Quote
We first noticed Marine Sgt. Charles Dyer, aka "July4Patriot," back in March, when we ran one of the first reports on the "Oath Keepers" bloc of the Tea Party movement -- an organization devoted to recruiting military and police-force veterans into a Patriot-movement belief system predicated on a series of paranoid conspiracy theories, especially the notion that the federal government intends to begin rounding up citizens and putting them in concentration camps.
Dyer played a prominent role in connecting the Oath Keepers to the Tea Party movement, speaking at a July 4 Tea Party rally in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. And he's been involved in organizing militia "maneuvers" in Oklahoma.
Dyer cropped up again in the news -- this time in the police blotter for allegedly raping a 7-year-old girl
[...]
During the search the sheriff's deputies noted several firearms and a device believed to be a Colt M-203, 40-millimeter grenade launcher, a complaint filed in the United States District Court of Western Oklahoma by Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco Special Agent Brett Williams said.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/tea-party-leader-arrested-rape
Well, shit.
ONE LUMP?
paranoid conspiracy theory militia rapists
OR TWO?
the ATF
yeah....
call me paranoid, but my initial reaction is that sounds like a hit piece...
All it takes is one fucking idiot to ruin the party for everyone else.
If found guilty shouldn't his own people handle this fucker accordingly? I am less concerned about the 203 than I am about the possible rape and pedophilia.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 28, 2010, 05:36:45 PM
yeah....
call me paranoid, but my initial reaction is that sounds like a hit piece...
The website appears to be focused on this kind of thing, so I think you're right. That doesn't mean that the police blotter info is incorrect, nor that the association with the tea party is incorrect. As someone (Cain maybe?) pointed out elsewhere, it is not out of line with this kind of movement to organize private militias. It sells itself as populist despite being radical, and capitalizes on fear moreso than plans. I could make historical connections, but I don't want to godwin my own thread -- and furthermore, it would give the wrong idea.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 28, 2010, 05:36:45 PM
yeah....
call me paranoid, but my initial reaction is that sounds like a hit piece...
Righteo. "Your side" isn't infested with pedos. That's the "other side".
Quote from: rygD on February 28, 2010, 06:18:25 PM
If found guilty shouldn't his own people handle this fucker accordingly?
No, I think it's the job of the state to do that.
Or do you propose that individual organizations should be empowered to kill members that embarrass them?
As I understood it (perhaps incorrectly) this group does not trust the government and they strongly believe in everything that the United States was founded upon, but may no longer be done or widely accepted (acting out against a tyrannical government, etc.). If they do not trust the state to uphold the Constitution I suspect that such an organisation would take it upon themselves to act on behalf of those they seek to protect, if not now, eventually, as that is essentially what they are about.
I never said anything about killing him, but I personally am fond of that idea...
Quote from: rygD on February 28, 2010, 06:18:25 PM
I am less concerned about the 203 than I am about the possible rape and pedophilia.
THIS THIS THIS. :x
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 07:34:05 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 28, 2010, 05:36:45 PM
yeah....
call me paranoid, but my initial reaction is that sounds like a hit piece...
Righteo. "Your side" isn't infested with pedos. That's the "other side".
nice try.
you know i wasn't saying that 'my side' is immune from sickos, but saying that when i hear a story about a founder of an organization that vociferously proclaims that the government is acting out of bounds and is recruiting men that serve it to vow insurrection if certain lines are crossed, and accuses him of RAPES KIDS and OWNS HORRIBLE WEAPONS, then my immediate thought is character assassination.
i think that is a reasonable base position to work from, even though it may very turn out to be true what is claimed...
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 02:33:12 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 28, 2010, 07:34:05 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 28, 2010, 05:36:45 PM
yeah....
call me paranoid, but my initial reaction is that sounds like a hit piece...
Righteo. "Your side" isn't infested with pedos. That's the "other side".
nice try.
you know i wasn't saying that 'my side' is immune from sickos, but saying that when i hear a story about a founder of an organization that vociferously proclaims that the government is acting out of bounds and is recruiting men that serve it to vow insurrection if certain lines are crossed, and accuses him of RAPES KIDS and OWNS HORRIBLE WEAPONS, then my immediate thought is character assassination.
i think that is a reasonable base position to work from, even though it may very turn out to be true what is claimed...
Owns weapons gets a plus in my book.
But I automatically assume that politicians and most political activists at the state level or higher are automatically perverse in one way or another.
Well, he's ex-military and runs a militia -- he may even know how to USE the weapon.
From what I understand, the sticking point here is that he didn't have the proper license for it (if such a thing exists -- I didn't look up the weapon description and so on). He may have had it at one time, and let it expire.
The other sticking point is sodomizing a kindergartner -- for which there is no license.
Quote from: rygD on February 28, 2010, 08:33:35 PM
As I understood it (perhaps incorrectly) this group does not trust the government and they strongly believe in everything that the United States was founded upon, but may no longer be done or widely accepted (acting out against a tyrannical government, etc.). If they do not trust the state to uphold the Constitution I suspect that such an organisation would take it upon themselves to act on behalf of those they seek to protect, if not now, eventually, as that is essentially what they are about.
I never said anything about killing him, but I personally am fond of that idea...
It generates or concentrates violent righteous anger that can be directed in arbitrary directions given standard quantities of political spin.
It's the commando version of an angry mob: smaller, deadlier.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 01, 2010, 02:58:25 AM
Well, he's ex-military and runs a militia -- he may even know how to USE the weapon.
From what I understand, the sticking point here is that he didn't have the proper license for it (if such a thing exists -- I didn't look up the weapon description and so on). He may have had it at one time, and let it expire.
The other sticking point is sodomizing a kindergartner -- for which there is no license.
just a point.
the M203 is classified by the National Firearms Act of 1934 as a 'destructive device'. As this law derives its authority from the interstate commerce clause, it must rely on taxation to effect change. It requires the purchase of a 'tax stamp' to buy/sell the various items it classified. ('machine gun', 'short barreled rifle', 'short barreled shotgun', 'destructive device', 'any other weapon') in order to get the tax stamp, you have to pay a fee, which was significant at the time, but now not so much, as well as get the signature of a local chief law enforcement officer. depending on where you are, this may or may not be difficult...
my dad has a 203 on order for his tacticool rifle.
personally i think it's silly, because the HE rounds for it are each considered destructive devices themselves, and that would add up PDQ if you wanted to play with them. also the CLEO would probably be less inclined to sign off on it unless he knew you.
most people with a 203 shoot the inert target rounds or get a converter that will allow them to shoot 37mm flares, shotgun shells, or a barrage of 22LR shells, or something....
as far as militias go, i have never been in one, but have known a few that have. it is my understanding that most US militias today are extremely cagey and operate under the assumption that they have informants from the agencies among their ranks even if they only have a half dozen guys. (which makes them pretty damned worthless except as a political statement of saber rattling) I think the primary usefulness of militias is simply to keep the govt on its toes. i.e. 'liberty can only exist when the govt is afraid of its citizens and tyranny can only exist when the citizens are afraid of their govt' kind of thing... i think most of the people that are seriously considering direct action in the near term are aware that they will only be successful as a decentralized effort. what the govt refers to as 'lone wolfs'. (why they chose a label that would be romantic sounding to just the sort of people might be inclined towards it is beyond me...)
as far as kiddie raep goes, i have no expertise....
And, just because I'm a dick like that...
Accused is not convicted.
Quote from: LMNO on March 01, 2010, 02:13:59 PM
And, just because I'm a dick like that...
Accused is not convicted.
You're SO 20th century.
Quote from: LMNO on March 01, 2010, 02:13:59 PM
And, just because I'm a dick like that...
Accused is not convicted.
and convicted is not guilty.
Iptuous,
also a dick
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 05:52:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 01, 2010, 02:13:59 PM
And, just because I'm a dick like that...
Accused is not convicted.
and convicted is not guilty.
Iptuous,
also a dick
Legally? Sure it is.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 06:16:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 05:59:28 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 05:52:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 01, 2010, 02:13:59 PM
And, just because I'm a dick like that...
Accused is not convicted.
and convicted is not guilty.
Iptuous,
also a dick
Legally? Sure it is.
No, really.
Sure. I've been reading the other thread, and nobody is ever guilty of anything. I'm a believer, now.
Charles Manson isn't a bad man, he's just a man who does bad things. He should be released.
yeah, rehabilitation is a myth. If somebody commits a crime, they have a criminal's soul. All prison sentences should be life sentences. :p
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:42:34 PM
Sure. I've been reading the other thread, and nobody is ever guilty of anything. I'm a believer, now.
Charles Manson isn't a bad man, he's just a man who does bad things. He should be released.
oh, so now people have to defend one position in multiple threads?
:roll:
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 06:47:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:42:34 PM
Sure. I've been reading the other thread, and nobody is ever guilty of anything. I'm a believer, now.
Charles Manson isn't a bad man, he's just a man who does bad things. He should be released.
oh, so now people have to defend one position in multiple threads?
:roll:
No, but I can be a snarky cunt in any number of threads. :)
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 06:45:35 PM
yeah, rehabilitation is a myth. If somebody commits a crime, they have a criminal's soul. All prison sentences should be life sentences. :p
All punishments period should be life sentences.
It's only a matter of time before a jaywalker kills someone.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:09:09 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 01, 2010, 06:47:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 06:42:34 PM
Sure. I've been reading the other thread, and nobody is ever guilty of anything. I'm a believer, now.
Charles Manson isn't a bad man, he's just a man who does bad things. He should be released.
oh, so now people have to defend one position in multiple threads?
:roll:
No, but I can be a snarky cunt in any number of threads. :)
:wink:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 07:09:49 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 06:45:35 PM
yeah, rehabilitation is a myth. If somebody commits a crime, they have a criminal's soul. All prison sentences should be life sentences. :p
All punishments period should be life sentences.
It's only a matter of time before a jaywalker kills someone.
More executions, please.
QuoteMore executions, please.
Especially hangings.
Dr. James Semaj
Likes to watch them kick.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 02, 2010, 12:15:09 AM
QuoteMore executions, please.
Especially hangings.
Dr. James Semaj
Likes to watch them kick.
Well, here you go: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1185106657
Is that enough snuff porn? I'm reasonably certain they kick a bunch. Not sure, though, because I didn't watch it.
Was joking. Really didn't want to see that. Christ.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 02, 2010, 12:39:08 AM
Was joking. Really didn't want to see that. Christ.
Sorry.
It's so hard to tell, these days. Everyone's a hair-shirt punishment freak, anymore.
QuoteSorry.
It's so hard to tell, these days. Everyone's a hair-shirt punishment freak, anymore.
No problem. I support death penalty, but must admit that thinking about it is way easier than watching. Plus, hanging is a particularly ugly way to go.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 02, 2010, 12:43:38 AM
QuoteSorry.
It's so hard to tell, these days. Everyone's a hair-shirt punishment freak, anymore.
No problem. I support death penalty, but must admit that thinking about it is way easier than watching. Plus, hanging is a particularly ugly way to go.
I don't support the death penalty, because I know how the justice system works.
I can explain it if you like, but remember that it's one of those things you can't un-know.
QuoteI can explain it if you like, but remember that it's one of those things you can't un-know.
Sure, I might just agree.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 02, 2010, 12:54:32 AM
QuoteI can explain it if you like, but remember that it's one of those things you can't un-know.
Sure, I might just agree.
1. Crime happens.
2. Police get ANOTHER folder on their desk. While most people think that the polices' job is to protect and serve, it's actually to try to eliminate the folders on their desks. As such, they typically target either the person who reported the crime, or - no shit -
the poorest person involved. They don't give a shit if you're guilty, they get credit for the arrest. The conviction is the DA's problem.
3. Case goes to DA. DA doesn't give a shit if you did it or not. If it's big, he'll go for the throat. If it's small, he'll pass it onto one of the lower ranking DAs for them to practice on. This has actually happened to me. I didn't do it, they knew I didn't do it, but they didn't drop it because they had some noobs they needed to break in on an "unimportant" case. The fact that it cost me 2.5 years of hassles and $13,000 in legal fees to get acquitted meant, of course, jack and shit.
4. Case goes to a jury of your peers that were too stupid to avoid jury duty, or to separate an accusation from evidence. 50%+ believe that you're guilty because "they don't go around arresting innocent people". No shit. Once on Jury duty, one lady sniffed disapprovingly about the "favor we were doing this guy", and how "it's all legal tricks".
5. See you on death row, Sparkey!
6. A year after your death, exculpatory evidence shows up. Whoops. (See Death Penalty Moratorium, Illinois)
Good point. The system's fucked so that's how any form of punishment works. I agree that our justice system is more of a bureaucratic tool than an instrument of justice. But honestly, I support it more for it's ability as a deterrent than it's function as a punishment.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 02, 2010, 01:08:37 AM
Good point. The system's fucked so that's how any form of punishment works. I agree that our justice system is more of a bureaucratic tool than an instrument of justice. But honestly, I support it more for it's ability as a deterrent than it's function as a punishment.
The death penalty has never been a deterrent. Ever.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 02, 2010, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 02, 2010, 12:15:09 AM
QuoteMore executions, please.
Especially hangings.
Dr. James Semaj
Likes to watch them kick.
Well, here you go: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1185106657
Is that enough snuff porn? I'm reasonably certain they kick a bunch. Not sure, though, because I didn't watch it.
I ended up not watching it because there was a "Meet sexy women in your area!" advertisement, and I killed the tab. I was scared.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 02, 2010, 01:20:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 02, 2010, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 02, 2010, 12:15:09 AM
QuoteMore executions, please.
Especially hangings.
Dr. James Semaj
Likes to watch them kick.
Well, here you go: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1185106657
Is that enough snuff porn? I'm reasonably certain they kick a bunch. Not sure, though, because I didn't watch it.
I ended up not watching it because there was a "Meet sexy women in your area!" advertisement, and I killed the tab. I was scared.
That's how they catch teh pron in Iran.
See though, I've seen videos of worse. I've seen live animals being slaughtered on tape. I'm not squeamish. It's just that, when I saw a sex ad banner above the video, it became way too creepy.
QuoteThe death penalty has never been a deterrent. Ever.
Maybe, maybe not. Y0u've gotta wonder how many people have rethought doing stupid because they knew it could cost them their life. Though I would rather keep that power out of a governments hands, there's not much use until we've outgrown the damn things.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 02, 2010, 01:23:58 AM
See though, I've seen videos of worse. I've seen live animals being slaughtered on tape. I'm not squeamish. It's just that, when I saw a sex ad banner above the video, it became way too creepy.
A slaughterhouse is worse than people being hanged from a crane?
QuoteSee though, I've seen videos of worse.
As have I. Stumbled upon video of guy blowing his brains out. Still, never fun to witness, no matter how much you watch.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 02, 2010, 01:25:40 AM
QuoteThe death penalty has never been a deterrent. Ever.
Maybe, maybe not. Y0u've gotta wonder how many people have rethought doing stupid because they knew it could cost them their life. Though I would rather keep that power out of a governments hands, there's not much use until we've outgrown the damn things.
Judging from the statistics between when there is a death penalty and when there isn't, there is no deterrent value whatsoever.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 02, 2010, 01:26:04 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 02, 2010, 01:23:58 AM
See though, I've seen videos of worse. I've seen live animals being slaughtered on tape. I'm not squeamish. It's just that, when I saw a sex ad banner above the video, it became way too creepy.
A slaughterhouse is worse than people being hanged from a crane?
I didn't even watch it, man. I don't know how gruesome it got, and I wasn't prepared to learn.
ETA: It's a primate reaction to Freudian Eros/Thanatos, maybe. I just don't like having the scariest bits of humanity all in one place, this forum excepted.
QuoteJudging from the statistics between when there is a death penalty and when there isn't, there is no deterrent value whatsoever.
I don't trust statistics, unless they're from an exceptionally trustworthy source. It's way too easy to fudge them one way or the other.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 02, 2010, 01:30:44 AM
I don't trust statistics,
Okay, we'll just throw away all analytical science, then.
Did you know that biodiversity is because Baby Jesus was bored, and had nothing to do with genetic variation?
It's true. And I didn't need to use any statistics.
ETA: We can use this to refute any ugly facts that frighten our beautiful personal theories, kids!
QuoteDid you know that biodiversity is because Baby Jesus was bored, and had nothing to do with genetic variation?
It's true. And I didn't need to use any statistics.
Point taken. :)
But once we introduce those nefarious secular-humanist "statistics" and "data" (*spit*), we find that:
QuoteThe South, which carries out over 80% of the executions in the U. S., has the highest murder rate of the four regions.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
And the sources for these awful theory-killers can be found here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout
Someone should do something about these bastards at the census bureau and those liberal freaks at the FBI. :argh!:
You forgot where the threat of the death penalty is used in a confess-or-you-get-the-chair manner.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 02, 2010, 02:20:10 AM
You forgot where the threat of the death penalty is used in a confess-or-you-get-the-chair manner.
Well, right now we're just discussing its deterrent value, not it's other fun uses.
Quotehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
And the sources for these awful theory-killers can be found here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout
Someone should do something about these bastards at the census bureau and those liberal freaks at the FBI.
Solid sources. Nice. But then again, there's the matter of how often the death penalty has been used in the past decade or so? The site you cited pointed out that the U.S. only recently got out of a dry period for the death penalty. So, it's been a couple decades since the death penalty been really taken seriously, and even then, many people sentenced to death might as well get a life sentence given how long it takes for them to finally get there. So, the way the death penalty's been used and is used currently, it's been effectively neutered.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2010, 06:45:35 PM
yeah, rehabilitation is a myth. If somebody commits a crime, they have a criminal's soul. All prison sentences should be life sentences. :p
On the other hand, smart, strict honor codes with harsh punishments do wonders for society.
I was sad to see that Akio Toyoda didnt commit Seppuku in the House
Quote from: Pēleus on March 02, 2010, 07:30:43 AM
I was sad to see that Akio Toyoda didnt commit Seppuku in the House
I was sad that he didn't show up in a Toyota iWalk:
(http://www.arkius.info/wp-content/uploads/eximages/decembre/toyota-iwalk1.jpg)
I'm pretty sure the pic I'm seeing isn't the pic you intended.
On the other hand, now I want to use the artist for the new Boysetsfire album to do my cover art.
Killing people that cross the tribes most important rules is an age old tradition and has little to do with deterrence... it has everything to do with getting revenge on the murderous little monkey.
Quote from: LMNO on March 02, 2010, 03:06:06 PM
I'm pretty sure the pic I'm seeing isn't the pic you intended.
On the other hand, now I want to use the artist for the new Boysetsfire album to do my cover art.
you're seeing something other than a bipedal robot mount? (or are you referring to a different post?)
Quote from: Iptuous on March 02, 2010, 03:16:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 02, 2010, 03:06:06 PM
I'm pretty sure the pic I'm seeing isn't the pic you intended.
On the other hand, now I want to use the artist for the new Boysetsfire album to do my cover art.
you're seeing something other than a bipedal robot mount? (or are you referring to a different post?)
I'm seeing an ad for the new Boysetsfire album "Above This Clouded Mind", available at www.thelookmachine.com
interesting.
edited it for more iWalkiness...
That must have worked, since it's now being blocked by my firewall.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 02, 2010, 03:32:51 AM
Quotehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
And the sources for these awful theory-killers can be found here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout
Someone should do something about these bastards at the census bureau and those liberal freaks at the FBI.
Solid sources. Nice. But then again, there's the matter of how often the death penalty has been used in the past decade or so? The site you cited pointed out that the U.S. only recently got out of a dry period for the death penalty. So, it's been a couple decades since the death penalty been really taken seriously, and even then, many people sentenced to death might as well get a life sentence given how long it takes for them to finally get there. So, the way the death penalty's been used and is used currently, it's been effectively neutered.
A couple of decades is plenty, given the average age of criminals sentenced to death row.
Also, stripping away the mandatory appeals process isn't going to make the nut, given the number of people exonerated by that process.
Quote from: LMNO on March 02, 2010, 03:24:21 PM
That must have worked, since it's now being blocked by my firewall.
i hate that.... i miss all the spagbook and wompertainment action at work....
you are aware of the toyota robot i was referring to? just google toyota iwalk if not. it's nifty.
Dok,
i didn't look at the numbers you pointed to (don't have any reason to deny them), but do they analyze the deterrent effect of imprisonment in general?
obvious next topic: is deterrence the primary goal of the death sentence?
Quote from: Iptuous on March 02, 2010, 04:35:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 02, 2010, 03:24:21 PM
That must have worked, since it's now being blocked by my firewall.
i hate that.... i miss all the spagbook and wompertainment action at work....
you are aware of the toyota robot i was referring to? just google toyota iwalk if not. it's nifty.
Dok,
i didn't look at the numbers you pointed to (don't have any reason to deny them), but do they analyze the deterrent effect of imprisonment in general?
obvious next topic: is deterrence the primary goal of the death sentence?
1. Imprisonment as we use it creates a worse problem.
2. No, the primary value of execution is to remove the offending person from the population. My problem with it is that it's irrevocable, and our error margin is too wide.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 02, 2010, 04:38:19 PM
1. Imprisonment as we use it creates a worse problem.
2. No, the primary value of execution is to remove the offending person from the population. My problem with it is that it's irrevocable, and our error margin is too wide.
THIS. Times a bajillion.
Yeppa,
totally agree, Dok.
have you heard of the Innocence Project here in TX?
http://www.innocenceprojectoftexas.org/
an interesting story that i heard an interview of was a lady who now works with the innocence project. She was raped years ago, and said that as she was being raped she decided to do what little she could by looking at the guy. she said she really studied his face. etched it into her memory.
when the cops had a lineup for her to see, she immediately recognized the guy that raped her. she pointed him out as she cried and was convinced it was him. the guy was convicted and sentenced to many years in prison. he served many years insisting that he was innocent. It wasn't until another prisoner that was in on some other charge bragged about the fact that he raped this lady and got away with it. he laughed at the other guy for getting busted for it. when this came to light, he was proven innocent by this projects efforts in using modern DNA evidence that didn't exist at the time. the lady was torn up that she had done this to the guy even though she was so sure of it at the time....
she now works for the project.
even eye witness accounts aren't foolproof.
what's a society to do?
:sad:
Quote from: Iptuous on March 05, 2010, 10:11:28 PM
what's a society to do?
:sad:
Accept that the system isn't perfect, do our best, and don't do anything irrevocable.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 05, 2010, 10:11:28 PM
what's a society to do?
:sad:
Accept that the system isn't perfect, do our best, and don't do anything irrevocable.
I'll go one further:
Invest in education. Education prevents 1) poverty 2) crime. Both poverty and crime are self-perpetuators for the prison system.
Of course, educating your populace puts your power at risk. So why even go there, eh?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 05, 2010, 10:11:28 PM
what's a society to do?
:sad:
Accept that the system isn't perfect, do our best, and don't do anything irrevocable.
i like the first two, but you have to acknowledge that
everything is irrevocable, in a sense.
you stick a guy in prison for years, to have him later exonerated, and those years lost can't be brought back....
better than a posthumous apology, but certainly not revocable.
i think we have to do our best knowing that we
are making irrevocable decisions. and in this context, i would say that the death penalty is a viable punishment. we just have to be extremely careful with this extreme sentence...
then i hear about miscarriage of justice like in the example above, where there was no negligence or malicious intent, and think that it is better to err on the side of caution. better to live in a dangerous society than a tyrannical society, and all...
perhaps a moot point as we are entering a surveillance, society sure as dawn...
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 05, 2010, 10:11:28 PM
what's a society to do?
:sad:
Accept that the system isn't perfect, do our best, and don't do anything irrevocable.
I'll go one further:
Invest in education. Education prevents 1) poverty 2) crime. Both poverty and crime are self-perpetuators for the prison system.
Of course, educating your populace puts your power at risk. So why even go there, eh?
Yep. Our state is considering 4 day school week. Two districts in the Big Empty (North end of the state) have already done so.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 05, 2010, 10:11:28 PM
what's a society to do?
:sad:
Accept that the system isn't perfect, do our best, and don't do anything irrevocable.
I'll go one further:
Invest in education. Education prevents 1) poverty 2) crime. Both poverty and crime are self-perpetuators for the prison system.
Of course, educating your populace puts your power at risk. So why even go there, eh?
Yep. Our state is considering 4 day school week. Two districts in the Big Empty (North end of the state) have already done so.
Many states are doing that now--so "teaching to the test" is becoming more and more of an imperative. Especially now that the Obama administration is seeking to unite all the school improvement programs, so that the diversification factors are reduced. Simpler doesn't always mean better when it comes to assessment, however.
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 04:30:12 PM
Many states are doing that now--so "teaching to the test" is becoming more and more of an imperative.
Fucking useless. :crankey:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 04:31:31 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 04:30:12 PM
Many states are doing that now--so "teaching to the test" is becoming more and more of an imperative.
Fucking useless. :crankey:
Assessment has its values. (seeingashowI'memployedbyonesuchassessmentcompanyahem)
However. I think most would agree that it's short-sighted and doesn't seek to teach in a well-rounded fashion to any degree. Sickens me how the pendulum has swung. It does, every decade or so. But it's soooo far to the "top-down" approach at this point it's driving me just a weensy bit insane (moreso that I am already). Thing is, this is what the political catchall is for education.
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 04:36:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 04:31:31 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 04:30:12 PM
Many states are doing that now--so "teaching to the test" is becoming more and more of an imperative.
Fucking useless. :crankey:
Assessment has its values. (seeingashowI'memployedbyonesuchassessmentcompanyahem)
However. I think most would agree that it's short-sighted and doesn't seek to teach in a well-rounded fashion to any degree. Sickens me how the pendulum has swung. It does, every decade or so. But it's soooo far to the "top-down" approach at this point it's driving me just a weensy bit insane (moreso that I am already). Thing is, this is what the political catchall is for education.
It's become a religion, too. NCLB was a joke from the beginning, but it's viewed as political suicide to say as much. Mostly because the dems are spineless toads. Even Olbermann was talking like it was a good thing.
Assessment is fine, but the tests should be an unknown and should cross multiple subjects. They SHOULD be difficult, and they should be done at random times. If the subjects are taught properly, there should be no problem.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 04:40:07 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 04:36:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 04:31:31 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 04:30:12 PM
Many states are doing that now--so "teaching to the test" is becoming more and more of an imperative.
Fucking useless. :crankey:
Assessment has its values. (seeingashowI'memployedbyonesuchassessmentcompanyahem)
However. I think most would agree that it's short-sighted and doesn't seek to teach in a well-rounded fashion to any degree. Sickens me how the pendulum has swung. It does, every decade or so. But it's soooo far to the "top-down" approach at this point it's driving me just a weensy bit insane (moreso that I am already). Thing is, this is what the political catchall is for education.
It's become a religion, too. NCLB was a joke from the beginning, but it's viewed as political suicide to say as much. Mostly because the dems are spineless toads. Even Olbermann was talking like it was a good thing.
Assessment is fine, but the tests should be an unknown and should cross multiple subjects. They SHOULD be difficult, and they should be done at random times. If the subjects are taught properly, there should be no problem.
Not only that, but the timing is key. Testing someone for the next year in March makes no sense. For one thing, you have no idea what the functionality of that assessment will look like come August and September when the student starts back up. So the results are sort of nullified by the time spectrum.
Also, assessments are really only valuable if you can use them to predict performance over a timespan, so using them at least three times a year seems more to the point (beginning, middle and end). The school districts that can afford to do this already have this in place.
...So guess which ones don't and suffer for it?
NCLB was a stroke of genius, simply because it allowed politicians to shove the most worthless, harmful, and proven useless educational practices into play, simply due to the name.
I mean, you could trash the entire rest of the Bill of Rights with the stroke of a pen, if it was in a bill called "The Ending Infant Rape Act".
Because who would ever vote against ending infant rape? Other than Enrico, of course.
...and that's how a lot of legislation is passed. I mean, "Patriot Acts" anyone?
:lulz:
Or, more currently, The Media Shield Act.
:lulz:
Good thing this isn't Bush's 3rd term, or anything.
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 04:36:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 04:31:31 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 04:30:12 PM
Many states are doing that now--so "teaching to the test" is becoming more and more of an imperative.
Fucking useless. :crankey:
Assessment has its values. (seeingashowI'memployedbyonesuchassessmentcompanyahem)
However. I think most would agree that it's short-sighted and doesn't seek to teach in a well-rounded fashion to any degree. Sickens me how the pendulum has swung. It does, every decade or so. But it's soooo far to the "top-down" approach at this point it's driving me just a weensy bit insane (moreso that I am already). Thing is, this is what the political catchall is for education.
These. My mom works in a poor school district in a very poor part of the city. Everything she does HAS to involve the standards (which is pretty much just math and reading). No art, almost no science (it's actually on the standards but there's like one question, the answer to which she teachers the day before), no history, no geography. She tries to add them in as much as she can with the reading materials, but there's only so much she can do.
I remember making paper turkeys and little Pilgrims out of felt and Popsicle sticks when we learned about the Mayflower in third grade and she can't do that kind of thing because it takes time away from the standards. It was hands on and made history fun--you want to do that with education as much as you can, I think.
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.)
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
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.)
Your data supporting that argument?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:09:38 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
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.)
Your data supporting that argument?
I don't have any. That said, I have yet to see any data correlating education with crime rather than convictions or accusations. I'm just pointing out that it makes sense that the educated wouldn't be caught as often.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:24:31 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:17:13 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:12:51 PM
I don't have any.
Oh. Never mind, then.
Do you?
I'm not in the habit of supporting other peoples' assertions. It was your statement, YOU back it up.
My statement was a questioning of your statement -- namely, giving an alternate explanation for the data yours implied. Do you have any data that supports yours but does not support mine?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:26:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:24:31 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:17:13 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:12:51 PM
I don't have any.
Oh. Never mind, then.
Do you?
I'm not in the habit of supporting other peoples' assertions. It was your statement, YOU back it up.
My statement was a questioning of your statement -- namely, giving an alternate explanation for the data yours implied. Do you have any data that supports yours but does not support mine?
First hit of 143,000:
http://www.cybercollege.com/plume21.htm
I can get more, if you aren't wild about it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:30:28 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:26:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:24:31 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:17:13 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:12:51 PM
I don't have any.
Oh. Never mind, then.
Do you?
I'm not in the habit of supporting other peoples' assertions. It was your statement, YOU back it up.
My statement was a questioning of your statement -- namely, giving an alternate explanation for the data yours implied. Do you have any data that supports yours but does not support mine?
First hit of 143,000:
http://www.cybercollege.com/plume21.htm
I can get more, if you aren't wild about it.
Alright. Where do these numbers come from, if they are neither from convictions nor accusations of crime?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:34:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:30:28 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:26:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:24:31 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:17:13 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:12:51 PM
I don't have any.
Oh. Never mind, then.
Do you?
I'm not in the habit of supporting other peoples' assertions. It was your statement, YOU back it up.
My statement was a questioning of your statement -- namely, giving an alternate explanation for the data yours implied. Do you have any data that supports yours but does not support mine?
First hit of 143,000:
http://www.cybercollege.com/plume21.htm
I can get more, if you aren't wild about it.
Alright. Where do these numbers come from, if they are neither from convictions nor accusations of crime?
You didn't even read that, did you?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
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.)
Enki, sorry, but that's just pure dumb speculation on your point. I mean, knock yourself out and all, but there's nothing to support that. The largest rate of crime during a 24-hour period is 3pm-6pm in the afternoon. Why the fuck is that.
Please, don't front.
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 06:44:43 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
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.)
Enki, sorry, but that's just pure dumb speculation on your point. I mean, knock yourself out and all, but there's nothing to support that. The largest rate of crime during a 24-hour period is 3pm-6pm in the afternoon. Why the fuck is that.
Please, don't front.
All I know is that I'm never going to dig up a link for that little freak again. He has decided on some bullshit which is somehow given validity by virtue of him making it up, and he blew right past the link he asked for, without reading it.
Quote from: Demon Sheep on March 08, 2010, 05:28:43 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 04:36:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 04:31:31 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 04:30:12 PM
Many states are doing that now--so "teaching to the test" is becoming more and more of an imperative.
Fucking useless. :crankey:
Assessment has its values. (seeingashowI'memployedbyonesuchassessmentcompanyahem)
However. I think most would agree that it's short-sighted and doesn't seek to teach in a well-rounded fashion to any degree. Sickens me how the pendulum has swung. It does, every decade or so. But it's soooo far to the "top-down" approach at this point it's driving me just a weensy bit insane (moreso that I am already). Thing is, this is what the political catchall is for education.
These. My mom works in a poor school district in a very poor part of the city. Everything she does HAS to involve the standards (which is pretty much just math and reading). No art, almost no science (it's actually on the standards but there's like one question, the answer to which she teachers the day before), no history, no geography. She tries to add them in as much as she can with the reading materials, but there's only so much she can do.
I remember making paper turkeys and little Pilgrims out of felt and Popsicle sticks when we learned about the Mayflower in third grade and she can't do that kind of thing because it takes time away from the standards. It was hands on and made history fun--you want to do that with education as much as you can, I think.
Even further: they've discovered that the subjects that were/are always considered "filler" such as PE and art actually ENHANCE the learning ability of math and reading. Go figure. So those things that are the TARGET pieces of curriculum are actually taught better, faster and have higher retainment when they are taught with art and the benefit of physical exercise.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:46:16 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 06:44:43 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
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.)
Enki, sorry, but that's just pure dumb speculation on your point. I mean, knock yourself out and all, but there's nothing to support that. The largest rate of crime during a 24-hour period is 3pm-6pm in the afternoon. Why the fuck is that.
Please, don't front.
All I know is that I'm never going to dig up a link for that little freak again. He has decided on some bullshit which is somehow given validity by virtue of him making it up, and he blew right past the link he asked for, without reading it.
Didn't you know statistics can be made up for ANYTHING, Roger? :|
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 06:47:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:46:16 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 06:44:43 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
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.)
Enki, sorry, but that's just pure dumb speculation on your point. I mean, knock yourself out and all, but there's nothing to support that. The largest rate of crime during a 24-hour period is 3pm-6pm in the afternoon. Why the fuck is that.
Please, don't front.
All I know is that I'm never going to dig up a link for that little freak again. He has decided on some bullshit which is somehow given validity by virtue of him making it up, and he blew right past the link he asked for, without reading it.
Didn't you know statistics can be made up for ANYTHING, Roger? :|
Sure. Non-existant data supporting his conclusion > existant data refuting it.
I deal with this shit all the time, but it's usually when I'm arguing with Tea Party freaks.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:39:26 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:34:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:30:28 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:26:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:24:31 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:17:13 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:12:51 PM
I don't have any.
Oh. Never mind, then.
Do you?
I'm not in the habit of supporting other peoples' assertions. It was your statement, YOU back it up.
My statement was a questioning of your statement -- namely, giving an alternate explanation for the data yours implied. Do you have any data that supports yours but does not support mine?
First hit of 143,000:
http://www.cybercollege.com/plume21.htm
I can get more, if you aren't wild about it.
Alright. Where do these numbers come from, if they are neither from convictions nor accusations of crime?
You didn't even read that, did you?
You cited a graph correlating education with convictions, not with crimes committed. I would be slightly more impressed with a graph of education quality by region versus crimes reported by region, since that would be a sensible counter to my proposition. If the educated can more effectively avoid being accused or convicted, the educated will be less frequently accused and less frequently convicted, resulting in a potentially identical graph to the one you posted.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:50:25 PM
You cited a graph correlating education with convictions, not with crimes committed. I would be slightly more impressed with a graph of education quality by region versus crimes reported by region, since that would be a sensible counter to my proposition. If the educated can more effectively avoid being accused or convicted, the educated will be less frequently accused and less frequently convicted, resulting in a potentially identical graph to the one you posted.
Dude. Quit while you're behind already.
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 06:44:43 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
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.)
Enki, sorry, but that's just pure dumb speculation on your point. I mean, knock yourself out and all, but there's nothing to support that. The largest rate of crime during a 24-hour period is 3pm-6pm in the afternoon. Why the fuck is that.
Please, don't front.
Like I said, I'm giving an alternate explanation for what he cited. If the educated are less frequently convicted, it can result in the same data, regardless of how frequently they commit crimes. Committing crimes is not the same thing as being convicted of crimes. I'm not saying my proposition is fact -- I'm just saying that it fits the data and makes as much sense as his proposition.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:50:25 PM
You cited a graph correlating education with convictions, not with crimes committed.
If you don't have a conviction, then how can you assign an education to the perpetrator?
You're a goddamned retard, Enki. Every once in a while, I start thinking you have a brain, then you post shit like this.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:53:36 PM
Like I said, I'm giving an alternate explanation for what he cited.
Just as "Intelligent Design" is an alternate explanation for why we're here.
And your hypothesis is every bit as proven as ID. Way to go.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:53:36 PM
I'm not saying my proposition is fact -- I'm just saying that it fits the data and makes as much sense as his proposition.
No, it fucking doesn't. Goddamn it.
Okay, Enki...all crimes are committed by fucking leprecauns. Prove me wrong.
Idiot.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 06:58:56 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:50:25 PM
You cited a graph correlating education with convictions, not with crimes committed.
If you don't have a conviction, then how can you assign an education to the perpetrator?
That's my point. You can't create statistics associating education levels with actual perpetrators -- only with the convicted. So, your "education makes people commit less crimes" statement is as well supported as my "education makes people less likely to be convicted of crimes" statement by the data you cited -- meaning that this correlation does not necessarily mean what you say it does. I could come up with other statements it could support, but my point is that there is not necessarily the causal relationship here that you see.
If you like, you can find some data that will support your argument without supporting mine (like I said, find education by region and reported crimes by region, then superimpose them), and I'm quite sure that you will find it. I'm not arguing against your conclusion per-se. I'm just arguing against your analysis, since it doesn't actually follow.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 07:07:11 PM
That's my point. You can't create statistics associating education levels with actual perpetrators -- only with the convicted.
Okay, in what nation do you live, Enki?
Hey, enki:
:barstool:
That is to say: we've had plenty of discussions about "crime" vs "getting caught" as well as "crime" vs "legal rules prohibiting behavior". We've even had the "crime" vs "ethics" debate.
And now, you're trying to make an argument that says, in effect, "pre-adolescent, and mostly pre-pubescent education, as a whole, only teaches students how not to get caught when committing a crime."
And you somehow decide that the correlation between education and all crimes is due to educated kids "getting away with it."
Again,
:barstool:
It's useless, LMNO.
You're trying to use logic with an ID-type freak.
Enki, all crimes are committed by educated leprecauns, that frame up uneducated people. 169% troof.
Better than that:
All educated people have the same exact mentalities and behaviors as uneducated people do, and commit the same kinds of crimes for exactly the same reasons, only they know how not to get caught.
LMNO
- Went to a private school, and just last week shanked a bitch for ganking my latest meth shipment.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 07:08:25 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 07:07:11 PM
That's my point. You can't create statistics associating education levels with actual perpetrators -- only with the convicted.
Okay, in what nation do you live, Enki?
I live in the united states.
I realize that conviction is considered to be 'good enough' an indicator of guilt. However, innocent people get convicted and guilty people go free, on occasion -- meaning that actually committing a crime is not the same as being convicted of it.
Have you actually read my posts in this thread? Am I speaking some strange foreign language? It seems pretty straightforward to me that conviction and commission are two different things, and that a correlation between education and conviction is not a correlation between education and commission I just told you what data you would need to look up in order to support a correlation between education and commission rather than a correlation between education and conviction -- after all, good lawyers, smart legal moves, long trials, and the occasional bribery has consistently been shown to be effective ways of clearing one's name legally despite obvious guilt in court cases involving inter-corporation suits.
If I'm just not explaining myself well, I'll leave the thread for a few days. But, it doesn't seem particularly unclear that there are factors outside of guilt that affect convictions, and that some of them are also related to education.
Enki is so detached from reality it's ridiculous.
I mean, he has a point. The people who don't get caught don't end up in the statistics bucket.
I am not sure that has shit to do with formal education though. It may have much more to do with innate cunning. Of course, we have had the discussion here before about whether some people are innately smarter than others, and that idea didn't go over well.
SPAG PILE
on enki
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 07:18:38 PM
Better than that:
All educated people have the same exact mentalities and behaviors as uneducated people do, and commit the same kinds of crimes for exactly the same reasons, only they know how not to get caught.
LMNO
- Went to a private school, and just last week shanked a bitch for ganking my latest meth shipment.
I have several years of university, and I just killed Sharon Tate with my time machine.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 07:18:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 07:08:25 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 07:07:11 PM
That's my point. You can't create statistics associating education levels with actual perpetrators -- only with the convicted.
Okay, in what nation do you live, Enki?
I live in the united states.
I realize that conviction is considered to be 'good enough' an indicator of guilt. However, innocent people get convicted and guilty people go free, on occasion -- meaning that actually committing a crime is not the same as being convicted of it.
It's the leprecaun ability to avoid capture, not their superior intelligence.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 07:18:38 PM
Better than that:
All educated people have the same exact mentalities and behaviors as uneducated people do, and commit the same kinds of crimes for exactly the same reasons, only they know how not to get caught.
LMNO
- Went to a private school, and just last week shanked a bitch for ganking my latest meth shipment.
I have several years of university, and I just killed Sharon Tate with my time machine.
SO...
can we free charley now?
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.
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 07:10:29 PM
That is to say: we've had plenty of discussions about "crime" vs "getting caught" as well as "crime" vs "legal rules prohibiting behavior". We've even had the "crime" vs "ethics" debate.
And now, you're trying to make an argument that says, in effect, "pre-adolescent, and mostly pre-pubescent education, as a whole, only teaches students how not to get caught when committing a crime."
And you somehow decide that the correlation between education and all crimes is due to educated kids "getting away with it."
I'm not arguing that it's a sensible explanation. It is about as sensible as "the educated don't commit many crimes", however. The truth is going to be a combination, plus factors we haven't discussed. However, I see no reason why the educated would be particularly less likely to commit crimes in general -- though I do see good reasons why the educated would be likely to commit different crimes, in different ways, and defend themselves in different ways when accused.
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 07:27:00 PM
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.
I figured as much. But, Dok Howl's data didn't indicate any of that, did it?
Quote from: E.O.T. on March 08, 2010, 07:25:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 07:18:38 PM
Better than that:
All educated people have the same exact mentalities and behaviors as uneducated people do, and commit the same kinds of crimes for exactly the same reasons, only they know how not to get caught.
LMNO
- Went to a private school, and just last week shanked a bitch for ganking my latest meth shipment.
I have several years of university, and I just killed Sharon Tate with my time machine.
SO...
can we free charley now?
Setting him up was easy. I just doubled up his acid dose, and walked away.
Obviously, I had help from the local leprecauns.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 07:29:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 07:27:00 PM
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.
I figured as much. But, Dok Howl's data didn't indicate any of that, did it?
Jenne brought that up. You ignored it. You also didn't read my link, so why provide you with any more data? You've made your decision, based on nothing, and you're sticking to it.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 07:28:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 07:10:29 PM
That is to say: we've had plenty of discussions about "crime" vs "getting caught" as well as "crime" vs "legal rules prohibiting behavior". We've even had the "crime" vs "ethics" debate.
And now, you're trying to make an argument that says, in effect, "pre-adolescent, and mostly pre-pubescent education, as a whole, only teaches students how not to get caught when committing a crime."
And you somehow decide that the correlation between education and all crimes is due to educated kids "getting away with it."
I'm not arguing that it's a sensible explanation. It is about as sensible as "the educated don't commit many crimes", however. The truth is going to be a combination, plus factors we haven't discussed. However, I see no reason why the educated would be particularly less likely to commit crimes in general -- though I do see good reasons why the educated would be likely to commit different crimes, in different ways, and defend themselves in different ways when accused.
Your problem is you're talking in absolutes, as I bolded above, though no one else has been. Education doesn't eradicate crime, no, but it sure does prevent it to a large fucking degree.
If you don't know why "the educated" don't commit more crime, then you don't know a lot of educated. And it's not like they're a monolith any more than the uneducated, but education is one of those wonky factors like poverty that seem to go hand in hand with infant mortality rates, health and welfare of a populace. As well as crime.
Quote from: E.O.T. on March 08, 2010, 07:22:11 PM
SPAG PILE
on enki
No SPAG PILE on enki's shitpile.
He knew what he was about, and did it anyway.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 07:32:45 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 07:29:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 07:27:00 PM
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.
I figured as much. But, Dok Howl's data didn't indicate any of that, did it?
Jenne brought that up. You ignored it. You also didn't read my link, so why provide you with any more data? You've made your decision, based on nothing, and you're sticking to it.
I read your link, and told you why it didn't apply. LMNO read my post about why it didn't apply, and gave the appropriate response (which I was fishing for).
As I said, I agree with your conclusions. I firmly disagree with your (lack of) rationale behind it, since it is not logically cohesive.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 07:28:41 PM
I do see good reasons why the educated would be likely to commit different crimes, in different ways, and defend themselves in different ways when accused.
Gosh, way to go right out on a limb there!
:news:
People from different backgrounds act differently!
:news: :news:
Society prefers some behaviors over others, and codifies them!
You should probably stop posting in this thread, dude.
I give up.
Enki, you can sit and wank it all you like. Knock yourself out.
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 07:39:46 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 07:28:41 PM
I do see good reasons why the educated would be likely to commit different crimes, in different ways, and defend themselves in different ways when accused.
Gosh, way to go right out on a limb there!
:news:
People from different backgrounds act differently!
:news: :news:
Society prefers some behaviors over others, and codifies them!
You should probably stop posting in this thread, dude.
I probably would have used that in my original post, but I couldn't remember the emote code. It's not as though I've been saying anything new or shocking.
Why are we arguing again?
Because, as usual, you're an ass.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
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.
So it seems to me that the statistics on the topic of education and crime are very dependent on which values you plug in.
There are kids that don't complete school because they're too busy committing crimes, or spending time in Juvie.
There are kids that commit crimes because they had to drop out of school and deal with *insert bad situation here... like teen pregnancy*
And to Enki's garbled point...
There are some statistics which indicate that educated, middle class people may commit crimes and not get caught (or not get convicted) based on the access they have to legal counsel, the tendency of cops to focus on crimes in particular areas of the city (ghettos etc) and the sort of crimes being committed (local cops less likely to figure out a subtle white collar crime vs an obvious crime).
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Emmelman404.htm (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Emmelman404.htm)
The study linked above concludes that poor people (which we can correlate to high school dropouts in some instances) are more likely to be convicted, even if they're innocent. Reasons cited include 'public defenders' and the social differences between someone who is perhaps indigent and members of the jury. The argument being that if the jury can't identify with the defendant (no home, no family, no job, no similar BIP bricks) then they're less likely to identify with the individual.
http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/RichGetRicher/summary3.htm (http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/RichGetRicher/summary3.htm)
These folks also claim that the poor are more likely to be convicted, since they are less likely to be able to post bail, get an attorney, etc. They claim a "triple bias" against the poor:
* "Economic and class bias among harmful acts as to which ones get labeled crimes and which are treated as regulatory matters"
* "Economic bias among crimes" - "the crimes that poor people are likely to commit carry harsher sentences than the 'crimes in the suites' committed by well- to do people"
* "Among defendants convicted of the same crimes the poor receive less probation and more years of confinement than well- of defendants"
So I think there are probably a number of variables in any discussion of the uneducated, the poor and crime statistics. In fact, considering all the data I just browsed through, it looks more like some kind of feedback loop where you can't finish school, because you broke the law, so you can't get a job and thus you break the law to make a living, you get caught, but you can't pay for a good legal defense (because you don't have a job, because you didn't complete school and maybe you're also convicted of selling pot or something).
Will education alone fix the issue? I dunno... some of the status were focused on Unemployed rather than just 'Unemployed due to poor education'.
It seems like a very complicated series of statistics.
Well, Jenne, it was a nice conversation we were having about the state of education in America.
Perhaps some other time.
Sigh.
You know what? Ok, fine. Educated kids do the whole crime thing BETTER so they end up not in jail. Whatever.
I'm not going to argue that the court system is perfect, nor am I going to argue with the fact that there are plenty of people committing crimes everyday that don't get caught or convicted in the same way others in another economic strata might (shit, I go over the speed limit everytime I drive, and I rarely get caught, and the last time I did I was let go and not "charged").
HOWEVER:
neither will I say that dropping out of school is going to benefit ANYONE. Ever. I don't care how complicated you want to make it all.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Well, Jenne, it was a nice conversation we were having about the state of education in America.
Perhaps some other time.
I think the point is, Rog, that we both know some awesome people who've ended up in shitpiles because they don't have any education. And could've benefitted greatly by it.
By "some people" I think I mean most everyone we know and have met.
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:07:25 PM
Sigh.
You know what? Ok, fine. Educated kids do the whole crime thing BETTER so they end up not in jail. Whatever.
I'm not going to argue that the court system is perfect, nor am I going to argue with the fact that there are plenty of people committing crimes everyday that don't get caught or convicted in the same way others in another economic strata might (shit, I go over the speed limit everytime I drive, and I rarely get caught, and the last time I did I was let go and not "charged").
HOWEVER:
neither will I say that dropping out of school is going to benefit ANYONE. Ever. I don't care how complicated you want to make it all.
YAY! Enki wins by bludgeoning everyone to death with his stupidity!
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:08:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Well, Jenne, it was a nice conversation we were having about the state of education in America.
Perhaps some other time.
I think the point is, Rog, that we both know some awesome people who've ended up in shitpiles because they don't have any education. And could've benefitted greatly by it.
By "some people" I think I mean most everyone we know and have met.
Yep. But I was kind of enjoying talking about what's happening to the schools, before Enki was driven to prove what a genius he is.
Maybe I'll start a thread tomorrow.
Oh, by the way:
ALL CRIMES ARE EQUIVALENT.
Raping your grandmother is exactly the same as tagging the wall in an industrial park. Srsly.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 08:11:38 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:07:25 PM
Sigh.
You know what? Ok, fine. Educated kids do the whole crime thing BETTER so they end up not in jail. Whatever.
I'm not going to argue that the court system is perfect, nor am I going to argue with the fact that there are plenty of people committing crimes everyday that don't get caught or convicted in the same way others in another economic strata might (shit, I go over the speed limit everytime I drive, and I rarely get caught, and the last time I did I was let go and not "charged").
HOWEVER:
neither will I say that dropping out of school is going to benefit ANYONE. Ever. I don't care how complicated you want to make it all.
YAY! Enki wins by bludgeoning everyone to death with his stupidity!
Picking nits, more like. It's just tiring.
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:12:52 PM
Oh, by the way:
ALL CRIMES ARE EQUIVALENT.
Raping your grandmother is exactly the same as tagging the wall in an industrial park. Srsly.
:lulz:
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:13:01 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 08:11:38 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:07:25 PM
Sigh.
You know what? Ok, fine. Educated kids do the whole crime thing BETTER so they end up not in jail. Whatever.
I'm not going to argue that the court system is perfect, nor am I going to argue with the fact that there are plenty of people committing crimes everyday that don't get caught or convicted in the same way others in another economic strata might (shit, I go over the speed limit everytime I drive, and I rarely get caught, and the last time I did I was let go and not "charged").
HOWEVER:
neither will I say that dropping out of school is going to benefit ANYONE. Ever. I don't care how complicated you want to make it all.
YAY! Enki wins by bludgeoning everyone to death with his stupidity!
Picking nits, more like. It's just tiring.
We should try his method sometime, as a troll.
Say something dumb, and when disproven, just keep nattering on and on.
Education and crime being linked is probably not causative. Poor education, especially dropping out, indicates growing up in poverty, and lack of parental involvement, which are big risk factors for crime (insert appropriate disclaimers for what Rat mentioned).
Better quality of education is certainly better for individuals, but if we improve the quality across the board, businesses will just raise the stakes (Everybody has a high school diploma? congratulations, now you need a college degree).
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 08:12:32 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:08:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Well, Jenne, it was a nice conversation we were having about the state of education in America.
Perhaps some other time.
I think the point is, Rog, that we both know some awesome people who've ended up in shitpiles because they don't have any education. And could've benefitted greatly by it.
By "some people" I think I mean most everyone we know and have met.
Yep. But I was kind of enjoying talking about what's happening to the schools, before Enki was driven to prove what a genius he is.
Maybe I'll start a thread tomorrow.
Since he got two people to agree with him, I predict ssdd.
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
You're wasting your time, Jenne.
This thread is now about proving how smart and avante garde everyone is.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:16:31 PM
Education and crime being linked is probably not causative. Poor education, especially dropping out, indicates growing up in poverty, and lack of parental involvement, which are big risk factors for crime (insert appropriate disclaimers for what Rat mentioned).
Better quality of education is certainly better for individuals, but if we improve the quality across the board, businesses will just raise the stakes (Everybody has a high school diploma? congratulations, now you need a college degree).
Education, no matter what NCLB is trying to do, does not have specific goals.
Education, when done right, is about finding underlying meaning, and problem solving.
If you're expecting a job after school, go learn a trade. More power to you.
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:22:18 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 08:12:32 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:08:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Well, Jenne, it was a nice conversation we were having about the state of education in America.
Perhaps some other time.
I think the point is, Rog, that we both know some awesome people who've ended up in shitpiles because they don't have any education. And could've benefitted greatly by it.
By "some people" I think I mean most everyone we know and have met.
Yep. But I was kind of enjoying talking about what's happening to the schools, before Enki was driven to prove what a genius he is.
Maybe I'll start a thread tomorrow.
Since he got two people to agree with him, I predict ssdd.
Yeah, you're right, it's fucking useless. All I wanted to do was talk about what just happened to the schools, and this shit happens. And it will happen tomorrow, too.
Fuck it.
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:12:52 PM
Oh, by the way:
ALL CRIMES ARE EQUIVALENT.
Raping your grandmother is exactly the same as tagging the wall in an industrial park. Srsly.
Oh, and shitty high school teachers soooo the same thing as the migrant farm worker children who can't learn to read because they have to take care of the bambinos while momma and poppa go pick strawberries, or the kids in Afghanistan who are shot at as they go to school.
Yeah, see, not liking your history prof in Uni is totally equivalent to not going to school for a whole year because Gramma's afraid teacher will see your bruises and you'll be reported to Children's Services again.
Totally.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 08:22:35 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
You're wasting your time, Jenne.
This thread is now about proving how smart and avante garde everyone is.
You mean "avant GRADE," amirite?
Ogod. I've been reduced to cheap punnery. SHOOT ME NOW.
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:23:16 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:16:31 PM
Education and crime being linked is probably not causative. Poor education, especially dropping out, indicates growing up in poverty, and lack of parental involvement, which are big risk factors for crime (insert appropriate disclaimers for what Rat mentioned).
Better quality of education is certainly better for individuals, but if we improve the quality across the board, businesses will just raise the stakes (Everybody has a high school diploma? congratulations, now you need a college degree).
Education, no matter what NCLB is trying to do, does not have specific goals.
Education, when done right, is about finding underlying meaning, and problem solving.
If you're expecting a job after school, go learn a trade. More power to you.
Someone cue my husband talking about "white peoples' problems" or "this is what happens when you're too well fed."
Because that's his standard line in discussions like these and I tend to stay away from them, but damn are they not apt at this point.
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:25:57 PM
You mean "avant GRADE," amirite?
YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
Literacy isn't the same thing, our kids are (supposed) to be literate before they get to junior high. If there is a problem with illiterate kids showing up at higher levels, or dropping out in the first grade, I'm not aware of it.
I don't agree with Enki, education and crime are correlated, but the cause of the crime is A) The things that lead to poor education
and
B) The poverty resulting from poor education.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
Literacy isn't the same thing, our kids are (supposed) to be literate before they get to junior high. If there is a problem with illiterate kids showing up at higher levels, or dropping out in the first grade, I'm not aware of it.
I don't agree with Enki, education and crime are correlated, but the cause of the crime is A) The things that lead to poor education
and
B) The poverty resulting from poor education.
O good god.
Again, Requia? You're talking from YOUR ASS.
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:30:30 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
Literacy isn't the same thing, our kids are (supposed) to be literate before they get to junior high. If there is a problem with illiterate kids showing up at higher levels, or dropping out in the first grade, I'm not aware of it.
I don't agree with Enki, education and crime are correlated, but the cause of the crime is A) The things that lead to poor education
and
B) The poverty resulting from poor education.
O good god.
Again, Requia? You're talking from YOUR ASS.
Nonsense, Jenne. Critical thinking skills and the ability to do a risk/reward scenario have nothing to do with crime.
:lulz:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
Literacy isn't the same thing, our kids are (supposed) to be literate before they get to junior high. If there is a problem with illiterate kids showing up at higher levels, or dropping out in the first grade, I'm not aware of it.
I don't agree with Enki, education and crime are correlated, but the cause of the crime is A) The things that lead to poor education
and
B) The poverty resulting from poor education.
I'm not sure I follow, as it pertains to this thread. Education is not limited to junior high, right? It encompasses all standardized learning up to a certain point. The question of when a child is taught to read is certainly relevant.
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
Literacy isn't the same thing, our kids are (supposed) to be literate before they get to junior high. If there is a problem with illiterate kids showing up at higher levels, or dropping out in the first grade, I'm not aware of it.
I don't agree with Enki, education and crime are correlated, but the cause of the crime is A) The things that lead to poor education
and
B) The poverty resulting from poor education.
I'm not sure I follow, as it pertains to this thread. Education is not limited to junior high, right? It encompasses all standardized learning up to a certain point. The question of when a child is taught to read is certainly relevant.
My point is that the literacy rate in the United States is 99%. Lack of literacy is not one of our existing problems.
ATTN everyone in this thread:
Even a SHITTY education is better than NO education.
That is all.
/to no one in particular
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:36:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
Literacy isn't the same thing, our kids are (supposed) to be literate before they get to junior high. If there is a problem with illiterate kids showing up at higher levels, or dropping out in the first grade, I'm not aware of it.
I don't agree with Enki, education and crime are correlated, but the cause of the crime is A) The things that lead to poor education
and
B) The poverty resulting from poor education.
I'm not sure I follow, as it pertains to this thread. Education is not limited to junior high, right? It encompasses all standardized learning up to a certain point. The question of when a child is taught to read is certainly relevant.
My point is that the literacy rate in the United States is 99%. Lack of literacy is not one of our existing problems.
Um...yyyyeah....I'm gonna need those [citation needed] reports by the weekend...so if you could just deliver those to this thread by the end of the day that would be grreeeeat....
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:36:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
Literacy isn't the same thing, our kids are (supposed) to be literate before they get to junior high. If there is a problem with illiterate kids showing up at higher levels, or dropping out in the first grade, I'm not aware of it.
I don't agree with Enki, education and crime are correlated, but the cause of the crime is A) The things that lead to poor education
and
B) The poverty resulting from poor education.
I'm not sure I follow, as it pertains to this thread. Education is not limited to junior high, right? It encompasses all standardized learning up to a certain point. The question of when a child is taught to read is certainly relevant.
My point is that the literacy rate in the United States is 99%. Lack of literacy is not one of our existing problems.
Now compare the P®oblems of Afghanistan and the P®obplems of the US.
Exactly.
http://www.readfaster.com/education_stats.asp#literacystatistics
But you know...it just doesn't AFFECT us. Here.
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:37:49 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:36:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
Literacy isn't the same thing, our kids are (supposed) to be literate before they get to junior high. If there is a problem with illiterate kids showing up at higher levels, or dropping out in the first grade, I'm not aware of it.
I don't agree with Enki, education and crime are correlated, but the cause of the crime is A) The things that lead to poor education
and
B) The poverty resulting from poor education.
I'm not sure I follow, as it pertains to this thread. Education is not limited to junior high, right? It encompasses all standardized learning up to a certain point. The question of when a child is taught to read is certainly relevant.
My point is that the literacy rate in the United States is 99%. Lack of literacy is not one of our existing problems.
Um...yyyyeah....I'm gonna need those [citation needed] reports by the weekend...so if you could just deliver those to this thread by the end of the day that would be grreeeeat....
The 2000 US census. Though doing more digging on that there are some methodological issues with how they collected that figure, so disregard it.
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:38:42 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:36:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
Literacy isn't the same thing, our kids are (supposed) to be literate before they get to junior high. If there is a problem with illiterate kids showing up at higher levels, or dropping out in the first grade, I'm not aware of it.
I don't agree with Enki, education and crime are correlated, but the cause of the crime is A) The things that lead to poor education
and
B) The poverty resulting from poor education.
I'm not sure I follow, as it pertains to this thread. Education is not limited to junior high, right? It encompasses all standardized learning up to a certain point. The question of when a child is taught to read is certainly relevant.
My point is that the literacy rate in the United States is 99%. Lack of literacy is not one of our existing problems.
Now compare the P®oblems of Afghanistan and the P®obplems of the US.
Exactly.
NO, YUO ARE THE P®OBPLEM!
\
:hashishim:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:41:29 PM
The 2000 US census. Though doing more digging on that there are some methodological issues with how they collected that figure, so disregard it.
Start looking at illiteracy and the inmate population.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:36:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:21:29 PM
Dude. Has no one seen what literacy rates do for countries like Afghanistan?
Really?
Literacy isn't the same thing, our kids are (supposed) to be literate before they get to junior high. If there is a problem with illiterate kids showing up at higher levels, or dropping out in the first grade, I'm not aware of it.
I don't agree with Enki, education and crime are correlated, but the cause of the crime is A) The things that lead to poor education
and
B) The poverty resulting from poor education.
I'm not sure I follow, as it pertains to this thread. Education is not limited to junior high, right? It encompasses all standardized learning up to a certain point. The question of when a child is taught to read is certainly relevant.
My point is that the literacy rate in the United States is 99%. Lack of literacy is not one of our existing problems.
Wikipedia gives a 99% value. However, it also states that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States
QuoteA five-year, $14 million study of U.S. adult literacy involving lengthy interviews of U.S. adults, the most comprehensive study of literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government,[2] was released in September 1993. It involved lengthy interviews of over 26,700 adults statistically balanced for age, gender, ethnicity, education level, and location (urban, suburban, or rural) in 12 states across the U.S. and was designed to represent the U.S. population as a whole. This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information."[2]
Sources, as always, at the bottom.
Wikipedia also has the problems iwth how they got literacy figures in the census.
QuoteThe Census Bureau reported literacy rates of 99% based on personal interviews of a relatively small portion of the population and on written responses to Census Bureau mailings. They also considered individuals literate if they simply stated that they could read and write
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 09:00:12 PM
Wikipedia also has the problems iwth how they got literacy figures in the census.
QuoteThe Census Bureau reported literacy rates of 99% based on personal interviews of a relatively small portion of the population and on Quotewritten responses
to Census Bureau mailings. They also considered individuals literate if they simply stated that they could read and write
I've now seen two different definitions for literacy, too. One is whether or not you can read or write, and the other is whether or not you can write a clear sentence and find basic information in written text. From a pragmatic point of view, the second definition is more relevant.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 07:46:25 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
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?
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on March 09, 2010, 01:59:07 AM
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 it may possible be a case where someone knows of a word and thinks they know what it means, but they don't. It happens.
(http://lgo.mit.edu/blog/drewhill/files/inconceivable.jpg)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 09:02:20 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 09:00:12 PM
Wikipedia also has the problems iwth how they got literacy figures in the census.
QuoteThe Census Bureau reported literacy rates of 99% based on personal interviews of a relatively small portion of the population and on Quotewritten responses
to Census Bureau mailings. They also considered individuals literate if they simply stated that they could read and write
I've now seen two different definitions for literacy, too. One is whether or not you can read or write, and the other is whether or not you can write a clear sentence and find basic information in written text. From a pragmatic point of view, the second definition is more relevant.
Yep "functionally illiterate" means you might be able to sign your name or read "Dog", but you can't do much else. This is a pretty familiar experience in the area of the country I grew up in. My maternal grandmother is functionally illiterate as are her two eldest children, two youngest children and a number of cousins etc. Going door to door as a JW revealed a large number of people in the area that can't read
"Would you like to read this scripture?"
"Err, you read it to me..."
Sometimes teaching someone the doctrines of the JW system, first required teaching them to read.
My aunt is a school teacher in the Morgan Co. school district. She has serious problems with parents being upset that she's teaching their kid to read cause "they'll think they're better than me!"
Grandma may be functionally illiterate, but she bagged a couple deer every year until she turned 83, once she couldn't climb a tree anymore, she decided to retire the hunting license.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on March 09, 2010, 01:59:07 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2010, 07:46:25 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 08, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
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).
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 07:27:00 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:12:52 PM
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 (http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/fd1e3fc3.jpg)).
Quote from: Jenne on March 08, 2010, 08:25:57 PM
Ogod. I've been reduced to cheap punnery. SHOOT ME NOW.
Can't. I got higher education.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 09, 2010, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2010, 08:12:52 PM
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 (http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/fd1e3fc3.jpg)).
Your link makes a good argument Trip.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 08, 2010, 09:00:12 PM
QuoteThey 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.