Children..

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:55 am

Darth Wong wrote:
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Slap on the wrist with guaranteed anonymity for the rest of their lives. The point remains. When someone kills another human being and gets two years in juvenile detention followed by lifetime anonymity, ie- no criminal record, that is escaping responsibility.

You say two years? It disproves that.

Since when does "max penalty" disprove the fact that youth killers have gotten two year sentences, and do always evade any criminal record?

Death penalty is the maximum sentence in certain states in America. But not everyone gets it. Hmm.
Do you even realize that the source you cited was a study on the effects of the Young Offenders Act in Canada? The very first paragraph in that study says "Trends over the last 25 years, and particularly since the introduction of the Young Offenders Act"!

Do you realize that the crime rate was steadily increasing for the first 22 years or so until the Young Offenders Act and continued for an additional 8 or so years after that?
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:57 am

Rabidus_Lupus wrote: Death penalty is the maximum sentence in certain states in America. But not everyone gets it. Hmm.

Correct. But if you're a 15 year old in Canada and you murder somebody, you will never have a criminal record. If you honestly can't see how this severely impacts the deterrent effect of law on youth crime, then we have nothing more to say to each other because it's obvious that you will say anything, no matter how absurd, in order to cling to your preconceived notions.
Do you realize that the crime rate was steadily increasing for the first 22 years or so until the Young Offenders Act and continued for an additional 8 or so years after that?

You are obviously talking about the combined youth/adult crime rate which is the first graph in that report. The youth crime statistics do not show that pattern. Next time, try reading the report instead of just looking at the pretty pictures.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus » Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:40 am

Darth Wong wrote:
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:Death penalty is the maximum sentence in certain states in America. But not everyone gets it. Hmm.

Correct. But if you're a 15 year old in Canada and you murder somebody, you will never have a criminal record. If you honestly can't see how this severely impacts the deterrent effect of law on youth crime, then we have nothing more to say to each other because it's obvious that you will say anything, no matter how absurd, in order to cling to your preconceived notions.
Do you realize that the crime rate was steadily increasing for the first 22 years or so until the Young Offenders Act and continued for an additional 8 or so years after that?

You are obviously talking about the combined youth/adult crime rate which is the first graph in that report. The youth crime statistics do not show that pattern. Next time, try reading the report instead of just looking at the pretty pictures.
Did you look at the graph below it? Or are you not paying attention. Yeah, it's since 77, but just like you assume everywhere's the same as california, I'm going to assume that years before that it was pretty much increasing just like the combined graph.
As for your disliking the youth act because people won't have a criminal record, your reason doesn't hold up very well in my opinion. I think people don't commit muder because they don't want to spend time in jail. Not because they don't want a criminal record after they get out. I don't see how you believe people actually think "Should I shoot this guy? I probably shouldn't because I'll have a criminal record after I get out of jail."
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

trudred
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:01 pm

Post by trudred » Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:27 pm

Tell me, what proof would you require in order to admit that you do not have sufficient evidence to generalize that youth today are particularly immoral compared to the "good ol' days"?


There is sufficient proof that youth’s are more violent than they were in the past. In addition to statistics given to you by others, your own evidence shows this. Just because the rate has feel since it’s two picks, the most notably one being in the early 90’s late 80’s, does not mean that they are over all lower. Your graph, which I did see and read, shows a higher number of arrests in 1998 than 1964. Or was stopping at 1974 more convenient for you? I will also point out that in the facts you provide, they themselves say that the data is to dispel the myth that youths today have a “greater propensity” of violent behavior, not that they were worse behaved.
Obviously, you either deliberately or "accidentally" ignored the second post in this thread


And did you “deliberately or accidentally” ignore my point that the person who started this thread made no mention on violent behavior. They were addressing “bad” behavior and no one took to the time to define that before arguing. Which to me makes the argument pointless. Or maybe it is just easier to ignore studies and surveys on youth ethics, cheating on exams, lying in school and on the stand today vs. the past.

trudred
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:01 pm

Post by trudred » Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:34 pm

but you also leap to absurd conclusions without a shred of evidence


This was not to say that you were a “youth” but to show that you share the same school of thought as they do so you would find it harder to accept the truth.
And accusing someone of "reaching" after spending two paragraphs expounding on your assumption that I'm a youth ... now that is funny.


35 yrs old, to some, may be considered young. To quote a friend of mine, “a young chap” to be exact. "A young chap" who was a youth himself during the peak of youth violence and so will see nothing wrong with the way things are today. What is funny is the offense you take to be categorized as such, when, according to you, there is nothing essential wrong with them as compared to the good ol’ days.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:46 pm

Rabidus_Lupus wrote:
You are obviously talking about the combined youth/adult crime rate which is the first graph in that report. The youth crime statistics do not show that pattern. Next time, try reading the report instead of just looking at the pretty pictures.
Did you look at the graph below it?

The one that starts in 1977 even though you are talking about a 22 year crime rate increase prior to 1984? Thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that no matter how wrong one of your claims is, you will never admit it.
Or are you not paying attention. Yeah, it's since 77, but just like you assume everywhere's the same as california, I'm going to assume that years before that it was pretty much increasing just like the combined graph.

I assume California is representative of America. Assuming that 1977 is representative of 1962 in a debate about changes over time is, well, hilarious.
As for your disliking the youth act because people won't have a criminal record, your reason doesn't hold up very well in my opinion. I think people don't commit muder because they don't want to spend time in jail. Not because they don't want a criminal record after they get out. I don't see how you believe people actually think "Should I shoot this guy? I probably shouldn't because I'll have a criminal record after I get out of jail."

Why don't you try asking a Toronto police officer about how many young offenders quote the Young Offenders Act to them when they're arrested? Why don't you ask a Toronto police officer about how many arrogant young punks throw it in their faces during interrogations? Oh that's right, you are incapable of admitting error.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:52 pm

trudred wrote:
Tell me, what proof would you require in order to admit that you do not have sufficient evidence to generalize that youth today are particularly immoral compared to the "good ol' days"?

There is sufficient proof that youth’s are more violent than they were in the past. In addition to statistics given to you by others, your own evidence shows this.

No, it doesn't. It shows the exact opposite; murder rates declining, violent crime rates declining. The fact that misdemeanors went up is not something to lost sleep over. I'd rather be pickpocketed than stabbed.
Your graph, which I did see and read, shows a higher number of arrests in 1998 than 1964. Or was stopping at 1974 more convenient for you?

Obviously, you don't understand that the burden of proof is on you for making the accusation that youth today are uniformly worse than youth of the past. If you have to cherry-pick a particular year in order to get the "right" result, then you have failed to meet that burden of proof. Or do you not understand this whole concept about the person making the accusation being the one who bears the burden of proof?
I will also point out that in the facts you provide, they themselves say that the data is to dispel the myth that youths today have a “greater propensity” of violent behavior, not that they were worse behaved.
Obviously, you either deliberately or "accidentally" ignored the second post in this thread

And did you “deliberately or accidentally” ignore my point that the person who started this thread made no mention on violent behavior. They were addressing “bad” behavior and no one took to the time to define that before arguing. Which to me makes the argument pointless. Or maybe it is just easier to ignore studies and surveys on youth ethics, cheating on exams, lying in school and on the stand today vs. the past.

And yet, youth today are much less racist than they were in 1965, much less homophobic, much less intolerant of different cultures. If you're going to talk about general behaviour rather than zeroing in on violent crime, what evidence do you have that youth today have gotten worse than they were in 1965, when a black woman attending a university would face death threats from her fellow students? Oops, did I just mention something inconvenient to your case? So sorry.
but you also leap to absurd conclusions without a shred of evidence

This was not to say that you were a “youth” but to show that you share the same school of thought as they do so you would find it harder to accept the truth.

:lol: :lol: So you say that I'm defending youths today because I'm one of them, then you say that you didn't say I was a youth at all (even though you did) and that you were only speaking to my "school of thought" even though the "school of thought" you attacked me for was self-interest as a member of that group. Honestly, you really need to learn to admit it when you've made a mistake. Trying to desperately spin-doctor it just looks silly.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus » Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:18 pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Or are you not paying attention. Yeah, it's since 77, but just like you assume everywhere's the same as california, I'm going to assume that years before that it was pretty much increasing just like the combined graph.

I assume California is representative of America. Assuming that 1977 is representative of 1962 in a debate about changes over time is, well, hilarious.
You do realize you are suppose to think before your read right? The graph shows that crime rose steadily from 77 to about 91. Just like in the combined graph. This makes it pretty safe to say that in the years before 77 it increased proportionally, though maybe not exactly, to the combined graph. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
As for your disliking the youth act because people won't have a criminal record, your reason doesn't hold up very well in my opinion. I think people don't commit muder because they don't want to spend time in jail. Not because they don't want a criminal record after they get out. I don't see how you believe people actually think "Should I shoot this guy? I probably shouldn't because I'll have a criminal record after I get out of jail."
Why don't you try asking a Toronto police officer about how many young offenders quote the Young Offenders Act to them when they're arrested? Why don't you ask a Toronto police officer about how many arrogant young punks throw it in their faces during interrogations? Oh that's right, you are incapable of admitting error.
[/quote]That's nice, and the fact that they are still arrested means nothing to you huh? You still haven't brought up anything about the fact that it is no longer the young offenders act. How bout you bring some facts to the table from now on.
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

trudred
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:01 pm

Post by trudred » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:04 pm

Obviously, you don't understand that the burden of proof is on you for making the accusation that youth today are uniformly worse than youth of the past.


I do understand this concept, but the reason why this is more effective in the court systems rather in regular discussion, is that they have a process of jury selection to help minimize biases when examining evidence. I don‘t have that luxury here so I have to put with your biases.
If you have to cherry-pick a particular year in order to get the "right" result, then you have failed to meet that burden of proof.


You started the cherry picking by taking a portion of the facts that you presented instead of the facts on a whole. I simply pointed it out.

Ferdinand
Registered User
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:03 pm

Post by Ferdinand » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:30 pm

I don't want to take sides here, ok? Just want to mention that people have this special thing... We treat the past as something... you know, 'perfect' in a way. What I mean is, somewhere in 1960's people were discussing this same thing and saying that 'now' (in 1960) children are more violent than in 1890's. Same here. I am sure that in 40 years having this very discussion people will say that in 2005 children were angels etc.

While I really think - please don't bash me for this, just my sole opinion - that people are, well, people. And beyond technical progress we haven't really changed that much in years (well, centuries). Therefore all this stuff was always pretty much same. Poor children robbed and killed people, people killed people, women sold themselves etc. etc. So IMO situation hasn't really changed in years and will not change.
They've banned me from using an avatar so now I have no identity :(

Pit
Security Consultant
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:17 pm
Location: kµlt øƒ Ø™
Contact:

Post by Pit » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:21 pm

Ferdinand wrote: While I really think - please don't bash me for this, just my sole opinion - that people are, well, people. And beyond technical progress we haven't really changed that much in years (well, centuries). Therefore all this stuff was always pretty much same. Poor children robbed and killed people, people killed people, women sold themselves etc. etc. So IMO situation hasn't really changed in years and will not change.

"Opinion" or not, I think this is pretty much nonsense. Societies evolve constantly and rapidly. We are a product of our society, and when a society changes, the people who grow up in that society change. For example, as has doubtless been mentioned before in this thread, people in our society are far more tolerant now than they were even 60 years ago. If you think about it with your brain, you'll hopefully realise that you're wrong.
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

Ferdinand
Registered User
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:03 pm

Post by Ferdinand » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:32 pm

Hehe, sorry, I've failed to deliver my point then. All this stuff you are talking about is just a 'wrapper' for us. People are still people. Homo sapiens. We are totally same as we were 1 000 000 years ago. We have hunger, fear and survival instincts among other. And if you look closely, you'd hopefully see that besides the 'visual' changes in the world, nothing has changed much. And it never will. But again, this is beyond the thread here.
----
I think the discussion of such a problem should be closely related to parents, not children. Believe me, rarely a fully successfull kid (I mean the one growing up in a normal healthy family) will commit a crime. Yes, there are occasions but the are so rare that can be left out. So we need to dig dipper. Children are not violent. Children are children. If they live in *beep*, they will commit crimes. If they have nothing to do (in a bad way; no school etc. etc.), they will form gangs and commit crimes. If no one pays attention to them (parents, guiardians etc.), they will commit crimes. If they have nothing to wear, eat or drink, they will commit crimes. It jas nothing to do with simple violence. And since these groups of people (children) always existed and always will, youth crime will always be pretty much at the same level. That's what I meant in the first place. A normal healthy, not hungry, educated and beloved kid won't just go out and shoot a guy or two. He just won't. A poor, hungry, dirty and totally... unmotivated kid would.
They've banned me from using an avatar so now I have no identity :(

trudred
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:01 pm

Post by trudred » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:17 pm

If you're going to talk about general behavior rather than zeroing in on violent crime, what evidence do you have that youth today have gotten worse than they were in 1965


Let’s me spell out my point here. Before you go on to attack someone on having an opinion based on myth or sensationalized media coverage, confirm what they mean. Don't pick your own definition and start running.

But we will go with the “general behavior”. Here are several links that reflect increase in “bad” behavior in youths. “Bad” behavior ranging from motor vehicle accidents, drug and alcohol use, sexual activity, sexually transmitted diseases, depression and suicide. Some cover 10 year figures, 30. There are also statistics that cover Europe, Africa and Central America, since the US is not the end all be all.

http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/Surve ... elease.htm

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/99Youth ... apter7.htm

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/alcDelinq ... nquent.htm

http://www.walkupsway.com/cheating.htm

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indi ... deaths.cfm

http://www.youthdevelopment.org/downloa ... 20behavior'

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/girlDelin ... quents.htm

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/nationtrends.html

trudred
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:01 pm

Post by trudred » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:20 pm

And yet, youth today are much less racist than they were in 1965, much less homophobic, much less intolerant of different cultures. when a black woman attending a university would face death threats from her fellow students? Oops, did I just mention something inconvenient to your case? So sorry


If you are going to bring up racism and homophobia I would rather start a new forum because I hate straying when taking. But I will go with you can, since you like to. Just because prejudiced behavior has not only become politically incorrect and in most cases illegal if blatant, you would be a fool to think that it does not exist. And I can’t imagine you being that stupid. Again you equate the lack of violence in racist behavior to people being more tolerant. I have lived in 3 different countries and have traveled to much more, cultural tolerance above everything we have discussed is a myth. And the black lady who faced death threats from her fellow students is not there, but the American Muslims after 9/11 got their share of threats, spit on and beat up. I will be happy to continue this a new forum.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:08 am

Rabidus_Lupus wrote: You do realize you are suppose to think before your read right? The graph shows that crime rose steadily from 77 to about 91. Just like in the combined graph. This makes it pretty safe to say that in the years before 77 it increased proportionally, though maybe not exactly, to the combined graph. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Only if you assume that youth and adult crime rates are inextricably linked together, so that all trends are coincident. If that is the case, then it is impossible to make a generalization about youths as opposed to people in general. Or perhaps this did not occur to you?
Why don't you try asking a Toronto police officer about how many young offenders quote the Young Offenders Act to them when they're arrested? Why don't you ask a Toronto police officer about how many arrogant young punks throw it in their faces during interrogations? Oh that's right, you are incapable of admitting error.

That's nice, and the fact that they are still arrested means nothing to you huh? You still haven't brought up anything about the fact that it is no longer the young offenders act. How bout you bring some facts to the table from now on.

How does the fact that they are arrested change the fact that they are less inhibited about committing crimes or being defiant to the police thanks to the Young Offenders Act?
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”