Tea Party: No longer harmless nutters

[rygD]

I'm not entirely sure that education decreases crime per-se. In its function as a society-normalizing system, public schooling hemogenizes the types of crimes somewhat (drug use is more encouraged than murder, etc). In its function as actual education, it probably largely just makes people who commit crimes less likely to be convicted (between knowing what evidence is and is not allowed in court, what police are and are not allowed to do, more mundane methods of covering one's tracks learned from experience and classes on more or less unrelated subjects, etc.)

What Enki actually said.

Dok,
Is admiring the backpedal, though.

What in fuck is the bolded sentence supposed to mean? I've been pondering it all day and I can't figure out what he was trying to say. It makes no sense even in context with the rest of his paragraph. Hemogen is a muscle developer. Homogenize doesn't make sense in context, and neither does hegemonize. WTF is he even trying to say?

I think he meant homogenize, as in to make them all the same.  I think his example was to say drug use is common and preferred over murder (by some), and that those who use an illegal substance (or exceed the speed limit, or do graffiti) have still committed crimes, but are less likely to be convicted.  I could be wrong.  Then again, someone who is poor and unable to afford a good lawyer but is taken to trial because they were mistakenly identified as the person who shot someone else is probably more likely to be convicted than someone who is better off financially.  I think education may be a factor here, regardless of whether it is because the person will be able to better hide their crimes, afford decent legal counsel, or simply not commit crimes.  Education level may also just be a symptom of other issues at play here, like the comments about Afghanistan may hint at.

I hear more of the girls being shot at, or worse, when going to school in Afghanistan, though it does happen to boys.  Also, it often seems that education is of little value in Afghanistan, as many children are more valuable to help with other things such as tending to the goats, or helping with crops, as well as other such tasks.  Even though it is not often as much like this in the US, I think it may be like this in some areas, but not in the areas with the high levels of crime (or convictions).

[Triple Zero]

Enki, I'll be nice, because, well, what the fuck, why not.

There is plenty of evidence of crimes comitted that exist regardless of whether someone is caught (corpses, and such).

There is also plenty of evidence that a majority of crimes are comitted within the perpetrator's neighborhood (that is, it's rare for a burgler to drive 100 miles for a B&E with a total loss of less than $1,000).

So, the evidence of a high crime rate, regardless of a high conviction rate, is evidence of an area that has a higher than avearage incidence of criminals.

There is a definite correlation between areas of high crime evidence and areas of low education.


Your thesis simply doesn't make sense.

Nuh-uh.

You still need to prove that all those smart-ass educated people don't go to low education areas and commit crimes THERE in order to not get caught.

[Triple Zero]

ALL CRIMES ARE EQUIVALENT.

Raping your grandmother is exactly the same as tagging the wall in an industrial park.  Srsly.

But educated people are more likely to commit the former (link).

[Triple Zero]

Ogod.  I've been reduced to cheap punnery.  SHOOT ME NOW.

Can't. I got higher education.

[Freeky]

ALL CRIMES ARE EQUIVALENT.

Raping your grandmother is exactly the same as tagging the wall in an industrial park.  Srsly.

But educated people are more likely to commit the former (link).

Your link makes a good argument Trip.

[Triple Zero]

They also considered individuals literate if they simply stated that they could read and write

Ooh that's bad. Illiterate people are usually very adept at hiding the fact they can't really read. I saw a documentary, the tricks they would get away with ... Partly because a lot of them were ashamed they couldnt read, because everybody can read, right?

The other research about people having to extract simple inferences from pieces of text is much better. After all, even if you can read but can't make inferences from the text, it's not really much use anyway. Plus it's more reliable to test.