Who is to blame for the recent hate crimes?

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

I understand what you're saying, but the problem I have with that approach is that however well intentioned it may be, it can eventually lead to legislation to control peoples' choices over when to end a marriage or when it's okay to become pregnant, all because of something the child(ren) might someday do.

Absolutely right. 100% correct. 
 

 

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Maybe, but that feels like tackling the symptom and not the cause.  Why is a particular neighborhood more prone to crime?  Is it a cultural issue?  Economic?  Boosting the ratio of police to civilians to 2:1 isn't going to fix any of the underlying problems.  Yes, greater law enforcement efforts make sense in that environment, but that shouldn't be seen as the ultimate solution. 

 

Again, knocked it out of the park. 

[wenglund]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think upbringing has more to do with behavior than genetics sometimes. IE-No one of any race is predetermined to be a shoplifter or a drug dealer but if my parents were lifelong shoplifters and dealt meth, the odds are pretty good that I'd learn that behavior and think it's okay. In the end though, you make a great point by saying it's not the sole cause. 

As explained in the linked video, the nurture/nature debate on crime has been long-standing. Several decades ago the prevailing sentiment was exclusively environmental as a causal factor of crime. More recently, though, the data has made it increasingly more difficult to ignore the genetic/biology factor as a contributing causal effect.

I have found the resistance to the biological/genetic factor fascinating given the wide-spread belief in evolution among scientist. Doesn't reason suggest that hunter role for men would be highly selective for violence? Isn't the same true for the protector role?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[unixknight]

11 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I have found the resistance to the biological/genetic factor fascinating given the wide-spread belief in evolution among scientist. Doesn't reason suggest that hunter role for men would be highly selective for violence? Isn't the same true for the protector role?

If one believes in Evolution Theory without the guidance of God.

I'll concede that males tend to be more prone to violence than females.  A single glance at the corrections system supports that.  That said, I'd hesitate to refer to that as a "genetic trait" even though our genes do select our sex, because when people discuss the issue we typically don't reference genetics when we're talking about sex characteristics.  When we invoke genetics, we're usually talking about things that aren't directly linked to sex, like the color of one's hair or their predisposition to heart disease.

[Rob Osborn]

As the liberal left increases in power and influence so too will violent crime increase.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

I am not sure why since I am perfectly willing to thoughtfully consider your point of view. I am willing to engage whatever reasoning you may bring to bear. Unlike you, I won't reject your position outright or dismiss it if it doesn't happen to show up on a peer review list.

You say that you are perfectly willing to thoughtfully consider my point of view, which implies that I didn't consider yours.  I thought your claim was bunk from the start.  Taking the time to actually look to see if there were some studies to back it up was me carefully considering your point of view.  

And while you claim to be willing to consider my point of view, you didn't read the article that started this discussion.  

You claim your view is based on "science" but criticize me because I want to see some peer reviewed literature backing up his claim.  Again, reputable databases like EBSCO and Proquest list nothing.  All we have is his claims of peer reviewed articles that don't seem to be available for us to consider.  Suspicious?  Yes. 

How is it that we are supposed to move forward then? 

 

[wenglund]

15 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I understand what you're saying, but the problem I have with that approach is that however well intentioned it may be, it can eventually lead to legislation to control peoples' choices over when to end a marriage or when it's okay to become pregnant, all because of something the child(ren) might someday do.

I get the reluctance to involve the government in personal choices like marriage and child bearing/rearing. I am for limited government, which is why I mentioned society and culture first, and used the word "encourage" rather than "require."

However, the problem today is that existing government policies/legislation may be encouraging single motherhood. Legislation already exists that somewhat controls when or if to begin as well as end a marriage or when or if and how often to get pregnant. At the very least it would make sense to remove those legislative incentives to single motherhood. Would that be agreeable to you?

Quote

Maybe, but that feels like tackling the symptom and not the cause.  Why is a particular neighborhood more prone to crime?  Is it a cultural issue?  Economic?  Boosting the ratio of police to civilians to 2:1 isn't going to fix any of the underlying problems.  Yes, greater law enforcement efforts make sense in that environment, but that shouldn't be seen as the ultimate solution. 

As you intimate, it makes sense to tackle both the symptom and the cause, particularly when the symptom is more easily diagnosed and treated? Metaphorically, reason suggests one take a painkiller for a headache whether one knows what is causing the headache or not.

Besides, from the discussion above it is clear to me that there is not a lot of agreement on the cause, let alone agreement on how to address the cause. As such,  it seems all the more wise to deal with the symptom, at least until we can agree on the cause and "fix it" if possible?

However, the point that I was making with the two examples that time allowed (there are a myriad of others that could have been proffered) is that even though criminals are ultimately responsible for their actions, societies have a vested interest in diagnosing and treating systematic and other plausible causes. Do you agree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest MormonGator]

25 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You say that you are perfectly willing to thoughtfully consider my point of view, which implies that I didn't consider yours.  I thought your claim was bunk from the start.  Taking the time to actually look to see if there were some studies to back it up was me carefully considering your point of view.  

And while you claim to be willing to consider my point of view, you didn't read the article that started this discussion.  

You claim your view is based on "science" but criticize me because I want to see some peer reviewed literature backing up his claim.  Again, reputable databases like EBSCO and Proquest list nothing.  All we have is his claims of peer reviewed articles that don't seem to be available for us to consider.  Suspicious?  Yes. 

How is it that we are supposed to move forward then? 

 

I think it's important for all of us (myself included for sure) to not just say "I will listen to you" but actually listen to one another. Can we change minds? Maybe not 100%, maybe not 50% but we can at least see where someone else is coming from. It's hard, you have to make an effort to do it.  This isn't an insult to  @wenglund, it's just an observation. 

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I get the reluctance to involve the government in personal choices like marriage and child bearing/rearing. I am for limited government, which is why I mentioned society and culture first, and used the word "encourage" rather than "require."

Right, which I noticed and appreciate.  The problem is these kinds of cultural encouragements have a tendency to become laws if there's enough activism involved.  Remember when you could buy a really huge soda in New York City?  I just feel like that's the inevitable result of a society getting involved.  I think the kind of cultural encouragement you're looking for should come from the bottom up, through non-Government institutions like the family or religion.

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

However, the problem today is that existing government policies/legislation may be encouraging single motherhood. Legislation already exists that somewhat controls when or if to begin as well as end a marriage or when or if and how often to get pregnant. At the very least it would make sense to remove those legislative incentives to single motherhood. Would that be agreeable to you?

Absolutely.

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

As you intimate, it makes sense to tackle both the symptom and the cause, particularly when the symptom is more easily diagnosed and treated? Metaphorically, reason suggests one take a painkiller for a headache whether one knows what is causing the headache or not.

Well like I said, I do agree that adding more law enforcement in the meantime makes sense.  The problem is we're in a culture with a breathtakingly short attention span, and if adding cops to the troubled parts of town seems to quiet things down, we tend not to follow through.  Additionally, that approach sometimes backfires, triggering civil  unrest when the people feel persecuted, not protected.

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Besides, from the discussion above it is clear to me that there is not a lot of agreement on the cause, let alone agreement on how to address the cause. As such,  it seems all the more wise to deal with the symptom, at least until we can agree on the cause and "fix it" if possible?

Maybe.  I think the biggest block when it comes to finding agreement on the symptom tends to be politics.  Good luck untangling that hairball.

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

However, the point that I was making with the two examples that time allowed (there are a myriad of others that could have been proffered) is that even though criminals are ultimately responsible for their actions, societies have a vested interest in diagnosing and treating systematic and other plausible causes. Do you agree?

That depends on whether we agree that cause X should be treated.  Here's what I mean.  We can probably agree that males tend to be more likely to commit violent crime than females.  Ok.  Is that because of an inherent flaw in males, or is it just a trait that is neither good nor bad, depending upon when and how it's channeled?

 

 

[wenglund]

54 minutes ago, unixknight said:

If one believes in Evolution Theory without the guidance of God.

I'll concede that males tend to be more prone to violence than females.  A single glance at the corrections system supports that.  That said, I'd hesitate to refer to that as a "genetic trait" even though our genes do select our sex, because when people discuss the issue we typically don't reference genetics when we're talking about sex characteristics.  When we invoke genetics, we're usually talking about things that aren't directly linked to sex, like the color of one's hair or their predisposition to heart disease.

If people understand that in this discussion I am using the word "gentetics" informally to mean "nature" as opposed to "nurture," and more formally to mean: "of, related to, or controlled by genes," then I don't see a problem regardless whether I am speaking about sex or race or predisposition to diseases like alcoholism, etc. But, if it helps, people can transpose my previous use of genetics with the word "nature"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

I am pleased to see that someone here understand the difference between predictors and causation. And, while I agree that ultimately criminals are responsible for the crimes they commit, there may be some public policy benefits to considering the prospect of systematic and other contributing factors to crime. For example, if it can be convincingly shown that children of single mothers are at significantly higher risk for committing crimes, then we as a society or culture or even the government may protect ourselves by encouraging long-term traditional marriage and discouraging divorce and promiscuity. Right?

Likewise, if it can be reasonably shown that certain neighborhoods are far more prone to crime, it would make public policy sense to devote more effective crime deterring resources to those neighborhoods. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Thanks man.  I was always watching I just decided to take a break from posting until I felt like I had something useful to contribute.  Sometimes I get diarrhea of the mouth (fingers?) and speak much but say little.  I should have been in politics.

And I think you're 100% right about environment being a bigger factor than genetics.  A person may be genetically vulnerable to alcoholism but it will never come up unless that person lives in a culture where drinking goes on... and even then, being vulnerable to it isn't the same as being guaranteed to succumb.  Ultimately we're responsible for our own choices, and I get nervous when people look to assign blame elsewhere.  Once we're absolved of responsibility for our own bad behavior, chaos follows rapidly.

Yes, I do admit that our decisions are influenced by outside factors, but nobody's raised to believe that torturing someone on Facebook is A-OK.  We all learn the same basic lessons about right and wrong.

 

 

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

I understand what you're saying, but the problem I have with that approach is that however well intentioned it may be, it can eventually lead to legislation to control peoples' choices over when to end a marriage or when it's okay to become pregnant, all because of something the child(ren) might someday do.

 

Maybe, but that feels like tackling the symptom and not the cause.  Why is a particular neighborhood more prone to crime?  Is it a cultural issue?  Economic?  Boosting the ratio of police to civilians to 2:1 isn't going to fix any of the underlying problems.  Yes, greater law enforcement efforts make sense in that environment, but that shouldn't be seen as the ultimate solution. 

 

Okay, the discussion managed to move out of the rut.

You and @LiterateParakeet were talking over your heads and that discussion was not gonna go anywhere.

Yes, I do believe, instinctively, in a physiological contributor to the predisposition to violence or even just aggression beyond the culture.  Don't ask me for peer reviewed studies or anything.  I don't need a peer reviewed study to see that many of the females in my clan are aggressive females.  Yes, we run the gamut of wall-flowers and extreme competitors but we have a high number of aggressive females compared to the population.  It's so pervasive it became a stamp in the family name.  "You're so meek, I'm surprised you're an anatess".   It's not such a leap to see this kind of clan trait expanded to a racial profile.  I'm not well-versed in genetics beyond the "Black hair + blonde hair produces black haired children unless the black hair person has a blonde in his ancestry", so I don't really understand if this physiological contributor can be considered genetic.

But, what I do know is that a culture, even a Family identity can curb these natural traits.  After all, we believe that we are Spiritual Beings embarking on a Mortal Journey, so our individual Spirit is supposed to impose on our Natural tendencies with our Families as the incubator for our spiritual training.

So, as a stab at the answer to the OP's question... if we have to blame somebody in addition to the criminals for the hate crimes, I blame the failure in establishing a Moral and Upright Family Identity.  I may have been born an aggressive female, but the time I rode the back of my classmate pulling her hair in 3rd grade because of something she did that I can't even remember anymore, my dad whooped my butt so hard with the belt BUCKLE, I never did it again.  My dad was swift to wipe that behavior out of the Family Identity.  But, he encouraged my aggression in fighting my way through to the top of the ladder of Citizen Army Officership busting through the wall of military men thinking females can't be Commanders in an army battalion of 15-year-olds...

The government should do nothing more than to continue to provide a country where strong families are built upon.

Edited January 12, 2017 by anatess2

[wenglund]

41 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You say that you are perfectly willing to thoughtfully consider my point of view, which implies that I didn't consider yours.  I thought your claim was bunk from the start.  Taking the time to actually look to see if there were some studies to back it up was me carefully considering your point of view.  

And while you claim to be willing to consider my point of view, you didn't read the article that started this discussion.  

You claim your view is based on "science" but criticize me because I want to see some peer reviewed literature backing up his claim.  Again, reputable databases like EBSCO and Proquest list nothing.  All we have is his claims of peer reviewed articles that don't seem to be available for us to consider.  Suspicious?  Yes. 

How is it that we are supposed to move forward then? 

To me, thoughtful consideration goes beyond a database search to engaging what is actually said. And, I don't restrict "science" to what may or may not be listed on a database, reputable or otherwise. But, your point is well taken about me not reading the article you posted. I will do so know.

As for how we may move forward, if you observe the several thoughtfully considered and productive interaction I have had on this thread with other MH board members, it could provide a useful model.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

31 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think it's important for all of us (myself included for sure) to not just say "I will listen to you" but actually listen to one another. Can we change minds? Maybe not 100%, maybe not 50% but we can at least see where someone else is coming from. It's hard, you have to make an effort to do it.  This isn't an insult to  @wenglund, it's just an observation. 

I am not the least insulted, but curious what you observed about me, in particular, regarding actually listening? . 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

10 minutes ago, wenglund said:

if you observe the several thoughtfully considered and productive interaction I have had on this thread with other MH board members, it could provide a useful model.

I mean no offense, but I disgree.  Perhaps it is the weakness of written communication, but some of your comments appear to me to be mildly condescending to any who disagree with you.  Sorry for the misunderstanding if that was not your intent.  That style does not provide a useful model for productive interaction.  

I will conceed, however, that yes, I do think men tend to be more violent than women.  That is not enough to prove the rest of your accusations though.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, I do believe, instinctively, in a physiological contributor to the predisposition to violence or even just aggression beyond the culture.  Don't ask me for peer reviewed studies or anything. 

As long as you don't claim your position is based on science, I won't ask you for peer reviewed studies.  Instinct is one thing, and science is another. 

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

As long as you don't claim your position is based on science, I won't ask you for peer reviewed studies.  Instinct is one thing, and science is another. 

True.

But then, studies on this topic have been produced way back before World War II but because Hitler decided to use these studies to wipe out non-Aryans, you'll never find a decent study on the topic ever again.

Edited January 12, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

  Instinct is one thing, and science is another. 

Exactly. Instinct can be wrong. Sure science can be wrong too, but when a group of scientists generally agree on something, if you think otherwise you are the one that is wrong. 

Human "instinct" or intuition is wrong all the time but no one wants to admit that. 

[wenglund]

36 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Right, which I noticed and appreciate.  The problem is these kinds of cultural encouragements have a tendency to become laws if there's enough activism involved.  Remember when you could buy a really huge soda in New York City?  I just feel like that's the inevitable result of a society getting involved.  I think the kind of cultural encouragement you're looking for should come from the bottom up, through non-Government institutions like the family or religion.

I agree. However, it is more than challenging when the family and religion are under considerable attack from the prevailing culture and government and corrupt political system. Yet, it is the best place to start. At the very least, within our families and our religions we can improve our own little corners of the world. We can even do it within ourselves

Quote

That depends on whether we agree that cause X should be treated.  Here's what I mean.  We can probably agree that males tend to be more likely to commit violent crime than females.  Ok.  Is that because of an inherent flaw in males, or is it just a trait that is neither good nor bad, depending upon when and how it's channeled?

Good point. We may want our soldiers to be violent, but not our husbands and fathers.

Great conversing with you. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

True.

But then, studies on this topic have been produced way back before World War II but because Hitler decided to use these studies to wipe out non-Aryans, you'll never find a decent study on the topic ever again.

I can't even . . . LOL.  I'm not touching this one.  

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I can't even . . . LOL.  I'm not touching this one.  

What does this mean?  Is this mockery?  I can't tell.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What does this mean?  Is this mockery?  I can't tell.

Mockery is not my style.  I just think what you said is open to many interpretations . . . some of them amusing.  

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, wenglund said:

 

Good point. We may want our soldiers to be violent, but not our husbands and fathers.

Great conversing with you. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

See, this is the thing... There's nothing wrong with violent husbands and fathers as long as the violence is channeled in the appropriate target.  I wouldn't want my husband to be so incapable of violence he will have to wait for a soldier to defend his home.  At the same time, I wouldn't want that capability for violence to cause him to beat me up when he gets mad.

So yes, I want the boys in my family to cultivate that natural aggression into a discipline.

[wenglund]

8 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I mean no offense, but I disgree.  Perhaps it is the weakness of written communication, but some of your comments appear to me to be mildly condescending to any who disagree with you.  Sorry for the misunderstanding if that was not your intent.  That style does not provide a useful model for productive interaction.  

Condescension isn't my intent. Rather, my intent is to provoke and expand thought. I will admit that my skills in pursuing my intent often leaves much to be desired. And, while I continue to work on improving, I evidently haven't been that successful. Please forgive.

Quote

I will conceed, however, that yes, I do think men tend to be more violent than women.  That is not enough to prove the rest of your accusations though.  

Do you believe the male nature (call it genetics or whatever) is a contributing factor to their violence? Or just nurture?

If the former, then is it possible that the same could hold true for different races, particularly given the statistical disparity in violent crime rates between the races?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

See, this is the thing... There's nothing wrong with violent husbands and fathers as long as the violence is channeled in the appropriate target.  I wouldn't want my husband to be so incapable of violence he will have to wait for a soldier to defend his home.  At the same time, I wouldn't want that capability for violence to cause him to beat me up when he gets mad.

So yes, I want the boys in my family to cultivate that natural aggression into a discipline.

I think we actually agree. It is difficult to cover all the nuances in a brief statement. I was speaking pithily of fathers and husbands more in relation to their children and wives rather than as protectors of both. But, I am glad for your clarification. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

4 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Do you believe the male nature (call it genetics or whatever) is a contributing factor to their violence? Or just nurture?

If the former, then is it possible that the same could hold true for different races, particularly given the statistical disparity in violent crime rates between the races?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, I'll consider it a miscommunication.  

I admit that I don't think that men tend to more violence because of nurture.  We've all heard stories of moms trying to raise non-violent boys, by not giving them army men, or guns and those boys still make guns out of sticks.  Of course, it could also be argued that they are getting that from the larger culture around them (children aren't born knowing about guns).  So I don't know.

But as to races, no I don't think that any race is more prone to violence than another, unless it is by culture as Mormongator suggested.  I realized that there is a lot of crime in some areas, but there are so many other possible reasons for that than genetics.  I don't know what the answer is, but I can think of too many possibilities to accept the idea that any race is more prone to violence than another.   I mentioned to you two books that make great arguments/explanations.  No, not science, just theories, but it is those theories that I agree with.   And right now, that's all I believe we have is theories.  

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

But as to races, no I don't think that any race is more prone to violence than another, unless it is by culture as Mormongator suggested.  I realized that there is a lot of crime in some areas, but there are so many other possible reasons for that than genetics.  

Exactly. There is a lot of crime in rural Florida, which is much more white than the cities.  Crime isn't genetic and no, no race is more pre determined to commit crimes just because of their race.