[Liberty Sea]

(07-03-2016 03:31 AM)ball dont lie Wrote:  

Recently the Flint lead poisoning in the water has caused the state of Michigan to do lead testing in major cities such as Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, etc. These cities surprisingly found that in the lowest income housing, shitty, slumlord places that low income live, which includes mostly blacks, the lead levels were actually higher than in Flint. It just hadn't been tested so nobody knew. These areas are where the majority of the violent criminals come from and at least back in the 60s/70s the research showed that low income who hadn't been exposed to lead (gasoline, paint) had much lower levels of violent crime, even though they had broken homes and were also poor.

Interesting since the fall of the Roman empire was also associated with lead poisoning.

[ball dont lie]

Lead doesn't only make people stupid, it makes them crazy and irrational. People lose control of their emotions and higher cognitive powers.

Add alcohol or something harder like crack or codeine people lose their shit.

[AboveAverageJoe]

We need to stop paying our lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder to pop out as many feral, fatherless, malcontents as their uterus can handle. The institution of marriage itself was created to prevent large numbers of bastard, street-urchins, from overburdening society and its corresponding economic institutions and resources. Also, as pointed out in one of Malcolm Gladwells book, birthrates of fatherless children and crime are positively correlated-using New York City before and after Roe Vs. Wade, and the forced-birthing policies of Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu as statistical models.

[eradicator]

We also need to improve our public works so that all citizens can drink water from the tap without worrying about lead poisoning.

[nomadbrah]

(07-03-2016 05:55 AM)ball dont lie Wrote:  

Lead doesn't only make people stupid, it makes them crazy and irrational. People lose control of their emotions and higher cognitive powers.

Add alcohol or something harder like crack or codeine people lose their shit.

It's not lead poisoning, it's low IQ and psychopathy. A society which cared about it's citizens would take this scumbag out of the gene pool. The poster Iknowexactly used to work in the penal system as a councelor for inmates in California and frequently posted about when he met these people and could tell from a few meetings that these people were fucked up even at a young age. They could not be saved and their sadistic bare knuckle violence at teenage quickly turned into murder, robbery, guns within a few years.

IKE argued to give these psychopaths long sentences at first strike, only way to keep them from fullfilling their 'career path'.

[rw95]

My two cents.

We're arguing if single motherhood OR low IQ leads to this dysfunction. Well, the truth more often than not lies in the middle of two factors. Yes, it's quite clear that homes headed by single mothers (particularly those with children born out of wedlock) are the worst environment for children. But the women who have these kids out of wedlock (and the men knocking them up) probably don't have the highest IQs themselves. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and our welfare state has allowed it to explode.

[AboveAverageJoe]

The fact that a fatherless society is a dangerously violent society has been known since the ancient times. In nearly all successful societies somebody has to claim each child otherwise the state owns them and not in a good, feel-the-bern, modern socialist way. More in a- sold off to a wealthier family that will claim you as a slave, type of way. Every child must have someone legally and financially liable for their ass or else street crime gets like that scene in Belly where the barefoor lil shotta youth runs up alongside the Mercedes and presses his pistol against the running car's window. Hoardes of small children who just don't give a F. Have you seen City of God? Lawless, murederous gangs of prepubescent children led by older teens. These children haven't even developed their moral compass yet or their frontal lobes, in most cases. In Beasts with No Nation, you see how easily fatherless, poverty-stricken children are manipulated by other criminals to do their bidding. I hate to keep using movies as an example but this is a recurring theme to say the least, you even see they same thing with Baby G's inn inner cities in the US. Remember Fagan and Oliver Twist?
Same story over and over.

[Adv8nturous]

I used to do things like this when I was a kid.

When I was 10, 11 I'd just wander up and punch kids much younger than me without warning. No brass knuckles though.

In my later teens I'd just grab anything to hand. I had a reputation for being a little loopy. By that time though I'd managed to attract/ gravitate towards 'enemies' (for want of a better term) who were older and bigger than me. In fairness to me, in contrast to this kid, I knew how to punch and I was normally outnumbered in confrontations. For what it's worth it was no longer younger, vulnerable kids I was attacking.

Feel like I can understand what is going on with this kid. Can't say I sympathise particularly though.

I've met alot of people in my time who started picking on softer targets the more fights they got in. They wanted to keep experiencing the thrill of winning/ beating on someone whilst constantly diminishing the risk to themselves as much as possible.

"He's actually real sweet." Couldn't make it up..

[porscheguy]

(07-01-2016 06:41 PM)Delta Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 04:27 PM)PABeaulieu Wrote:  

His mother has a Facebook account that states she is single, and mother of four kids...

https://www.facebook.com/amy.millsaps.9?fref=ts

Somehow she hasn't made it private yet. Probably too stupid to figure out how. Anyway, she posted this about the incident:

Quote:

To everybody that is messaging me n harrassing me on fb about what they showed on the news can kiss my ass cause noone never said Kane was perfect by far n that theres always two sides to the story n yall suppose to be adults! U act like i said Kane please go knock they white boys teeth out...wtf no i didnt, but he his my son and i will stand behind him 100 percent n i dont care what any of mf gotta say about me or mines! Yall aint shit to me so leave me the fuck alone!!!

Translation- Complete and utter trash to the highest degree possible. Lock her ass up for negligence.

This ghetto trash, white or black, they all say the same thing.
"No one ever said my baby was perfect."

And the biggie here is:
"There's always two sides to every story."

That must be on the hood rat's/white trash list of commandments. Every single time one of them fucks up, their single mother, or "dey baby mama" is prattling on about "there's 2 sides to every story."

I'm surprised she didn't throw in the other ghetto/trailer park favorite "wait 'til da truf comes out."

If I ran Planned Parenthood, I'd advertise with video clips of these people saying and doing this dumb shit, with a message at the end suggesting that if one is concerned about this happening, to call them immediately.

[AboveAverageJoe]

(07-02-2016 01:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 12:07 AM)Burt Gummer Wrote:  

If I did that Id be banned.
All Ill say is look at crime stats, IQ stats, etc.
You can guess my point...

Too bad you got banned

No, not really.

[Samseau]

(07-03-2016 03:31 AM)ball dont lie Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 11:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 11:22 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 01:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 12:07 AM)Burt Gummer Wrote:  

If I did that Id be banned.
All Ill say is look at crime stats, IQ stats, etc.
You can guess my point...

Too bad you got banned, but we talk about race differences all the time. The thing is, single mother is 10x the predictor of crime than race is. I've looked up the rates and race pales in comparison as a predictive factor.

So really now, I'd say you got banned here because of the passive aggressiveness which took a race discussion into troll territory. It's possible to talk about race without being a race troll.

When it comes to violent crime, there is a strong correlation with low IQ, it is very well established, not only in the US, but in studies across decades in European countries too.

It's THE primary predictor of violence.

Nope, single-motherhood still far, far, far greater.

Get educated bro. http://fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

I will also spend some time reading your link.

To add though: There has been a solid link between low IQ, lead poisoning and crime rates. It has been a very steady predictor of crime, especially violent, irrational crime for a long time.


**EDIT***

I read the first few chapters, which are long, and I don't see any statistics. None. Some of his points are well argued but I don't see anything but correlation. Which is not causation. Id go with lead poisoning.

Recently the Flint lead poisoning in the water has caused the state of Michigan to do lead testing in major cities such as Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, etc. These cities surprisingly found that in the lowest income housing, shitty, slumlord places that low income live, which includes mostly blacks, the lead levels were actually higher than in Flint. It just hadn't been tested so nobody knew. These areas are where the majority of the violent criminals come from and at least back in the 60s/70s the research showed that low income who hadn't been exposed to lead (gasoline, paint) had much lower levels of violent crime, even though they had broken homes and were also poor.

First of all, the book is old. It was written back in 1990, so everything in the book had to be exhaustive as pretty much everyone was blue-pill back then. Amneus needed to discuss the entire system that produces the garbage generation and he starts systematically with the sexual revolution. A lot of what we take as common knowledge about females was groundbreaking back then due to extensive brainwashing about the true nature of women.

Second, Ch. 7 is where it starts to talk about the effects of single motherhood:

Quote:

But important as the economic argument for father custody is, it is less important than the greater likelihood of delinquency imposed on the children by mother custody, a fact alluded to earlier. A recent study of 25,000 incarcerated juveniles made by the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that 72 percent of them came from broken homes (read: mostly female-headed homes). 74 percent of the nation's children live with two parents, 26 percent with one parent (read: Mom). In other words, 74 percent, coming from intact homes, produce only 28 percent of the juvenile crime; 26 percent, coming from mostly female-headed homes, produce a staggering 72 percent of the crime. The ratios of delinquency probability in the two groups can thus be stated numerically by dividing the size of the group by the proportion of the delinquency it generates. 72 divided by 26 for the female headed group gives 2.76; 28 divided by 74 for the intact group gives .378. The ratio of the delinquency generated by the two groups is thus 2.76 divided by .378, or 7.3. If the findings of this study are to be trusted a child growing up in a single-parent home (usually female-headed) is seven times as likely to be delinquent.

http://fisheaters.com/gb8.html

All references are in the back of the book.

72%! And those numbers have not changed in recent years, but what has changed is the number coming from single-moms. When he wrote, 74% of children were from two-parent families, nowadays, it's only 50% of families. But the proportion of those who are in jail is just as high if not higher.

And when this book was written, it had already been documented since the 1970's that single-mothers produce most of the criminals. It's the very first sentence of the book:

Quote:

"Women," wrote Ramsey Clark in 1970, in his celebrated book Crime in America, "are not a threat to the public." But he also wrote, in discussing the male juvenile criminals who are a threat to the public, that "three-fourths came from broken homes." That means mostly female-headed homes. That means that while the single mothers of these criminals do not themselves commit crimes and go to prison, the socialization they give their children has an extraordinarily high correlation with the male crime of the next generation. This socialization, in fact, is the "root cause of crime" which Clark wrote his book to explore. He had found the explanation he sought and he didn't know it. It was concealed by the generation-long time-lag between cause and effect and by the sex-switch between generations: like hemophilia, crime is manifested in males but carried and transmitted by females--or rather by single females.

Again, references right in the back.

Lots of guys like to give credit to Roger F Devlin, but Amneus beat him by 20 years. Garbage Generation is an amazing read.

[nomadbrah]

Samseu, you did not respond to my post about correlation between low IQ, empathy, violence and crime. The link to the Law journal references studies done across the globe, across ethnicities.

Second, if you wanted to argue, you could posit that single motherhood is also a result of low intelligence and I am fairly sure you could find a reasonable correlation. Certainly if you made a rough estimation of education equaling intelligence, then it would be easily seen. Though education is not intelligence, but something like SAT scores would be. I don't have time to run it through now though.

[iknowexactly]

(07-03-2016 11:24 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 05:55 AM)ball dont lie Wrote:  

Lead doesn't only make people stupid, it makes them crazy and irrational. People lose control of their emotions and higher cognitive powers.

Add alcohol or something harder like crack or codeine people lose their shit.

The poster Iknowexactly used to work in the penal system as a councelor for inmates in California and frequently posted about when he met these people and could tell from a few meetings that these people were fucked up even at a young age. They could not be saved and their sadistic bare knuckle violence at teenage quickly turned into murder, robbery, guns within a few years.

IKE argued to give these psychopaths long sentences at first strike, only way to keep them from fullfilling their 'career path'.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. I agree things are too lenient, but honestly with current tech there will never be a large reduction in crime. But things could improve, something that might work might be, for instance, a device for a person who's proven violent --they could be required to wear a bracelet which injects tranquilizers when their heart rate exceeds a certain rate. This could save HUGE amounts of money over the 40k per year for prison.

In reality the reason I lost interest in criminology is that you's have to interfere in a TOTALLY Orwellian and politically impossible way - for instance I read that Singapore FINES people who have kids without a HS degree, and give monetary bonuses to people with master's degrees for having kids.

You could even escalate that to LICENSING people to have kids. I'm not advocating that, but if the State ( like China did with forced abortions) forcibly controlled reproduction it would help prevent crime. You start getting TOO intrusive if you want to prevent crime at all costs.

But that 16 year old is already probably going to cost society much more than he contributes. And people apparently don't want a ton of executions or they elect fire-breathing harsh politicians who really want that. So you need to PREVENT crime.

I think the idea of ONE strike for a very violent offense means you waited too long for the optimal intervention time.

That brutal 16 YO probably showed MANY warning signs for a LONG time before that act. You need to reduce expectations and freedom gradually as he shows again and again he can't learn to cooperate.

The best outcome for a kid really inferior in temperament and intelligence would be trying to turn him into a something like a productive factory worker or cannon fodder.

In a practical crime PREVENTION plan ( which will never happen because you have to start "tracking" the poorly behaved kids early) you would start detecting bullying violent kids long before 16-- a 6,7,8 old is typically unable to seriously harm anyone but you can see the poor ability to cooperate. Demand better behavior with social skills training or reduce his access to the kids that don't beat others up for no reason.

But it will never happen because "he's just a kid."

It's hard to enough to devise scientifically sound policy, without fighting excessive sentimentality in applying it.

[nomadbrah]

(07-03-2016 08:12 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 11:24 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 05:55 AM)ball dont lie Wrote:  

Lead doesn't only make people stupid, it makes them crazy and irrational. People lose control of their emotions and higher cognitive powers.

Add alcohol or something harder like crack or codeine people lose their shit.

The poster Iknowexactly used to work in the penal system as a councelor for inmates in California and frequently posted about when he met these people and could tell from a few meetings that these people were fucked up even at a young age. They could not be saved and their sadistic bare knuckle violence at teenage quickly turned into murder, robbery, guns within a few years.

IKE argued to give these psychopaths long sentences at first strike, only way to keep them from fullfilling their 'career path'.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. I agree things are too lenient, but honestly with current tech there will never be a large reduction in crime. But things could improve, something that might work might be, for instance, a device for a person who's proven violent --they could be required to wear a bracelet which injects tranquilizers when their heart rate exceeds a certain rate. This could save HUGE amounts of money over the 40k per year for prison.

In reality the reason I lost interest in criminology is that you's have to interfere in a TOTALLY Orwellian and politically impossible way - for instance I read that Singapore FINES people who have kids without a HS degree, and give monetary bonuses to people with master's degrees for having kids.

You could even escalate that to LICENSING people to have kids. I'm not advocating that, but if the State ( like China did with forced abortions) forcibly controlled reproduction it would help prevent crime. You start getting TOO intrusive if you want to prevent crime at all costs.

But that 16 year old is already probably going to cost society much more than he contributes. And people apparently don't want a ton of executions or they elect fire-breathing harsh politicians who really want that. So you need to PREVENT crime.

I think the idea of ONE strike for a very violent offense means you waited too long for the optimal intervention time.

That brutal 16 YO probably showed MANY warning signs for a LONG time before that act. You need to reduce expectations and freedom gradually as he shows again and again he can't learn to cooperate.

The best outcome for a kid really inferior in temperament and intelligence would be trying to turn him into a something like a productive factory worker or cannon fodder.

In a practical crime PREVENTION plan ( which will never happen because you have to start "tracking" the poorly behaved kids early) you would start detecting bullying violent kids long before 16-- a 6,7,8 old is typically unable to seriously harm anyone but you can see the poor ability to cooperate. Demand better behavior with social skills training or reduce his access to the kids that don't beat others up for no reason.

But it will never happen because "he's just a kid."

It's hard to enough to devise scientifically sound policy, without fighting excessive sentimentality in applying it.

Great explanation thanks.

I do wonder, how do you tell the difference between normal bullying or being a bit of a wild kid and showing the signs of emerging psychopathy?

[BortimusPrime]

(07-03-2016 08:27 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Great explanation thanks.

I do wonder, how do you tell the difference between normal bullying or being a bit of a wild kid and showing the signs of emerging psychopathy?

My mom was a first grade teacher, and I remember her describing how most kids at that age would act like little shits and do nasty things to each other. However, when she sat the child down and explained it to them "How would you feel if Billy pulled YOUR pants down?", they'd connect the dots and experience guilt. That's what happens with normal children, generally they don't mean to hurt others they're just thoughtless and impulsive.

Rarely, she'd get a student where that didn't work though, and that would be a budding psychopath. The worst one she had would try to dry hump the girls, which for prepubescent children suggests he had been exposed to some adult situations that he was acting out.

The worst thing about it all was that whenever she had a class with a psychopath, her focus was generally diverted entirely towards corralling the little bastard instead of actually teaching the normal kids. At fault here was the school district policy of trying to integrate defective children in with the normals, while not providing the teachers with the necessary aides. Emotionally disturbed children basically require an adult directly watching and controlling them at all times, and it just gets worse as they get older. Once they're teenagers they basically have to be placed in a child prison ("special school") to keep them under control. Of course once they turn 18 they're released to go commit their first murder.

The other thing to note is that around the first grade is probably the earliest age where it's possible to differentiate between wild kids and psychopaths. Younger children simply don't have the mental development necessary to feel empathy, and are all effectively psychopathic.

[EDantes]

This video reminded me of this:

[Samseau]

(07-03-2016 07:26 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Samseu, you did not respond to my post about correlation between low IQ, empathy, violence and crime. The link to the Law journal references studies done across the globe, across ethnicities.

Second, if you wanted to argue, you could posit that single motherhood is also a result of low intelligence and I am fairly sure you could find a reasonable correlation. Certainly if you made a rough estimation of education equaling intelligence, then it would be easily seen. Though education is not intelligence, but something like SAT scores would be. I don't have time to run it through now though.

The math is easy enough to do. The percentage with low IQ isn't as high of an indicator as single-motherhood. Generally low IQ is common among criminals because low IQ will be more likely to get caught, and they were raised by dumb single-mothers.

You said 8-10 IQ points below average? That's less than a standard deviation of 15, which means prisoners have IQ's around the 35-40% percentile of the population, a far lower predictor than the fact that 75%+ of all prisoners come from single mothers.

[RedPillUK]

This pussy footing around discussions on race is lame and embarrasing to be honest. Not only that but taunting people with gifs and banning them for daring to say "look at the stats"? Weak.

We should never be afraid of truth and refusing to discuss this only makes races further apart, not closer together as you think. I really expect better than that as a reaction from some of the best posters here. All the silly gifs waving goodbye just make it look like you are getting upset and trying to silence and censor an opinion.

I've read about racial differences yet I still have couple of very good black friends, some who I've met through RVF and some through playing football and other friends. And after working for a Ghanian boss for a year and then quitting to pursue music, but still coming to his house to teach his son the piano, I'm extremely close with him and his family. When I told them I was going away for a while they got me loads of practical gifts and nice shirts which made me feel extremely welcome and like a part of their family.

There is no way I could hold any animosity to all black people, especially other brothers in this tribe, and especially when I have friends like that, so I still feel racial differences are important to be discussed not hidden away and censored, especially here. It didn't turn me into an evil lynching racist.

Here is a discussion on race and crime between Gavin McInness and Taleeb Starkes, a black man who wrote a book called Blacks vs Niggers. He's not a typical academic black person but someone who grew up in a violent neighborhood but got out of it. If a white guy and a black guy can talk amicably about race and crime, why can't we?

[Fortis]

You missed the point of that guy's banning.

He was a non-contributing pot stirrer trying to start shit with passive aggressive statements. Furthermore, we have a ban on low-rep/post members starting race discussions. That almost never ends well.

Also, look at this forum's track record with race threads. That shit never goes over well. I've discussed race privately with forum members here, but I think the public race threads always end in bans and animosity.

Samseau and Nomadbrah are having a pretty well-reasoned discussion in this thread about IQ (which may correlate with race) vs single mommery as the cause for criminality in our youths. If you want to have a race discussion this is just not the forum for that.

Why should RVF be a game, travel and race politics forum? That last bit just really doesn't fit with the branding that Roosh has been pushing.

[JacksonRev]

(07-04-2016 07:48 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  

This pussy footing around discussions on race is lame and embarrasing to be honest. Not only that but taunting people with gifs and banning them for daring to say "look at the stats"? Weak.

We should never be afraid of truth and refusing to discuss this only makes races further apart, not closer together as you think. I really expect better than that as a reaction from some of the best posters here.

(07-04-2016 08:38 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

Why should RVF be a game, travel and race politics thread. That last bit just really doesn't fit with the branding that Roosh has been pushing.

This is the big point. This is Roosh's house. A lot of men congregate here, but Roosh lays the ground rules.

I comment on a couple forums, were each forum has a different focus. Without that focus and consistent moderation, then a forum just disintegrates into a free for all.

If someone really wants a lively discussion on race, there are other forums for that.

[RedPillUK]

OK. Point taken, I just don't like the reaction to posters just because it has the possibilty of turning into that sort of discussion, even when nothing about race has actually been said, for example the second post. However this thread doesn't need to be about race, its about this incident and the last page of this thread has been interesting. Carry on.