The two villages where mothers killed EVERY baby born a boy for ten years, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:22 PM by centurion1211

Didn't the chinese do something similar to this - kill the baby girls? Granted, it was for a different reason (they think boys grow up to be better providers), but it still shows the unintended consequences of "social engineering". In the case of china, what has happened is that there is now at least one generation where there are not even close to enough females for all the men that want to get married.

female infanticide

But the number of "missing" women showed a sharp upward trend in the 1980s, linked by almost all scholars to the "one-child policy" introduced by the Chinese government in 1979 to control spiralling population growth. Couples are penalized by wage-cuts and reduced access to social services when children are born "outside the plan."

and

According to Peter Stockland, "Years of population engineering, including virtual extermination of 'surplus' baby girls, has created a nightmarish imbalance in China's male and female populations." (Stockland, "China's baby-slaughter overlooked," The Calgary Sun, June 11, 1997.) In 1999, Jonathan Manthorpe reported a study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, claiming that "the imbalance between the sexes is now so distorted that there are 111 million men in China -- more than three times the population of Canada -- who will not be able to find a wife." As a result, the kidnapping and slave-trading of women has increased.

So, I say NO! to such ideas of social engineering as suggested by the OP.

Aside from the nightmarish results, there's the thorny problem of just who gets to decide who gets "engineered" and what they get to have done to them.

To the OP: Definite slippery slope here. If this is OK, what next? Think it through to its logical conclusion.

[edit on 12/2/2008 by centurion1211]

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:23 PM by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

AND IF smoking pot lowers testosterone

THEN you would expect crime to be lower among that particular portion of the populace.

I am going to make this simple for you. What it is supposed to say, based on this premise is....

'AND IF smoking pot lowers testosterone

THEN you would expect violence to be lower among that particular portion of the populace.'

Please get the definition of crime and that of violence straight.

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:26 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Again Texan, where is it written that Marijuana lowers testosterone levels? Show me a report or a study, anything at all, and I'll show you one that states the opposite. Testosterone has nothing to do with the problems of this village. Nor does marijuana. And I love when people bandy about a slogan, in this case 'deny ignorance' as some sort of defense for their position. From whom did you learn that? CNN or Fox?

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

You have proven that you did not read the thread. Reread it, then ask me for a "report or a study, anything at all". Make special note of my admission that it is contended, as is everything dealing with marijuana.

I "bandy about the slogan" because i would hope that a poster on this fine forum would take a few minutes to enlighten themselves before posting. You did not. Nothing personal. But to "deny ignorance" means that you have informed yourself.

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:28 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted 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.

I apologize. I expected a reasonable person to understand my intent. Especially after stating it multiple times.

I am not aware of there being "proof" as you request. I stated my opinion. I CAN say that nothing can be proven when dealing with pot, as each new study contradicts all previous ones.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:29 PM by Orwells Ghost

Texan, I re-read the post, thanks for the suggestion. Now as it is you who has made an assertion, I ask that you provide evidence of some sort to back-up your claim. Thanks.

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:31 PM by R-evolve

Is this story true. In order to prevent future killing you kill all the innocent children now to prevent any future killing, its the most backwards disgusting story ive ever read and forget different cultures have different rules id lock every single one of them up for murder. The boys may grow up to be warriors but the women are already cold blooded killers. Arrest them all.

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:32 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Texan, I re-read the post, thanks for the suggestion. Now as it is you who has made an assertion, I ask that you provide evidence of some sort to back-up your claim. Thanks.

Since I do not believe you read it, i will just quote myself below. You can find it on page 2 of this thread.

Originally posted 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]

If you will click on the link in the above quoted post, you will find what you ask for. I already provided it.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:32 PM by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I apologize. I expected a reasonable person to understand my intent. Especially after stating it multiple times.

I am not aware of there being "proof" as you request. I stated my opinion. I CAN say that nothing can be proven when dealing with pot, as each new study contradicts all previous ones.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

But can you find one that even remotely backs up your claims? Or is what you said based on NOTHING? You say you smoked for 15 years. How violent did you get when you did it? You stated an opinion that, in my opinion was very ignorant, and stated it as if it were a fact. There is no correlation between crime and violent behavior. There is even less between pot and violence. Please go look into it and come back with your new opinion. You will see that if indeed it does lower testosterone, there is something to this all.

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:34 PM by Rockpuck

reply to post by megabyte

So.. to prevent boys growing into men and killing each other..

The women kill every boy so that no men can kill each other......

Right.

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:35 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

But can you find one that even remotely backs up your claims? Or is what you said based on NOTHING? You say you smoked for 15 years. How violent did you get when you did it? You stated an opinion that, in my opinion was very ignorant, and stated it as if it were a fact. There is no correlation between crime and violent behavior. There is even less between pot and violence. Please go look into it and come back with your new opinion. You will see that if indeed it does lower testosterone, there is something to this all.

I think you just stated my entire point:

That smoking pot has NO EFFECT on violent crimes. Violent criminals are violent regardless. By God, i think you finally get it. I am NOT implying that pot smoking creates lunatics or criminals. I am implying that it has no effect on criminal tendancies.

So, if smoking pot lowers testosterone, why would it not have an effect on violent crime?

The answer to that is either that it doesn't lower testosterone (which is possible, but studies contend it) or that testosterone has no effect on violent crime (which is my entire premise).

[edit on 2-12-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:41 PM by angel of lightangelo

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Ok, I will try this one LAST TIME.

This is about testosterone and VIOLENCE.

Crime has nothing to do with this at all. Your assertion is not only baseless, it is assinine.

REMEMBER TESTORONE AND VIOLENCE, NOT CRIME.

Got it? No try again.

So, if smoking pot lowers testosterone, why would it not have an effect on violent crime

What is this even based on? You just made this up. Go do some research before you continue. I am begging you. Look up violent crime and pot smokers and see how often they intersect. When you get done, you will feel really silly if you continue to make this assertion, I promise.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:46 PM by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

criminal tendancies.

sigh. Really, guy? criminal tendancies = violent tendancies? I have a victim of identity theft and a rape victim I want you to speak with.

Crime and Violence are not the same thing. Get off your crime deal. It does not work. The facts will show you are wrong anyway. Stop it. Get a dictionary. The topic is violence, not crime. The idea floated is less testosterone = less violence, not less petite larceny.

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 06:57 PM by Orwells Ghost

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

The answer to that is either that it doesn't lower testosterone (which is possible, but studies contend it) or that testosterone has no effect on violent crime (which is my entire premise).

[edit on 2-12-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Texan, I don't know if I misunderstood all of your previous posts or what, but I believe you and I are are in complete agreement on this one. I haven't had my supper yet, so If indeed misunderstood, then I offer my sincere apologies. Possession of testosterone, unlike marijuana, is not a crime.

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 07:23 PM by Finn1916

Great idea, let's turn every man into a wuss. sory, stay away from my testosterone level. i like watching sports and hunting things. also op, how do you kno testosterone is playing huge part in this? maybe it's just their culture and how they have been for thousands of yeas? i hope these women realise that by killing all male children they are destroying their tribe. women can't get knocked up without men.

[edit on 12/2/2008 by Finn1916]

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 07:53 PM by resistor

Originally posted by Long Lance
they will either adopt their own countermeasures against violent interlopers or they'll end up conquered and/or killed sooner or later.

violence has its place and everything can be abused. you'll probably find out soon enough if even a thousanth of the conspiracy theories on this board are even half true. violence does not start with piercing flesh, it starts when peoples' lives are being disregarded and (ab)used for whatever reason.

it's called structural violence and from what i've seen women are just as good as men at that.

Brilliant!

Originally posted by Finn1916
women can't get knocked up without me.

Well, not you in particular.

Originally posted by megabyte

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

The only answer is to raise children to respect all others, and use violence for defensive purposes only. Even this will not eliminate violence, it's just part of the human condition I'm afraid. I agree with you that it's important to minimize it, but the answer is sociological, not physiological.

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 08:43 PM by megabyte

reply to post by centurion1211

crazy isnt it?

when they instituted the one child policy in China they did not take into ccount that the people had an ancient belief that a woman was not fully a woman unless she had a son

and so women strived to have sons

and now - these sons will have to find wives outside China and if they can - have these wives immigrate to China

so China would have been better off having a zero population growth policy in the first place

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 08:49 PM by megabyte

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

pot smoking, if it did lower testosterone, would only have an impact on violence if it was not associated with a vilent business

to tell you the truth - eliminate ALL substances that people can become addicted to and that would solve this issue too

but as we well know - the governments are secretly bankrolling the business of illicit drugs to help fill the governments coffers and fund wars

the rich bankers are probably secretly bankrolling drug business too because the profits are so irresistable huge

so of course to redice violence, all ilicit drugs would have to be rendered ineffective and wouldn't that be a huge challenge?

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 08:52 PM by megabyte

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by megabyte

So.. to prevent boys growing into men and killing each other..

The women kill every boy so that no men can kill each other......

Right.

i did not suggest that it is a good idea but rather expressed an opinion that perhaps in pre historic times in a matriarchal society that women solved problems in this way and so lowered the excess and destructive level of testosterone in the community to a level that was managable for that society

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 08:56 PM by megabyte

reply to post by Finn1916

i am sure women can sneak off to get a husband from a tribe that is not part of this war and so still get knocked up

getting knocked up is NOT the hard part - so a man's job is not really respected in the getting knocked up business - even a turkey baster can knock up a woman if it is filled with donated sperm

reminds me of a joke i read

Men are like a fine wine. They begin as grapes,
and it's up to women to stomp the # out of them until they turn
into something acceptable to have dinner with.

reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 09:25 PM by resistor

Originally posted by megabyte
pot smoking, if it did lower testosterone, would only have an impact on violence if it was not associated with a vilent business

to tell you the truth - eliminate ALL substances that people can become addicted to and that would solve this issue too

You mean like food, sex, thrillseeking, etc?

crazy indeed.