-
Okies, thanks!
As we both acknowledge, a serious uprise in crime starting somewhere around 1962...
The reason according to you is the banning of school prayer.
The real reason, according to most, is the more lenient justice system: conviction rates seriously dropped, and sentences were much shorter than before. Politicians were getting softer on crime (because of a fear to be called racist, mostly, since the majority of crimes was being committed by African-Americans and Hispanics). Criminals don't care about whether or not school prayer is allowed; they care about their chances of getting caught, and if caught, how long they'll have to serve.
Another reason: between 1960 and 1985, the number of police officers FELL more than 50 percent (relative to the population). Don't you think that that's got more to do with it than school prayer?
Around 1990, the crime rates started dropping. The reasons: mandatory minimum sentences (which are absolutely racist, but that's another discussion), the legalization of abortion some 15 years ago, and crack cocaine.
Why?
Longer prison sentences: High prison sentences are a negative incentive for criminals (the causality has been proven, no need to argue about it),
Legalization of abortion, or Roe v Wade in 1973. In the first year after Roe v Wade, 750,000 women had an abortion , and by 1980 over 1.5 million abortions were performed (per year!). Who were those women? Low-class, uneducated ones... the ones whose sons and daughters have a high chance of ending up in crime... there you go, no need to discuss it: the causality has been proven numerous times.
crack cocaine: the huge incentives of pure cocaine fell away with the introduction of crack cocaine. In other words: not money was to be made with it, so why risk it?
There you go: two real reasons (causality has been proven!) for the uprise of crime since 1962, three real reasons (causality has been proven!) for the decline of crime since 1990.
-
Okies, thanks!
As we both acknowledge, a serious uprise in crime starting somewhere around 1962...
The reason according to you is the banning of school prayer.
The real reason, according to most, is the more lenient justice system: conviction rates seriously dropped, and sentences were much shorter than before. Politicians were getting softer on crime (because of a fear to be called racist, mostly, since the majority of crimes was being committed by African-Americans and Hispanics). Criminals don't care about whether or not school prayer is allowed; they care about their chances of getting caught, and if caught, how long they'll have to serve.
Another reason: between 1960 and 1985, the number of police officers FELL more than 50 percent (relative to the population). Don't you think that that's got more to do with it than school prayer?
Around 1990, the crime rates started dropping. The reasons: mandatory minimum sentences (which are absolutely racist, but that's another discussion), the legalization of abortion some 15 years ago, and crack cocaine.
Why?
Longer prison sentences: High prison sentences are a negative incentive for criminals (the causality has been proven, no need to argue about it),
Legalization of abortion, or Roe v Wade in 1973. In the first year after Roe v Wade, 750,000 women had an abortion , and by 1980 over 1.5 million abortions were performed (per year!). Who were those women? Low-class, uneducated ones... the ones whose sons and daughters have a high chance of ending up in crime... there you go, no need to discuss it: the causality has been proven numerous times.
crack cocaine: the huge incentives of pure cocaine fell away with the introduction of crack cocaine. In other words: not money was to be made with it, so why risk it?
There you go: two real reasons (causality has been proven!) for the uprise of crime since 1962, three real reasons (causality has been proven!) for the decline of crime since 1990.
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by HTRegz
Hey Hey,
I considered not posting... but since this is the only time that Evil Moo and I will probably ever agree I had to say something...
Lol. I'm not a religious man (obviously), but I think this gives us all reason to start praying. This must be one of the signs of the apocolypse. What's even more omnious, is at the time HT posted there was a massive thunder and rain storm occuring where I'm at! Coincidence? I think not...
Quote:
Originally posted here by Relyt
Since prayer in school has been banned as well, it has been replaced with sex, knives, gangs, guns, and all manner of other vile things. Utter chaos rules the schools Now what are your future leaders learning?
As to the new topic, I can't say that students today are really that dangerous. I just graduated last summer from my fourth high school. Mind you, I (a white male) was a minority at 3 of them. Two of my school were filled with "wannabe" gangsters and thugs, yet the only weapon any of these kids weilded, or had probably even seen was a vicious sense of attitude, shallowness, and irreverence in general.
I really don't think the absence of religon in school has anything to do with these problems. The DoD schools I had attended had an environment of respect, discipline, and value without being religous, or even militant for that matter. I mostly blame parents not raising their children; letting public schools and pop-culture do it for them.
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by HTRegz
Hey Hey,
I considered not posting... but since this is the only time that Evil Moo and I will probably ever agree I had to say something...
Lol. I'm not a religious man (obviously), but I think this gives us all reason to start praying. This must be one of the signs of the apocolypse. What's even more omnious, is at the time HT posted there was a massive thunder and rain storm occuring where I'm at! Coincidence? I think not...
Quote:
Originally posted here by Relyt
Since prayer in school has been banned as well, it has been replaced with sex, knives, gangs, guns, and all manner of other vile things. Utter chaos rules the schools Now what are your future leaders learning?
As to the new topic, I can't say that students today are really that dangerous. I just graduated last summer from my fourth high school. Mind you, I (a white male) was a minority at 3 of them. Two of my school were filled with "wannabe" gangsters and thugs, yet the only weapon any of these kids weilded, or had probably even seen was a vicious sense of attitude, shallowness, and irreverence in general.
I really don't think the absence of religon in school has anything to do with these problems. The DoD schools I had attended had an environment of respect, discipline, and value without being religous, or even militant for that matter. I mostly blame parents not raising their children; letting public schools and pop-culture do it for them.
-
Hmmmm,
I am confused by those who are so vehemently opposed to intelligent design. They encounter it every day don't they?....................this computer is the result of intelligent design, so is a spider's web. The only difference is that we know who did it in those examples.
I also don't see the mutual exclusivity of evolution and creationism. Supposing the "creator" built a system that was self sufficient and evolutionary in its nature...............In the end science is just studying the system, not where it came from.
In computer terms scientists are attempting to decompile object code, they don't have the source, and they don't know who wrote it.
And don't forget that "religion" is a creation of man, which is why there are so many different ones ;)
-
Hmmmm,
I am confused by those who are so vehemently opposed to intelligent design. They encounter it every day don't they?....................this computer is the result of intelligent design, so is a spider's web. The only difference is that we know who did it in those examples.
I also don't see the mutual exclusivity of evolution and creationism. Supposing the "creator" built a system that was self sufficient and evolutionary in its nature...............In the end science is just studying the system, not where it came from.
In computer terms scientists are attempting to decompile object code, they don't have the source, and they don't know who wrote it.
And don't forget that "religion" is a creation of man, which is why there are so many different ones ;)
-
Here's a bit of science:
ID+religion = utter bollocks
Feel free to quote that.
I genuinely belive that religion is one of mankinds worst inventions (ideas).
Started off by a caveman wacked out on mushrooms trying to explain why the sun rises and sets and why the seasons change.
Continued as a useful method to control a population.
Time to move on.
In Arthur C Clarks Rama series God was a scientist in another dimention/reality. It manipulated the conditions in the big bang and after that only observed the results. IT created many big bangs and universes in differenet ways. But basically we're on our own.
I prefer that idea of a god, "Yup I made you now feck off and get on with it".
-
Here's a bit of science:
ID+religion = utter bollocks
Feel free to quote that.
I genuinely belive that religion is one of mankinds worst inventions (ideas).
Started off by a caveman wacked out on mushrooms trying to explain why the sun rises and sets and why the seasons change.
Continued as a useful method to control a population.
Time to move on.
In Arthur C Clarks Rama series God was a scientist in another dimention/reality. It manipulated the conditions in the big bang and after that only observed the results. IT created many big bangs and universes in differenet ways. But basically we're on our own.
I prefer that idea of a god, "Yup I made you now feck off and get on with it".
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by nihil
Hmmmm,
I am confused by those who are so vehemently opposed to intelligent design. They encounter it every day don't they?....................this computer is the result of intelligent design, so is a spider's web. The only difference is that we know who did it in those examples.
I also don't see the mutual exclusivity of evolution and creationism. Supposing the "creator" built a system that was self sufficient and evolutionary in its nature...............In the end science is just studying the system, not where it came from.
In computer terms scientists are attempting to decompile object code, they don't have the source, and they don't know who wrote it.
And don't forget that "religion" is a creation of man, which is why there are so many different ones ;)
The major problem with creationsim is that it reaches the conclusion before it even investigates, and it cannot be tested. Even if we are only "studying the system" and eventually figure it out how evolution occurs completely, we have no reason to assume it was done by some greater power. The only thing creationists use to justify their theory is religon. The only thing IDers use to justify their theory is doubt.
"We are here because God put us here", is not a scientific statement or reasoning; it is religous belief.
"Life is too complex to not have been intentionally created by some higher form of being", is not a scientific statement or reasoning; it is lazy doubt.
In the end, Evolution answers our questions as human-beings. ID does not, and is just a spiral staircase.
"If we are too complex to simply have occur naturally, then our creators too must have been created, for they are even more powerful and complex than ourselves. That statement continues infiniately, unless either a) God created them b) they developed naturally over the course of eons through growth and adaptation; otherwise known as Evolution."
So as I see it, you're either a Creationist hocking religion in disguise, or you're an Evolutionist--regardless of how we came into existance.
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by nihil
Hmmmm,
I am confused by those who are so vehemently opposed to intelligent design. They encounter it every day don't they?....................this computer is the result of intelligent design, so is a spider's web. The only difference is that we know who did it in those examples.
I also don't see the mutual exclusivity of evolution and creationism. Supposing the "creator" built a system that was self sufficient and evolutionary in its nature...............In the end science is just studying the system, not where it came from.
In computer terms scientists are attempting to decompile object code, they don't have the source, and they don't know who wrote it.
And don't forget that "religion" is a creation of man, which is why there are so many different ones ;)
The major problem with creationsim is that it reaches the conclusion before it even investigates, and it cannot be tested. Even if we are only "studying the system" and eventually figure it out how evolution occurs completely, we have no reason to assume it was done by some greater power. The only thing creationists use to justify their theory is religon. The only thing IDers use to justify their theory is doubt.
"We are here because God put us here", is not a scientific statement or reasoning; it is religous belief.
"Life is too complex to not have been intentionally created by some higher form of being", is not a scientific statement or reasoning; it is lazy doubt.
In the end, Evolution answers our questions as human-beings. ID does not, and is just a spiral staircase.
"If we are too complex to simply have occur naturally, then our creators too must have been created, for they are even more powerful and complex than ourselves. That statement continues infiniately, unless either a) God created them b) they developed naturally over the course of eons through growth and adaptation; otherwise known as Evolution."
So as I see it, you're either a Creationist hocking religion in disguise, or you're an Evolutionist--regardless of how we came into existance.
