patrick.net

I do not understand this preference of boys over girls.

Anyway, IMO abortion should not be disallowed because of possible sex picking. This is a dangerous and slippery slope. Groups who are silly to perform this on a cultural basis will have a reduced chance of spreading their genes. In the end, Nature is fair.

probably a last-name-carries on thing? In my nationalities history, before they went all Catholicistic, the middle name was the mom's maiden name. It helped keep cross breeding to a minimum. The Azores are kinda small, so they are really careful.

The mexicans give each kid nine zillion names to cover both sides and track the bloodline .. but, uncles hump their neices an aweful lot in mexican culture. Not sure why. The narrow bloodlines in the backwoodsy areas of mexico have all of the classic birth defect issues, including low I.Q., club hands and feet, hair lip, palsey, and other birth issues. Starts to add up now, dont it?

I wonder what Icelanders do?

they hold mixers for teens and invite Greenland

I do think human societies should encourage more race-mixing for biodiversity's sake.

Peter P says

I do not understand this preference of boys over girls

It is not possible to understand the culture imperatives of a culture that is alien to oneself. It (the behavior) just is, what it is.

No more possible than it is to understand why on the Real Estate Threats, there are some who get off on bragging about their savvy, smart investments, peppering their broadcasted boastings with belittling epithets against those who disagree with them.

I suppose those kinda people are a culture that's alien to me.

Well, I tend to think that categorical imperatives are meta-ethically bad.

I hate Kant.

I consider myself a multiculturalist. But I also believe that all cultural can be reduced to food. Ultimately, you are what you eat. :-)

Peter P says

myself a multiculturalist

Me, too.

It's the Cool and Hip Way in the Cool and Hip Bay Area.

But that's a big difference than (fully immersed) living it or being raised in it or whatever. Without that kind of perspective, even if we "Hipster In" with some superficial exposure to them by living in an Internationalist Place like the Bay Area or London or Vancouver or whatever, other cultures are still alien to us.

[...]

Peter P says

I consider myself a multiculturalist. But I also believe that all cultural can be reduced to food. Ultimately, you are what you eat. :-)

guess I do like Asian foods... gave up on moms German Meatloaf and 'cruts.

Peter P says

I do think human societies should encourage more race-mixing for biodiversity's sake.

Only Caucasians think that way, you will find more roadblocks from Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners and Indian Natives.... they have no wish to dilute their bloodline and culture.

gayness is not real popular in those groups either

Bap33 says

gayness is not real popular in those groups either

We should boycott humus.

"Chick pea puree"

see how it sounds the same?

Vicente says

I think the main thing is she refused an arranged marriage.

While some will see only ISLAMISTS here, this could as easily have been a story written about Indians.

In some countries, girls are still seen first as valuable properties to be traded around, not as people.

And as said as it is, who hasn't heard some Western parents that have said:

"I brought you into this world, I'll take you out!"

Parents view children as their property and the fact that she had made it to 18 didn't change their sense of complete ownership rights.

“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

Please don't confuse Indians in this debate. Honor killings are not endemic in Indian (Hindu) society. There is a problem with backward, ignorant people with cross caste relationships but with education this is being stamped out.

Every society has it's ignorant people but it depends on whether the cultural diasphora accepts this or speaks out against it.

I'll preempt the usual caste curry and cows comment by saying that before throwing those stones at Hindus about caste violence, there have been no genocides, witch hunts , inquisitions associated with the faith. If the worst is caste violence by illiterate , backward , ignorant people struggling to survive then there is no comparison with lynchin's of black folk in a prosperous superpower or ethnic cleansing of all non muslims in muslim dominated countries pakistan and bangladesh.

thomaswong.1986 says

they have no wish to dilute their bloodline and culture.

It is understandable that powerful families (like the Medici) would want a "bloodline." I just find it amusing that regular families care things like that. I wonder if they have a coat of arms too? :-)

Dan8267 says

Please people. As Marcus has said thousands of time, we cannot judge other people's culture. This honor killing was a religiously significant event. The family "perceived" the girl as being too westernized, and their perceptions are more important than the girl's life.

Of course we we free to judge anything we want. We just cannot pass out sentences. :-)

Religious activities are not above the law. For example, human sacrifice is ILLEGAL even if the "lamb" gives consent.

Indians are cool.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

In any case, the abortion debate is completely irrelevant to this thread.

nope ... this was a slow abortion that took 17 years. Murder is murder.

Following that philosophy, the death penalty is abortion. Murder is murder.

No two concepts are completely irrelevant to each other.

Bap33 says

those liberals HATE to hear of a child in school praying, mentioning God in a speech, or singing about God at Christmas time

Liberals don't hate any of those things. Take it from me, a liberal.

If a student wants to pray to your god, the Islamic god, a Hindu god, or Satan, I have absolutely no problem with that student being able to do so anywhere as long as he's not forcing others to participate against their will including by holding a captive audience at a graduation ceremony.

If I can't sing the praises of Satan during the graduation ceremony without being escorted out by force, then you can't do the same of Jesus. Fair's fair.

However, if a student wants to pray on his own or with other consenting people, he's free to do so regardless of whether his prayers are to Jesus or Satan. The school cannot interfere as long as he's not disrupting school activities such as classes. But the school cannot give him special treatment either as that is state sponsorship of religion.

Somehow, I doubt that those who favor "prayer in schools" apply that philosophy to Wicca, witchcraft, Satan worshiping, Islam, or polytheistic religions like Hindu, Confucianism, and Daoism. I'll bet all those "bring god back into the classroom" types would freak out if the god brought back was Gaia and the students formed a witches and warlocks club.

Gaia, the Earth mother and fertility goddess

Students form a witches and warlocks club

Peter P says

No two concepts are completely irrelevant to each other.

Oh yeah, what about sex and Linda Tripp?

[...]

Peter P says

There is no honor in killing. Life of a person is precious. If those parents are not capable of love, they should not have had children in the first place.

If those parents aren't capable of love THEY SHOULDNT HAVE FUCKED EACH OTHER.

we will endure horrible atrocities and pain of all kinds until we finally understand this.

Peter P says

thomaswong.1986 says

they have no wish to dilute their bloodline and culture.

It is understandable that powerful families (like the Medici) would want a "bloodline." I just find it amusing that regular families care things like that. I wonder if they have a coat of arms too? :-)

interesting point Peter... what does the Libertarian view suggest?

It suggests that they want the government out of their lives so they can build a smaller little government that we call A FAMILY.

Communism begins with an attack on the family, and ends with the complete destruction of society.

Libertarianism begins with an attack on government, and ends with a kingdom with a tribal chieftain.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

In any case, the abortion debate is completely irrelevant to this thread.

nope ... this was a slow abortion that took 17 years. Murder is murder.

Following that philosophy, the death penalty is abortion. Murder is murder.

nope, the baby and the girl are innocent, but the penalty for murder should be death. Killing is not murder. Killing an innocent person on purpose is murder.

[...]

Read my post as an answer to Dan's equating a {murderer being put to death} the same as {an innocent being murdered}

Your question is a good one. The women are accessories, the doctor is the murderer in an abortatorium.

[...]

not sure

Someone take down the pic of Linda Tripp! It's making me sick!

An ugly woman, inside & out. Mostly inside. No - mostly outside...

I'm so conflicted!!!!

Saving a glop of goo
on your dress of blue
indicates a lossened screw.

I just made that up.

Bap33 says

Killing an innocent person on purpose is murder.

Killing anyone on purpose is murder. At best, it's the path of least evil as in the case of self-defense or defense of another. But killing a person who is no longer a threat to anyone because he's in super-max prison, is still murder regardless of how guilty he is.

Justice and vengeance are mutually exclusive.

And isn't it your god that allegedly wrote on stone tablets: Thou shall not kill. If your god was real, you could leave justice to him.

Of course, your death penalty makes no sense given your belief in the afterlife. A man kills someone, gets arrested, and sentence to death. On his last day of life, a priest visits him and absolves his sins. He dies sinless and goes to heaven where he enjoys eternal bliss. Some punishment.

Dan8267 says

But killing a person who is no longer a threat to anyone because he's in super-max prison, is still murder regardless of how guilty he is.

nope. It's called "punishment". It is supposed to fit the "crime".

Dan8267 says

On his last day of life, a priest visits him and absolves his sins.

my beliefes do not include a priest, but other than that you are correct. But, the purpose of punishment of evil is have safe LIFE for the LIVING. The spiritual war has already been won by God. The physical world has laws, rules, and punishment. I know you are really smart, so I always feel like the cat swatting at the yarn you are holding. Kinda sucks.

Dan8267 says

He dies sinless and goes to heaven where he enjoys eternal bliss. Some punishment.

yes he does, and so does anyone else that belives in God, and accepts that Jesus covered all debts. Including you and me. As for the punishment, it is a crime in this world and a punishment in this world to keep a value of life high enough to be worth the trouble. Notice how easy murder and death are becoming to accept these days? Those chopped heads of mexico are here now. Ready for it in SanJose? Better get ready.

Bap33 says

nope. It's called "punishment". It is supposed to fit the "crime".

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is antithetical to Jesus's teachings. Do you disagree with Jesus? Don't feel bad if the answer is yes, I do too often.

Bap33 says

it is a crime in this world and a punishment in this world to keep a value of life high enough to be worth the trouble.

The concepts of punishment and deterrent are not the same. As a punishment, under your assumptions, the murderer is better off, so it's hardly a punishment as death has no sting.

As a deterrent, the death penalty is worthless as proven over and over.

A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

Following the release of a new study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health concerning the failure of deterrence in drug use, medical experts commented that deterrence also fails in the area of capital punishment. "It is very clear that deterrents are not effective in the area of capital punishment," said Dr. Jonathan Groner, an associate professor of surgery at Ohio State University College of Medicine and Public Health who researches the deterrent effect of capital punishment. "The psychological mind-set of the criminal is such that they are not able to consider consequences at the time of the crime. Most crimes are crimes of passion that are done in situations involving intense excitement or concern. People who commit these crimes are not in a normal state of mind -- they do not consider the consequences in a logical way," Groner observed. Deterrents may work in instances where the punishment is obvious and immediate, neither of which are true for the death penalty.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/2200

“I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point.”

- Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, January 21, 2000
- http://tinyurl.com/9nok2hz

Scientists agree, by an overwhelming majority, that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. They felt the same way over ten years ago, and nothing has changed since then. States without the death penalty continue to have significantly lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment. And the few recent studies purporting to prove a deterrent effect, though getting heavy play in the media, have failed to impress the larger scientific community, which has exposed them as flawed and inconsistent.

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that-the-death-penalty-does-not-deter/

The facts simply don't support your claim that the death penalty deters murder. However, there is something that does deter murder and other violent crimes: socialism.

Experts suggest that criminal behavior and the nation's murder rate may best be curbed by addressing the environmental and social factors that contribute to violent crime. Groner explains, "The murder rate is most closely associated with the socioeconomic health of the country. The murder rate in the U.S. was highest during the Depression. Also, the majority of people on death row are from the most blighted parts of the U.S. They are very poor and very impoverished. A very high percentage have mental health problems. Good access to health care and improving the socioeconomic health of our country's cities would reduce the murder rate more effectively than executions." Dr. Carlyle Chan, a professor of professional development at the Medical College of Wisconsin, adds that many people believe they can cheat the system and get away with their illegal behaviors, which lessens the deterrent impact of a specific punishment.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/2200

Bap33 says

I know you are really smart, so I always feel like the cat swatting at the yarn you are holding. Kinda sucks.

I like cats.

Bap33 says

Notice how easy murder and death are becoming to accept these days?

There are certain specific policies that trouble me like Gitmo, drone strikes, waterboarding, indefinite detention. These things are based on the priniciple that life is cheap.

Nevertheless, despite certain atrocities committed by countries like the United States, Syria, the Soviet Union, and Germany over the past century, we live in the least violent period of human history to date.

Seriously, I know you don't believe me, but watch the video on this page, http://www.edge.org/conversation/mc2011-history-violence-pinker

Here's a few slides from his video.

All these slides show violence going down and at it's minimal levels today. This means that despite a few recent atrocities by our country and a few others, the world as a whole values life far more today than at any other time. You live in a golden age of peace and non-violence.

Dan8267 says

As a deterrent, the death penalty is worthless as proven over and over.
A recent survey of the most leading criminologists

the last thing a criminologist wants is for crime to go away. ask a guy in Texas facing the chair how it feels.

Dan8267 says

States without the death penalty continue to have significantly lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment.

lmao ... Reno is a fake, a fraud, and a liar. And, ruins the whole lezbo image we share.

Murder did go down a little bit while Clinton was in office. Except for Vince Foster and those who tied Hilary to WhiteWater's filth. And those who followed David in Waco.

Bap33 says

lmao ... Reno is a fake, a fraud, and a liar. And, ruins the whole lezbo image we share.

Take the time to read the evidence and watch the video on the page I posted.

I cant turn up sound right now. wife sleeps near. I'll check back and do it tomorrow after work.

Excellent graphs.

The only grahpic I'd dispute the one that matches specific sites to "20th Century". Obviously Europe & the US over 100 years has much lower violence, but comparing specific sites to an entire century's average is misleading.

A better comparison would be "Crow Creek" with "Stalingrad" or "Anzio", and I think we'd get much different results.