wenglund

Several of us, including LiterateParakeet, agree that the male nature (genetics) is more prone to crime and violence. So, at least in that sense, crime and violence is believed to be tied to genetics. Do you disagree? Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting that crime is just because of race. Rather, the question raised is whether the nature (genetics) of certain races may contribute to a greater propensity for crime and violence. Looking at the nation as a whole, as opposed to areas in Florida, there is little or no disputing the disparity in crime rates between the races (not just in terms of incarceration rates or arrests, but victim reports as well--see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States). What is at issue is explaining the reason for the disparity. There are a variety of theories, several of which are listed in the wiki article to which I just linked. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am grateful for your response, and I must admit that my natural inclination is along the same lines as you regarding race. What got me to thinking a bit differently (i.e. nature as a contributing, though not sole or necessarily prevailing factor for increased violence), is the matter of evolution. If men have selectively evolved to become better hunters and protectors, each of which involves violence, then why wouldn't the same hold true for races who may generally be more dependent on hunting and who have a greater need for protecting? Great conversation, by the way. I am gaining much from the discussion. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think we actually agree. It is difficult to cover all the nuances in a brief statement. I was speaking pithily of fathers and husbands more in relation to their children and wives rather than as protectors of both. But, I am glad for your clarification. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Condescension isn't my intent. Rather, my intent is to provoke and expand thought. I will admit that my skills in pursuing my intent often leaves much to be desired. And, while I continue to work on improving, I evidently haven't been that successful. Please forgive. Do you believe the male nature (call it genetics or whatever) is a contributing factor to their violence? Or just nurture? If the former, then is it possible that the same could hold true for different races, particularly given the statistical disparity in violent crime rates between the races? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree. However, it is more than challenging when the family and religion are under considerable attack from the prevailing culture and government and corrupt political system. Yet, it is the best place to start. At the very least, within our families and our religions we can improve our own little corners of the world. We can even do it within ourselves Good point. We may want our soldiers to be violent, but not our husbands and fathers. Great conversing with you. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am not the least insulted, but curious what you observed about me, in particular, regarding actually listening? . Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To me, thoughtful consideration goes beyond a database search to engaging what is actually said. And, I don't restrict "science" to what may or may not be listed on a database, reputable or otherwise. But, your point is well taken about me not reading the article you posted. I will do so know. As for how we may move forward, if you observe the several thoughtfully considered and productive interaction I have had on this thread with other MH board members, it could provide a useful model. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If people understand that in this discussion I am using the word "gentetics" informally to mean "nature" as opposed to "nurture," and more formally to mean: "of, related to, or controlled by genes," then I don't see a problem regardless whether I am speaking about sex or race or predisposition to diseases like alcoholism, etc. But, if it helps, people can transpose my previous use of genetics with the word "nature" Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I get the reluctance to involve the government in personal choices like marriage and child bearing/rearing. I am for limited government, which is why I mentioned society and culture first, and used the word "encourage" rather than "require." However, the problem today is that existing government policies/legislation may be encouraging single motherhood. Legislation already exists that somewhat controls when or if to begin as well as end a marriage or when or if and how often to get pregnant. At the very least it would make sense to remove those legislative incentives to single motherhood. Would that be agreeable to you? As you intimate, it makes sense to tackle both the symptom and the cause, particularly when the symptom is more easily diagnosed and treated? Metaphorically, reason suggests one take a painkiller for a headache whether one knows what is causing the headache or not. Besides, from the discussion above it is clear to me that there is not a lot of agreement on the cause, let alone agreement on how to address the cause. As such, it seems all the more wise to deal with the symptom, at least until we can agree on the cause and "fix it" if possible? However, the point that I was making with the two examples that time allowed (there are a myriad of others that could have been proffered) is that even though criminals are ultimately responsible for their actions, societies have a vested interest in diagnosing and treating systematic and other plausible causes. Do you agree? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As explained in the linked video, the nurture/nature debate on crime has been long-standing. Several decades ago the prevailing sentiment was exclusively environmental as a causal factor of crime. More recently, though, the data has made it increasingly more difficult to ignore the genetic/biology factor as a contributing causal effect. I have found the resistance to the biological/genetic factor fascinating given the wide-spread belief in evolution among scientist. Doesn't reason suggest that hunter role for men would be highly selective for violence? Isn't the same true for the protector role? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am pleased to see that someone here understand the difference between predictors and causation. And, while I agree that ultimately criminals are responsible for the crimes they commit, there may be some public policy benefits to considering the prospect of systematic and other contributing factors to crime. For example, if it can be convincingly shown that children of single mothers are at significantly higher risk for committing crimes, then we as a society or culture or even the government may protect ourselves by encouraging long-term traditional marriage and discouraging divorce and promiscuity. Right? Likewise, if it can be reasonably shown that certain neighborhoods are far more prone to crime, it would make public policy sense to devote more effective crime deterring resources to those neighborhoods. Right? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am not sure why since I am perfectly willing to thoughtfully consider your point of view. I am willing to engage whatever reasoning you may bring to bear. Unlike you, I won't reject your position outright or dismiss it if it doesn't happen to show up on a peer review list. The linked list included the names of the Journals in which the peer reviewed studies or published. Again, I fully understand what you mean by correlation is not causation. I happen to agree with you. What I was questioning is why you are assuming the race component is correlation rather than, to some degree, causation? Or, better yet, why you mention correlation/causation when I was speaking about predictability? It is not surprising that you are Left-leaning politically. Our public school systems, particularly colleges, have long been Leftist indoctrination centers. But, that is a subject for another time. Anyway, are those peer-reviewed publications? (Just kidding) Can you briefly summarize the argument they make in relation to race and violent crime? Do they acknowledge that certain races commit more crimes? Do you agree that men are more violent than women? If so, then how do you explain this non-genetically or non-biologically? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just curious. For those of you outright rejecting the notion of genetics as a contributing factor to violence, do you agree that men are more violent than women? And if so, how do you explain the difference non-genetically or non-biologically? (peer reviewed studies required--just kidding) Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here is something more recent from the same atheist:

I thought the context made it clear that I was using the word "god," and by implication the word "religion," figuratively rather than literally. Evidently, I was mistaken. Now that I have clarified the figurative nature of my question, would you mind responding accordingly. This is what prompted my questionL It is a video from a former Christian and current atheist:

Again, you didn't answer my questions. I wasn't asking whether correlation is causation. Rather, I was asking about PREDICTORS of behavior. Do you not understand the difference? Furthermore, aren't you preemptively assuming correlation rather than causation prior to even considering evidence and reasoning? Aren't you being overly dismissive in excluding anything that isn't peer reviewed or that doesn't shows up on your preferred peer reviewed lists? If so, then I am not sure there is much chance of productive interaction with you on this topic. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You again completely misread my comments. I spoke about prioritizing issues, not natural rights. No one's natural rights are being subjugated by the Trump phenomena--at least not in the way you are suggesting. No one's personal liberties are being infringed--again, not in the way you are suggesting. No one is saying that someone else's daughter "is not my problem," nor do we wish to see the ruling class exempt from the general standards of law and decency. Where are you coming up with this nonsense? I am all for giving the complainants their day in court. In fact I welcome it--in part because they aren't the only individuals who have natural rights. The accused do as well. And, we shall see whether the accusations are false or true, and let the chips fall where they may. Please understand that there are over a million violent crimes committed in the U.S. each year. As such, it is not physically possible to cover individually each and every one of them as a part of national or presidential campaign, though they can be handled by local jurisdictions as the Constitution provides. That they are not each made an issue in presidential elections, is not a subjugation of their rights or an infringement on personal liberty, but a rational prioritization of issues and relegating to jurisdiction where rights have the greatest Constitution chance of being protected, To not get this is to not grasp the fundamentals of republic governmental reality. While I am against "collectivism," particularly as mapped out by socialism of any sort, I am not so naive as to think that there aren't any morals that prioritize the many over the one. In fact, when our soldiers put their lives on the line, they are subjugating their individual lives to preserve the lives and liberty of many others. The same is true of policemen and firefighters and everyday heroes, Traditional conservatism honors such morals and bravery, and would be sickened to have them considered as "collectivist bull-poogey." Furthermore, the very notion of majority rule, even under a republic form of government, unavoidably subjugates the will, and to some extent the rights, of individuals to that of the people as a whole. Many laws unavoidably restrict individual freedom in favor of protecting the rights of the whole. One cannot legally drink and drive. One cannot legally practice medicine without a license. One cannot legally take the law into one's own hand. One cannot legally dump their sewage into rivers and streams, One cannot legally drive as fast as they want. They must legally stop at red lights and occupied crosswalks. I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the point. In short, prioritizing issues, and even the subjugation of individual rights and liberties, isn't necessarily a function of "collectivism," but a recognition of basic elements of society. This principle holds true in some Christian communities. Christ, himself, suffered for all, and advised his followers to become like him and lose themselves in the service to others. The law of sacrifice is the very embodiment of this divine principle. Please, get a clue. Thanks, Wade Englund

For those who balk at the suggestion of genetic/race as a predictor of violence/crime, would you likewise balk at the video's suggestion that the single greatest predictor of social male-adaption--i.e. crime, poverty, drop-out, drug use, etc., is single parents? Are you open to the prospect that the creation of an unsustainable welfare state by the Left, has led to the increase in single mothers (particularly in the black community), which in turn has led to a disproportionate incidence of crime (particularly violent crimes) among the races? In other words, is it possible to your mind that Leftist policies are responsible for the disproportionate incidence of crime among the races, and even for the recent hate crimes? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, Dr. Wright's more than 50 relevant (criminalogy, and many on genetics) peer-reviewed articles aren't sufficient in your eyes to give him anything more than voodoo science creds? Whether you accept the studies that causally or correlationly link crimes and violence to genetics and race, do you dispute the federal government data showing a significant disproportionately higher rate of crime among certain races, and this even controlling for other variables like poverty and social statis? If so, then I am not sure you are all that open to reason. In which case, I won't bother. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Like with most any vehicle, it is near impossible to drive a political agenda (secular or otherwise) in neutral--that is, unless you are going down hill. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One of the problems I have with Political Correctness and the loose tossing around of labels, is It manipulatively compresses the broad spectrum of wrongdoings, thereby engender one of two things: 1) Either it trivializes or renders almost meaningless certain words, like "assault," by lumping in youthful hair-cutting pranks with severe spousal beatings.. Or... 2) It produces overly harsh reactions to relatively benign events, like lumping youthful hair cutting prank with sever spousal beatings. To avoid either, I prefer to reserve strong and provocative language to circumstances that really deserve it. For example, I might reserve the word "assault" and "abuse" for things like physical and strident verbal beatings rather than uninvited kisses or youthful hair cutting pranks. But that may just be me. Thanks, Wade Englund

For a broader (non-LDS) Christian perspective on Theosis and Divination: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/tag/margaret-barker/ Thanks, Wade Englund

My mention of virtue signalling wasn't so much in reference to people calling out Trump for uninvited kissing, or his explaining the realities of groupies, or even his using the F and P words, but more for people who exploit celebrations of democracy for self-aggrandizement using absurd comparisons to Hitler to demonize opponents. Virtue signaling is when people publicly alert the mob that they have joined in the character lynching in hopes of earning brownie points. Thanks, Wade Englund