Agent Monkeysee on 26/2/2006 at 05:56
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Oh, honestly. Did your sarcasm detector break or something? Of course I don't want to abolish the police force :nono:.
I'm nearly positive I've seen you say things along this line before but maybe I'm wrong.
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
That said, I don't believe that any (current) government on the planet genuinely wants to end crime, because without things like crime, there is no need for government. That's why whenever I hear a policeman say "We want to eradicate crime", I take it with a pinch of salt. Why would you render yourself redundant like that? What the police really aim to do is to keep crime at a manageable level.
That's just goofy. Even if government were able to actually eradicate crime that's not a static state; you'd have to maintain the services, laws, and whatever else that contributed to the stop in crime in the first place. Saying we would abolish government after crime was eradicated is kinda implying that government had nothing to do with the eradication of crime in the first place.
Put another way, it's a bit like saying that achieving financial security means you can quit your job. I don't know about you but my financial security would vanish real quick if I stopped working.
TheGreatGodPan on 26/2/2006 at 06:05
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Holy christ you cannot be serious. In your world to liberals all live in college lofts or something?
I was talking about tendencies. Married people are more likely to vote republican. The more kids married people have, the more likely they are to vote republican. And yes I know I wrote republican which is specific to one party in one country but that's what I've read.
Kind of surprised at the "longer prison sentences not reducing crime" comment. You could certainly argue against the deterrent effect, but the inability of criminals to commit many crimes while being held in prison seems to have a sizable effect.
Agent Monkeysee on 26/2/2006 at 06:18
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
I was talking about tendencies. Married people are more likely to vote republican. The more kids married people have, the more likely they are to vote republican. And yes I know I wrote republican which is specific to one party in one country but that's what I've read.
I really don't think that's true at all. I would think voting demographics are far more likely to fall along racial, economic, and regional lines than simply married/not-married. That distinction may exist within one of the broader categories but I really doubt that's universal, especially given our incredibly close presidential races.
TheGreatGodPan on 26/2/2006 at 19:45
If we took all the adults in the United States and divided them into two groups: married and unmarried, I wager that a higher proportion of the marrieds would vote republican than the unmarried. Perhaps not by a large amount, but then again a lot of people don't even vote. The correlation of number of children and voting probably does depend more on which other demographic group you belong to.
Steve Sailer has a series of writings on this point, mostly focusing on recent Presidential elections: (
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_06/cover.html) The Baby Gap: Explaining Red vs. Blue States, (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041212_secret.htm) The Marriage Gap: The Baby Gap's Big Brother, (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041219_housing.htm) The GOP’s Third Electoral Secret: Marriage, Fertility…And Cheap Housing, (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050123_vindicated.htm) Democrat Pollster Validates My Marriage Gap Red-Blue Theory, (
http://www.isteve.com/2005_Dirt_Gap.htm) The Dirt Gap: A Tale of Two States, (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050313_gap.htm) The White Guy Gap, (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050508_family.htm) "Affordable Family Formation"—The Neglected Key To GOP's Future.
Chimpy Chompy on 26/2/2006 at 19:47
Are you citing crackpot blogs again? :weird:
TheGreatGodPan on 26/2/2006 at 20:03
Some are from the American Conservative magazine and one is really just an analysis of a democratic polling group. But if you'd like to explain why he's wrong, go ahead.
jay pettitt on 26/2/2006 at 20:56
Umm. Apart from the fact that I think the onus of proof is on you (and by proof I mean something other than 8 links to light hearted and mildly silly political editorial and commentry from the same source - that or Steve is a white supremacist cunt who doesn't understand why social darwinism (or for that matter, being a cunt, or white - please tell me that guy is doing satire) has nothing to do with Darwin, or Evolution, or science or real life) didn't Gore get a slightly higher percentage of votes in the last presdential thingy? How does that fit in with your logic?
OMG it doesn't, unless shagging and continuation of the species (and by species, I don't mean seperate from darkies) is somehow out of fashion in the US.
I also seem to remember reading that Republican voters were subnormal in the IQ department (on a state by state comparison)... I suspect you're being sold down the same river.
Seriously, this is an internet gaming forum. Raise your debate.
TheGreatGodPan on 27/2/2006 at 22:29
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Umm. Apart from the fact that I think the onus of proof is on you (and by proof I mean something other than 8 links to light hearted and mildly silly political editorial and commentry from the same source - that or Steve is a white supremacist cunt who doesn't understand why social darwinism (or for that matter, being a cunt, or white - please tell me that guy is doing satire) has nothing to do with Darwin, or Evolution, or science or real life) didn't Gore get a slightly higher percentage of votes in the last presdential thingy? How does that fit in with your logic?
OMG it doesn't, unless shagging and continuation of the species (and by species, I don't mean seperate from darkies) is somehow out of fashion in the US.
I also seem to remember reading that Republican voters were subnormal in the IQ department (on a state by state comparison)... I suspect you're being sold down the same river.
Seriously, this is an internet gaming forum. Raise your debate.
Whether Gore got more votes is irrelevant. The question is whether unmarried people are more likely to vote for him (and other democrats) than married people, and everything I've seen on the subject indicates that is the case. I don't have my old copies of Newsweek to quote at you so you'll have to either accept (
http://www.wvwv.org/docs/WVWV_2004_post-election_memo.pdf) the democratic pollster's data (I've even directly linked here so you don't have to go through Sailer/VDare, but you should scroll down to page 10 for the most relevant stats) that I mentioned or find a poll that says otherwise. To say that one party should always win elections because of one tendency is idiotic. As for your question of whether marriage and having kids are going out of style, the marriage rate has been decreasing for some time and it is estimated that if it weren't for immigration (due to the higher birth-rate of immigrants) the U.S would be decreasing in population. It is also estimated that the majority of all households will not be married couples in the relatively near future.
With regards to the I.Q of states thing, Steve actually (
http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-May2004.htm#38115.6465670139) debunked that quite some time back.
With regards to whether Steve is a "white supremacist" a good overview of his viewpoint can be found in his debates with Jared Taylor, a white nationalist: (
http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050929_citizenism.htm) Taylor vs. Sailer—Survival v. "Citizenism", (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051008_round2.htm) Sailer vs. Taylor, Round II —"Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism, (
http://www.vdare.com/taylor/051108_citizenism2.htm) "Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism: A Second Reply to Steve Sailer and (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051120_response.htm) "Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism (II): Sailer Sums Up. He's not a social darwinist either, as he places himself politically on the side of the "left half of the bell curve": (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/iq.htm) Why We Aren't Supposed to Write about IQ, (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/iq_part_2.htm) How the Other Half of the Bell Curve Lives, (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bell_curve.htm) IQ & the Class Struggle, (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bell_curve_4.htm) Not So Hot Ideas for Helping the Left Half, (
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bell_curve_5.htm) Seven Ways to Help Our Fellow Citizens. I'm more the sucks-to-be-you type who doesn't think the government should intervene on any interest group's behalf, regardless of how unlucky their circumstances are.
So far you haven't contributed much of anything other than insults. I suggest that you "raise your debate".
jay pettitt on 28/2/2006 at 00:26
I found a good overview of Steve's opinions by reading some of his body of work. Interesting chap. Interesting that you reference him. I couldn't care less if he considers himself left or right of anything. Hitler and Stalin were lefties, I don't have to warm to them every time I don my social liberalism hat. He makes rather too many bogus comparisons between Evolutionary Darwinism and social demographics to be considered 'not a Social Darwinist', or for that matter to escape my charge that he doesn't have a clue why Biology and Sociology arn't interchangeable.
Quote:
the democratic pollster's data
Umm, and why couldn't you have just posted that linky in the first place? Pages and pages of Steve's turgid nonesense is enough to obscure any argument. It's your poor choice and gratuitous quantity of reference that leads me to suggest you raise your debate. Whether or not your ideas are worth hearing matters not a jot if you shoot yourself in the foot when it comes to trying to convince people you're worth listening too. Quantity and quality of argument are two entirely different things.
Quote:
With regards to the I.Q of states thing, Steve actually debunked that quite some time back.
That was my point.
The NCHS has average birthrate across the U.S. at over 2.1 Kiddies per Female. That's kiddie production and population going up, not down.
D'Juhn Keep on 28/2/2006 at 00:41
Actually, it's not. Birth rate doesn't include death rate and 2.1 is merely replacement level.
