The Fastest Growing Violent Crime In The United States

Ron, you are the one who began the arrogant posturing and personal attacks by recommending I get a life. Did you expect that to go unremarked?

So, rather than offer a refutation of my thesis you resort, again, to snide remarks. Are you unable to argue your case effectively? It seems so.

I had been moderately impressed by many of your contributions in several posts I had read over the past several months. I found them to be well written, with points, even when I disagreed with them, clearly presented and nicely argued. I was disappointed that you stooped to personal attack on the very first occasion we exchanged views. The lack of substance in your response has caused me to reassess my earlier favourable opinion of you. I doubt you give damn about that: so we have something in common.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another momentarily undocumented statistic, in cases of child abuse regarding 'sexual assault', by far the males are the worst offenders, moreover, about 80% of the time it's the father of the 'assaulted' child, or 'the boyfriend' of the 'assaulted' child's mother. Sexual assault against children by women is relatively unusual, and, when it occurs, it usually occurs when the women in under the influence of an initiating male 'partner'.
Please mark it well here, I am not condemning the male gender, the contingently anomalous male gender has condemned itself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please accept my apologies in advance if this is a double post, I'm not sure the last one got through, anyway this is the second to last post I entered, which I haven't seen here:
__________________________________________________

Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Prince James:
I do not at all discount QM. On the other hand Einstein's Field Theories and QM are considered to be antithetical; whereas, as I try to point out in Pt VII of http://forums.delphiforums.cc/EinsteinGroupie that Quantum Mechanics is generated by field phenomena - please take note of the logarithmic spiral in the golden rectangle, containing a series of 90o pie slices equating with physical dimensions (a minimum of four).

Off hand I cannot provide you with the sources of information that confirm the volcanic explosion of about 10 to 15 thousand years ago, resulting in the local extinction of the horse. It is however, generally accepted as a well established fact in 'the scientific community' (non sequitur that it is). ”



Dear Prince James (and any other even mildly concerned party?):
Correction on the '900 pie slices' - I was trying to say 90 degree (90o - right angle segements) it's (at least) eleven (- and apparently, potentially an infinite number of same -refer the extrapolating spiral in the golden rectangle, sometimes known as the golden spiral - 'Phi').

Regarding the violence (etceteras?) issue, extant (more or less, and moving right along?):

I can't produce any hard evidence on this, presently,but, anyway, I have repeately read from reliable sources as well as occasionally witnessed that, about 80% of the time a man seriously and physically strikes a woman, he will continue to do so, even after swearing he won't, again, until she leaves him or he is forced to leave her (too often resulting in the perishment of that woman).

Another relevancy - in another forum not too long ago I stated that the physical abuse of women and children was the fastest growing violent crime in the United States (Oph just straightened me out on the violence against children portion of this statement - I presume its fairly the same in the UK as it is the US , whereas, otherwise, I'm sticking to my initial statement about violence against females by males - I submit that international violence will not be held in reasonable check until the male female issue of violence is understood and responded to accordingly, by the general - international - public)...
A well intended reply (on another forum) contended that (the title of this thread), with the factual statement that the male rape of men by men in (hard core) prison was the fastest growing violent crime.

I wrote back that I agreed with him, while reminding him that prison is a condensed microcosm of the society it occurs in and that since, as a rule, there's no women or children to abuse in prison, the male prisoners 'assault' each other,
(Incidentally, male rape statistics would be much higher, except, in some states the rape of one man by another is not called rape, but rather 'assault'. A poignant essay is written by yours truly on that very fact - i.e., in many states 'only women can be raped'... Same kind of 'assault', but it changes from rape to 'assault' when it's done to a man by a man. A convuluted distillation of at least a portion of what's at issue in this thread, no?).
Moreover, the incidents of women in prison sexually assaulting other women in prison is much (much) lower than such incidents among men in a men's prison. No I can't momentarily prove that either, but anyone may hold contention on that and I do predict they'll lose this (potential) argument on that subject (I recently moved and don't have a bunch of resource stuff readily at hand at this time).

Thank you (Dear Hearts?) for reading this missive.
(How we do carry on?)
((I'd lose my mind, if I could remember where it was?))

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

K

Men have testosterone in higher amounts than women, studies have shown, males with higher rate of violence in prison also have higher amounts of testosterone as do the violent female inmates.

 

you can raise the testosteroine level with Wild Turkey, and lower it with a suitable partner

 

if equality for woman means that they had equal physical strength to men it is only a cruel joke...maybe Rights are better.....the right to not be raped..and if raped the right to fry the rapist

 

Curiously, I have a life. Your obssession with advising me to get what I already have does raise the question that you are actually reflecting on your own situation.
If this is the case you have my sympathetic good wishes. If this is not the case then you are just being rude, in which case p*** off.
Regards
O.

 

I think the roots for this growing trend can be traced back to the emancipation of women and, as a result, the degradation of the family unit, as well as the absence of a male defensive factor.

Entertainment in our day and age meets a need.
What sells is produced.

If violent lyrics sell then one must look at the ones buying them to find the reasons.

The uncomfortable fact is that domesticity and monogamous marriage are unnatural to man.
They became viable through the repression of female natural sexual power.

The inclusion of males was made possible by taking away choice from women.
It was a civilization necessity.

In recent times, with the growing irrelevance of sex and due to growing population pressures, women have been released from their constraints and given back their original sexual power.

This has resulted in these results:
1- Growing promiscuity, as the natural sexual behavior of our species and of women, in particular.
2- Growing male marginalization resulting in sexual frustration and anti-social behavior.
3- Growing deterioration of the family as an institution, creating single parent environments with little supervision and control over the offspring who turn to external groups and peers for support and guidance.
4- An anti-feminism backlash by women themselves who just now discover that a man’s world isn’t as pleasant and free as they dreamed it would be.

 

Ron, try to get a fucking grip of reality, why don't you. I was the one who was singing the praises of modern communication methods only to be jumped all over by you who stated "Text on a screen is the mere detritus of dead thought, not vital." Now you turn around 180 degrees and declare it is of value: exactly what I said at the outset.

I was joking when I said your attitude might be mistaken for senility. Now I am not so sure.

I did note that texting is the one form of modern communication I will not indulge in because I find it too primitive. I fully acknowledged from the outset that others find it a useful supplement to their other avenues of communication.

So just what the logic behind your wholly contradictory utterances. Is it that you are just looking to attack me because I disagreed with you? Or did the medication kick in early?

 

Again, with a persistence worthy of the tide's ebb and flow, you seem to be talking more about yourself than about me.
Here is a simple question for you. Try to answer it without the prevarication and obfuscation I am coming to recognise as your trademarks. Do you deny the contradictions present in your two remarks about texting? If you deny these contradictions please justify such a denial.

What is peculiar about the pseudonym ophiolite? Ophiolites are a suite of rocks formed in the upper levels of oceanic crust and subsequently obducted onto continental masses. This could be determined with a simple google search. Application of intellect then might have suggested an interest in Earth science on my part.

Ron, my pseudonym tells you a deal more about me than your pseudonym and alleged real name tell about you. I use the same pseudonym (or one closely allied to it) everywhere I visit on the internet. I am wholly unaware of having crossed your path other than on this site. You appear to think, perhaps, I may be someone's sock puppet. This is most certainly not the case. I don't have time to indulge in such trivia.

I think, on the whole, I prefer to be considered a cheeky little shit, rather than a sad old man.

Ron, please. In order for that insult to work you must use it on someone whose English is suspect. (I epect(sic) you knew that.) It really can't work on me, since it is evident to anyone that I write excellent, if somewhat pedantic, English.
Your epectation (sic) that your meaning would be clear is evidence that your own abilities to think logically and write clearly are rather constrained. It is interesting that you keep assigning to me, what appear to be faults you possess yourself.
It is this interesting aberration on your part that is keeping me active in this exchange.

 

I was seeking to determine the motivation for your unprovoked attack. I now understand that it was associated with your weak grasp of reality.

Please accept my heartfelt apology. I am truly sorry you are a fool.

Fini

 

I think the internet may contribute to making young people more aggressive, lack of real sociail face to face interactions, limit the ability to 'read' people using gesture and form to aid perception or 'intent'. The lack of learned social skills then translates into the real world as an inability to deal with real people courteously and with consideration and most importantly with confidence. Social skills are entirely learned, thus the absence can only lead to problems.

 

Mirror, mirror on the wall,
Whose most self obssessed of all?

I must say, upon my word
It's doubtless Ron, he's so absurd.


TofR, the strength of these modern communication systems appears not when they replace conventional media, but when they supplement them. They enable ties of friendship and family to be maintained (and strengthened) when separated. They allow experiences to be shared in an immediate manner that was not available in the past.
It is only when and if they form the sole or predominant means of communication that they become dangerous in the way you describe. In other circumstances by facilitating punctuated, but regular contact with members of ones tribe, they reduce individual tension and promote social interaction. Together these should act to reduce the tendency to violence.

I understand not everyone has the necessary insight to understand these benefits. But then not everyone was good at the old communication methods.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Agreed, I maintain friendships more easily and made a few new friends on the internet who I now see in real time, but I was already adept in real time friendships and how to make them happen.

What concerns me is the youth and the replacement of internet for a social life. But I guess only time will tell whether there is an effect or not.

 

Read what the **** I'm saying Ron. Not what you think I'm ****ing saying, not what you would like me to be ****ing saying; not what you try to imply I am ****ing saying, but what I am actually, ****ing saying.

For the last ****ing time, you pernicious dumb ass, we use these media of communication to facilitate communication within our network of friends and family, not to create that network. Is it clear yet? Has it sunk in? How many different ways do I have to present it?

 

Ron
I suspect these posts to Ophiolite are more applicable to water, do you think ophiolite is her sock? If so you are mistaken.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oph is an ancient rock, residing in Scotland.(I think)

 

Ah, excuse me for breaking up this teenage, schoolyard tiff but back to the subject:
perplexity

Are you purposefully acting dense or is this your natural state?

Men have been “leaving home” and giving women control over domestic matters since the beginning of time.

Males left, sometimes for months on end, to sea in coastal and marine civilizations and they left women in charge of the household. This practice still persists in many fishing and marine communities around the world and has given rise to maternal inheritance practices.
In ancient Greece women were in control of the home yet they had no political power and were considered less than males both physically and mentally.
The same has occurred in most civilizations.

Men left for war or to hunt since the inception of the tribe.

The “new role”, you simpleton, came only recently when population pressures, dwindling resources and spaces, and technology made the male/female procreative, natural distinction irrelevant.
Then the women had economic access and single-parent families became acceptable and popular.
Divorce rates increased when the state ensured female safety and her ‘rights’.
Ergo the family structures of the past with grandparents and great-grand-parents became a thing of the past.

When a retard, like you, can yield a gun and take down a 250 pound, often smarter man than yourself, then what made males dominate has become obsolete and then girly-men and women attain to equal status, protected by the system as all genetic weakness is.
When stupidity is protected from its self then it flourishes and spreads.
In the wild error and substandard mental ability results in a quick death.

In our modern world it is even defended against the realization of its own quality, so as to not hurt it emotionally and damage it psychologically.
This results in morons thinking their opinion is just as relevant as anyone else’s and that ‘truth’ is a matter of perspective and all approximations of reality are equally valid and deserving of consideration.
Then you get the possibility of a female philosopher, for example, or of a dullard, like you, who comes here to alleviate his social anxiety and find solace in a community he lacks in his own immediate environment, thinking that they are smart because most people agree with him or share his perspective.

When everyone is allowed to contribute his substandard seed to the genetic pool the whole diminishes and becomes more reliant on innovation to deal with the genetic repercussions of a weakened constitution.
In the wild genetic weakness are weeded out by predators and disease.

In our modern world they are protected and healed and even allowed to procreate and ad their weakness to the whole.
To counter-balance the effects technology is forced to keep up with the repercussions of human meddling.

You see, halfwit, quantity if allowed to reach a certain point, by protecting it and allowing it to flourish, trumps quality.

Now I return you to your regularly programmed show of soap-opera gossip, mutual self-adulations, sex talk and trying to be a part of the comfortable majority.

I loved the recent censoring displays .
It given new meaning to the label “Intelligent Community”.

It is often mistakenly believed that social censoring, under the myth of freedom of speech and Democracy and the free-press, is some kind of conspiracy when it is offered as a possibility.

It has been pleasing to witness the practice of censorship, as it occurs through peer pressure, psychology and female intervention, in real life environments.
You’ve all been my little ant-holes, re-establishing my confidence concerning my original conclusions concerning the diminishment of individuality through community.

 

Satyr:

(a little female intervention here)

Why is the individual more important than the community?

Isn't that against the survival instinct?

 

It all depends on the individual’s ability to survive within a certain environment.

Social behavior is the individual admitting an inability to go on its own and willing to sacrifice independence for survival.

“Importance” is a subjective terms.

How much you love yourself and how confident and self-reliant you are constitutes how individualistic you are. The concept of identity and Self is consciousness discriminating.
You define your self by what you are not.

The ones lacking the most character and sense of identity and independence and pride will more readily find solace in the group and find there safety, identity and purpose. They will be the most tolerant and submissive and undiscriminating.

The sensitive palate, for example, being able to discern different flavors and odors will be more discriminating in its choice of wine.
The obtuse palate will drink any swill and call it good, because it makes him dizzy and his tongue numb.
Here identity is established by what the individual is willing to accept as sufficient and worthy of itself.
In sexual terms the male that will fuck anything has less understanding or appreciation of sex than a man who chooses and picks and is more careful in what he considers acceptable.
In all cases what is sufficient determines the individuals character.

Back to the previous:
A creature that can survive on its own would not even consider uniting with others.
Furthermore a creature with more discerning tastes and sensibilities would be more careful to which group it is willing to belong to.

The all-inclusive group will allow anyone in and tell him he is worthy of their respect and love.
Then the respect and love this group offers is diluted in significance.
A love offered to all, as sex offered to anyone, loses its value.

The psychological reasons why women are less independent minded and more willing to defer to authority is rooted in procreative necessity.

Larger brained creatures require longer gestation periods and longer weaning periods.
They, therefore, require a sex dedicated to specifically this.
This sex would have to evolve the correct demeanor and mental/physical/psychological traits to enable it to play this particular role of gestating/weaning/caretaker.

The female sex is just that.
It exhibits a reliance on community, it evolved an ability to cooperate, defer and participate more readily and harmoniously.
It, subsequently, found identity within the group and any character traits which prohibited her integration and assimilation were weeded out through natural selection.
Her procreative role made her a gender not culture or paternalistic systems.

The current "Feminization of Man" is following similar paths for almost the same reasons.

Yet, nature can only be overcome through reason and ascetic mental discipline. Things a female lacks, in comparison to males.
So she is determined by the exact nature she wants to deny. Her “emancipation” happens superficially.
She still identifies with her procreative identity and therefore she is determined by natural necessity, even while pretending she’s reasoned and intellectual.
Most males fall into this error, as well.

A female’s entire mentality is focused on integrating and harmoniously fitting into a group.
A male’s, due to his procreative role, is more challenging, and independent.
He must prove himself worthy first o he must dominate to the extent where he can replace pre-existing morality and ideals with his own.
This is referred to as revolution.
Because females accept authority so readily and because they have sexual power through their control over the ovum and the womb, they act as genetic and memetic filtering systems for the group.

The unwanted elements, as they are specifically defined by each group through morals and ideals, are eliminated by not allowing them access to procreation.
They become undesirable.

Males, if they are attached to their genetic programming, then adapt to the morals and ideals the female has integrated her self into.
Ironically males invent and establish the group’s ethical standards and women simply accept it from birth and through indoctrination – as do most sub-standard, average males.

 

It does not primarily, specifically, or essentially apply to sciforums. It could incidentally, inconsequentially and occassionally apply to sciforums. Why you would think I was refering to sciforums given the very general nature of the media I stipulated and their function for the small tribe is beyond me, as indeed nearly all of your posts in this thread have been. Perhaps a return to your bed and an exit from the other side would bear fruit.