Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's obvious you're trying to attribute the tendency towards violent behavior to something independent of social class - like, ohhh, say, race.
You're not fooling anybody.
I didn't think we were discussing race in this thread. I believe the point is that apologists for criminal thugs are always naming poverty as the causative factor in crime. Clearly, it is not.
I didn't think we were discussing race in this thread. I believe the point is that apologists for criminal thugs are always naming poverty as the causative factor in crime. Clearly, it is not.
I understand your point.
But then that begs the question: What, then, is the more plausible causative factor in criminality? And how does the article selected make this case?
What on earth makes you think that just because someone has a piece of paper that they can't be a thug? Regardless of race. Plenty of cap and gown wearing lowlifes out there a degree doesn't make you a human being.
It's obvious you're trying to attribute the tendency towards violent behavior to something independent of social class - like, ohhh, say, race.
You're not fooling anybody.
I can understand how you might get that impression from the title of the article. However, I find it difficult to understand how you could have read the article and come away with that impression. Did you read the article or did you just not understand it?
I think what you are saying is that blacks tend to be more aggressive, impulsive and violent than whites at any socio-economic level. I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm just wondering how you came away from the article with that impression. Did you think that was the author's point? Or perhaps you think that this is what the author said without realizing it.
This just goes to show you how wrong you can be when you make assumptions. The two gentlemen who beat this student to death were not thugs at all. They were, in fact, college students themselves from middle class backgrounds. So those of you who thought that this beating must have been perpetrated by lower class thugs were wrong.
"First and foremost, NO outlet, until the Plain Dealer’s article about Kernich’s death today, reported that Barker and Nunn were themselves college students."
So because these murderers were college students and not lower class folks, people are supposed to feel better about this situation?
This just proves that the thug lifestyle transcends class lines and that even college students aren't immune to acting foolishly.
To use Ron.'s vernacular, when are YOU people going to grow up? Christ almighty, the aging hippy gets bent about her alma mater being mentioned because it's the place where the crime was committed, next thing I know, she'll be harping about a time in 1970 there was a happening on her beloved campus. BIO.
The title is a bit misleading cause they ARE thugs... thugs doesn't mean they are poverty-stricken... some thugs are even pretty wealthy (Al Gore for instance!)...
I don't know what point the article makes, but it seems obvious that moral degeneracy is at the root of criminality.
It's not that simple...
If it were, then why is there a clear link between income and crime?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
