Fuck this shit, I'm keeping whatever weapons I want. Call me a redneck, call me stupid, call me whatever the hell you want.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
You said it...
correlation is not causation.RAIMIUS wrote:
So, do any of the other theories fit as well as the lead theory? That seems like a lot of strong correlations around the same thing.
I'll be honest, the theory is new to me, but if the correlations are at 90% for national, regional, municipal, and international samples, that's pretty darn convincing. If true, such a strong correlation indicates this might be one of the best things to go after in order to reduce crime rates.
The lead effect theory is definitely worth looking into a bit more!
many other things changed during the same decades as the 'pacification' of society. maybe it's to do with the affordability of white goods and washing machines! i see a marked increase in the sales of kitchen appliances during the same time as a drastic reducing in domestic abuse and violence! perhaps all the husbands stopped beating up their wives for making such crappy work of the washing & drying! no such upsets with the all-new convenience from Zanussi! definitely worth looking into more!!!
you find 'lead theories' come up all the time - from ancient rome and theories of rome's classic demise, to modern day america, it seems. there seems to be a hardcore niche of anthropologists and historians that just love them some fucking lead. it's behind everything! the reason the roman empire crumbled was because, even with their unprecedented technique and invention, they were using lead water pipes for everything! it was poisoning them from birth, and creating an essential defect! etc.etc.
correlation is not causation.
from the 1950's onwards, western societies had a new economic and technological stimulus. in wider macro-focus, history goes through cycles of destruction and then rebuilding; it pivots on an alternating dialectic of vitalism and decadence. from 1950 onwards the going has been good (even with the cold war, which was, after all, defined as the 60's instagram polaroid-negative of violence). when people's hands are put to work in a growing/booming economy, and when they are satisfied in a civic sense, with fancy (and illusory) notions of 'making progress', and so on, people are on the whole less violent. put the tin foil hat away.
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-26 16:24:11)
This lead paint argument is your typical bad attempt to bring hard science in to explain a social/human problem. Tying chemical and IQ to crime rates is one step away from using IQs and skull shapes to explain the development of civilization. Same with the abortion argument. Another attempt by people who have a science fetish to "explain the world" to us non-lab coat plebs. Might as well just cut the crap and advocate killing poor people because that is where this sad world view is leading to.
Crime rates have been dropping because of Giuliani's broken windows bullshit and all the police forces that followed suit, hence the incarceration spike.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Dude aren't you from Switzerland?-Sh1fty- wrote:
Fuck this shit, I'm keeping whatever weapons I want. Call me a redneck, call me stupid, call me whatever the hell you want.
This is so bizarre
your logic is badSpearhead wrote:
Dude aren't you from Switzerland?-Sh1fty- wrote:
Fuck this shit, I'm keeping whatever weapons I want. Call me a redneck, call me stupid, call me whatever the hell you want.
This is so bizarre
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/ … ed2001.pdfaynrandroolz wrote:
crime-rates are down because of abortion? only an american with a christian moral compass could give abortion such credit. crime is down because society has a lot less struggle and strife - things are relatively comfortable, middle class, and bourgeoisie. the standard of living is at a median-enough rate to keep violent crime down. conversely, in areas of concentrated poverty, the violent crime rate will still be relatively unchanged. the abortion argument is absolutely crackers, because whether a particular nation is pro- or anti- abortion, the population problem is rampant, anyway. over-population is a hugely rising factor and is not being affected at all by abortion: for every baby aborted, there's another 5 geriatrics living past the 100 milestone. there's generally less violence because society and everyday life in general is less antagonistic and less adversarial.
I'd believe some dudes at the economic departments from U Chicago.
The hypothesis is this: Less unwanted babies = less crime. The women who want an abortion usually fall into the "at risk area," where they don't have the financial, emotional, and familial means to properly raise a child. Having legalized abortion doesn't mean women won't have kids, it just delays their decision to have kids. But it doesn't account for all drop in crime, but it's abortion is a significant decline in crime.
Correlation does not equal causation because tying gun ownership and lowered crime rates together in isolation whilst ignoring every other influencing factor is just stupid.
I believe fewer single women at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale having kids they don't want, can't afford and whose upbringing they are unlikely to pay thorough attention to is going to have some impact on the crime stats.
That and the offspring of irresponsible men brought up without a father figure forming a smaller proportion of the population.
But the fact is I believe it so you can't prove me wrong.
Also if people see themselves making progress they're less likely to deliberately knock themselves back by committing crime.
That and the offspring of irresponsible men brought up without a father figure forming a smaller proportion of the population.
But the fact is I believe it so you can't prove me wrong.
Also if people see themselves making progress they're less likely to deliberately knock themselves back by committing crime.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-01-26 19:58:13)
Fuck Israel
NYC has one of the strictest gun control yet one of the lowest crime rates for a major city.Jaekus wrote:
Correlation does not equal causation because tying gun ownership and lowered crime rates together in isolation whilst ignoring every other influencing factor is just stupid.
More cops per capita than most cities has more to do with it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Pretty much and the money to actually fund it.Jay wrote:
More cops per capita than most cities has more to do with it.
This is pretty much what I read:Jay wrote:
More cops per capita than most cities has more to do with it.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Does that mean you'll stop arguing about it? Because getting you to answer pointed questions about your viewpoints is like pulling teeth.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Fuck this shit, I'm keeping whatever weapons I want. Call me a redneck, call me stupid, call me whatever the hell you want.
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Fuck this shit, I'm keeping whatever weapons I want. Call me a redneck, call me stupid, call me whatever the hell you want.
well that's just like you, isn't it? mindlessly accept what somebody says because they have a 'prof.' in front of their name. weren't you singing the gospel praises of one of your professors to me via PM, a month or two ago? didn't KEN say the exact same thing about you: that all you do in this sub-forum is emptily recycle some other 'expert's' opinion? listen, freakonomics is novel. they're meant to be lateral, irreverent looks at real-world phenomena: they're not conclusive. of course, less 'unwanted' babies at the bottom end of the social scale may contribute in some way to less crime... but less violent crime? are you really going to try and suggest there is an iron, immutable law or logical causation between 'underclass' babies and violent crime? that sort of the-biological-becomes-political argument is only two degrees removed from eugenics. please. think for yourself a little before you speak. there are plenty of more plausible and wide-spread changes in the 20th century that would lessen the 'ambient' amount of violence in society. comfort and material wealth are definitely one of the main - and most obvious - causes. putting such a high-emphasis on the abortion rate, and pinning so much discontent on the mythical 'single lower-class mother' bracket (as if they don't get enough shit from rich white politicians and academic wankers) is just lazy. it's a tangential and minor link, sure, which is why freakonomics will put it in their novel book. but it's not a systematic explanation. you just swallow this shit because you are utterly second-rate. i look forward to the day you'll make a contribution that isn't blatantly taken point-for-point from the textbooks on your desk.Cybargs wrote:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/ … ed2001.pdfaynrandroolz wrote:
crime-rates are down because of abortion? only an american with a christian moral compass could give abortion such credit. crime is down because society has a lot less struggle and strife - things are relatively comfortable, middle class, and bourgeoisie. the standard of living is at a median-enough rate to keep violent crime down. conversely, in areas of concentrated poverty, the violent crime rate will still be relatively unchanged. the abortion argument is absolutely crackers, because whether a particular nation is pro- or anti- abortion, the population problem is rampant, anyway. over-population is a hugely rising factor and is not being affected at all by abortion: for every baby aborted, there's another 5 geriatrics living past the 100 milestone. there's generally less violence because society and everyday life in general is less antagonistic and less adversarial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw
I'd believe some dudes at the economic departments from U Chicago.
The hypothesis is this: Less unwanted babies = less crime. The women who want an abortion usually fall into the "at risk area," where they don't have the financial, emotional, and familial means to properly raise a child. Having legalized abortion doesn't mean women won't have kids, it just delays their decision to have kids. But it doesn't account for all drop in crime, but it's abortion is a significant decline in crime.
I love how uzique interprets everything as a personal insult
Spearhead wrote:
I love how uzique interprets everything as a personal insult
Mutantbear wrote:
your logic is bad
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
So, reject the thing with multiple layers of fairly strong correlation, because "correlation is not causation," then go with the idea with less correlation because that one seems right. Sounds like great thinking!aynrandroolz wrote:
correlation is not causation.RAIMIUS wrote:
So, do any of the other theories fit as well as the lead theory? That seems like a lot of strong correlations around the same thing.
I'll be honest, the theory is new to me, but if the correlations are at 90% for national, regional, municipal, and international samples, that's pretty darn convincing. If true, such a strong correlation indicates this might be one of the best things to go after in order to reduce crime rates.
The lead effect theory is definitely worth looking into a bit more!
many other things changed during the same decades as the 'pacification' of society. maybe it's to do with the affordability of white goods and washing machines! i see a marked increase in the sales of kitchen appliances during the same time as a drastic reducing in domestic abuse and violence! perhaps all the husbands stopped beating up their wives for making such crappy work of the washing & drying! no such upsets with the all-new convenience from Zanussi! definitely worth looking into more!!!
you find 'lead theories' come up all the time - from ancient rome and theories of rome's classic demise, to modern day america, it seems. there seems to be a hardcore niche of anthropologists and historians that just love them some fucking lead. it's behind everything! the reason the roman empire crumbled was because, even with their unprecedented technique and invention, they were using lead water pipes for everything! it was poisoning them from birth, and creating an essential defect! etc.etc.
correlation is not causation.
from the 1950's onwards, western societies had a new economic and technological stimulus. in wider macro-focus, history goes through cycles of destruction and then rebuilding; it pivots on an alternating dialectic of vitalism and decadence. from 1950 onwards the going has been good (even with the cold war, which was, after all, defined as the 60's instagram polaroid-negative of violence). when people's hands are put to work in a growing/booming economy, and when they are satisfied in a civic sense, with fancy (and illusory) notions of 'making progress', and so on, people are on the whole less violent. put the tin foil hat away.
When you get repeatable correlations, at several levels, it is not proof of causation, but it certainly indicates there might be a connection between the two factors.
Hell, go with your weaker correlations, you already know the answers. No one needs science to prove your feelings right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21213789
Granted the pistol was fake, but all the same, another gun was not needed to end the situation.
Granted the pistol was fake, but all the same, another gun was not needed to end the situation.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Meaning?
Light sabres were banned...-Sh1fty- wrote:
restricted only to jedis and shitcoke wrote:
Light sabres were banned...-Sh1fty- wrote: