Miss California?

[Rubystars]

I don't have time to keep up with this thread and the other one. All I can say is I don't know how you guys got the impression when I said Europe that I meant the USA. I'm going back to the other thread now.

[Flyndaran]

No, but you did post about national purity. There's no such thing as a "true American." We aren't all white, nor did we all come from the same place.

I also feel the need to mention that there were at least three separate immigrations into the americas thousands of years ago.
There is even evidence of a completely different technologically inferior aboriginal type of people before even that.
They got their asses handed to them by the guys with bows and arrows. The somewhat survived into the present day by interbreeding with the people of the southern tip of south america.

I'm oart native american: cherokee and blackfoot, mexican, irish, scottish, english, and india sub-continental indian. Who knows I might even have a little black in me.
Where on earth do I belong except in the U.S.?

[Rubystars]

Thanks for reposting the graph. It does look like crime went up after all the stuff in the 60s, but if it's going back down now, then that's good. I hope it continues to go down. I still don't really believe the reality on the ground is as safe as it was back then.

I had a couple of incidents happen to me on my college campus which were pretty scary, and I was actually at work once when the in-store bank got robbed and I had to hide behind my till. I was trapped in the cigarette bullpen so I couldn't just run away without the bad guys seeing me.

Sometimes I wish I could have lived in an earlier time, because even if I wouldn't have had as many rights maybe I still would have been safer. Of course it's not right to idealize the past either, but I still think there were things about it that were superior.

[BroomJockey]

It's true that it's anecdotal (one of the weakest forms of evidence) but I have no real reason to think these people are lying.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Here is the link again. It shows about a 4.8-4.9 rate in the 1950s, down to maybe 4.5 around 1960, and it's under 5.5 by 2005, which is as far as the graph goes.

As for the anecdotes, they weren't lying. But you forget, media proliferation was laughable. There were 3 TV stations, the local news paper, and the radio. National coverage was what individual networks picked up. That means if something happened on the end of the country opposite you, you'd never hear about it except in extreme cases. Now, however, everyone in Washington state hears about it when a child goes missing in Florida because there's stations that are devoted to news, 24/7, sensationalism brings in viewers, and with 500 channels to compete with, they need to push the panic buttons. Gang violence? Murder? Drugs? Child abuse/molestation/kidnapping? Oh yeah, you better believe that will pull in the viewers. And even if you don't watch TV, if you go on the internet, you'll see it there, too. You're virtually guaranteed to have someone in a forum post about the high-profile cases, even if you never visit a news site.

In the 50s, if it didn't happen within a day's driving distance, people just shook their heads, and thanked heavens it didn't affect them, if they even managed to hear about it. Now, the media plays up each incident, and since it's in the news more often, parents are more paranoid about letting their children out of their site, despite the numerous studies showing the large number of cases that involve people already known to the victim. This is the reason anecdotal evidence is considered so weak. People's reactions can be grossly out of proportion to the actual threat, in one direction to the other.

[Rubystars]

How about the first time I posted that link? And every time someone's said "You're avoiding the question." And did you look at the chart? It's less than a .5/100,000 increase compared to then. And it's still trending downwards.

Could you give me a post number for when you posted your link or just post it again please? I'm trying to tie up the loose ends here and I'm basically one against everyone else here so I might've been a little prone to missing some posts. It's not deliberate, it's just that I might've skimmed over too much trying to catch up. Sorry.

As for before the 50s, well, lesse, I mean, the early 40s, I could see your point. I mean, of course it was safe walking the streets. EVERYONE WAS FIGHTING A WAR IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. And then everyone was just so damned glad to be home after that, I could see it being safe then, too. 30s? Nothing going on there, I mean, just you know, the Great Depression. Perfectly wonderful time to be alive. Roses and puppies for everyone.

Your part about the depression here actually made me laugh a little. Thanks for that.

My dad told me when he was a kid in the 50s they went out and played and their parents never worried about them getting abducted, and they would leave their bikes outside of a store without any kind of chain and come back and they would still be there, etc. He told me lots of things like this. Other people who grew up in the same time period also told me many similar stories about that time in America.

It's true that it's anecdotal (one of the weakest forms of evidence) but I have no real reason to think these people are lying.

[Boozy]

Actually, I really don't mind the debate about gay marriage continuing. I was just concerned because the discussion was veering into crime rates and racial issues. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

[BroomJockey]

I've tried to respond to every point that people have made but I might have missed some. I've noticed that even when I try to be thorough and answer everything it seems like people are accusing me of not answering questions.

We accuse you of that because you answer the question you want to, not the question that was actually asked. As for the other, that was covered.

just going back a few pages, the posts that had either questions directly addressed to you or asking you to support your answers that you ignored were numbers 338, 345, 350, 356, 359, 360, 369, and 372.

BUT, Boozy has asked us to confine it strictly to Miss California, and her comments, and whether it's discrimination that she didn't win after making her statement. So, everyone, focus on that, which, actually, means our own views of gay marriage are now irrelevant to the debate! Reboot!

[Rubystars]

Alright, let's do it!

As we can see by the evidence laid before us:
1) There is no proof of any negative effect of 'condoning' homosexuality on the nation
2) When it comes to violent crime, the rates are actually DOWN.
Therefore
3) There is no proof that anything negative will happen should gay marriage become legal nation-wide.

I don't agree with the government's condoning homosexuality because I believe it to be immoral. I feel like if gay marriage is made legal, then it gives a sort of official legitimacy or declaration of normalcy to that lifestyle which I don't think it deserves to have.

Furthermore, there is undeniable inequality given that Heterosexuals have the right to marry anyone they may be in love with while Homosexuals cannot.

I think that the two types of relationships (heterosexual and homosexual) will always be unequal in fact, because one is normal and the other abnormal.

Therefore, I find that Miss California's opinion, while she is entitled to have it, should not in any way effect the creation or lack thereof of legislation.

We can now expect counter-point from Rubystars

I hope this post is adequate.

[Rubystars]

I've tried to respond to every point that people have made but I might have missed some. I've noticed that even when I try to be thorough and answer everything it seems like people are accusing me of not answering questions. So what exactly are the questions I missed? I promise to do my best to answer them.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Alright, let's do it!

As we can see by the evidence laid before us:
1) There is no proof of any negative effect of 'condoning' homosexuality on the nation
2) When it comes to violent crime, the rates are actually DOWN.
Therefore
3) There is no proof that anything negative will happen should gay marriage become legal nation-wide.

Furthermore, there is undeniable inequality given that Heterosexuals have the right to marry anyone they may be in love with while Homosexuals cannot.

Therefore, I find that Miss California's opinion, while she is entitled to have it, should not in any way effect the creation or lack thereof of legislation.

We can now expect counter-point from Rubystars

[Boozy]

This thread is drifting a bit too much for my liking. It's already 40 pages long. Let's start new threads if we want to discuss crime rates and "national purity". The original topic here is Miss California's views on gay marriage.

[protege]

I don't know if it means crime has gone down, but a lot of people I know feel safer now than a decade ago... that's go to count for something.

Well, within the past decade or so, crime in Pittsburgh has gone down a bit. During the early 1990s, we had the gang wars to deal with. Seemed like every night you'd hear news reports of someone getting shot in a drive-by I can remember driving through some areas at night...and having all the lights set to green. Hell, you could do 55+ through there, and nobody would say a thing.

That went on a few years, and then suddenly stopped. Did the crime magically go away? Nope, by then, many of the gang members were either dead or in jail. Also, the city knocked down several of the abandoned buildings being used as crack houses. As if that wasn't enough, some areas have been redeveloped, and most of the "scum" has been pushed out.

Gang activity still goes on, and violent crime is on the rise again, but is nowhere near what it once was. Still, you won't see me walking through the projects any time soon. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid

[smileyeagle1021]

Just because one behavior you are involved in is deviant doesn't mean all the other behaviors you engage in are deviant. Surely you're not a one dimensional person .

No, I'm not a one dimensional person. That said, a large part of what defines me is the values of my family. Growing up I was taught that the two most important things in your life are to first get a good education and get a good career so you can second find your 'soulmate' and start your new family with them. So when you've called my second life goal to be based on deviant desire, your saying that a very large part of me is deviant.
Even ignoring that, I would like to believe myself to be a whole, one which is greater than the sum of the parts. Take one part away and the rest is useless. Homosexuality may not define my whole character, but it can't be separated from it. There is no such thing as Smiley the community service worker, and Smiley the homosexual, and Smiley the night auditor, and Smiley the friend, there is just Smiley the person. By saying one part of me is deviant, and my argument that one part of me can't be separated from the rest, then the whole is deviant... but you've also said another part is a good person, which would make the whole a good person. Looking at it that way, do you see how it seems to be a contradiction to me when you say "you're a good person even if I think you do bad things" (I know that's not your exact words, but close enough)

I'm not sure why Canada wasn't affected as badly as the US in the recession.

I can't see how gay marriage has anything to do with the recession.

It doesn't, I only brought it up as a counter argument to those who claim that allowing gay marriage will bring God's wrath etc. etc. on that nation, and if that were the case, why is it that with the current economic crisis those nations that do condone homosexuality aren't being harder hit because one would assume that if God truly did disapprove of nations condoning homosexuality surely He could use this economic crisis as a way of punishing those nations. But so far it appears that isn't what He is doing.

ETA-
Re: crime rates- I know it's completely anicdotal, but my mother was terrified of walking alone at night in Reno during the 90's and she lived and worked in a safer neighborhood. Now she has no problem walking alone at night and even feels safe walking alone where I live and I live in a 'bad' neighborhood. I don't know if it means crime has gone down, but a lot of people I know feel safer now than a decade ago... that's go to count for something.

[BroomJockey]

Give me the post numbers of the ones I supposedly "ignored" and I'll respond to them.

How about the first time I posted that link? And every time someone's said "You're avoiding the question." And did you look at the chart? It's less than a .5/100,000 increase compared to then. And it's still trending downwards.

As for before the 50s, well, lesse, I mean, the early 40s, I could see your point. I mean, of course it was safe walking the streets. EVERYONE WAS FIGHTING A WAR IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. And then everyone was just so damned glad to be home after that, I could see it being safe then, too. 30s? Nothing going on there, I mean, just you know, the Great Depression. Perfectly wonderful time to be alive. Roses and puppies for everyone.

[AdminAssistant]

Look, I'm as much a fan of Europe, especially France, as anybody. But the fact is that for many centuries, especially Britain and France, were imperial fuckheads that were cutting up the world map and parsing things out as they liked. Now members of their former Empires are "coming home", so to speak.

Europe has long been a place of multi-culturalism. Especially Paris. In fact, it was due to that multi-culturalism that many of the great art forms of the late 19th and early 20th century developed. Groups of artists huddled together in Parisian cafes (Swiss during the wars) drinking pastiche and sharing ideas.