Friday, April 20, 2012
On the Influential Assertion That Poorer Living Conditions Invariably Lead to Higher Crime-Rates 2
It appears that some of my colleagues didn't like the Chinatown example. Hm, perhaps the Armenians in Turkey example will prove a little more illustrative. As I think that most people are cognizant, the Turks actually tried to exterminate the Armenians prior to and during World War 1 (yeah, methinks that the Armenians did in fact "perceive" this modest level of inequality). And even after the war, these hostilities remained and, yes, even in spite of this, the Armenian population eventually achieved a level of economic attainment that actually superseded that of the average Turk. Once again, I submit to you people that there is far more to criminal behavior than simply being the lowest group on the economic and social totem-pole (the Chinese minority population in Burma being yet another example).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Will: On the Influential Assertion That Poorer Living Conditions Invariably Lead to Higher Crime-Rates.
I don't recall anyone making that assertion. Since you're claiming something that is false I'm just going to ignore the rest of your post. Most likely more Conservative BS anyway.
This entire blog and the comments he leaves on other blogs prove otherwise. For the most part it's a steady stream of Conservative BS.
"For the most part it's a steady stream of Conservative BS."
....except for the 93% that isn't.
Yes, inequality leads to social problems including crime (it isn't "poorer living conditions" alone). The truth of this hypothesis can be found in a book titled "The Spirit Level" (a book that is backed up by extensive research).
You're citing examples of impoverished people living under oppressive rule, or IMPRISONED (your latest example). Fear of death would, I think, put a pretty enormous damper on thoughts of criminal activity.
Not only do people have to perceive inequality, they have to be in a position where criminal activity is actually possible (the probability of success outweighs the risks... which instead of prison is probably death in this example).
If I were to present examples such as these to bolster my case for the research done for "The Spirit Level" being accurate, you would SURELY dismiss them. This is pretty weak "evidence" Will.
So, the Chinese people in Chinatown in 1965, their ancestors in some case having been in the country for close to a century, were somehow more fearful of death than the blacks of 1965? Wow, talk about a frigging weak rebuttal.............As for the "extensive research" of "The Spiry Level", it essentially consisted of an exhaustive treasure hunt for correlations of cherry-picked populations and indicators that were eventually wedged into a statistical analysis that would have clearly caused the average college freshman to fail. It was a terrible book, wd - as weak as weak can be.
First it was inequality. Then it was perceived inequality. Now it's perceived inequality with the possibility of success. You frigging look ridiculous, man.
Once again, I submit to you people that there is far more to criminal behavior than simply being the lowest group on the economic and social totem-pole
I do not believe anyone disputes this. Crime Rates result in oppressed environments, whether they are oppressed by poverty, social injustice, such as racism, or tyranny. When people are unhappy with the circumstances and when their basic needs are not met, only fear prevents most of them committing some crimes. It is human nature to focus more on morality when morality is easier.
Let's lose the word "causes more crime" and substitute "results in more crime," and then let not try to find exceptions and offer them as proof.
You seem to be attempting to prove that other factors, not just poverty, correlate to crime. I am unaware of anyone who believes that there are not many factors, so consider it proven and do a post on a pretty girl or something.
Will: it essentially consisted of an exhaustive treasure hunt for correlations of cherry-picked populations and indicators that were eventually wedged into a statistical analysis...
If you're talking about "Crime and Human Nature", then I believe you. This has been the case with the three examples you given (I take it they are all from that book).
Also, why would anyone turn to crime if they perceived their chances of success to be nil? I'm looking ridiculous??
John, wd continues to say that inequality is the cause of all of these social ills. Yes, I've been providing copious amounts of examples to contradict the idiocy of this. I apologize for the redundancy.............Uh, no, wd, they aren't "all from the book" (which I haven't actually read, btw). They come from the fact that I actually know a little bit about history and don't get all of my information from left-leaning crazy-sites.............And I don't know whether or not that the authors of this book (which you've discarded simply because it wasn't written by Thom Hartmann or Paul Krugman) were making any sweeping causal pronouncements based upon their correlational research. If in fact I find out that they did, I will criticize them sharply for it.
And since when has the possibility of stealing a loaf of bread ever been considered "nil"? Yeah, you look totally ridiculous, continuously moving the goal-posts and spinning like a madman.
John, wd continues to say that inequality is the cause of all of these social ills.
I think it obvious that inequality results in more "social ills," and is one of the contributing factors.
It does not "cause" social ills, and it does result in more social ills. to me this is so obvious that it is beyond debate-worthy.
John said: "It does not "cause" social ills, and it does result in more social ills. to me this is so obvious that it is beyond debate-worthy."
How is it obvious? How does, say, it cause social ills if I have one car, and Jey Leno as 60?
John said: "It does not "cause" social ills, and it does result in more social ills. to me this is so obvious that it is beyond debate-worthy."
How is it obvious? How does, say, it cause social ills if I have one car, and Jey Leno as 60?
I am not going to list the fallacies in that small set of statements out of respect. I will simply point out that one car vs. 60 is not poverty vs. not poverty. It is a false correlation.
Secondly, you are still confusing something directly causing something, vs. a correlation, where something helps result in something else.
John: So it sounds like you agree with me: that the problem is not inequality, but poverty.
dmarks: John: So it sounds like you agree with me: that the problem is not inequality, but poverty.
It sounds like dmarks doesn't even agree with himself! He said "Decrepit moral character causes crime".
He also said "Poverty might give the evil-minded more of an excuse, but that's all".
So, according to dmarks it's "decrepit moral character" and "evil mindedness".
Poverty MIGHT just be an excuse.
There isn't ONE single cause, wd. There are multiple causes and those causes have causes of their own.
Will: There isn't ONE single cause, wd. There are multiple causes and those causes have causes of their own.
Of course not, although inequality is the largest cause (as the research in "The Spirit Level" has proven). Lessen inequality and all our social problems will lessen as well.
Do you even know what "prove" means? Or even the fact that scientists don't actually try and prove theories but reject the null hypothesis?
And what about alcohol consumption, suicide, crime, and divorce rates? Those frigging maladies are actually HIGHER in the more "equal" countries.
The cause, the result, and the problem are three separate issues. Not equating them is what John is trying to convey...I think.
Post a Comment