Rakista

Oh, perusing now, are we? How... pseudo-intellectual. Peruse your posts where you mention your underage drinking in the same sentence where you declare that you were hassled for no reason and broke no laws other than curfew.

You did not quote me, if you had ever been in a real debate you would know summarizing is frowned upon. You do not argue the 'gist' of something in a Lincoln Douglas debate which I participated in for 2 years of HS and a semester of College, have you ever been in one? Who do I report you to anyways, you seem clownish but not amusing and deserve the powers of ridicule not the powers of moderation (ad hominem attack). You have again shown no ability to actually engage in discussion instead resorting to generalities to make your point. I still can't believe you are a moderator, lol. Do you want me to go through at least 3 other people's posts in the same discussion that use ad hominem attacks against me and others that you as a moderator ignored or do you want me to go through posts you have made and point out logical fallacies? I have some time before I have to hit the lab today and both sound like fun side projects.

It makes even less sense when you repeat it. Choosing to misunderstand is another form of strawman. Do you deny that you were ranting up a storm after a few beers and are now merely focusing your past rage on my moderation of this thread, equating it to the excessive force you once experienced?

Hey mr. bona fide genius you are choosing to misunderstand me and my arguments, does that make your arguments strawmen? I did not equate any past exp to you, now you are lying which I may report your post for. Learn to use quotes from people you are talking to. It is truly bizarre talking to someone who is talking around me after accusing me of something and threatening me with banishment. Ever hear of argumentum ad consequentiam ( I almost spelled that right in Google, I guess a year of high school Latin actually helps ). You are threatening me because you disagree with me aren't you? Stop accusing people of logical fallacies when you are making them yourself. Reveal your bias in the discussion as there are at least 7 ad hominem attacks against me that you are tellingly ignoring which would lead any reasonable moderator to believe you are abusing your privileges.

Parts did relate, but most was, as you admit, over the top, thus the reason for my intervention. Perhaps if you stay you will observe that I try not to debate in posts from a Moderator status. My objections to your red herring tactics were as a member. My objections to your flaming tactics since then are as a Moderator.

So I got a little parenthetical, so did other posts in this discussion which I responded to. Sue me, so I can win.

Well I would like to again point out your inability to see that people on this discussion called me names such as dirty hippy, scuzzball and the like yet you did nothing which leads me to believe this is personal, I sincerely hope you lose your moderation for this oversight. I have moderated forums in the past and you are not the worst moderator I have come across but you are one of the most inconsistent. Show me where I committed the first act of flaming, please.

This is a well moderated debate board. If you prefer a place where decorum is not appreciated, a list of them can be generated for you.Apology accepted; I can relate. Quite the opposite. It takes up my time and sidetracks the entire thread, particularly when the member in question shows no sign of taking the criticism in stride and realizing that they are being an ass.

If you are the best moderator you have than this board is a joke. It is you who came in screaming with absolutely no proof for your accusations. You do not quote me, you summarize me; you do not give concrete examples, you make nebulous threats and worst of all you have contributed nothing to the discussion so we do not know your intentions. I hardly believe you are impartial as you have not proved yourself to use logic over appeals to authority or force. Which again are logical fallacies if you did not know. If you think I used a strawman than you should of quoted what I said and explained yourself. See how I am doing it? You can learn from me, but I can't from you. No matter how hard you try to explain yourself it sounds sophomoric. I learned logic from programming and logic classes and I learned debate from debate classes. I have no idea where you learned about logical fallacies but you are using them too inconsistently to be pre-law and too brazenly to not be educated in the least, so what is your history?

I should have explained the ban. We have a point system which will ensure a temporary ban should you continue to use strawmanning as your fallacy of choice.My consternation knows no bounds.

You should not have threatened a ban when it is you who cannot make a single logical argument that explicitly shows my strawman, red herring or other logical fallacy. Resorting to overt generalization shows a weak mind for logic or a weak appetitive for debate. If you can't stomach some of my points maybe you should take some tums.

You are a moderator? Lol. I'm still laughing a little.

Are we talking about an immune system response or antioxidants?

One of the cheapest antioxidants you can use is.....

COFFEE

Many antioxidants never get to make it to your bloodstream no problems with coffee though.

If you get any dry herbs find out if they are lipid or alchohol soluble because some are pretty much useless taken in capsule form.

If you are making a tincture find out DOSAGE. Sometimes a capsule disolved in alchohol will increase the amount in your bloodstream by 10x-50x which can cause problems if they raise blood pressure they can destroy your organs if you take too much.

That Alabama made pi to be 3 is false

You brought up underage drinking and other criminal activity to justify a criticism of curfew laws. You brought up underage voting, mental hospitals, assaulting a psychologist and your own psychotic behavior, again to criticize curfews. You've red-herringed and strawmanned your way into a rant and you are derailing this thread with it. Stop or you will start down the road to being banned.Please learn what you are talking about before you quote what I said. I don't like wasting my time with foolishness or overeaction when you quote me with someone else's words.

Underage drinking and other criminal activity as you put it directly relates to what curfews are supposedly brought about to prevent. Limiting these would limit many many other poeple's posts as well. In fact I think besides a few curt replies the whole shebang would be null and void if you think that such relevent concerns pervert the course of the discussion. If you think either one of these is a strawman can you please tell me what is in context for this discussion or any discussion on the general forums which I have perused because I am more than happy to oblige if you can show me explicitely what you are talking about. I don't like when people accuse me in generalaties it usually shows a lack of intellectual rigor even if wrapped up in psuedo-intellectualism

Underage voting is one of the only ways in which underage people can directly prevent curfews from being enacted or get them repealed. Again no point, unless you want to limit the discussion to one side unfairly which it seems is what is going on here late at night on the Intarweb, lol. Removing the ability to argue in tangentials and parentheticals I can agree with but I hardly think such applies where the creation or nullification of said law is concerned. I mean it is not as if I am speaking of some set of machinations to disrupt the government of the US to prevent the law from being effected. I can point you to some supreme court arguments that I know do something similiar when concerning the constitutionality of a law by who could legally vote at the time, but it would take me awhile and I'm drinking on a Sunday night so blah. It was pre Jim Crow laws though.

My own personal history may have been over the top but it relates to the ability of parents and government to usurp the rights of children which correlates pretty well with the discussion, imho. The original article is pretty weak on details for those who would want to stop curfews so I had to use my imagination and if you don't know what that is here is a link. If you don't want people to disrupt the precious status quo here than you should stop registrations not threaten people you apparently disagree with.

I'm sure we are all psychos at some point in our lives. I mean I think you have psychotic tendencies for coming into a discussion on a general forum and making false accusations about the proper decorum for a critical debate like we were in a Junior High Lincoln and Douglas Debate team and you lost your notes so you have resorted to screaming.

You know it could be you just have nothing to say about something; but, that doesn't mean you should come into a discussion to discount others unfairly by using words that confuse you so dearly with a false sense of superiority. I am looking over your posts and laughing. Are you going to accuse me of Ad hominim attacks next or what? Some of your posts are insightful I wish you would actually contribute to the discussion instead of attacking me.

Arguing logical syntax is valid in my world of programming, philosophy and such. If it is not in yours than I pry don't want to talk to you anymore as I enjoy breaking things down and building them up again as an engineer. If things were black and white there would be no disagreements and hence no forums to spout off so colourfully on. That would make me a sad Rakista.

Please, oh please write more than 2 paragraphs your high and mightiness when you want to contribute to a discussion. Coming into a forum and laying down a single paragraph of smite which must have contributed to you having 1500 posts means nothing to me or anyone else and that is one of the only off-topic posts in the discusion not mine. In fact I feel insulted by your accusations as if you were perscuting me for my beliefs.

Sorry about misquoting you; I have dozens of tabs open in many other forums. I presumed when someone wrongly accused me of a strawman argument that they would of actually contributed to the discsussion and scrolled up to a similiar picture mistakingly attributing someone else's nil thoughts to you. You must get off on some power trip here coming in with big bold letters, lol. I've done it to when I had powers to moderate the questions given to NASA scientists for the robotics education project at Rio Tinto. God I was an ass, but I can admit it at least.

Don't threaten people with bans when it is makes some people think you look like you simply disagree with them and do not want to argue. My friends on ICQ are laughing at you now too, BTW. Contribute to the discussion which has broken off onto a tangeant about police officers or some such thing but that is from another's inquiry not mine. I was merely satisfying other's curositity, I swear on my Smurf figurines. I look forward to your reply, oh psycho one who knows where the bold button is.

I believe in panspermia which is similiar. I had never heard of VN probes before but I have thought of such things as I'm sure others have.

Lol, good luck bobbies break up pub fights and unless you want to be hunted down like a dog for robbing a policeman who has 20-40 bucks with a gun it would not work so well for you methinks.

My friend who is a long time East Londoner one night got a brilliant idea and started a fire in the middle of the street with a petrol can and his ex-gf's things. The CCTV camera pry tipped off the police and when they came he ran. This is a guy who has hiked most of the India/Nepal mountains and had legs the size of tree trunks. The bobby in his goofy hat chased him for 3 miles and cornered him tackled him and held him in some crazy kung-fu grip for 10 minutes while the paddy wagon came.

Too many fat policeman but you don't see many fat bobbies walking around all the time as they do.

Electic Ice Coolers will work indefinetly as well.

I have a small one that also heats, when I was up at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks doing some geology work it was awesome to take on 2-3 day trips as it could also keep food warm from breakfast after we left the camp site in the 4x4.

Would you spend extra money like the British to have unarmed police walking around your town?

You're blind if you think that men like that father can be rationalized with. They care for no one, and are willing to risk everything to escape. The man picked up a weapon and used his child as a shield[/i']. There is no rationalizing with someone like that, and you can't simply let him go. They did what they had to, and you can be certain that the live's of some of those cops were ruined that day.

Ok, well I am a robotic engineer grad student and maybe I have a different POV from my engineering background but I was exposed to half a dozen non violent means that could of been used before sending in the SWAT team. I absolutely agree he was not rational but that does not mean you cannot rationalize at his level. From what has been leaked out they did not attempt anything along these lines before sending in SWAT. Please correct me, I love being corrected.

The point is they did not try a single non-violent method and got cocky thinking they could shoot him without killing the child. Their cockiness caused the manslaughter (imho) of a child and that entire chain of command should get 3-15 years. With 15 years for the shooter I'm sure he won't make any mistakes like that again. Police do not deserve to be above the law when they make poor decisions. They have chosen a job that they can kill people if they mess up and just like bad doctors get their licenses taken away when they kill someone negligently so should a police officer. Things like this would not happen as often if our police officers were more like bobbies in England though who do not carry guns. Our police officers in America make many people frightened because when they make rash descisions they do so with guns.

A tazer was not used, neither was tear gas or loud noise. They spent less an 2 hours outside before rushing in when waiting 10-12 hours could of saved that child's life. I'm saying that what they did was poorly thought out and they should be man enough to take responsibility for their actions.

Disclaimer, I have a friend who works on development on this Electrified Water Cannon would of worked had it been out of prototype stage but this is what I think of when I think of non violent means to end standoffs. Imagine a stream of water almost as powerful as a fire hose blasting from a remote controlled robotic NonViolent alternative to SWAT. That means no one dies and everyone can be taken into custody.

You think dissenters and thugs are the only ones who suffer?

When anyone dies I am saddened. I never said innocent police should die but I would hardly call police the pillars of society. Unlike teachers who have a pretty typical criminal profile police have abnormaly high amounts of domestic violence, child molestation and the most obvious cronyism. I've heard so many police officers lie in court to defend their ass or someone else's ass it is laughable that they are allowed to testify at all. I think all police should be required to have video and audio built into their uniforms so things like this stop but the police union has corrupted the course of American law when it comes to seeking justice from police misconduct. If American police want us to like them they need to stop allowing Rambos and bigots to put on uniforms and stop protecting misconduct. I know there are good cops out there but their bad apples kill, maim and torture people sometimes with impunity but always with the assurance that they were doing so under the guise of protecting the public from whomever they are abusing. Police like no others fall under a higher scrutiny when it comes to enacting violence because they themselves are said to be here to protect us from it. I don't hate police officers at all and I treat all police as individuals which is easy in my small town and out of the dozen I have confronted here maybe 3 treated me like a human being. The best police I have ever met were in Sunnyvale, CA. I liked them all when they came out to check us protesting at Intel for dumping toxic waste into the Salt River and getting off scot-free. They even let us go get water and come back. I'm sure many are nicer to their families and friends because they are not the one's blocking logging roads, lol.

Try to pay attention before you throw your heart out to the dregs of society.

Most police officers are 2 year college graduates who simply do not have the schooling to make a contribution to society like a scientist who can contribute to the lives of billions of people by their individual efforts in their fields; however, police officers interact with people in the most desperate of situations and as Allah says, by saving one life you have saved the world. I think in some respects that is something I would never be able to do. The last violence that was non-police I had to deal with was a raging meth addict who had broken through the wall of my friends apartment from his own and we called the police. He had been up for like 7 days and had attacked a poster on his wall.

Some of the finest human beings I know are police. Are there bad cops? Sure. Anyone anywhere can be a foul excuse human being. Teachers, politicians, firefighters, military leaders, religious leaders, even your friendly neighborhood crack dealer - anyone, no matter what they do for a living, can be a bad apple.

Well the good cops should get together and start their own police union so they can get rid of the bad cops. I'm pretty sure most cops know about the small and large acts of corruption and abuse of powers of the police department they are in but are afraid to name names. American cops could learn alot from Europe where these problems are far far far less frequent. I don't like living in a country where I cannot trust my local police force to protect my right of protest. That is only a few steps from a police state and why I am not going to be finishing my studies in the states and have decided on England for my PhD, once I get my masters. I will likely seek citizenship there as well the US is leaning too right for my tastes and I would not see any progressive change in my lifetime.

when police gather in a line its to deal with a disruptive crowd, such circumstances often turn violent toward the cops. i have no problem with them doing whatever they need to to ensure the safety of their team when dealing with stuff like that. dissenting against popular opinion is fine. blocking roads because your stupid hippy ass doesnt understand that the things our govt. does are done to support the way of life you cherish so much, and that not everything can be settled by sitting down and talking, is not.

We asked to talk to the lumber company literaly dozens of times. They called us stupid hippies too. So their own prejudice forced us to use civil disobedience, which happens more often than not. Believe you me, I only go nowadays to support my friends as I prefer to do my arguing online. I have been beaten so many times by the police from the WTO in Seattle to the anti-war demonstration in Oakland that I am scared of American police officers.

Police gather to confront ANY protesting crowd in California by law in some counties and often contribute to the violence themselves by their very presence. Something English police are very good at dealing with and something that Californian police are very poor at dealing with. I am not a hippy just because I live in Humboldt, heh. My friends wish I was a hippy though as they are mostly but I wear collared shirts and slacks with shined shoes I guess you call me a hipster. Which is like a hippy who takes a bath, has a job and drinks a lot of coffee. I am politically active but that is the nature of my life being oppressed as a youth has made me somewhat of a curmudgeon. I am also unique in being mostly left wing but I am pro-life as I am consistent life ethic against death penalty, poverty and war.

I love when conversations start hostile and end up all nice and cheery. Esp when I am into my 3rd beer which ususallyt is too much.

You can keep food cold up to 3 days with dry ice but you will have to keep the outside temperature below 15 degress celisius or so. There are some handling precautions.

To use dry ice make sure the manufacturer says that it is ok for the plastic as some will crack at that temperature and NEVER EVER EVER allow the dry ice to come into contact with metal. It will scream something aweful. Also you will have to ventilate the gas as it is carbon dioxide so you will have to leave the chest cracked a bit and plenty of fresh air from the outside. If not you can suffocate on long road trips.

I have only used it when I could put it in the back of open air pickup trucks and than only on rare occasions when I was 4x4ing into the interior of a national park for up to a week at a time.

It is much easier to pickup ice in convience stores as you need it. Dry ice is dangerous.

i know what your trying to say, but your wrong. the reason people under 21 arent allowed to drink in the US is because your decision making skills are still developing. you know, the skills you use when deciding whether your sober enough to drive or if its worth the risk...

Well I believe the latest study showed brain development stops at 23-25 so maybe we should extend it to there? I am not exactly a libertarian but I believe that if anthing should be illegal to 21 it should be driving. Isn't that the way in Europe?

anyone who wants to kill someone can head down to wallmart and buy a 22 and then shoot someone before anyone has a chance to react. does that mean thats a bad law too?

I am not a fan of guns having been shot at, but I don't understand exactly what you are saying.

anyone who doesnt accept police authority should live in the 13th century.

I have no problem with the concept of police and even liked the police in London when I visited this spring. They did not have guns and have a much lower rate of violence against citizens. I have a problem with police like this , which is where I live now. I was there but not swabbed I ran into the forest. This is why I run away from cops. They took a Q-tip and rubbed under the eyelids with pepper spray. Yeah I put myself in situations protesting but that does not mean I should be denied civil rights.

no, it just means that since you live in this country you have to either follow that decision until it changes or accept the consequences for not doing so.

Or run like the devil when the police are coming.

while were talking about prejudice....

 

yet again, your personal experiences do not mean that the system is bad. there are bad cops out there, plenty of them im sure. there are also bad priests. there are bad mothers and bad teachers. as youve been arguing this whole time, a few bad apples are not something you should judge an entire group on.

 

putting up a curfew isnt judging the entire group, its going with the lesser of two evils.

Well my judgement of police is not prejudice I doubt many people on this forum have been confronted police brutality up close but let me tell you this. When cops get together in a police line there are they are not there to enforce the law most of the time, protect property or anything noble. They are there to crack heads because you have dissented against popular opinion and that is wrong. Police in this country would be a lot better if they were disarmed as it contributes to a macho image that causes violence. Again I am not a violent person in the least.

i understand this may be more of a matter of principle, but is it really that big of a deal to have to be off the streets by 9pm when your 15?

It is the slippery slope. Since I have had people like the ACLU defend my rights I choose to defend others in much the same manner. By the way I would never let my children out past 6 o'clock on a school night unless they could get a ride home and I could call where they are on a landline.

Thanks for being civil

proportionally more crimes. it may not sound an inportant difference, but it is. black people would have to put in a hell of a concerted effort to actually commit more than 50% of crimes.

sorry lol.

I am now into my evening beer and am prone to error but that is how I learn by people pointing it out

that kind of attetude should only be adopted by those who are mature and responcible, and who are both capable of and willing to concider their actions in great depth and from multiple points of view before doing anything, and even then should only be adopted with caution.

I have not done anything violent in 10 years. I have never had a DUI, speeding or parking ticket. But I have non-violently protested and been maced, beat, spat on, called names, and the like. I have called police officer names but never done anything physcial.

I hardly think having a personal code of ethics is a dangerous or inviable thing. I am more afraid of individuals whose only compulsion against unethical behaviour is the credence of law or god. Those people scare me, are you saying that living life according to your own observations on civility is prone to error? Perhaps some small ones but I would think that if you have studied the rights of man from Rousseau to Chomsky and one reached his own conclusions on the universality of human rights as I have you would be more sober minded when it comes to impeaching such liberties.

replace 'black' with 'people who live in slums' then. Its still the same argument.

 

And Im sure there are biological reasons why 20-25 year old males are more inclined to violence' date=' yet we dont curfew them.[/quote']

 

here, here.

thats just bad science. being black doesnt make someone more likely to commit crime' date=' living in a slum does. if you want to put up a curfew for that group of people put a curfew on the slum, not blacks.

 

teenagers have that higher tendancy because they are teenagers, so the group you put the curfew on is teenagers.

 

 

 

 

 

i would argue that the main purpose of curfew laws is to prevent vandalism, not violence. you have arrests, court, and jail to fight violence. that is appropriate to the level of the crime; you hurt someone, you go to jail. curfew laws are there to fight vandalism. its a lesser crime, they are trying to find a more appropriate way of fighting it. teenagers are more likely to commit vandalism so they put a curfew on teenagers.[/quote']

 

 

I can't find any studies to support what you are saying even if it were true. Mind to link some. The studies I did find showed that black people committed more violent crimes nationwide than whites but it did not say which were urban or rural.

 

By the way my argument that more blacks join a lifestyle that causes violence willingly even if they do have other oppurtunities many black males wherever they live will choose a gangster lifestyle. It is the lifestyle they are choosing to follow not the area. The lifestyle may be predominent in the area but it is not the only example of a possible life a young black man can aspire to even in the ghetto there are rare male role models that are healthy.

1 --- breaking curfew... no one wants little punk scuzzheads on the streets at night. As for those teens who aren't, they should be happy to be safe at home

Calling people names does not get us anywhere. Is it all right to call jews #@$# or blacks %^$#$? All it does is dehumanize people which will only result in an argument that is set in prejudice by the threat of violence against the person.

2 --- drinking... you can't wait till you're of legal age to start killing brain cells? You're innate stupidity isn't good enough?

Calling someone stupid on the Internet, lol. Drinking is a personal choice that effects no one except yourself, esp in a country without universal healthcare.

 

3 --- smoking... similar as above. Wait till your not your parents problem before you begin growing a lovely series of tumors

Again a personal choice and anyone who wants cigs or alchohol that is under 18 will get it so the laws are mostly unenforceable. Which means they are bad laws.

4 --- Resisting arrest... anyone who fights back against cops (who sacrifice so much in their lives to protect the public) is fighting for anarchy, and can't be trusted to move about without a babysitter.

Anyone who blindly accepts police rule should live in a police state.

5 --- destruction of property... if you didn't do anything wrong, why are you trying to get away? Even a criminal will get out without even a slap on the hand, if you're so innocent, you should get of scott free. By running, you admit that you're nothing but a lowly scumbag and the cop in question shouldn't have any probelm with stopping you with excessive force.

If the state decides something is wrong does not make it wrong. If I decide something is wrong than I will follow my belief to the best of my ability. Just because you say something is wrong gives me no reason but to listen to you and consider what you say. Yet when you do so in such a vituperate manner I have no choice but to also lose respect for you as a reasonable person.

Again you are calling people names which is anything but mature, I can imagine you all riled up when you are writing this but realize I am drinking my evening tea calm as a cucumber. Grow a backbone and do not allow people to cause you to slander them. That means they are better than you and get to laugh freely. Lol.

Then drop this sh*t about cops being trash. They put their lives on the line every night for nothing but a check scarcely better than a teacher's. And what do they get for it? Nothing but crap from anyone who's narcicistic enough to think they've been wronged by the law, no matter what they did to deserve being jailed /beaten /taken home.

As a non-violent protestor I've been beaten and dragged down streets till my knees bled for days becuase I had no skin on them. I did nothing violent but was cruelly treated by monsters. Police are not the angels you make them out to be and I can only assume you enjoy the status quo so much that you can justify violence against anyone that disagrees with you, but you do not have the guts yourself to do it so you let your police do it for you. Do you think the LAPD was right in shooting a 2 year old when they tried NO non-violent means of ending the stand off and engaged him knowing that they would be confronting a man holding a child as a human shield? I call such people monsters deservedly.

Want to see some pictures of friends of mine?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm

Want to see more ?

http://www.papv.org/

more

Police are almost 50% more likely to engage in domestic violence according to this study

Want me to show you police pics from other countries so you can see my point more clearly? Ever here of the Gestapo? If you reply with even more hate and anger I will make a fool of you by showing pics and video from supposedly civil nations engaging in murder of civilians. The only way to battle hateful people like you is through education. I hope you learned something.

Rakista, you're just one of those lowlifes who doesn't like anything that gets in the way of your fun, no matter how petty or harmful. Grow up.

I am not going to call you anything but ignorant and that is richly deserved but seeing that you are already on the internet there is probably some hope for you. Try to read articles in magazines that you disagree with for starters so your views are not so hopelessly one-sided and filled with hate. Good luck in the night

no' date=' it isnt. i think there may be some confusion on what i meant in my last post.

 

a teenager has actual, biological causes for being more likely to commit vandalism.

 

being black does not cause a person to want to rape or murder someone more than if they were white. thats just a coincidence based on, as you mentioned, social and economic circumstances. more minorities live in slums than non-minorities (yeah, i know, WHITES). if a black person is raised in a neighborhood that doesnt have those circumstances that probability doesnt apply to him.

 

the only way to make that probability not apply to a teenager is to have him not be a teenager.[/quote']

 

Until black people are in equal economic terms to whites it is meaningless to disassociate them in large studies like this, and I could not agree more that black people are not born this way but are borne into it. I did not bring up the biological difference, you did and I find it meaningless to talk about as I think everyone should be treated as an individual no matter the age race or reason.

 

Clearances and Juveniles

 

When an offender under the age of 18 is cited to appear in juvenile court or before other juvenile authorities, the UCR Program records that incident as cleared by arrest, even though a physical arrest may not have occurred. In addition, as defined by the Program, clearances involving both adult and juvenile offenders are classified as adult clearances.

 

Approximately 11.9 percent of violent crime clearances for 2002 involved only juvenile offenders. Of those crimes cleared by the Nation's cities, collectively, 12.1 percent involved only juveniles. In suburban counties, juvenile clearances accounted for 12.3 percent of the overall violent crime clearances, and in rural counties, juvenile clearances accounted for 9.6 percent of offenses cleared. (See Table 28.)

 

from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nviolent02.html

 

So 12% approx of all violent crimes are by children and children are approx 25.7% of the population that means the other 75% of the population is doing 88% of the crime and since I know for sure that is not done by over 50's than that means that if anyone should be under a curfew it is the 18-50 year olds. So do you support such a curfew to reduce violent crime, because I don't give a damn about vandelism.

I prefer Ciao.

thats because being black doesnt make someone more likely to commit crimes. being a teenager does. during those years your developing physically and mentally in ways that make you think its fun to go out and vandalize things with your friends. or film one another slapping random people on the street.

Completely untrue. While this is almost all due to a culture of violence imposed by socioeconomic stereotypes this will not change in many many generations at the current rate. Black men are 3-7x as likely to commit any number of violent crime from rape to murder and giving them a curfew would actually make us safer than if we gave a curfew to 18 year olds. Neither one is acceptable to me.

when writing a research paper you have to cite any facts that ARENT COMMON KNOWLEDGE. it is definately common knowledge that teenage years usually involve rebellious stages often with minor acts of vandalism.

 

it doesnt have to be "most people under 18." just a higher frequency with people in that age range than in others

What I'm saying is that such "common knowledge" is not well known to me. My exp growing up in gated communities and mental hospitals may be unique overall but I still can't honestly believe that a 15-16-17 yr old is more likely to be destructive than a 18-19 yr old in college which I have exp in. Look I'm not arguing from a statistically valid or invalid viewpoint as I'm unconcerned with studies in regards to human rights issues that seek to demonstrate a difference in someone for dehumanization because you can do things like this;

Abortions by blacks and other lower socioeconomic vectors lowers crime

Aborting blacks causes a reduction in crime so one could argue that all blacks should be aborted if you want a reduction in crime.

Curfew laws reduce the amount of vandalism done by some children so one could argue that all children should be under curfew.

People should not be penalized because of association.

Originally Posted by Rakista

A free society is measured by its lack of laws that prejudge people. All such laws along with racial profiling are reprehensible by measure of law and morality as they overwhelmingly punish the innocent.

SLOW DOWN' date=' STRAWMAN!!!You are dragging a lot of issues into this argument. Remember that the laws are often objective in order to be applied fairly across the board. It is up to the police and the courts to moderate subjectively.

 

Before you drag Martin Luther King Jr out of his grave, just remember who the real culprits are here. Laws in response to criminal action are to punish criminals, not 16-year-olds with enough responsibility to warrant a special permit.[/quote']

 

 

How is this a strawman argument? Any law that says that you are criminal because other people like you commit crimes is wrong on both moral and legal grounds. Argument by analogy is allowed in context or there would be no science, how else would you describe an atom? The fact that this is hardly a strawman argument and your emboldened attempt at "slowing me" to me is as some reactionary attempt to stop the argument because you have seen bringing up the strawman argument stop such discussions before and want to feel superior? If so please learn what you are talking about before you put in bold. I don't like wasting my time with foolishness or overeaction but when you say things like;

 

The laws are voted on by adults, adults who are responsible for the one's affected by the law, in this case, children. Your very admittance to breaking these laws, as well as your fundamental criminal attitude towards the law itself are the very reasons kids shouldn't vote, as well as why we need the damn curfew laws in the first place.

 

Parents are not affected when the children are imprisoned besides emotionally. They are not the ones being abducted by armed forces and imprisoned against there will. If you say that laws "voted on by adults" are good I'm not setting up a strawman when I bring up laws you do not like, what I am doing it proving the indadequecy of your argument. Does it matter if the laws were voted on the Communist Party in 1949 in China or by the Democratic Party in 2005 in the US? Your argument does not dileneate and therefore I may presume that you speak of all "laws voted on by adults" which includes a dizzying array of good and bad. Please remain civil and no more yelling it hurts my eyes.

prejudice requires it to be unreasonable or without consideration of the facts. this is the opposite. the fact is many teenagers wreak havok. all of your examples are different situations because race does not determine things like that. age very often does. people go through rebellious stages in life, mainly during their teenage years. its not unreasonable or prejudiced to think that a group of people with a higher crime rate might be more likely to commit crimes.

Just because you say something does not make it true. Show me a study that says that most people under 18 after 9 o clock wreak "havoc". I am arguing from a moral standpoint you are arguing from a statistical standpoint without any studies, I thought this was the science forums.

Also - if kids have school the next day, they have no business out past 9pm. And - before you go running me down as an old fuddy-duddy, my memory is extremely clear about some of the mischief I got into.

The government should not act as your parent unless you do not have one and even than only with extreme limits and balances. If you don't know where your children are at any point of the day that is your problem not societies' unless they act out criminaly effecting other people such as egging houses, arson and such. A free society is measured by its lack of laws that prejudge people. All such laws along with racial profiling are reprehensible by measure of law and morality as they overwhelmingly punish the innocent.

with good reason. generations of people before you have used their far more developed maturity and experience to decide that before that age you are not capable of making wise, educated decisions.

Age != Maturity and proscription of free movement by individuals in any measure denies just treatment by dehumanizing people. When I was 16 I left home and started working a graveyard shift at a local ISP. I had to get a permit to drive at night or I could of been arrested even though I was doing nothing but providing for me and my sister. Are you saying that I was not mature even though I was paying my own rent, my own groceries and taking care of my sister after being abandonded by our parents? I think your "good reason" is called prejudice.