.
That's a not a million miles from your "reasoning" on the abortion issue.
Oooh, you are a one, darkman :lol: .
Has it not yet dawned on you that arriving at a conclusion does not mean you automatically have to put it into practice?
Let's say someone asks you to study traffic deaths. You conclude - amongst other things - that if there were no cars or trucks on the road, there'd be few or no traffic deaths. Therefore you immediately want to ban all motor vehicles.
That's a not a million miles from your "reasoning" on the abortion issue.
Not a million miles from his 'reasoning' either.
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 15:38
Has it not yet dawned on you that arriving at a conclusion does not mean you automatically have to put it into practice?
<ahem> :lol:
It doesn't matter whether it's put into practice or not, the very idea is abhorrant.
Again you're just focusing on one type of crime and one class of criminal, you seem to have it in for oinks from council estates. If you were to ask any of them if they would be happier if someone had persuaded their mother to have an abortion what do you think their answer would be?
Fred, as a council estate resident since settling in Edinburgh, I take great exception as being pigeonholed as a criminal and refered to as an "oink", I think you will find that the word you are trying to use is
oik : Noun. An unsophisticated, uncultured and objectionable person. Derog.
And again I find your generalisation of Council Estate residents objectionable and wrong
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 15:47
It doesn't matter whether it's put into practice or not, the very idea is abhorrent.
...which has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong as an idea, only on whether it should be put into practice.
Fred, as a council estate resident since settling in Edinburgh, I take great exception as being pigeonholed as a criminal.
According to mr levitt you are.[lol]
According to mr levitt you are.[lol]
Some how I dont think so, I dont know of Council Estates in the US.
And Mr Levitt does not post on the Caithness web.....Fred does[disgust]
Some how I dont think so, I dont know of Council Estates in the US.
And Mr Levitt does not post on the Caithness web.....Fred does[disgust]Oh, I see, he was only talking about crime and poverty in america and his theory has nothing to do with poverty in other countries.
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 16:01
I think darkman's ability to generalise meaninglessly is running away with him / her here........ :lol:
I think darkman's ability to generalise meaninglessly is running away with him / her here........ :lol:Well done.;)
For the benefit of the stupid, i.e, me, then perhaps you could explain what this guy is really on about.I'm waiting jabberwock.:lol:
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 16:23
Wait away. If you can't be bothered to read for comprehension, I certainly see no compelling reason to try to make up the shortfall.
I tend to prefer sharp knives :lol: .
Wait away. If you can't be bothered to read for comprehension, I certainly see no compelling reason to try to make up the shortfall.
I tend to prefer sharp knives .Well done.;)
I have read the piece and I do not agree with his sentiments, does that make me a bad person.:lol:
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 16:36
I have read the piece and I do not agree with his sentiments, does that make me a bad person.
That's fine. Disagreement is fine. If we all agreed all the time, fred would be redundant and this place would be less interesting than it is :lol:[lol]
Using the ceausescu regime to give credence to his 'suppositions' did not do him any favours whatsoever.
Then makes the wild assumption that because their prospective mothers were poor, single or from a minority race then the majority of those aborted children would definitely have become criminals and according to levitt the chances of becoming a criminal double when those mothers are uneducated.
How does he know that those children would not have become productive members of society when, as I have said before, many of the greatest minds to have ever lived came from impoverished backgrounds?
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 19:35
From my understanding the basic principles aren't as proven as the author is trying to makeout possibly making the whole bloody book moot.
Well, read an extract yourself - bearing in mind that it's just that and so finishes halfway through any sort of argument. (http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php)
Using the ceausescu regime to give credence to his 'suppositions' did not do him any favours whatsoever.
Then makes the wild assumption that because their prospective mothers were poor, single or from a minority race then the majority of those aborted children would definitely have become criminals and according to levitt the chances of becoming a criminal double when those mothers are uneducated.
How does he know that those children would not have become productive members of society when, as I have said before, many of the greatest minds to have ever lived came from impoverished backgrounds?
Darkman, you really need to lie down in a darkened room. You've clearly not read the book, and Ceaucescu is mentioned only once on the website, and without explanation. The mere mention of the name seems to have you assuming the author is full of admiration. And you clearly have no idea at all how he uses the Ceaucescu regime's actions to make a point; one which isn't complimentary.
Ref. "wild assumptions" - read this:
But if you're suggesting that children exposed from an early age to deprivation, parental neglect, poverty, poor education, drugs, abuse and bullying - or some combination thereof - are no more likely to become victims or perpetrators of crime than anyone else then you'd better tell all the Social Services departments, sociologists, criminologists and educators, but quickly; by the time they've finished laughing at you they'll be drawing their pensions.
You'd better let all the gang kids in London know about it to; they'd be relieved. There they are, living in appalling poverty in many cases, with sink schooling and almost no chance of breaking the mould, and they join street gangs because otherwise they'll be beaten up and intimidated. And the ones with guns coerce younger kids (youngest so far has been 8, according to Radio 4) into holding the guns for them.
Where on earth do they go after that? Downhill all the way.
It's not a wild assumption. It's a demonstrable, provable fact which drives Government policy on social care and on "lifting children out of poverty".
Do try to keep up! It does NOT mean that children of poor or underprivileged or deprived families will be criminals.
Fred, as a council estate resident since settling in Edinburgh, I take great exception as being pigeonholed as a criminal and refered to as an "oink",
And I don't blame you, this is what I've been trying to explain to j4bberw0ck, just because you're deprived and can't afford to live in a decent neighbourhood it doesn't mean you're a criminal. He's the one doing the pigeonholing not me, I was sticking up for you.
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 20:07
There you go, golach, you criminal, you. Uncle Fred is on your side! Bet that makes you sleep easier in your bed :lol::lol:
Now, no mugging tonight, please.
Well, since I qualify as a former "oink" from a council estate, as you charmingly put it, have I got it in for me? What is an "oink", by the way?
You just said you were one, don't you know?
Can I refer again to the original post which talked about crime levels, a statistical link about likelihood of becoming involved in crime which is taken as read by any concerned government or social care department, and a possible link to an important socio-legal event, about which I wondered whether anyone had any views.
Yes I remember it, you said poor people are criminals and if they had abortions instead of children the crime rate would go down. You suggested providing abortions on demand for poor people to control the crime rate.
Don't think it would do much for crimes like embezzlement, or selling peerages.
And I don't blame you, this is what I've been trying to explain to j4bberw0ck, just because you're deprived and can't afford to live in a decent neighbourhood it doesn't mean you're a criminal. He's the one doing the pigeonholing not me, I was sticking up for you.
AYE RIGHT!!!!!!!! [disgust]
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 20:40
You just said you were one, don't you know?
I was quoting you, of course. Despite the fact that I find myself in agreement with you on some subjects (and have pm'd and even + repped you to confirm my agreement), so much of what you say doesn't make sense to me it's as well to ask - especially when you get the term of insult wrong as well!
Yes I remember it, you said poor people are criminals and if they had abortions instead of children the crime rate would go down. You suggested providing abortions on demand for poor people to control the crime rate.You've got Darkman Disease. You don't read for comprehension. I made no such statements or suggestions; I asked for people's thoughts and opinions:
Questions: Is the way to stop a criminal underclass from ruling the streets of Britain to make it easier for women in severely disadvantaged family situations to have abortions? Should the benefits system remove financial advantage in having children? Should there be on-demand abortion clinics in each city?
Notice the terms in use? "Is the way....", "Should....." - all with those little squiggly signs that indicate a question? (like that one)
Well, read an extract yourself - bearing in mind that it's just that and so finishes halfway through any sort of argument. (http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php)
Darkman, you really need to lie down in a darkened room. You've clearly not read the book, and Ceaucescu is mentioned only once on the website, and without explanation. The mere mention of the name seems to have you assuming the author is full of admiration. And you clearly have no idea at all how he uses the Ceaucescu regime's actions to make a point; one which isn't complimentary.
Ref. "wild assumptions" - read this:
It's not a wild assumption. It's a demonstrable, provable fact which drives Government policy on social care and on "lifting children out of poverty".
Do try to keep up! It does NOT mean that children of poor or underprivileged or deprived families will be criminals.He devotes 3 pages to the Ceaucescu regime in his book.
The children born due to his anti-abortion policy did badly at school, couldn't get jobs, were more likely to be criminals.
Ceaucescu learned the hard way, if it wasn't for those pesky kids he would have gotten away with it.[lol]
Demostrable facts:
Children from poor, single parent families are more likely to become criminals.
The odds on becoming a criminal double when the mother is uneducated.
Rather you than me jabberwock.[lol]
Wouldn't it have made more sense if he'd put his resources into discovering ways to combat poverty rather than abortion?
Tonight behold the sparkle of champagne the crime rate's gone feel free again o' life's a dream with you, miss lily white Jane Fonda on the screen today convinced the liberals it's okay so let's get dressed and dance away the night while they... kill kill kill kill kill the poor...tonight".
You don't read for comprehension.
In other words fred, you and I are too thick to understand the real meaning behind levitts hypothesis, only pseudo-intellectuals such as jabberwock have that ability.[lol]
j4bberw0ck
07-Mar-07, 21:35
You might say that, darkman; I couldn't possibly comment :lol:
You might say that, darkman; I couldn't possibly comment :lol:Have you actually read the book or just some web pages?;)
Is it in your opinion jabberwock, fact, that the children of unmarried mothers from poor backgrounds are more likely to become criminals and do you believe that the odds double in favour when those mothers are uneducated also?
I see his theories as both classist and racist but what do you think?
Notice the terms in use? "Is the way....", "Should....." - all with those little squiggly signs that indicate a question? (like that one)
Yes, sugestions do tend to have those little squiggly marks after them, they are often phrased as questions.
j4bberw0ck
08-Mar-07, 10:21
Have you actually read the book or just some web pages?
Like I said, darkman, it's about reading for comprehension. The clue was in the first post on this thread:
Just reading a book called "Freakonomics"
Is it in your opinion jabberwock, fact, that the children of unmarried mothers from poor backgrounds are more likely to become criminals and do you believe that the odds double in favour when those mothers are uneducated also?
It is my opinion - already stated in here, but possibly you didn't understand it (reading for comprehension again) - that study after study shows that children exposed from an early age to deprivation, parental neglect, poverty, poor education, drugs, abuse and bullying - or some combination thereof - are more likely to become victims or perpetrators of crime that children from more fortunate backgrounds.
And because I'm starting to realise you're having trouble seeing past your prejudices, let me say that it doesn't mean I think they should have been forcibly aborted - just for the avoidance of doubt.
Yes, sugestions do tend to have those little squiggly marks after them, they are often phrased as questions.
What can I possibly add to that? :lol::lol:
Like I said, darkman, it's about reading for comprehension.Maybe if you took the time to investigate his theory you would comprehend that his data was flawed, made him a rich man though.
Facts, those little things that get in the way of a good story.;)
It is my opinion - already stated in here, but possibly you didn't understand it (reading for comprehension again) - that study after study shows that children exposed from an early age to deprivation, parental neglect, poverty, poor education, drugs, abuse and bullying - or some combination thereof - are more likely to become victims or perpetrators of crime that children from more fortunate backgrounds.Whilst trying to comprehend what you are reading you may realise that parental neglect, drugs, abuse and bullying are only part of his theory, I'll ask again, do you agree that children of unmarried mothers are more likely to become criminals and the odds double when those same mothers are also uneducated?
He states this quite clearly, please try to keep up.:lol:
And because I'm starting to realise you're having trouble seeing past your prejudices.What prejudices would that be, my prejudice against eugenics or my prejudice against racism?
let me say that it doesn't mean I think they should have been forcibly aborted - just for the avoidance of doubt.I never thought that for a minute, misguided maybe.
j4bberw0ck
08-Mar-07, 15:20
Maybe if you took the time to investigate his theory you would comprehend that his data was flawed, made him a rich man though.
Facts, those little things that get in the way of a good story.;)
Look, darkman, I don't give a rat's posterior whether he's right, wrong or indifferent. For the third? fourth? time I was interested in what he had to say, and asked what people thought. Then one or two people like you concluded they must be dealing with some sort of Stalin / antichrist figure who advocates abortions at the point of a gun.
Do get a grip..........
Whilst trying to comprehend what you are reading you may realise that parental neglect, drugs, abuse and bullying are only part of his theory, I'll ask again, do you agree that children of unmarried mothers are more likely to become criminals and the odds double when those same mothers are also uneducated?
Sometimes, it's a question of whether to laugh or cry...........
You asked me before was this my opinion and I told you what my opinion is. It's for you to pick the bones out of it. The figures you've laboriously picked out may, or may not, be true in the United States. I have no idea - and so I'm free to believe them or disbelieve them as I see fit. I have no information as to whether they're true in the UK, but at least I'm capable of inferring that the social differences between the two countries are profound and so there may be no commonality at all.
If you've ever read a technical report on a particular topic or theme - especially the sort of output a half-decent management consultant might produce - where you have to exercise strange things like judgement and discretion about assumptions and conclusions, you'll realise that it's possible to read something and gain value from it without having to assume it's true, or the only solution.
What prejudices would that be, my prejudice against eugenics or my prejudice against racism? No. It would be your prejudices about anything that doesn't fit with what appears to be your two-dimensional view of the world.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.