The Southern Argument for Slavery...

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Why should I have to pay for dead beat dad's and families that just produce criminals?
I think you need to take a sociopath quiz... Yes they have test that can find if you are a sociopath.... I give you two site to double check yourself...
I think @O' Be Joyful needs to take it too I sense that sociopath in his words... lol.. have fun taking them...


 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
You got to pay for some deadbeat's kids because they're kids - they didn't ask for the set of parents they got. And...who says they all become criminals? Take Bucky - this guy fathered at least 25 kids that we know about and, when he got seven pregnant women applying for welfare at once, the welfare office gave him a one-way ticket to Montana. (At the 19th kid, his mom and grandma wanted to have a dime a dip potluck to pay for his vasectomy. That would have drawn a BIG crowd!) Never has worked a day in his life, drinks, sleeps wherever - yep, a waste case. His kids are mostly grown up now and, out of all that lot, there's three nurses, two gynecologists, a professor, a doctor and all but three are decent upstanding working folks raising a decent upstanding bunch of kids making good grades. The three losers - they had a choice. It can be debated whether Bucky had a choice or not - his generation is called 'the lost' in our language.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
I found the solution @Kirk's Raider's wants and I want to share: @Tom , @diane , @rittmeister , @Wehrkraftzersetzer , @O' Be Joyful , @jgoodguy , @Matt McKeon and any others...

Legalize abortion crub future crime because unwanted births lead to unwanted children which leads to criminal behavior...

The effect of legalized abortion on crime (also the Donohue–Levitt hypothesis) is a controversial hypothesis about the reduction in crime in the decades following the legalization of abortion. Proponents argue that the availability of abortion resulted in fewer births of children at the highest risk of committing crime. The earliest research suggesting such an effect was a 1966 study in Sweden. In 2001, Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University argued, citing their research and earlier studies, that children who are unwanted or whose parents cannot support them are likelier to become criminals, and that there is an inverse correlation between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime. This idea was further popularized by its inclusion in the book Freakonomics, which Levitt co-wrote.

Critics have argued that Donohue and Levitt's methodologies are flawed and that no statistically significant relationship between abortion and later crime rates can be proven. Criticisms include the assumption in the Donohue-Levitt study that abortion rates increased substantially since 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade eliminated many restrictions in the United States; critics use census data to show that the changes in the overall abortion rate could not account for the decrease in crime claimed by the study's methodology (legal abortions had been permitted under limited circumstances in many states prior). Other critics state that the correlations between births and crime found by Donohue–Levitt do not adequately account for confounding factors such as reduced drug use, changes in demographics and population densities, or other contemporary cultural changes.

Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University revived discussion of this claim with their 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime".[3] Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.[4][5]

According to Donohue and Levitt, states that had abortion legalized earlier should have the earliest reductions in crime. Donohue and Levitt's study indicates that this indeed has happened: Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, Oregon and Washington experienced steeper drops in crime, and had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade. Further, states with a high abortion rate have experienced a greater reduction in crime, when corrected for factors like average income.[6] Finally, studies in Canada and Australia claim[clarification needed] to have established a correlation between legalized abortion and overall crime reduction.[6]

Snip... tested it again 2019...

2019 Updated paper by Donohue and Levitt[edit]
An updated paper was published in 2019 to review the predictions of the original 2001 paper: NBER Working Paper No. 25863 [1]

Overall the authors concluded that the predictions did hold up with strong effects. [2] "We estimate that crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s."

Levitt discusses this paper and the background and history of the original paper (including its criticisms) in an episode of the Freakonomics podcast.
Abortion and Crime, Revisited (Ep. 384)

Here is a link to wiki with its criticisms ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
 

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
1,171
I found the solution @Kirk's Raider's wants and I want to share: @Tom , @diane , @rittmeister , @Wehrkraftzersetzer , @O' Be Joyful , @jgoodguy , @Matt McKeon and any others...

Legalize abortion crub future crime because unwanted births lead to unwanted children which leads to criminal behavior...

The effect of legalized abortion on crime (also the Donohue–Levitt hypothesis) is a controversial hypothesis about the reduction in crime in the decades following the legalization of abortion. Proponents argue that the availability of abortion resulted in fewer births of children at the highest risk of committing crime. The earliest research suggesting such an effect was a 1966 study in Sweden. In 2001, Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University argued, citing their research and earlier studies, that children who are unwanted or whose parents cannot support them are likelier to become criminals, and that there is an inverse correlation between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime. This idea was further popularized by its inclusion in the book Freakonomics, which Levitt co-wrote.

Critics have argued that Donohue and Levitt's methodologies are flawed and that no statistically significant relationship between abortion and later crime rates can be proven. Criticisms include the assumption in the Donohue-Levitt study that abortion rates increased substantially since 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade eliminated many restrictions in the United States; critics use census data to show that the changes in the overall abortion rate could not account for the decrease in crime claimed by the study's methodology (legal abortions had been permitted under limited circumstances in many states prior). Other critics state that the correlations between births and crime found by Donohue–Levitt do not adequately account for confounding factors such as reduced drug use, changes in demographics and population densities, or other contemporary cultural changes.

Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University revived discussion of this claim with their 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime".[3] Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.[4][5]

According to Donohue and Levitt, states that had abortion legalized earlier should have the earliest reductions in crime. Donohue and Levitt's study indicates that this indeed has happened: Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, Oregon and Washington experienced steeper drops in crime, and had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade. Further, states with a high abortion rate have experienced a greater reduction in crime, when corrected for factors like average income.[6] Finally, studies in Canada and Australia claim[clarification needed] to have established a correlation between legalized abortion and overall crime reduction.[6]

Snip... tested it again 2019...

2019 Updated paper by Donohue and Levitt[edit]
An updated paper was published in 2019 to review the predictions of the original 2001 paper: NBER Working Paper No. 25863 [1]

Overall the authors concluded that the predictions did hold up with strong effects. [2] "We estimate that crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s."

Levitt discusses this paper and the background and history of the original paper (including its criticisms) in an episode of the Freakonomics podcast.
Abortion and Crime, Revisited (Ep. 384)

Here is a link to wiki with its criticisms ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
The erosion of the human brain in old age study (my title don't remember the original one), somewhere between 1995 and 200
found out that the male brain get much faster worse than the female.

Conclusion by a lot of idiots was: it is genetic, men are genetic rubbish.

well: A look on the participants showed: long term study with the US generation that went to WWII.
If You compare the percentages of males and females who smoked in that generation it was nearly exactly the same differences as in the brain damages. AND brain damage by nicotine is a known fact.

So the result was not men versus women but smokers versus nonsmokers.
In Europe my year (1963) is the first year when men and women smoked nearly alike (depends on region), it is also the first year when the lung cancer rates were nearly alike. The rates for pipe and cigar aided cancers are not (as women don't to it equally).

Correlation does not mean cause
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
I found the solution @Kirk's Raider's wants and I want to share: @Tom , @diane , @rittmeister , @Wehrkraftzersetzer , @O' Be Joyful , @jgoodguy , @Matt McKeon and any others...

Legalize abortion crub future crime because unwanted births lead to unwanted children which leads to criminal behavior...

The effect of legalized abortion on crime (also the Donohue–Levitt hypothesis) is a controversial hypothesis about the reduction in crime in the decades following the legalization of abortion. Proponents argue that the availability of abortion resulted in fewer births of children at the highest risk of committing crime. The earliest research suggesting such an effect was a 1966 study in Sweden. In 2001, Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University argued, citing their research and earlier studies, that children who are unwanted or whose parents cannot support them are likelier to become criminals, and that there is an inverse correlation between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime. This idea was further popularized by its inclusion in the book Freakonomics, which Levitt co-wrote.

Critics have argued that Donohue and Levitt's methodologies are flawed and that no statistically significant relationship between abortion and later crime rates can be proven. Criticisms include the assumption in the Donohue-Levitt study that abortion rates increased substantially since 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade eliminated many restrictions in the United States; critics use census data to show that the changes in the overall abortion rate could not account for the decrease in crime claimed by the study's methodology (legal abortions had been permitted under limited circumstances in many states prior). Other critics state that the correlations between births and crime found by Donohue–Levitt do not adequately account for confounding factors such as reduced drug use, changes in demographics and population densities, or other contemporary cultural changes.

Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University revived discussion of this claim with their 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime".[3] Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.[4][5]

According to Donohue and Levitt, states that had abortion legalized earlier should have the earliest reductions in crime. Donohue and Levitt's study indicates that this indeed has happened: Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, Oregon and Washington experienced steeper drops in crime, and had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade. Further, states with a high abortion rate have experienced a greater reduction in crime, when corrected for factors like average income.[6] Finally, studies in Canada and Australia claim[clarification needed] to have established a correlation between legalized abortion and overall crime reduction.[6]

Snip... tested it again 2019...

2019 Updated paper by Donohue and Levitt[edit]
An updated paper was published in 2019 to review the predictions of the original 2001 paper: NBER Working Paper No. 25863 [1]

Overall the authors concluded that the predictions did hold up with strong effects. [2] "We estimate that crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s."

Levitt discusses this paper and the background and history of the original paper (including its criticisms) in an episode of the Freakonomics podcast.
Abortion and Crime, Revisited (Ep. 384)

Here is a link to wiki with its criticisms ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
I always was a big fan of abortion. So is every single Southern white dad if there daughter gets knocked up by a boy of color.
Kirk's Raiders
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
You got to pay for some deadbeat's kids because they're kids - they didn't ask for the set of parents they got. And...who says they all become criminals? Take Bucky - this guy fathered at least 25 kids that we know about and, when he got seven pregnant women applying for welfare at once, the welfare office gave him a one-way ticket to Montana. (At the 19th kid, his mom and grandma wanted to have a dime a dip potluck to pay for his vasectomy. That would have drawn a BIG crowd!) Never has worked a day in his life, drinks, sleeps wherever - yep, a waste case. His kids are mostly grown up now and, out of all that lot, there's three nurses, two gynecologists, a professor, a doctor and all but three are decent upstanding working folks raising a decent upstanding bunch of kids making good grades. The three losers - they had a choice. It can be debated whether Bucky had a choice or not - his generation is called 'the lost' in our language.
Bucky's balls should of been cut off much sooner. I don't have a problem paying for a few if his kids but society should of sterilized right a way.
Kirk's Raiders
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
Bucky's balls should of been cut off much sooner. I don't have a problem paying for a few if his kids but society should of sterilized right a way.
Kirk's Raiders
Well, granny and ma tried! Besides, if you gather up a random 25 people from anywhere, tell me if 22 of them are successful people, then tell me your criteria. You see, you simply can't determine, as eugenicists and slavery advocates taught, that because you are a certain race, economic level, class - whatever the discrimination might be - you can't judge who is disposable and who is not, who should serve and who should be served, who is superior and who is inferior. I can guarantee it will never be the group the judge belongs to!
 

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
1,171

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
Well, granny and ma tried! Besides, if you gather up a random 25 people from anywhere, tell me if 22 of them are successful people, then tell me your criteria. You see, you simply can't determine, as eugenicists and slavery advocates taught, that because you are a certain race, economic level, class - whatever the discrimination might be - you can't judge who is disposable and who is not, who should serve and who should be served, who is superior and who is inferior. I can guarantee it will never be the group the judge belongs to!
Past behavior is a good place to start.
Kirk's Raiders
 
Top