*sigh* yet another Tik-Tok thread. Very well, let's take this step-by-step.
Geschrieben von Tik-Tok, 16.12.2012 at 17:01
So no ones been exposed to violence for 5000 years? Have you seen the murder rates in the US in the late 1800s? Or the murder rates in London. Most Wild West and Victorian Age dramas are fictional and exaggerated.
>In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
>In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.
http://www.examiner.com/article/dispelling-the-myth-of-the-wild-west
Except that the population was significantly small in these times, they
weren't regularly exposed to violence and death was more commonplace. They also had religion, and while I'm not religious myself, I would say that the strict code of conduct every religion (all Abrahamic religions) promote are very important. While they are not always followed to the letter, and social historian will tell you how important they have been in restraining people or driving them to do great things.
Geschrieben von Tik-Tok, 16.12.2012 at 17:01
So Africans and Hispanics kill on averages far, far higher than American Whites and yet it is arguable that those Whites are subjected to more video game and television violence than both of those groups and yet this majority soon-to-become-a-minority commits a far lower crime rate per capita. Your theory has serious concrete flaws. It's based entirely on the Marxist theory of socialization. This theory has some truth to it that our environment dictates our actions but Multi Racilialism has alot to do with this. As I said, across continents, cultures, languages, Africans continue to commit crime rates higher than any other majority.
Blacks and Hispanics have far less to lose when they go killing. They are usually considerably poorer than most whites and live in what are effectively ghettos. Furthermore, it seems like a lot of African-American 'culture' revolves around gangsta rap and killing and all this stupid shit. A gross generalisation, but it is undeniable that perception of this culture has seeped into every layer of black society, whether they support it, laugh at it or are worried by it. And what's so bad about Marxism? Marx made
very accurate observations (though I don't agree with historical materialism and class struggle). Unfortunately, Engels and Lenin made it into a stupid political ideology that solved none of the problems that Marx highlighted which are very much still true. A key quote for this matter:
'It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.'
Geschrieben von Tik-Tok, 16.12.2012 at 17:01
I do not define Multiculturalism as multiple cultures. That is not how progressives think. You could have a university filled with French, Swedes, Belgians, Germans, Anglo, Scots and Dutch. They would speak different languages, eat different foods, hold different histories and even differing perspectives on how they perceive the world and yet progressives would not consider this Multi Cultural or Diverse. It would be considered racist, backward and regressive all because they are all white. And yet, if everyone spoke the same language, ate the same foods and had different racial backgrounds, then it would be considered diverse. Diversity has no end limit, it simply means less whites. They want Multi Racialism, not Multiculturalism but they cannot admit it because they do not believe race exists. To admit race exists would be to admit we are different enough that it brings about a positive effect. It opens too many doors, too many for the already close minded progressive filled with cognitive dissonance.
You could also have gypsies that would steal your camera (happened to my dad) whenever you're not watching. They're white too, y'know. And a hell of a lot of them are criminals, petty or greater.
It's about culture, not race, and culture determines how a race will act as races are so strapped down within themselves. If you are a black kid who goes to a majority-white school, you will almost certainly end up hanging out with black friends all the way through it. You come from London and you will know exactly what I'm talking about, as I've been in a school that consists of a plurality of races (my sixth form is almost all white/asian, the high school [they are combined] about 40/50 black/white). Every human has a little racism in them and are naturally wary of people not of their own race. Liberals will deny this, of course.
This leads to the same idiotic ideas being repeated over and over. That's why religion works, because it transcends races but never
really brings them together.
Also, the above stated is not a Marxist view. There probably is a name for my set of ideas, but I'm not aware of it.
Geschrieben von Tik-Tok, 16.12.2012 at 17:01
Its quite simple, in the so called Wild West when arms were widely available, there was almost no crime. This is seen in open carry areas where criminals do not venture because it is simply to dangerous to rob an armed person.
Gun control has never worked, it is used to control people. It limits arms from law abiding citizens and allows arms to those who don't. It is oppression, disarmament and a sign of an aggressive, malevolent government. A good example of this is Germany in the 1930s. National Socialist Germany never had a restriction of arms, and gun control only came into effect after the fall of Germany. Germany has never had as lax gun control since then.
Nazi Germany is the absolute worst example to give for this. Over 100,000
Germans were imprisoned by the Nazi party on rather petty or arbitrary charges, and that's not even counting the political prisoners. Also, the Hitler Jugend brainwashed the hell out of its recruits in believing that they had a mission and had to train to achieve that mission and determinedly fight off every trouble. By giving people a goal in life, you take away a massive cause for suicide. I was very much talking about upbringing too, which is key in bringing about the psyche that causes one to do a mass shooting. The Hitler Youth and fear of the law (torture was by no means uncommon in prison - though a Dutch Golden Age prison was probably worse) seriously limited gun crime.
Additionally, the Nazi German government was thinking in political terms for just about everything it did. They gave objects like guns meaning and attached an ideology to them. If it didn't fit their ideology, it would not happen. A major ideology that was constantly repeated by pricks like Goebbels, mainly used as a means to the end of wiping out the Slavic race, was the belief that nations survived by warfare and that the German people made the best soldiers in the world. Among many others. From 1944, they began training German citizens for a climactic final battle as they still believed they could win and this was put in effect in 1945 with disastrous effects in the Battle in Berlin (the volkssturm were quick to surrender in smaller towns and border areas where they wouldn't have a die-hard SS man screaming at them). But many fought to the end anyway. It was 'Blitz Spirit' at work. The Nazi government just handed out bullshit freedoms in their quest to claim Eastern Europe for Germany. If something didn't help them politically, it was passed over.
Geschrieben von Tik-Tok, 16.12.2012 at 17:01
Your theory is silly, it specifies one causation and has holes. My point is solid and concrete and I specified multiple reasons both genetic AND environmental.
Genetic reasons? Not only did you not state anything about that anywhere, but it's been proven multiple times over that eugenics is a bullshit science. Environmental reasons? You just completely rejected them. A real pro at forming an argument, I see.
Geschrieben von Tik-Tok, 16.12.2012 at 17:01
Don't /thread me kid. You aren't that special.
>stats don't mean anything
Spoken like a true spinster that can't argue concrete facts that belittle their arguments.
Do you mean spindoctor? Because I'm so infinitely superior at arguing than you, you who doesn't even take notes from the opposition? Ad hominem for ad hominem.