Materialist Derangement Syndrome on Display

_{Barry Arrington

November 18, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have already coined the term “Darwinist Derangement Syndrome.” See here. Closely related to DDS is MDS (“Materialist Derangement Syndrome”), which pathology Mark Frank aptly demonstrates in this exchange:

Barry: Here is a self-evident moral truth: “It is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure.”

Mark Frank:

Usually you define self-evident as leading to absurdity. What kind of absurdity results from holding it is not evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

(We must have held this debate over 100 times on UD by now – but I never saw an answer to this).

Mark keeps asking over and over for someone to demonstrate to him why a self-evident truth is true, when he has been told over and over again that self-evident truths cannot be demonstrated – self-evident principles are not conclusions that one reasons to; they are premises upon which all reasoning is based.

Mark, maybe you will finally get it if you ponder these questions. What kind of absurdity would result from denying that:

2+2=4

That a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense

That the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees

That you are conscious

That a finite whole is greater than or equal to any of its parts

BTW, you also suggest that William Lane Craig would deny that it is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure. This statement is outrageously false. Do you have no shame sir?

Alan Fox comes in a close second with this gem of MDS:

Comment 57 posted at 3:14: “Moral absolutes, there ain’t!”

Comment 58 posted at 3:20: “all [people] deserved the universal right to life.”

Psychologists talk about the concept of “cognitive dissonance,” the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting beliefs. People cope with cognitive dissonance by engaging in dissonance reduction. Alan appears to be able to deny a concept and then affirm it six minutes later. His dissonance reduction coping strategies must be a marvel to behold. Alternatively, Alan may well be a closet ID proponent shilling as a materialist. That would make sense.

Comments

Any society that embraces [homosexuality] as a norm will destroy itself. History confirms that fact.
Really! What history confirms that not discriminating against homosexuals dooms a society to destruction? I should be very interested to learn of these societies that homosexuals caused to go belly up.Alan Fox_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

StephenB @97: Thank you for posting the response of John Lott to the study in The American Journal of Public Health on gun homicides, taken from his blog. Have the points he made there been submitted to the Journal or peer-reviewed? Can you provide a reference for your claim that "Lott’s work has been peer reviewed by about 25 professors from major universities"? What work of Lott in particular are you referring to?Daniel King_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank
What I find interesting is the technique that Stephen uses to make his case. If “morally bad” referred to some objective property then he should be able to prove that homosexual behaviour is bad by deduction or presenting evidence.
Some things really are evident to the disinterested observer. It is obvious, for example, that Americans are more stupid than they once were. While I presented evidence for that fact (and can produce more), it really shouldn't be necessary. So it is with the destructive nature of homosexuality. Any society that embraces it as a norm will destroy itself. History confirms that fact. It really shouldn't be necessary to produce evidence to show that it is objectively bad for a society to destroy itself or that homosexuality will lead to that result. It should be obvious.StephenB_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

JStanley01 is correct. It is a slam dunk. Even after several groups formed to scrutinize Lott’s study, (many of which were left-leaning and politically motivated to find fault) the majority of them agreed, kicking and screaming, that Lott’s conclusions were justified. More evidence can be found in the streets. Chicago Illinois and Detroit Michigan, two of the premiere murder capitals of the world, both wield strict anti-gun laws. On the other hand, where the 2nd amendment is respected, crime goes down. The same theme is played out from county to county and state to state.StephenB_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

#109 jstanley01 Fair enough - strange that in the op-ed JL did not advance the claim that more guns equals less crime. What statistical technique does he use? Specifically is it based on significance levels or something more sophisticated?Mark Frank_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Look again, Mark Frank. The WSJ op-ed was written by Lott also, where he's pointing out "less guns, no effect." So actually all of the links I posted are to his writings. Readers may recall that the question on the table was, "is there a serious claim?" The answer to that is "yes." That "it's a slam-dunk" is my considered opinion of course, having looking into both sides.jstanley01_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

#106 jstanley01 AS I am sure you know John Lott is a controversial figure in an ongoing dispute with the National Research Council about the validity of his methods and conclusions. In the circumstances to describe the evidence that the availability of hand guns reduces crime as a slam dunk is misleading. Of the three web links you give in addition to his book, two are to John Lott himself. The other from the Wall St journal does not argue that the availability of hand guns reduces crime. It only argues that there is no evidence that guns in general increase crime which is pretty much what the NRC said - no evidence either way.Mark Frank_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the links, Jeff. Reading the Wikipedia entry on Lott, I get the impression his claims about a correlation between the carrying of concealed weapons and crime in general are not as clearly supported as, say, StephenB thinks. I can see there might be a reduction in crime like street mugging, where such crime was already high. I'm just going to indulge in schadenfreude and thank the Lord I live in a quiet corner of a country where crime levels are low enough for me to not even consider the possibility I might get held up and robbed. Whilst the odd empty property does get broken into here, violence is almost unheard of.Alan Fox_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
...is there a serious claim that extending the availability of hand guns reduces the murder rate?
As a matter of fact there is, and it's a slam dunk: John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. See also here, here and here.jstanley01_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

F/N: this is a day when somewhat more directly damaging issues are on the table (and at a time where I have to deal with yet other issues . . . ). So pardon a summary cite on the real issue at stake in the teeth of AF's usual ad hominems -- he neglects to note that the thought police tactics in our civilisation these days are coming from those he sides with [cf. here, here and here] -- and the evasions and distractions otherwise. Here, again is Dr Richard Dawkins, Sci Am August 1995 letting the amoral cat out of the materialist bag [which -- as Plato long ago warned in The Laws Bk X -- leads to relativism, of which subjectivism is one form], as already cited and studiously ignored:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose [--> It escapes Dr Dawkins that we may have good reason for refusing this implication of his favoured ideological evolutionary materialism] . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [“God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]
Unless and until evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers can find a base for OUGHT in the ISes of their worldviews -- don't hold your breath, then they stand in the situation of implying that might and manipulation make 'right.' Which is patently absurd and -- as history sadly testifies -- destructively chaotic. But if one insistently clings to absurdities for whatever reasons, one can only reject the contrary self evident truths that cut across it and/or run after red herrings led out to ad hominem soaked strawmen to be set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, regardless of how ever more evidently absurd that is. (Hence -- with all due respect to those who do not go along with these sadly familiar tactics -- drearily repeated side tracks and the current attempt to drag in the Saudi thought police as though that naturally extends to the caricatured right wing neo-fascist creationists in cheap tuxedos that are so handy as slanderous strawman caricatures of design thinkers. (Cf the UD weak argument correctives through the resources tab above, on these oh so common fallacious talking points.) The truth is, the case of the Saudi thought police does not even properly extend its shadow to most Muslims. And, do I need to point out yet again that fascism is a statist, politically messianic ideology of the left?) (I suggest a glance here in context at my summary response on the main issue, in part based on the exchanges above.) KFkairosfocus_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

#102 Alan What I find interesting is the technique that Stephen uses to make his case. If "morally bad" referred to some objective property then he should be able to prove that homosexual behaviour is bad by deduction or presenting evidence. But he resorts to describing it in a way that emphasises that this involves using one of our organs in a "non-standard" way (something we all knew - there is no additional information), and relying on an emotional reaction to that description. I don't say that is an invalid way of arguing a moral point (although in this particular case I am not moved). In the end I believe all moral judgements come down to emotional reactions. But it is a subjective approach not a logical or scientific one.Mark Frank_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

And thanks for the grammar lesson, Stephen. Perhaps you'd like to tell the rest of the World to stick to your grammar rules too. Besids, I have an excuse after eleven years in France. In French, there's no such distinction, it's all moins de. I note you had no trouble grasping my meaning. Probably off-topic but is there a serious claim that extending the availability of hand guns reduces the murder rate? The US is such an outlier compared to Western Europe, it's hard to understand that anyone could suggest a case for it. Is there sound statistical evidence supporting such an assertion?Alan Fox_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

Many people including myself can find nothing wrong with it at all (although not something I would ever want to do).
Exactly. It is the right of anyone to live their life as they wish to, to the extent that they are harming no-one but themselves. Would StephenB approve of aUS equivalent of the Saudi religious police?Alan Fox_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

using the lower digestive tract as a sex organ
This a straightforward example of the subjectivity of morals. StephenB evidently finds that there is something immoral about this. Many people including myself can find nothing wrong with it at all (although not something I would ever want to do). We can point to various factors to try and influence each other but in the end we just plain disagree.Mark Frank_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT}

Sorry - that should read:
In any case I don’t think even John Lott would claim that gun ownership was responsible for the decrease in homicide over the last twenty years which has taken place over much the Western world whatever the gun policy.
Mark Frank_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

Daniel, Alan On the basis of what I have read - which is pretty limited - I think there is some evidence that right to carry laws reduce crime in the USA. John Lott is a dubious character but other research has either confirmed his conclusions or concluded there is no evidence for an effect either way. I am not aware of any convincing evidence that gun ownership decreases homicide or crime. One thing that came out of all this silliness is I learned that gun ownership in the USA (as defined by percentage of homes with a gun) has actually declined over the last four decades while homicide and crime rates first went up and then down (Of course the NRA dispute this, but it comes from the general social survey which is one of the most reputable and methodologically sound surveys around). In any case I don't think even John Lott would claim that gun ownership was responsible for the decrease in homicide over the last hundred years which has taken place over much the Western world whatever the gun policy. Mark Frank_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

I wonder if StephenB realizes that his quotation of John Lott refers to “concealed carry” laws and not to gun ownership per se. People who have passed the rigorous requirements to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons are not likely to be representative of the whole population.
Yes, I am aware of it.StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Daniel King, John Lott has studied this latest “research” and made the following comments: 1) Using state level data the study claims a positive relationship between the percentage of suicides committed with guns (they call this the gun ownership rate rather than what it actually is) and the firearm homicide rate. The big problem with their measure of gun ownership is that it picks up a lot of demographic information that may itself be related to homicide and to crime. 2) Do we care about total murders or murders involving guns? 3) "None of the existing panel studies examined data more recent than 1999." Presumably this is what is causing some left wing outlets to claim "Largest Gun Study Ever" (at last glance the link to that article was retweeted 1,077 times). The authors seem completely unaware of the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime that looked at data up through 2005 -- six years longer than they claim. Of course, my research also started with 1977, not 1981 as they did. Of course, I have also used county and city level data and have many more observations than they have. My research has run regressions with up to 96 times more observations that the 1,000 that they point to in this paper. While I account for hundreds of factors, these guys account for almost none (6 in their final reported model (23 unreported in bivariate estimates -- meaning just running one of these variables at a time in explaining firearm murder rates). It would be nice if Mr. Zack Beauchamp was notified that these authors are apparently unaware of any of my research since "1988" [sic] (they couldn't even get the year right for my first edition of MGLC). 4) No explanation is offered for why they leave Washington, DC out of their regressions. I can offer one: it weakens their results. 5) Only a very small percentage of the prison population are there for murder. Possibly a percent or two in any given year. Do changes in the share of the prison population for larceny or burglary really help explain a lot of the variation in murder rates? A more direct measure would be the arrest rate for murder and/or the number of people in prison for murder and/or the death penalty execution rate. 6) "To develop a final, more parsimonious model, we first entered all variables found to be significant in bivariate analyses (we used a Wald test at a significance level of .10) into 1 model. We then deleted variables found not to be significant in the presence of the other variables, assessing the significance of each variable with a Wald test at a significance level of .05." -- The problem here is that the resulting statistical significance levels don't mean what these authors seem to think that that do. The levels of significance for a regression assume a random draw. If you 23 specifications and then pick the variables that are significant, the variables that you are picking were picked in a biased manner. 7) Six variables is what they finally include in their "Final Model." Leaving out variables that affect the murder rate will cause the other variables to act as a proxy for these left out variables. This gets back to my point (1). 8) Even if all these issues were dealt with, they have completely ignored the issue of causation. Is it increased crime that results in more guns or the reverse?” Also, I should point out that Lott's work has been peer reviewed by about 25 professors from major universities. I don't think this latest effort has been sufficiently scrutinized.StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

I wonder if StephenB realizes that his quotation of John Lott refers to "concealed carry" laws and not to gun ownership per se. People who have passed the rigorous requirements to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons are not likely to be representative of the whole population.Daniel King_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.(Am J Public Health.2013;103:2098–2105. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409)
Open access.Daniel King_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox
When “more guns, less murders” became an argument, well, what’s the point?
Actually, Alan, more guns does mean fewer [not less] murders. The word “less” applies to degree while the word “fewer” applies to numbers. If you wanted to be more literate, you could write, “More guns, less crime.” Get it? I realize that you are impervious to evidence, but here are a few facts from John Lott: “Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent. Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. “States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called “shall-issue” laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness. The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.”
I gave up at “lower digestive tract”
Based on your previous comments, I gather that you support the practice of using the lower digestive tract as a sex organ. If that is not that case, just let me know and I will retract my statement.StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

I'm surprised you stuck it so long, Mark! When "more guns, less murders" became an argument, well, what's the point? I gave up at "lower digestive tract".Alan Fox_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

StephenB I give up. We have totally different ideas about what counts as cultural depravity and even what counts as evidence! There is no common ground for debate.Mark Frank_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Mark
Half of them didn’t even go to school. You continue to make assertion after assertion without producing one reference or shred of evidence.
No. If a country has not achieved enough prosperity to educate everyone, that not an indicator of cultural depravity. The issue is what children are taught and how they are formed. Here is the earlier (and legitimate) dictionary definition of education prior to the Dewey intrusiion: (Appleton, Century, Crofts: New York, 1927):
The drawing out of a person’s innate talents and abilities by imparting the knowledge of languages, scientific reasoning, history, literature, rhetoric, etc.—the channels through which those abilities would flourish and serve.
Here is the new, dehumanizing definition used by the experimental psychologists found in An Outline of Educational Psychology in 1934:
Learning is the result of modifiability in the paths of neural conduction. Explanations of even such forms of learning as abstraction and generalization demand of the neurones only growth, excitability, conductivity, and modifiability. The mind is the connection-system of man; and learning is the process of connecting. The situation-response formula is adequate to cover learning of any sort, and the really influential factors in learning are readiness of the neurones, sequence in time, belongingness, and satisfying consequences.
Those were the seeds of the descent and the depravity. It was when your atheist forebears started teaching for "modifyability." It took a while, but we have arrived. U.S. citizens are, indeed, "modifyable."StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Since 89 became jumbled, I will reproduce the relevant sections. Mark Frank
If you are sure of your statistics why don’t you give a reference to one of them – is your entire contribution to this debate going to comprise unsubstantiated assertions?
You really want me to provide evidence for something that you could discover by simply observing talk-show luminaries interviewing the average person in the street? Well, all right. A survey conducted by Conway poll service found the following: “Most Americans are unable to identify even a single department in the United States Cabinet, according to a recent national poll of 800 adults. Specifically, the survey found that a majority (58%) could not provide any department names whatsoever; 41% could. Only 4% of those surveyed specified at least five of the 19 executive-level departments, a figure comparable to the poll’s overall margin of error (+/-3.5%).” The same firm that last year revealed an eye-popping 64% of Americans could not name any of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, has now uncovered a similar lack of knowledge with respect to the Executive Branch of federal government.” From Conway: “An incredible 70% of 18-34 year olds failed to specify a single agency or department, and while a majority of men (52%) could name at least one, less than one-third of women (32%) could do the same.” “Hispanics (79%), African Americans (75%), 18-34 year olds (70%), women (68%), and Pacific coast residents are among the groups most likely to say “I don’t know” when asked to name at least one department within the current United States Cabinet.” Another poll found the following: —Less than one in four Americans can name the country that we fought to obtain our independence. —More than two out of three do not know what the Roe vs. Wade controversy is all about. —Less than one half know that states have two senators (much less do they know why) —Almost one in five think the sun revolves around the earth. —One out of every two doesn’t know that Judaism is older than Christianity. (In other words, they can’t figure out that the Old Testament preceded the New Testament. Government schools run by tyrants who embrace your philosophy have made our kids so stupid that many of them remain uneducable for the remainder of their lives. The facts bear it out. Meanwhile, a grade school graduate in 1900 would have cleaned the slate with these young modern skulls full of mush. Also keep in mind that these surveys include not just young Americans, but Americans of all age groups, including those who have obtained graduate degrees. We can safely assume that American children are even more stupid than the average American. That is why they get their clocks cleaned with the compete in international scholarship competition with non Western countries.StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank
If you are sure of your statistics why don’t you give a reference to one of them – is your entire contribution to this debate going to comprise unsubstantiated assertions?
You really want me to provide evidence for something that you could discover by simply observing talk-show luminaries interviewing the average person in the street? Well, all right. A survey conducted by Conway poll service found the following: “Most Americans are unable to identify even a single department in the United States Cabinet, according to a recent national poll of 800 adults. Specifically, the survey found that a majority (58%) could not provide any department names whatsoever; 41% could. Only 4% of those surveyed specified at least five of the 19 executive-level departments, a figure comparable to the poll’s overall margin of error (+/-3.5%).” The same firm that last year revealed an eye-popping 64% of Americans could not name any of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, has now uncovered a similar lack of knowledge with respect to the Executive Branch of federal government.” From Conway: “An incredible 70% of 18-34 year olds failed to specify a single agency or department, and while a majority of men (52%) could name at least one, less than one-third of women (32%) could do the same.” “Hispanics (79%), African Americans (75%), 18-34 year olds (70%), women (68%), and Pacific coast residents are among the groups most likely to say “I don’t know” when asked to name at least one department within the current United States Cabinet.” Another poll found the following: ---Less than one in four Americans can name the country that we fought to obtain our independence. ---More than two out of three do not know what the Roe vs. Wade controversy is all about. ---Less than one half know that states have two senators (much less do they know why) ---Almost one in five think the sun revolves around the earth. ---One out of every two doesn’t know that Judaism is older than Christianity. (In other words, they can’t figure out that the Old Testament preceded the New Testament. Government schools run by tyrants who embrace your philosophy have made our kids so stupid that many of them remain uneducable for the remainder of their lives. The facts bear it out. Meanwhile, a grade school graduate in 1900 would have cleaned the slate with these young modern skulls full of mush. Also keep in mind that these surveys include not just young Americans, but Americans of all age groups, including those who have obtained graduate degrees. We can safely assume that American children are even more stupid than the average American. That is why they get their clocks cleaned with the compete in international scholarship competition with non Western countries. LOL. You are arguing against yourself. That is precisely because the standards were higher. In those days, it was a challenge to graduate from grade school and anyone who crossed that threshold actually knew something about history and literature. Today, by contrast, a much larger percentage of young people go to college, but they have been so dumbed down that they need remedial education in order to survive the first year. Why do you think educators have consistently changed the standard for SAT scores, making it easier and easier to get respectable scores. The answer is obvious. The kids are being made progressively more stupid by people who embrace your philosophy.
For God’s sake – what matters is not the test – what matters is what kids knew.
Read my opening comments and weep.
Half of them didn’t even go to school. You continue to make assertion after assertion without producing one reference or shred of evidence.
Read my opening comments and weep. Me: Do you recognise them as objective indicators of the quality of US culture that have improved enormously since 1913? (Please don’t make me look up the figures – I think we both recognise that they have all improved)
StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank, With respect to the teen-pregnancy statistics, please do not rely on untrustworthy sources and pay special attention to context. How often must I make this point? The baby killers love to juggle the books. Teen pregnancy is not synonymous with out-of-wedlock births, especially in the 1950’s and 1960’s where the median age of first marriage for women was 20 years old. Many teens were marrying in that era, so naturally teen pregnancy was much higher than it is now. The issue for cultural decline is out-of-birth wedlock. Please make a note of it since you have raised the issue two or three times.StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Again, you misunderstand the context. Lack of opportunity in this case means the hesitation to follow through on the intent to murder someone who is armed or who is thought to be armed. History shows that this hesitation always lowers the murder rate. I am sure of my statistics. If, therefore, the murder rate stays the same when the number of armed people increase, this is a sure sign of decline.
If you are sure of your statistics why don’t you give a reference to one of them – is your entire contribution to this debate going to comprise unsubstantiated assertions?
In terms of gross numbers for murder, it is about the same. However, the net numbers (with the opportunity factor included) were, indeed, much, much lower. First, crime is primarily a young person’s game. We have murdered millions through abortion and have eliminated millions more through artificial birth control. So our proportion of young people has radically decreased. Second, we have placed a large number of those who do rape, rob, and murder behind bars in numbers that exceed those of past generations. Third, armed citizens make a difference. When the opportunity exists, people will commit murder much more readily thank they once did. That is decline.
I think I will leave this particular subject before I get very cross to no effect. I suggest you do some serious reading about the causes of the decline in violent crime round the Western world (hint it is not explained by a proportionally younger population – the figures don’t add up – or more guns – it is happening in places where there are less guns)
You forgot about lag time. It takes a few years to make a cultural habit out of a new idea.
Yes – so the birth control effect should have kicked a few years after 1960 – and yet the figures were dropping from 1950.
Oh heavens yes. I know that they were. Today’s college students would not be able to pass the 1913 grade school graduation examination. Even many graduate students would fail. You ought to try it yourself. (A few years ago, Judge Robert Bork admitted that he couldn’t answer some of the questions.) …….

LOL. You are arguing against yourself. That is precisely because the standards were higher. In those days, it was a challenge to graduate from grade school and anyone who crossed that threshold actually knew something about history and literature. Today, by contrast, a much larger percentage of young people go to college, but they have been so dumbed down that they need remedial education in order to survive the first year. Why do you think educators have consistently changed the standard for SAT scores, making it easier and easier to get respectable scores. The answer is obvious. The kids are being made progressively more stupid by people who embrace your philosophy.
For God’s sake – what matters is not the test – what matters is what kids knew. Half of them didn’t even go to school. You continue to make assertion after assertion without producing one reference or shred of evidence.
Me: Do you recognise them as objective indicators of the quality of US culture that have improved enormously since 1913? (Please don’t make me look up the figures – I think we both recognise that they have all improved)

SB: Absolutely not, for the reasons indicated.
There were no reasons indicated. All you said was you recognize black disenfranchishment, premature death, religious intolerance, and animal abuse as objective evils.Mark Frank_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

The end of the first paragraph should read, "If, therefore, the gross murder rate in 1900 is the same as today, even though the number of opportunities for murder has decreased over time, that indicates a decline.StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
So what – the lack of opportunity for murder is one of things causing society to be less depraved.
Again, you misunderstand the context. Lack of opportunity in this case means the hesitation to follow through on the intent to murder someone who is armed or who is thought to be armed. History shows that this hesitation always lowers the murder rate. I am sure of my statistics. If, therefore, the murder rate stays the same when the number of armed people increase, this is a sure sign of decline.
But you said the indicators were much lower 100 years ago. Much he same is not much lower. Teenage Pregnancy
In terms of gross numbers for murder, it is about the same. However, the net numbers (with the opportunity factor included) were, indeed, much, much lower. First, crime is primarily a young person's game. We have murdered millions through abortion and have eliminated millions more through artificial birth control. So our proportion of young people has radically decreased. Second, we have placed a large number of those who do rape, rob, and murder behind bars in numbers that exceed those of past generations. Third, armed citizens make a difference. When the opportunity exists, people will commit murder much more readily thank they once did. That is decline.
So what – the the birth control pill is one of things causing society to be less depraved. (Actually it wasn’t approved until 1960 so you still have a good ten years of decline to account for)
You forgot about lag time. It takes a few years to make a cultural habit out of a new idea. SB: I really don’t know what to say to someone who doesn’t know about the disintegration of the family or who thinks that it is not necessarily a bad thing.
I guess that’s your problem. But I don’t dispute the families split up physically much more often now.
Now you are changing the subject. The issue is whether split up families contribute to cultural decline. Everyone, except you it seems, understands that it does.
Education – this is utterly bizarre. Do you seriously think that education standards were higher in 1913 then they are now?
Oh heavens yes. I know that they were. Today's college students would not be able to pass the 1913 grade school graduation examination. Even many graduate students would fail. You ought to try it yourself. (A few years ago, Judge Robert Bork admitted that he couldn't answer some of the questions.)
I suggest reading the reference I gave you. Here are few extracts: * In 1900 only 50% of children even enrolled in school. By 1945 it had still only risen to 75%. * In 1940, more than half of the U.S. population had completed no more than an eighth grade education.
LOL. You are arguing against yourself. That is precisely because the standards were higher. In those days, it was a challenge to graduate from grade school and anyone who crossed that threshold actually knew something about history and literature. Today, by contrast, a much larger percentage of young people go to college, but they have been so dumbed down that they need remedial education in order to survive the first year. Why do you think educators have consistently changed the standard for SAT scores, making it easier and easier to get respectable scores. The answer is obvious. The kids are being made progressively more stupid by people who embrace your philosophy.
Do you recognise them as objective indicators of the quality of US culture that have improved enormously since 1913? (Please don’t make me look up the figures – I think we both recognise that they have all improved)
Absolutely not, for the reasons indicated.StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply