Posted on 03/10/2016 7:09:31 AM PST by ghosthost
It's the dog that doesn't bark that makes the point in this case>
I am not implying, I am saying wholeheartedly that genes are terribly important. Is the software for your computer important? We are conditioned to not speak of genes for various reasons.
We make choices every day which affect our future. When it comes to sex, people approach it in a willy-nilly fashion. Whom you breed with is critical. I think there is a point between complete silence, and actually addressing a problem. genetics is a field of science similar to geology. We don't whisper about geology.
Long answer: Yes!
Simply look at the data. Do the crime, serve the time. And don't believe a broken justice system is responsible for the great imbalance in prisons unless you are also willing to believe it is incredibly biased against males of any color or tribe.
Also quite revealing are the demographics of victims. The latest FBI crime reports document that over 90% of the violent crimes committed by Blacks are against other Blacks.
Had an old farmer explain this to me many years ago. “ ya plants beans ya gets beans”
Had an old farmer explain this to me many years ago. “ ya plants beans ya gets beans”
You’re right, they are important, and so are a thousand other factors when it comes to people. And the sure as hell aren’t ‘computers’. That are solely logical based. At the core - zeros and ones - that is it.
“Whom you breed with is critical”??
WTH does that mean? Critical to whom? Big fan of eugenics??
It’s worse than that. It’s cultural.
Just wait until the snowflakes want things they can’t afford.
If I say it is not wise to breed with gang-bangers, and that you should breed responsibly, which is simple wisdom, you react with-- "you are a fan of eugenics?" Good boy, you have learned well.
If I say it is not wise to breed with gang-bangers, and that you should breed responsibly, which is simple wisdom, you react with-- "you are a fan of eugenics?" Good boy, you have learned well.
Apostate Christianity = worthless churches = diluted values = broken institutions = radical academics = perverted cultural ideals = broken families = social disintegration = reactionary government = wrong analysis and conclusions.
Crime is about culture and sin.
When the child is born to a single mother, and two parents only living together is about as unstable as just single mother, the odds of negative life outcomes are 2-3 times higher. The odds of everything from becoming mentally ill, being homeless, becoming an addict, flunking out of school, committing murder, joining a gang, having a baby out of wedlock and being in poverty are all far higher.
What blacks blame on racism is really a cultural problem. 30% of white babies are born out of wedlock, while 80% of blacks are. So the far greater negative outcomes they see are due to 2.5 times as many kids born to single mothers than whites - a rate that has been 2-3 times higher for blacks as whites for decades but only recently became the norm for blacks.
The black violent crime rate was far lower in the 1950s when institutional discrimination was real. Thomas Sowell, a black economist, talks about how you never saw black kids assault teachers - black or white - in the 1950s because they were taught respect for elders and good behavior.
The problem today is unsupervised, uncontrolled youths, mostly boys.
And black leaders find it easier to blame whites than themselves for pushing everyone in the 1960s to sign up for welfare as reparations and seeing the family and their community collapse as a result.
Good boy? What’s that, some attempt at condescension?
I’m not arguing that people should be responsible about bringing another life into the world. It’s common sense. But to suggest that solely because you have a family of criminals the next child on the tree will be one simply because of their genes is hogwash. There are thousands of other factors.
I’d like to know what your end game is to this, that’s why I asked about eugenics. You posted the original article: “Is Crime Genetic - Scientists etc.” The title itself is a logical fallacy, and ‘crime’ is relative. Some crimes people commit in this country are fine other places.
There is a lot of wisdom in your posts, and there is uncertainty in anything at the atomic (DNA) level so that in specific cases you (we) cannot know.
In my experience, the wealthy had kids who do better in the classroom. Better manners, better intelligence, harder work, (the whole nine yards). That’s how the wealthy got wealthy in the first place.
The same is true about the poor level families. They may come from lower intellectual parents but they also have poor study habits and spend less time doing school work.
All in all, I suspect that genetics has a greater effect than environment, but I also believe our society benefits from a benign ignorance of the actual statistics. Better to work on getting equal opportunities for all our kids and admit that no matter how much money is spent on poverty programs, the end result will depend on the initiative of the individual people and their innate gifts rather than anything the environment can bestow.
You are correct. I believe that one policy change we could make that respects people’s freedom, is to pay the welfare class not to have children, rather than to have children.
Yes, that is condescension. Conservatives speak and debate, but liberals, as soon as they feel threatened, use their little buzzwords-- "Nazi, eugenics, far-right, extreme, homophobic, racist, mean-spirited, blah blah blah," to try and stifle other viewpoints. But this, unfortunately, applies to science as well. It should not. People must be allowed to speak their minds.
Ah, I see. So even tho you don’t know me from Adam, you assume that I’m a liberal because I asked if you’re a big fan of eugenics. Instead of simply stating “no, that’s not what I’m getting at” you instead go for a condescending remark. At least you have the guts to admit it.
The thing is you’re not ‘better than me’ because you’re conservative and ‘speak and debate’. I’m conservative as well yet I have the wisdom to not jump to a condescending attitude.
The article IMO is pedantic and futile. There is not and never will be a ‘test’ for criminality because there are thousands of factors at play.
Yes.
I would argue the exact opposite. I feel environment has a much greater effect than genetics. If you have two nurturing parents who support and discipline appropriately, I believe any child (barring some kind of physical impairment) could become a very productive member of society. Sure, they may not be Einstein but that kind of intellect is a fraction of the population.
Victim mentality, racism, all that negative garbage is learned.
Your statements does have merit. I was speaking about the total package. The parents and kid go together. It is hard to have the Oliver Twist type of situation where the poor kid somehow gets all the environmental benefits that he/she needs.
The two nurturing parents you speak of are much more likely to be found in the wealthy neighborhood. Where is the poor kid in the poor neighborhood with parents who have to spend much of their time working outside the home going to get the nurturing to overcome the likelihood of failure.
But I can see your point that if the environment is nurturing and the parents have the right mix of discipline and support the child will come out with the best that their internal gifts will allow.
And I agree we cannot know what the DNA will support in these cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.