Burka

[Zodiac]

Maslow's theory of light bulb changing...

Zodiac, your description of the light bulb as "burned out" is not helpful. Are you sure that you're not demonising the light bulb?

Hi Robert,

You are quite right of course. I should not have imprinted my own subjective, judgemental and stereotypically middle aged, white male, interpretation of a light bulb whose filament no longer functions as being somehow "burned-out". I can now see the error of my ways and I am appalled that we have allowed this poor, oppressed bulb to fall through the cracks in our heartless and uncaring society!

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

[Robert]

Oh yes, for Christ's sake let's not listen to the people. It's only their lives at stake.

[cappuccina]

Sorry, Robert, your Argumenta ad Populum/ad Hominem are just tiresome...

[Robert]

Zodiac, your description of the light bulb as "burned out" is not helpful. Are you sure that you're not demonising the light bulb?

Cappuccina, I won't assume that you don't know what you're talking about. I know that you don't.

[cappuccina]

Thank you Robert; you've once again substituted adolescent churlishness for any type of cogent argument, so we'll just assume you do not know what you are talking about, and we'll hit the "fail" buzzer:




Next, please........................

[Zodiac]

Sociology 101...

this is basic Sociology 101...

How many Sociologists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: The very posing of this this particular question, in this specific context, is indicative of the obvious Neo-Con bias of the questioner. The real question we should be asking ourselves is can we, should we, really try to change the lightbulb when the context of light-bulb changing hasn’t been fully deracialized? Our purposes should be to, (1) describe the state of the light bulb, (2) to explain how the light bulb came to be that way (e.g., ‘burned out’), and (3) to provide some insight into how the light bulb might respond to different interventions. As Sociologists it is not our purpose to “change” the light bulb. Instead, we should try to better inform policymakers so that they can determine the right kind of light bulb actions for a brighter future.

Zodiac.

[Robert]

Oh dear, I seem to have touched a raw nerve. I hadn't realised that you were an expert. Sorry not to have given you the respect you obviously seem to think is your due.

Some people might think that this is a complex subject and that statistics have to be interpreted. Some people even think that statistics can be misleading, or downright false. But no matter. it's all a question of statistics and we can rely on you to sort it out.

I see you've roamed over the whole planet in your quest for statistics. Is that your own planet, or ours?

I'm sure that the environment does contribute to crime. So what? Ah, but I forgot - you can doubtless furnish statistics telling us precisely how much it contributes to crime. Right down to the last percent. It's all so tidy. I congratulate you.

And yes, I am older than 4 - fortunately I have so far been able to keep out of the way of the people you've "saved."

[cappuccina]

Soooo, raw crime statistics on types of crimes found in particular areas are meaningless too?? What planet are you on??

Your "argument" which is, in essence, dismissing every study on the planet as well as raw crime statistics is beyond belief.

As for common sense, where is yours.....you think the violent crime rates per capita are higher, in say, the Northern suburbs of Chicago, than in Rogers Park (North Chicago neighborhood), or higher in Bloomfield Hills (wealthy Detroit suburb) than Detroit??

You have no common sense, and provide NO DATA to support any of your claims, and you are far to old to be making an "it exists because I say so" type of argument, as I assume (perhaps incorrectly), that you are perhaps somewhat older than 4...

Your overall "tone" tells me you are anti-education as well...Lovely, just lovely...

OK Robert, what you need to do next is the following:

1. Present a cogent argument as to why you think that poverty and difficult family circumstances do not contribute to crime, and how you think a violent criminal is "made"/comes to be....Clearly you w do NOT think that we are all a combination of "nature and nurture" sooo, present your arument here...

2. ...with data....Presenting data does not mean you get to say "because you think it is so", or "because some TV hack like Rush Limbaugh thinks it's so"... IOW, you have to present an "adult" argument...

Thank you in advance, and I look forward to what you will be presenting here.
__________________



(Natalie, you are most welcome...)

Surprised Limbaugh, er, I mean Wescott hasn't thrown in his two cents here...

[Robert]

Cappuccina, what I think is that the collective wisdom and commonsense of society as a whole is greater than that found in sociology departments. We are not talking quantum mechanics here, where the experts must reign supreme. We are talking about fundamental issues of morality and human nature, and I for one am not prepared to acknowledge the professionalisation of these issues by so-called experts.

[Natalie Severn]

Caps,
That piece by J.Brian Atwood is just brilliant.Thanks for that,
Cheers
Norma

[cappuccina]

Those of you who think that poverty and difficult family circumstances do not contribute to crime, do you just think a "wand is waved" and a criminal is made, or it's always complete genetic aberration/severe mental illness with no environmental factors ever whatsoever, or is somehow connected to being in boy or girls scouts/guides when younger (OK, that's a joke...calm down...), or what???????

In otherwords, those of you who do NOT think that we are all a combination of "nature and nurture" what is it you do think??

[cappuccina]

(Oy...just oy, Robert...)

[Robert]

You can even have a drag on a fag.

[cappuccina]

I can only guess, Natalie!!!

[Natalie Severn]

(An aside here: As an outsider looking in, maybe it is time for the UK to get rid of its caste system...why not dump the House of Lords for a House of Representatives-type model...

While I am not saying that the US Congress is perfect, something really bothers me about having someone sit in Congress because of their "birthright" or societal or relgious standing....I mean they could be a complete mofo, but be born into a noble family; what good is that?? )

You don"t know the half of it Caps!