The two villages where mothers killed EVERY baby born a boy for ten years, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 03:28 AM by Merriman Weir
Originally posted by megabyte
check the statistics of the ratio of male prison inmates to female prison inmates
if we want a better society then we do need to address this in some way

here is stats from australia but I am sure every other country is similar

www.aic.gov.au...

if its not testosterone then waht else would you suggest might fix this imbalance and so give us a more peaceful society?


Yes, males - probably the world over - do commit more crime and certainly the male prison population is much higher.

However, this is a more complicated picture than it might suggest because custodial sentencing with women tends to be open to a lot more external influences than with men. For example, take a married couple and the husband commits some crime, then there's not really an issue regarding giving him a custodial sentence. Now, if the wife commits a crime then her status as a mother comes into play in a way that a father's rarely does. Her motherhood status and relationship to her children is privileged and a custodial sentence becomes less likely. Also, pregnancy is sometimes taken into consideration too when sentencing.

Often the 'daughter' status is used in a similar way as 'motherhood' status in that women tend to be primary care-givers when it comes to elderly relatives.

Another factor is that, for various reasons, there are less women's prisons in Britain (and I'd presume the rest of the world) than there are men's prisons. This is also a factor in custodial sentencing. Not just in a crude prison population control sense but also in that, potentially, a custodial conviction might necessitate allocation far from the family home, making visitation difficult for children &c. Again, this isn't something that's taken into consideration as much with male sentencing.


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 04:18 AM by megabyte
reply to post by Merriman Weir



i have not heard of that where I live

in any case - even at school - boys get into fights and girls tend to negotiate their disputes

road rage - I dont know statistics but I believe it is more likely to be comitted by males

I dont know what the answer is

perhaps in pre historic times we too used infanticide of a gender to stop long running feuds

as for today? i dont know how to get males to behave more civilised. and of course some of the females also



reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 12:53 PM by bigfatfurrytexan
Originally posted by Resinveins
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Really? Pot smokers as hard core criminals... boosting crime rates nation wide I suppose? Well maybe if you count the wanton slaughter of chocolate chip cookies.

Quite frankly, the law a pot smoker is likely to break is the law against possessing or consuming pot. And in all likelihood, the truth you know about people who smoke pot, would fit into a thimble easily. Now you should go back to watching your worn copy of Reefer Madness before you strain yourself trying to come up with an original thought.


you have it backwards. It isn't "pot smokers are hard core criminals". It is "hard core criminals are usually pot smokers."

Smoking pot did nothing to curb their violent tendencies.

Look at it from the perspective of, "Lowered testosterone via pot smoking has not shown to reduce crime."

That is the direction my statement was from, and it was wholly on topic.

Resinveins, you should really stop with the ad hominem. It isn't helping your cause. Like I said earlier, i am all for legalization. But that has nothing to do with the context of my statements here. Yes, there are "stoners", and stoners usually do little to perpetuate violence. Then there are criminals, violent criminals. They DO perpetuate violence. And a majority of violent criminals smoke pot, drink, and do other drugs. I live in a place known as "The Crossroads of the Drug Trade" (the intersection of I-20 and US87 in West Texas). Everyone in this town smokes pot. Including the criminals.

The context here is that testosterone has nothing to do with criminal behavior, and my evidence is that criminals who smoke pot (and thus have lower levels of testosterone) still perform criminal acts.

If you wish to continue insulting, do not expect any further discourse from me. I don't participate in such low brow activity.


[edit on 2-12-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 01:14 PM by Resinveins
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Actually I think you would find that hardcore criminals have rather hardcore drugs of choice. Saying that they might also smoke weed is just misleading as most would do whatever drug they could get their hands on.

You're the one who injected pot smoking into the thread... on a very faulty premise. Can you show me studies that show marijuana reduces testosterone? Because I can certainly refer you to some which refute that assertion. Maybe you should have used alcohol as an example? Alcohol has been actually shown to reduce testosterone levels. Not to mention, that most criminals you will find (whether hardcore or not) consume alcohol.

Regardless, unless you can show a direct connection between any drug and increased aggression and criminal behavior, any such argument is specious and irrelevant.


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 04:51 PM by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Resinveins


I am not going to argue.

My point is not whether or not pot smokers are criminals. My point is that criminals smoke pot. Since the premise that someone put forth was dealing with testosterone, i tried to add in the one simple comparison to something that lowers testosterone in the population (see: www.marijuanaaddiction.info... Yes, it is contended, as are almost all marijuana related data...but it is what it is, and i present it for the reader to decide on their own).

Yes, criminals use other drugs. But those other drugs are not reputed to lower testosterone so are irrelevant to this conversation.

Stay focused, folks. You are shooting all over the board here. It isn't about pot heads being criminals. It is about the effects of lower testosterone levels on crime/aggression.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]



reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:00 PM by Orwells Ghost
First off; Texan, you know nothing about pot or people. The only reason pot smokers are criminals is because smoking pot is illegal. Make pot legal, and people who smoke pot are just people. End of story. Oh, and BTW, for every study that says reefer lowers testosterone levels, there is another that says it doesn't, so your whole claim to marijuana being relevant to this discussion is questionable at best. All kinds of bigotry in this thread.

On to the topic at hand. Disturbing to say the least. Aside from the obviously fallacious logic employed by the women of this village, and the horror they perpetrate, I find the attitude of certain members towards this situation to be even more disturbing. Testosterone is not evil. It's a naturally occurring hormone that is necessary to human life. How one can believe that altering it's nature or eliminating it all together would be beneficial displays same the same level of logical thought that the women of this village show. Talk of chemical castration as a more humane alternative? You gotta be kidding right? If you want to see a violent man, tell him you're going to castrate him. But I suppose that would be his fault, eh?

As for this dastardly little village, I expect that they will be wiped out in a hail of their neighbours' arrows. Ironic really, in that these women were driven to infanticide by their desire to end war (god, that's messed up), and in the end it is warfare that will eliminate these deviants from the gene pool. Who says war never solves anything?


[edit on 2-12-2008 by Orwells Ghost]


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:21 PM by angel of lightangelo
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


I smoked pot for 15 years, and live in west Texas. I know plenty.

I AM SAYING THIS ONE MORE TIME: it is not about whether or not pot smokers are criminals. it is about whether or not smoking pot lowers testosterone, and whether or not lower testosterone has anything to do with lower crime.



No............you have moved the goal posts. You kept saying that pot smokers with their lower testosterone were still criminals and therefor no less violent than non-pot smokers. You seem to fail to realize that you kept stating that since criminals often smoke pot and still commit crime, the lower testosterone did nothing to curb their violent tendancies. What you failed to do repeatedly is show any direct link between pot smokers and VIOLENT crime.

That was the point of this in the first place. Lower testosterone = less violence. The next assertion was that pot = less testosterone, leaving one to conclude that pot smoking = less violence. You go on to spout about pot smokers and crime. No one was talking about tax evasion and drug dealing.

The topic was violence. Can you prove that pot smoking criminals commit as many violent crimes as non- pot smoking criminals? See the difference yet? Do not get all huffy because you missed the point. Lower testosterone = less violence. That is the assertion. So now it is up to you to prove that pot smoking criminals are as violent as non pot smoking criminals to prove the point you keep repeating. Equating all crime with violence is about as ignorant as you can get.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^