• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Adam Toledo video released

Do all the people in the ghetto commit crime, or just a few? Why that few? Most are victims. Maybe people with criminal propensity are not capable of maintaining a middle-class lifestyle (duh) and thus prey on the poor in their own neighborhood.

So it has to be all or nothing for the correlation to be valid?

What color is the sky in your world?

It’s an association that’s easily demonstrated false. It’s an explanation that sounds good. By making it societal it becomes something we can change. Then nature shows up and ruins the party.
 
Way to completely ignore all the facts. You didn't even look at the study and replied in seconds b/c it contradicts your faith. This study actually has logically relevant data on individuals rather than meaningless aggregated confounded data from a whole population but only cherry picking a couple years that suit your agenda. I already explained (and you ignored) why the US Great reccession data is meaningless.
 
Do all the people in the ghetto commit crime, or just a few? Why that few? Most are victims. Maybe people with criminal propensity are not capable of maintaining a middle-class lifestyle (duh) and thus prey on the poor in their own neighborhood.

So it has to be all or nothing for the correlation to be valid?

What color is the sky in your world?

It’s an association that’s easily demonstrated false. It’s an explanation that sounds good. By making it societal it becomes something we can change. Then nature shows up and ruins the party.

The only thing you have demonstrated is your dangerous degree of illiteracy, and inability to reason about data and non-binary causal relations.
 
Oh, dear. You mean to say that lead could cause cognitive impairment in children? And those children could grow up to be criminals regardless of the economy?

Lead exposure is itself causally impacted by poverty. So, that is just one of the countless ways in which poverty causes crime.
One of the remaining sources. We were belching the stuff into the air out of the arses of our cars until the 80s.
 
It’s an association that’s easily demonstrated false. It’s an explanation that sounds good. By making it societal it becomes something we can change. Then nature shows up and ruins the party.

The only thing you have demonstrated is your dangerous degree of illiteracy, and inability to reason about data and non-binary causal relations.

Ron, have you at all factored that criminal behavior, like most every trait, is heritable?
 
My eldest brother joked growing up that, based on family size and my father’s income, we were in poverty. And based on the federal definition at that time we were. Yet, we didn’t rob the corner market, assault strangers, or break into the neighbor’s house.
 
Oh, dear. You mean to say that lead could cause cognitive impairment in children? And those children could grow up to be criminals regardless of the economy?

Lead exposure is itself causally impacted by poverty. So, that is just one of the countless ways in which poverty causes crime.
One of the remaining sources. We were belching the stuff into the air out of the arses of our cars until the 80s.

Poor people live in areas closer to freeways, and major cities and industrial areas where gasoline-based lead exposure is highest. Nearly all sources of lead exposure have been and still are higher for poor people.
 
It’s an association that’s easily demonstrated false. It’s an explanation that sounds good. By making it societal it becomes something we can change. Then nature shows up and ruins the party.

The only thing you have demonstrated is your dangerous degree of illiteracy, and inability to reason about data and non-binary causal relations.

Ron, have you at all factored that criminal behavior, like most every trait, is heritable?

Behaviors, criminal or otherwise, are not traits. So, your question presumes your faith based answer by wrongly defining behaviors as the cause you presume (a trait). Behaviors are actions that occur within a particular place and time, and unless that organism does it all the time, is highly determined by context as nearly every complex human behavior is.

Are there some biological factors contributing to the probability that a given context will cause a person to engage in a particular behavior? Sure, but that still leave the context as a huge and usually neccessary causal factor in the behavior occurring. Are men more prone to violent crime b/c they are more prone to physical aggression? Yes. But, most men never engage in a violent crime and plenty of women engage in crime, so clearly even that strong biological influence on criminal behavior is very far from either being causally sufficient or neccessary, and instead environment and context play huge roles in bringing actual aggression and criminal behavior about.
 
My eldest brother joked growing up that, based on family size and my father’s income, we were in poverty. And based on the federal definition at that time we were. Yet, we didn’t rob the corner market, assault strangers, or break into the neighbor’s house.

Which is logically identical to arguing "My uncle smoked a 2 packs of cigarettes every day for 50 years and didn't die of lung cancer, so smoking plays no significant causal role in lung cancer. "

Once again, all you've demonstrated is a severe inability to reason about data, statistics, and their implications for causal theory.
 
Even if we shut the tap off entirely there's nothing we can do about an awful lot of the guns out there. There's not that many used in crime to use them up.

In a United States where possession of small arms is made illegal tomorrow, your contention is few if anyone would turn in their firearms? My contention is if your average Joe with family, mortgage, yada, yada, yada, knew keeping a gun in the house could get him a mandatory minimum of three years in prison and all that goes with it, lose his job, house, yada, yada, yada, we'd easily get the majority of firearms in this country turned in for destruction. It would take three to five years to clean up the ones held by criminals. I mean, sooner or later they are going to try and use it in the commission of a crime, right?

A large share of American gun enthusiasts, especially those who self-describe as sane, moderate, and in favor of law and order, claim that they would DISOBEY any such law. They brag that they'd be doing what Adolf Eichmann should have done: disobeying an unjust law.
 
My eldest brother joked growing up that, based on family size and my father’s income, we were in poverty. And based on the federal definition at that time we were. Yet, we didn’t rob the corner market, assault strangers, or break into the neighbor’s house.

And not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer.
 
Adam Toledo was unarmed when he was shot. Why you feel the need to obfuscate that indisputable fact is truly fascinating.
Because that it irrelevant. He was armed and raising the weapon less than a second before he was shot. Unlike us, the officer had to react in real time and did not have the luxury of pausing and going frame by frame.

One could if that had been part of the discussion. Since it wasn't, you need to try again.
Adam being recruited into a gang by people like Ruben Roman is definitely part of the discussion.
 
Adam Toledo was unarmed when he was shot. Why you feel the need to obfuscate that indisputable fact is truly fascinating.
Because that it irrelevant.
It is more relevant than all of your ex poste apolgia.

Derec said:
Adam being recruited into a gang by people like Ruben Roman is definitely part of the discussion.
It was not on the table when you ride into white knight and has nithing to do with the comment.
 
Policing isn't a terribly dangerous job, landscapers have a higher rate of injury and death.

1. there is a difference if a (fatal) injury is a self-inflicted weedwhacker accident or if somebody deliberately shoots you or rams you with an SUV.
2. Policing is still ~4 times more dangerous than average.

But they have a ton of advantages over criminals. Far better training, communication, organization, and equipment.
Tom

Criminals have certain advantages too. Like not giving a damn about the law or the consequences of their actions.
 
Policing isn't a terribly dangerous job, landscapers have a higher rate of injury and death.

1. there is a difference if a (fatal) injury is a self-inflicted weedwhacker accident or if somebody deliberately shoots you or rams you with an SUV.
2. Policing is still ~4 times more dangerous than average.

But they have a ton of advantages over criminals. Far better training, communication, organization, and equipment.
Tom

Criminals have certain advantages too. Like not giving a damn about the law or the consequences of their actions.

Wut?
Fishing is right up there on the danger and lethality scale. Yet, millions do it for fun. So what?
 
Poor people live in areas closer to freeways, and major cities and industrial areas where gasoline-based lead exposure is highest. Nearly all sources of lead exposure have been and still are higher for poor people.
WAS highest. Leaded gasoline was being phased out since 1970s and was outright banned for cars in 1996. Cars with catalytic converters cannot use leaded gasoline and catalytic converters have become mandatory for new cars in 1975, meaning that the demand for leaded gas was pretty low even in late 80s/early 90s as most pre-75 cars exited service.

This is way too early to serve as an excuse for Ruben Roman (born ~2000) and Adam Toledo (born ~2007).
 
Criminals have certain advantages too. Like not giving a damn about the law or the consequences of their actions.

You mean they have the advantage of doing things literally as if their lives depend on it. As the dog said to its master when chastised for letting the rabbit get away,
"The rabbit was running for its life. I was running for my dinner."
 
Back
Top Bottom