My Wizard Of Vegas rant!

Hi, I am so glad I found a place that dislikes Wizard Of Vegas like I do. So, here is my Wizard Of Vegas rant.

I was banned from there though I hadn't really done anything wrong. I was polite and respectful, and didn't start any shit with anyone. I had 348 posts there despite being there for only a few months, for shit's sake, I had more post than people who had been there for years and just one thread had me banned. They just threw me out like I was yesterday's fucking trash. I mentioned that I played 2-5 cent bets(sometimes a little more like .10-.20 cent bets) at Hialeah not wanting to lose too much money and my Mom had kicked my ass for gambling money she loaned me for haircut money(That day, the machines were really tight, even at 5 cent bets). I went gaga for Hialeah's $5 promotions where you played $5 and got $5 back. I had Wizard Of Nothing harass me from my very first post where I ecstatically mentioned I got a big win on a .12 bet. He kept harassing me which I didn't like at all. He continued to ask how old I was and he continued to imply that I was underaged and was really a teenager like 18)(I am an adult, won't be long before I am 40), I just didn't feel like telling him that because I was ashamed to still be asking my Mom for haircut and phone bill money at that old of an age). He also kept calling me a Troll, which annoyed the shit out of me. He also kept badgering me to come meet him in person even though I made it clear that I don't do meet and greets with people I only know online. What an asshole. I already said I don't go around doing meet ups with people I only know online, so he should have dropped it.

Here is the thread that got me banned. I mentioned one fateful day that lost more in the Casino than I wanted too(I lost half my paycheck on incredibly tight machines and I was low rolling),it was later mentioned that someone else had spent more than he wanted to in a casino and ended up going on tilt to get his money back and lost everything he had left and he wasn't banned). People were like, "At first I was laughing when Kentry claimed his Mom kicked his ass, but I'm not laughing anymore. I feel pity for him." Like the very next day, I got a cold hearted message from Mission saying something like, "I have decided to ban Kentry. He is the weakest link, goodbye." So, I got banned for losing more than I wanted to in a casino(half my paycheck)? What the fuck?" That Mission is a piece of a dog shit for banning someone just because they happened to lose half their paycheck in tight slots.)

Someone even mentioned that I should get a second chance and that fucking asshole Mission replied something like, "We are doing fine without Kentry." 348 posts in just a few months and he just callously says that. Fucking sanctimonious piece of unadulterated shit. God that made me so mad! Well Mission got his just desserts when he was called out for how much of a sanctimonious garbage heap he really is earlier this year, allowing someone who had already been banned as a known scammer to stink up the website, and he ended up resigning as a Moderator. Seriously, a known scammer who had already been banned was allowed to scam more people and I got banned for losing half my paycheck? Ain't this some straight up bullshit!

What's your favorite machine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

What's your favorite machine?

---

I like Lotus Flower and CATS as you have the real chance of hitting big on just three lines. On Lotus Flower, I won $30 on just .09 when the top symbols acted as wilds on all of my lines during a bonus. I won $75 on just one line by getting a full line of The Panther on CATS and I was only playing .09 cents. So for only .09 cents, you have a real chance of winning over 300 times your bet and over 800 times your bet on CATS. These are very good machines to win big on less than a dime.

You're not an AP, right?

DRATS

Kentry,

First of all, I banned you because my first instinct is that you were a troll. Your posts read like a caricature of a gambling addict, like someone trying to sound like one of the poorest, most degenerate, gambling addicts in the country. You just said it; talking about borrowing money from your mom for a haircut, or a phone bill and then her, "Kicking your ass," when you lost it at the casino.

My second thought was that if you weren't a troll, then you were a person who needs serious help to stop gambling. It's clear that you would be of very limited means, borrowing haircut money from your mom and everything. Not to mention losing half of your paycheck, which I assume is not very large to begin with.

Anyway, I did say, "You are the weakest link." I apologize for that. Because my second thought, that you actually ARE a poverty-level gambling addict could have been true, I should have showed you more compassion. It was callous, mean and downright unnecessary for me to use my, "Weakest link," line on you and you have my apology for that whether or not you care to accept it.

Further, I did say, "We are doing fine without Kentry," and I said that because we were doing fine without you. I personally think that hanging out on a gambling forum is not a great thing for a gambling addict to be doing. I don't like to see people addicted to negative expectation games at all, but when they are at least people of strong financial means, it bothers me a little less.

It was a pretty open secret that StrictlyAP = WizardofNothing. I am far from the only person, or Administrator, who was aware of that. Ultimately, even if I had wanted to ban him, that wasn't my call to make. You can blame me if you want to, though, everybody else likes to.

Hey Kentry, some seem to think that you and Tasha, aka Nathan, are both socks created by the same disgruntled asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Hey Kentry, some seem to think that you and Tasha, aka Nathan, are both socks created by the same disgruntled asshole.

---

I am not Kentry.

That declaration of innocence proves nothing.

Suspicious minds still suspect that a bit of skullduggery is afoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

That declaration of innocence proves nothing.

Suspicious minds still suspect that a bit of skullduggery is afoot.

---

I am starting to think.....maybe for every gambling board there is a certain percent of people that are naive,airheaded suckers. Its just the way they are. They cant help it, they cant change....but the rest of us want them to be like us.

Look at the patrick board and James Fritz. I would put james up against nathan or Kentry any day. And no one questioned his(JAMES FRITZ) validity. James is as naive as the names you mentioned. He thinks he knows whats going on in the games he gambles and he is always ready to give advice or comment. He lives in a world where it would be best if he shut up and listened instead of doing the talking. And thats on a board with like 10 people on a good day IN THE OLD DAYS. So Wov has many more members than patrick so you would expect more "james fritzs". And there you have it....they(wov) seem to have /had kentry , tasha and nathan....and maybe they are as real as james F.

If you believe there is a real James Fritz....then you have to allow for the possibility that Nathan kentry and tasha are real.

So if wov has a rule that naive child like adults are not welcome....and they cant figure out how to individually block or skip over these folks.....then ban them.....I guess they deserve it...right?
I HAve been talking for years about missions "you are the weakest ling" mantra". It shows lack of class.

its funny how they (including mission) tolerated WON./strictly AP.........with a duplicate screen name and rumors of misdeeds.....but kentry was the weakest link. Thats where the values of that site are.
A naive gullible adult(or someone pretending to be one) is banned, and a multi screenamed thief is allowed to post and recruit

the father of the year and husband of the year both sure know how to treat people along with the beached whale.

while face stands on the sidelines......wearing a shirt that says "dont look at me"

Tasha, IF in fact your are legit, why in the hell do you post at WoV?

The members there are for the most part math-minded table game players.

You are not.

You play the worst game out there: lotto.

Some at WoV play slots, but a lot more focus on VP AP.

You by report play penny slots and lottery games; I cannot think of any two games more antithetical to the typical WoV member.

Candidly you do not belong there; your inane posts are a distraction.

There are other gambling forums out there and no doubt some talk about the same games you like: I urge you to seek them out and to stay away from WoV: it can only end badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

I HAve been talking for years about missions "you are the weakest ling" mantra". It shows lack of class.

---

I remember acknowledging that, I'm not sure how many times now.

Quote:

---

the father of the year and husband of the year both sure know how to treat people along with the beached whale.

---

Talking about a woman's weight or a person's parenting shows a lack of class.

As if it's not enough that my kids love me, (which it is) I also happen to be the President of the PTO at their school, which gives you some idea of my involvement as a parent.

Paragraphs after paragraphs of supposed moral superiority from you, on just about every subject, and you're a complete sanctimonious hypocrite. If not that, then you're just a troll, which is arguably worse. That's an observation, not an insult. Either way, I'm finished responding to any of your posts for any reason. I'd appreciate if you not quote any of mine, I have nothing to say to you and there's no possible question you could ask me that I'd want to answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Hey Kentry, some seem to think that you and Tasha, aka Nathan, are both socks created by the same disgruntled asshole.

---

Easy to find out. Just see if the IP address is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

I HAve been talking for years about missions "you are the weakest ling" mantra". It shows lack of class.

---

I remember acknowledging that, I'm not sure how many times now.

Quote:

---

the father of the year and husband of the year both sure know how to treat people along with the beached whale.

---

Talking about a woman's weight or a person's parenting shows a lack of class.

As if it's not enough that my kids love me, (which it is) I also happen to be the President of the PTO at their school, which gives you some idea of my involvement as a parent.

Paragraphs after paragraphs of supposed moral superiority from you, on just about every subject, and you're a complete sanctimonious hypocrite. If not that, then you're just a troll, which is arguably worse. That's an observation, not an insult. Either way, I'm finished responding to any of your posts for any reason. I'd appreciate if you not quote any of mine, I have nothing to say to you and there's no possible question you could ask me that I'd want to answer.

---

the wiz who proclaimed that having valentines day on saturday sucks because then he has to do something with both his wife and kids. The guy that writes about a trip where he hung out with a prostitute.Countless disrespecting his wife. And psong with scantilly clad women . Posting a report about the ins and outs of getting a prostitute. All in the open for his kids to read or for his kids friends to read...makes him indeed father of theyear.

That makes you husband of the year by default. I had no idea you had kids. good for you and the involvement in school. Just remember the term "quality time". That will make you feel better also

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Hey Kentry, some seem to think that you and Tasha, aka Nathan, are both socks created by the same disgruntled asshole.

---

Easy to find out. Just see if the IP address is the same.

---

No. Anyone could post from dozens of different IP addresses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Tasha, IF in fact your are legit, why in the hell do you post at WoV?

The members there are for the most part math-minded table game players.

You are not.

You play the worst game out there: lotto.

Some at WoV play slots, but a lot more focus on VP AP.

You by report play penny slots and lottery games; I cannot think of any two games more antithetical to the typical WoV member.

Candidly you do not belong there; your inane posts are a distraction.

There are other gambling forums out there and no doubt some talk about the same games you like: I urge you to seek them out and to stay away from WoV: it can only end badly.

The increased kernels of intelligence wafting out of your recent posts belie all claims of naive, child-like innocence: you are not what you seem.

Shoo!

---

what you say either is proving that she is a troll

or

is really that fucked up in the head as she comes accross


James frits years ago was told by patrick to stops giving advice and commenting on every post about every game. He saif that fritz needed to concentrate on one or 2 games and not spread himself too thin over many games , Yet the dunce kept doing what he does. Never stopped or took patricks advice...to the point that patrick anounced he would stop replying to him
he didnt belong even on the patrick board. He was over hishead. Yet he has stayed for a long long time. I am thinking maybe 20 years. And he still talks like a naive dunce.

Some people are that way...although we cant fathom it.

so they are eaither retards or get off as acting like retards/////..either way.....they are harmless. They are easily ignored. I have read anything from tasha in more than a week. I see the name and skip over it. How simple is that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I remember acknowledging that, I'm not sure how many times now.

Quote:

---

the father of the year and husband of the year both sure know how to treat people along with the beached whale.

---

Talking about a woman's weight or a person's parenting shows a lack of class.

As if it's not enough that my kids love me, (which it is) I also happen to be the President of the PTO at their school, which gives you some idea of my involvement as a parent.

Paragraphs after paragraphs of supposed moral superiority from you, on just about every subject, and you're a complete sanctimonious hypocrite. If not that, then you're just a troll, which is arguably worse. That's an observation, not an insult. Either way, I'm finished responding to any of your posts for any reason. I'd appreciate if you not quote any of mine, I have nothing to say to you and there's no possible question you could ask me that I'd want to answer.

---

the wiz who proclaimed that having valentines day on saturday sucks because then he has to do something with both his wife and kids. The guy that writes about a trip where he hung out with a prostitute.Countless disrespecting his wife. And psong with scantilly clad women . Posting a report about the ins and outs of getting a prostitute. All in the open for his kids to read or for his kids friends to read...makes him indeed father of theyear.

---

Sorry, thought you were referring to me. You used to sarcastically call me, "Husband of the year," for being divorced. I thought that was funny. Obviously, there's no reason you should believe that I was a shit husband, and I wasn't (though not a great one, either) but I never prided myself on being a great husband.

With all due respect, I doubt if Wizard cares what you think of him, but he can come here and address you if he wishes. I've never seen him with his wife or kids, so I have no opinion of his husbandry or parenting.

Quote:

---

I had no idea you had kids. good for you and the involvement in school. Just remember the term "quality time". That will make you feel better also

---

We do plenty of that. Whenever I have the kids, (some 4/7 days a week) we always go at least one place every day (restaurant, park, walk, event) and we always play at least one game together every day for at least thirty minutes. We also do a whole lot of other things every day that non-parents would find really boring, so I'll stop talking about it now.

It's still not classy to cal Babs that, though, and you said you would stop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I remember acknowledging that, I'm not sure how many times now.



Talking about a woman's weight or a person's parenting shows a lack of class.

As if it's not enough that my kids love me, (which it is) I also happen to be the President of the PTO at their school, which gives you some idea of my involvement as a parent.

Paragraphs after paragraphs of supposed moral superiority from you, on just about every subject, and you're a complete sanctimonious hypocrite. If not that, then you're just a troll, which is arguably worse. That's an observation, not an insult. Either way, I'm finished responding to any of your posts for any reason. I'd appreciate if you not quote any of mine, I have nothing to say to you and there's no possible question you could ask me that I'd want to answer.

---

the wiz who proclaimed that having valentines day on saturday sucks because then he has to do something with both his wife and kids. The guy that writes about a trip where he hung out with a prostitute.Countless disrespecting his wife. And psong with scantilly clad women . Posting a report about the ins and outs of getting a prostitute. All in the open for his kids to read or for his kids friends to read...makes him indeed father of theyear.

---

Sorry, thought you were referring to me. You used to sarcastically call me, "Husband of the year," for being divorced. I thought that was funny. Obviously, there's no reason you should believe that I was a shit husband, and I wasn't (though not a great one, either) but I never prided myself on being a great husband.

With all due respect, I doubt if Wizard cares what you think of him, but he can come here and address you if he wishes. I've never seen him with his wife or kids, so I have no opinion of his husbandry or parenting.

Quote:

---

I had no idea you had kids. good for you and the involvement in school. Just remember the term "quality time". That will make you feel better also

---

We do plenty of that. Whenever I have the kids, (some 4/7 days a week) we always go at least one place every day (restaurant, park, walk, event) and we always play at least one game together every day for at least thirty minutes. We also do a whole lot of other things every day that non-parents would find really boring, so I'll stop talking about it now.

It's still not classy to cal Babs that, though, and you said you would stop it.

---

I said I would stop it out of respect for you because I thought you were a stand up guy. But once I saw your complicit behavior with WON......I realized along with a lot of WoV folks that called for your resignation that you are just as morally bankrupt as the manboy and the whale. So you are no longer the stand up guy I thought you were.

And thats ok because you are relatively anonymous so who gives a fuck. Even if I remembered your name from the news article, it would be meaningless to me. So you are just as anonymous as MrV. So you shouldnt care what i think about you anyway. Nor should the whale or the manboy.

We all make our own beds.

our society and the quality of youth has certainly improved since "quality time" became the "in vogue" parenting method..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

our society and the quality of youth has certainly improved since "quality time" became the "in vogue" parenting method..

---

LOL

Hardly.

The end of the nuclear family as the norm in America has caused myriad problems with child raising, for obvious reasons.

Maybe Ma and Pa Kettle weren't so stupid after all, living in a loveless marriage til the kids were grown up, then divorcing.

But christ on a crutch, at least half of Americans are now born out of wedlock: lots of bio-dads are MIA, and many that hang around are dealing with their own demons.

LarryS,

Your first paragraph is irrelevant because you're a sanctimonious hypocrite. You're running your mouth about what is or is not classy and then proceed to do something that is decidedly not classy.

I wouldn't really care if you remembered my name or not, as long as you don't use it since I write under a pseudonym. You can rest assured that I couldn't possibly care less what you think about me, if for no other reason, because I don't believe that you think half of the stuff you say you think. Further, I only care about the stuff you say to me to the extent that it informs my decisions when it comes to whether or not I'm going to respond to your posts.

That's basically where it's at. If you ask a gambling question, I'm inclined to answer you. If you denigrate my parenting (which I thought you were doing) I'm not inclined to answer you.

It has nothing to do with personal opinions. If I'm lucky, I'll never meet you in person, so I have no reason to care what your opinions are. It has to do with LarryS the handle. Do I want to read the words of the handle? Do I want to type words for the handle to read? You're on a pretty thin line when it comes to that as it is.

I'm not going to entertain a discussion of parenting techniques with you in any way whatsoever. I know both of my kids pulled straight-A averages for the school year last year, and that they treat others well and politely, so I hope I'm doing okay so far. Maybe I'm fucking up and just don't know it yet. Who knows? You really don't know for sure until the teenage years or early adulthood.

I may have mistaken the meaning of, "Quality time," though. By 4/7 days, I meant I have them around the clock that many days a week. My ex-wife has them less often than I do due to her work schedule.

it was sarcastic....i use the phrase "quality time" sarcastically....as if kids can be ignore for days at a time and then have it "made up" with a self described "quality time"

That phrase came into being when both mom and dad ended up working as opposed to mom stayiing home. And the quality time later extended to broken families.. And then it extended to one parent families. I think homeless kids on the streets will be fine because someone will give them "quality time" and it will all turn out well.

All that "quality time" and I am so jealous....I never received it. neither of my parents offered me quality time....where they tried extra hard or something like that. Isnt that what "quality time is? I am not sure. But I just had a stay at home mom and a dad that came home at night like all my friends.........If I knew about quality time I would have demanded it at some point.

the term "quality time" does more for the parents .....than it does for the kids. It was devised to shield people from the shame of not being around to properly and fully parent their children. Society used to look at people who werent around to fully parent their children as being derelict...however if you say "I spend quality time"......well then thats a different story....you are a hero. Society accepts that....and for accepting that they pay a price

Between myself and my ex-wife, someone is always with the kids unless they are at school.

I have the good fortune of mostly working from home in terms of writing, so basically how it works is that I have them on the days my ex-wife works and she has them on the days that she does not work. Basically, it's like the at-home mom situation you describe, in effect, just sometimes it's one parent and sometimes it's the other.

That's all I have to say about that. Again, I'm not getting into a discussion with you about parenting techniques.

That's all I have to say about that. Again, I'm not getting into a discussion with you about parenting techniques.

I am not talking to you. I was commenting to MrV how society is fucked up partly because of the concept of "quality time". ...because the kids are fucked up from the neglect and the misplaced notion that neglect can be made up with "quality time".

If you feel guilty and need to clear your guilt.....feel free to explain away.

and while you are at it...tell us a dumb blonde joke....

It seems that the generation with a greater likelihood to come from, "Broken families," is more socially tolerant. On the other hand, we have people like you who came from two-parent homes who like to claim moral superiority to everyone as well as denigrate women based on appearance and as many rude comments about people's sexuality as you can fit into a post.

But, no, tell me more about what type of parenting structure results in the best people.

My guess is the home structure does not correlate in any way to the quality of the person. One good parent is probably better than two shitty ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

It seems that the generation with a greater likelihood to come from, "Broken families," is more socially tolerant. On the other hand, we have people like you who came from two-parent homes who like to claim moral superiority to everyone as well as denigrate women based on appearance and as many rude comments about people's sexuality as you can fit into a post.

But, no, tell me more about what type of parenting structure results in the best people.

My guess is the home structure does not correlate in any way to the quality of the person. One good parent is probably better than two shitty ones.

---

parenting today or lack thereof,has resulted in higher crime rates, higher drop out rates, higher incidence of grafiti, higher teenage pregnancy rates, hard drug usage, high illieracy rates even with those who graduated high school..

so I am pretty comfortable in my assertion that the parenting accepted by society today is inferior to the previous generations. It seems "quality time" as a concept is a sham Its destructive. And it fucks kids in the head,

other than that...modern day parenting is working out just fine

Oh, shit, throwing me softballs!

1.) Violent crime is currently about where it was in the early 70's. It peaked around '92 and then started to drop again. It fluctuates from year to year, and I imagine that it has about leveled out, but it's way off of its high point.

2.) Homicide rates were higher in the early 70's than at least 2016. 2016 was around levels comparable to the 60's.

3.) If you mean overall crime, blame the, "War on Drugs," and marijuana...which has gone on to be legal for recreational use in a few states...was treated as though it were heroin when it comes to enforcement and sentencing.

4.) Look at the drop out rates, they've declined in the last several decades. It's not even close. Graduation rates are also near all-time highs. Just do a Google Search. Do you turn your brain off when you type?

https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...-dropout-rates

5.) I don't know where people keep statistics when it comes to graffiti.

6.) Teen pregnancy is way down:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db89.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm

The first link is historical until 2010. The next link runs from 2007-2015. I don't know what you are saying the teen pregnancy rates are up compared to, but I'm starting to believe you're just fucking with me at this point. Turns out sexual education as well as access to contraception helps a lot with that.

7.) I grant hard drug usage. That's true.

8.) I don't know about illiteracy rates, but the H.S. graduation rate is definitely higher.

---Other than the fact that the result was kids who don't know how to do a five second Google Search, traditional parenting worked out just fine. That and all of the stuff I said in the post before yours.

Larry and V are showing what no class pieces of shit they are by fucking with Tasha. Lowlife imbeciles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Larry and V are showing what no class pieces of shit they are by fucking with Tasha. Lowlife imbeciles.

---

Nothing better to do for a "High Powered Attorney" and a Martian who basically knows everything about every subject. Fucking Mrs. V constantly stirring the pot while smoking pot sitting on the fence about everything jumping from one side of the grass to the other.

I am merely pointing out the obvious: Nathan / Tasha is not a "good fit" at WoV.

She'd likely find a friendlier reception and more like-minded people on some other board.

Square peg, round hole.

Even a blind person can see that children have far less quality time with their parents today than yesterday. Nothing is more important to these kids than their gadgets. Mission likes to quote liberal statistics because it makes him, as a failure in marriage and expert in child abandonment, feel better about himself. Fact is, a two-parent home is the best chance any child will ever have...and that's not referring to these moronic "two mom or two dad" homes.

Overall trends in today's society are meaningless. You look at what's going on in minority statistics to see what direction were really headed in. Black unwed mother rate: 72% and climbing. Why? Their men are saturating the prisons. And while Trump has put many of them back to work, drug use and crime rates are way up amongst this group.

Anyone who glorifies "legal" weed use is sick and delusional. Why is it that the libtards just don't get this fact? What does it take to get thru to them that smoke of ANY kind and in any amount is detrimental to the human lung? And a drug crime is a drug crime, period. You mess with a snake then you live with the bite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Larry and V are showing what no class pieces of shit they are by fucking with Tasha. Lowlife imbeciles.

---

I don't think that is what MrV is doing.

Two things:

1. There remains suspicion at WoV as to whether Nathan is in fact what she presents herself to be;

2. Nathan's love of lotto is the antithesis of all things WoV.

She's a very poor fit there, and endures a lot of flak.

Surely a non-troll would be dissuaded from further participation.

Then again Nathan might have strong masochistic tendencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Oh, shit, throwing me softballs!

1.) Violent crime is currently about where it was in the early 70's. It peaked around '92 and then started to drop again. It fluctuates from year to year, and I imagine that it has about leveled out, but it's way off of its high point.

2.) Homicide rates were higher in the early 70's than at least 2016. 2016 was around levels comparable to the 60's.

3.) If you mean overall crime, blame the, "War on Drugs," and marijuana...which has gone on to be legal for recreational use in a few states...was treated as though it were heroin when it comes to enforcement and sentencing.

4.) Look at the drop out rates, they've declined in the last several decades. It's not even close. Graduation rates are also near all-time highs. Just do a Google Search. Do you turn your brain off when you type?

https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...-dropout-rates

5.) I don't know where people keep statistics when it comes to graffiti.

6.) Teen pregnancy is way down:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db89.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm

The first link is historical until 2010. The next link runs from 2007-2015. I don't know what you are saying the teen pregnancy rates are up compared to, but I'm starting to believe you're just fucking with me at this point. Turns out sexual education as well as access to contraception helps a lot with that.

7.) I grant hard drug usage. That's true.

8.) I don't know about illiteracy rates, but the H.S. graduation rate is definitely higher.

---Other than the fact that the result was kids who don't know how to do a five second Google Search, traditional parenting worked out just fine. That and all of the stuff I said in the post before yours.

---

"quaity time" bcame fashionable in the late 70's at least thats when i first remember hearing it. Maybeit was before. And if you are to tell me there is less teenage pregnancies tofay than in the 70s...you wuld be full of shit.

If you were to tell me the streets are safer today thanin the 70s...you would be full of shit

If you were to tell me that high school students as an aggregate of those who graduate and those who dont are better educated than those same people in the 70s..you would be full of shit

If you were to tell me there is less destruction of public property today than in the 70s...you would be full of shit

In the 60, most moms stayed at home and most dads worked to provide for the family unit.....In the 70s both parents started working hence "quality time" became in fahsion...and today the term du jour is "baby daddy"...where one woman with 3 kids can have 3 different "baby daddys"...and society embraces this as cool. The term "baby daddy" has no stigma to it...women have no problem referring to what was once a father....as a "baby daddy". And society reflects this.

if someone in the 70s opened up a newspaper in the 70s and in a twilight zone adventure looked at a newspaper of 2018 they would have a nervous breakdown. They would thing the end of the world had arrived.
Kids are more likely to get shot in school than in the 70s. More available drugs than in the 70s.

Kids are less likely to be with 2 parents on a daily basis than in the 70s

and society pays for it.

It used to be when a girl got pregnant out of wedlock her family sent her out of town to live with a relative to avoid the shame.

Today she signs up for and receives welfare, subsidized housing, food stamps and free medical care.

No shame; just "entitlement."

My my how things have changed, and not at all for the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Two things:

1. There remains suspicion at WoV as to whether Nathan is in fact what she presents herself to be;

2. Nathan's love of lotto is the antithesis of all things WoV.

She's a very poor fit there, and endures a lot of flak.

Surely a non-troll would be dissuaded from further participation.

Then again Nathan might have strong masochistic tendencies.

---

Up to 135 pages in less than two months means Nathan's Corner is the most popular thread on WoV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

"quaity time" bcame fashionable in the late 70's at least thats when i first remember hearing it. Maybeit was before. And if you are to tell me there is less teenage pregnancies tofay than in the 70s...you wuld be full of shit.

---

I don't know what to tell you. Of the eight things you said, six were objectively wrong, I don't think statistics are kept on one and then, on the final one, I shot an agreement from the hip for you. And, I honestly suspect you're right about the hard drugs, but I didn't look it up.

Quote:

---

If you were to tell me the streets are safer today thanin the 70s...you would be full of shit

If you were to tell me that high school students as an aggregate of those who graduate and those who dont are better educated than those same people in the 70s..you would be full of shit

---

Subject me to no subjectives! I don't tally the objective stats, I just report them.

Quote:

---

If you were to tell me there is less destruction of public property today than in the 70s...you would be full of shit

In the 60, most moms stayed at home and most dads worked to provide for the family unit.....In the 70s both parents started working hence "quality time" became in fahsion...and today the term du jour is "baby daddy"...where one woman with 3 kids can have 3 different "baby daddys"...and society embraces this as cool. The term "baby daddy" has no stigma to it...women have no problem referring to what was once a father....as a "baby daddy". And society reflects this.

---

It seems that murder peaked in the early 70's and violent crime was close to right around then. You really can't put that on the situation of kids' parents in the seventies...unless they were killing people and committing violent crimes in diapers.

I don't think anybody looks at someone as, "Cool," for having three kids with three different fathers. Honestly, I don't think anybody really gives a fuck if she eats or not, if you want to know the truth. Myself, I care that the kids eat. In terms of living situation, it's cheaper to keep them in her custody than it is to make them wards of the state. Of course, she's going to have to eat in order to be able to take care of the kids.

Quote:

---

if someone in the 70s opened up a newspaper in the 70s and in a twilight zone adventure looked at a newspaper of 2018 they would have a nervous breakdown. They would thing the end of the world had arrived.
Kids are more likely to get shot in school than in the 70s. More available drugs than in the 70s.

Kids are less likely to be with 2 parents on a daily basis than in the 70s

and society pays for it.

---

Yeah, except almost every objective statistic says you're wrong. I'm sorry that the actual state of affairs doesn't strictly correspond to your narrative. That's hard for people, sometimes.

I think the only thing you said above that is correct is school shootings. Fucking kids. It seems like that's been the en vogue thing to do since Columbine. Don't know what to tell you. Still doesn't change violent crime and homicide (in general) being way down from peak numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

It used to be when a girl got pregnant out of wedlock her family sent her out of town to live with a relative to avoid the shame.

Today she signs up for and receives welfare, subsidized housing, food stamps and free medical care.

No shame; just "entitlement."

My my how things have changed, and not at all for the better.

---

I'll tell you, I love how the women in this scenario always get shit on for the Government giving them minimal standards of living. Where is the, "Shame," for the guy who impregnated her who then proceeded not to do enough to keep her off of welfare? I thought you traditionalists were all about the man of the family putting bread on the table?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

It used to be when a girl got pregnant out of wedlock her family sent her out of town to live with a relative to avoid the shame.

Today she signs up for and receives welfare, subsidized housing, food stamps and free medical care.

No shame; just "entitlement."

My my how things have changed, and not at all for the better.

---

I'll tell you, I love how the women in this scenario always get shit on for the Government giving them minimal standards of living. Where is the, "Shame," for the guy who impregnated her who then proceeded not to do enough to keep her off of welfare? I thought you traditionalists were all about the man of the family putting bread on the table?

---

Or when a young girl is hastily persuaded into a kitchen table abortion, and can never have the kids she so desperately wants not so much later on in her life, and all throughout the remainder of it. Not to mention all the other indignities she endures strictly at the hands of the V's of the world, at a distance, of course, because she is low-income, etc. Not to mention, ultimately, her dying alone, and way too early, given the often careless care to "those people", in a dimly lit hospital ICU. Just to sum the little abuses here, and the little indifferences there.

Hey, the reason I quit posting on gambling forums. People who haven't really lived a day in their lives. People who want impossible answers, and quickly shy from any real thinking when afforded the opportunity. Shit shooters, and other losers. The high and mighty. Cunts.

You need to add killers of unborn babies to your list.

Abortion = murder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I'll tell you, I love how the women in this scenario always get shit on for the Government giving them minimal standards of living. Where is the, "Shame," for the guy who impregnated her who then proceeded not to do enough to keep her off of welfare? I thought you traditionalists were all about the man of the family putting bread on the table?

---

The guy is equally culpable and he'll be just as fucked as the woman will be when the child support people clean his clock.

My point is that couples used to stay together more than they do today; whether they waited til marriage to fuck or had a shot gun wedding after coitus interuptus failed, the result was the same: a nuclear family.

That is the best way to do it, and we don't do it in America anymore like we once did.

I don't know, maybe it is ideal. I think we all have ideals. If the ideals all came to fruition in practice, they wouldn't be ideals, they would be the actual state of affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

It used to be when a girl got pregnant out of wedlock her family sent her out of town to live with a relative to avoid the shame.

Today she signs up for and receives welfare, subsidized housing, food stamps and free medical care.

No shame; just "entitlement."

My my how things have changed, and not at all for the better.

---

I'll tell you, I love how the women in this scenario always get shit on for the Government giving them minimal standards of living. Where is the, "Shame," for the guy who impregnated her who then proceeded not to do enough to keep her off of welfare? I thought you traditionalists were all about the man of the family putting bread on the table?

---

why??? because women were always the "keeper of the kets" .....they decided if a [penis would enter their vagina. If they said no, as young boys growing up with 2 parents....we were told thats where it ends.

But then the libs started teaching women that they were equal to men......."you have sex drives just like men...you are equal....so satisfy you needs and just use condoms. They were stoped being told that they were the keeper of the keys.....that they were in charge. They were told they were equal to men. Except that men cant get pregnant and women can. So the equality thing was not really working.in that respect.
Unless all these single moms were raped......they had total control over the situation. Just like the girls in the 50's and 60's had the ability to not spread their legs....so do the modern girls. Except society greats a pregnant teen who tells them they are pregnant with "you go girl....congrats".....rather than....."you are an ill raised pathetic fuckdoll that will undoubtedly unleash a poorly raised child to help destroy our community..your selfish decision will drain resources from a community that doesnt need to help raise a child that you are ill equipped to".

And while mission wrings his hands and bemoans that men arent held to task.....well its always been up to the woman. And the woman decided if a penis enters her vagina. But then the woman was told....you dont need to decide...you are just like men...so go fuck like men. There is no difference......you are woman.....hear you roar. Spread those legs at will. And young girls listened to lib libs andacted like men....threw away the keys to the castle.....and got pregnant by the millions. And those children and the children of those children plague our society. Because those kids for the most part are not growing up to be nurses and pharmacists. And thats what society gets for that "you go girl" attitude. They get a neighborhood full of damaged property, drug dealers and users, and uneducated people raised by a single uneducated parent.

Christ on a cracker, dude.

If my choices were you and a random woman and we are of middle class means, or a single uneducated parent on welfare...I think I would roll the dice and just hope the single uneducated parent on welfare occasionally saw good in people and taught me to try to do the same.

I guess basically what I am trying to say is that I am firmly convinced that any, "Nuclear family," would be automatically worse than living with a single mother if you were in anyway involved. I'm glad you weren't my father, because dude, you're fucked up.

I'm not wringing my hands about anything. I'm saying we have a social safety net. These single mothers get access to it. Quit fucking whining about it. Either that, or go find these guys and tell them to nut up. Personally, I don't really care which one.

But, you look at people who are in a certain situation and you see no potential in those people (or their offspring) whatsoever. Like I said, you're fucked up.

Can you please tell me how old you are? I'm just wondering. I think that I am going to make a pact with myself that if I am 50% as miserable as you are when I hit your age, if my view of the world is so...just...goddamn disturbing and disappointing...I'm going to just blow my brains out of the back of my head. I think death would be better than living as you, if there is any truth in what you say.

I don't mean any of this as an insult. If you're being genuine in everything you say, then I genuinely pity you. I hope you find happiness and contentment somewhere before your time is up. Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Christ on a cracker, dude.

If my choices were you and a random woman and we are of middle class means, or a single uneducated parent on welfare...I think I would roll the dice and just hope the single uneducated parent on welfare occasionally saw good in people and taught me to try to do the same.

I guess basically what I am trying to say is that I am firmly convinced that any, "Nuclear family," would be automatically worse than living with a single mother if you were in anyway involved. I'm glad you weren't my father, because dude, you're fucked up.

I'm not wringing my hands about anything. I'm saying we have a social safety net. These single mothers get access to it. Quit fucking whining about it. Either that, or go find these guys and tell them to nut up. Personally, I don't really care which one.

But, you look at people who are in a certain situation and you see no potential in those people (or their offspring) whatsoever. Like I said, you're fucked up.

Can you please tell me how old you are? I'm just wondering. I think that I am going to make a pact with myself that if I am 50% as miserable as you are when I hit your age, if my view of the world is so...just...goddamn disturbing and disappointing...I'm going to just blow my brains out of the back of my head. I think death would be better than living as you, if there is any truth in what you say.

I don't mean any of this as an insult. If you're being genuine in everything you say, then I genuinely pity you. I hope you find happiness and contentment somewhere before your time is up. Good luck.

---

miserable??? no not me. I live in a country club in a town that has no or almost no wild children running around the streets raised by poorly educated poorly raised parents or parent. I made it a point in my life to make and save enough money to make sure my daily life is less effected by society's ills. Iam just at SS age......for early collection so I am living a good life happy with my choices....and happy that my children are educated enough to put themselves in the same position I am in.

All you did above is call me names and critique the messenger...however you did not and could not debate the issue I put forth.

" In the United States today, there are nearly 13.6 million single parents raising over 21 million children. Single fathers are far less common than single mothers, constituting 16% of single-parent families."

thats 21 million children born with one hand tied behind their back as far as being able to excel in the world, Thats a fuck load of damage to our society. Because if you look up the drop out rate of single parented kids.....its pretty high
"Children in one-parent families also have lower grade point averages, lower college aspirations, and poorer attendance records. ... While 19 percent of all children drop out of high school, the dropout rate for children in two-parent families is 13 percent."

Thats a 45 percent higher drop out rate. And that doesnt address the actual reading level at graduation or their IQ

That one out of 5 of the 21 million single parent kids will drop out of school.....thats 4 milion drop outs unleashed on society. And some of those drop outs.will be pregnant and the beat goes on and on

So all people can do is be like me......put yourself in the position to avoid this shitas much as possible. Pay your taxes and take care of these people.....and live a life void of these people and the people who encourage them.

And people who cant afford to be like me . they have to live with it. With the deterioration of society under their noses. You know..like the dregs of society that air their penis out n public and write about it.....or the uncivilized behavior of making yourself sick in public and then vomiting in public in a trash can in front of people who are eating or about to eat.....Those are the people who dont live near me. Now when i go to reno...i cant avoid them.... but I keep my distance.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Christ on a cracker, dude.

If my choices were you and a random woman and we are of middle class means, or a single uneducated parent on welfare...I think I would roll the dice and just hope the single uneducated parent on welfare occasionally saw good in people and taught me to try to do the same.

I guess basically what I am trying to say is that I am firmly convinced that any, "Nuclear family," would be automatically worse than living with a single mother if you were in anyway involved. I'm glad you weren't my father, because dude, you're fucked up.

I'm not wringing my hands about anything. I'm saying we have a social safety net. These single mothers get access to it. Quit fucking whining about it. Either that, or go find these guys and tell them to nut up. Personally, I don't really care which one.

But, you look at people who are in a certain situation and you see no potential in those people (or their offspring) whatsoever. Like I said, you're fucked up.

Can you please tell me how old you are? I'm just wondering. I think that I am going to make a pact with myself that if I am 50% as miserable as you are when I hit your age, if my view of the world is so...just...goddamn disturbing and disappointing...I'm going to just blow my brains out of the back of my head. I think death would be better than living as you, if there is any truth in what you say.

I don't mean any of this as an insult. If you're being genuine in everything you say, then I genuinely pity you. I hope you find happiness and contentment somewhere before your time is up. Good luck.

---

miserable??? no not me. I live in a country club in a town that has no or almost no wild children running around the streets raised by poorly educated poorly raised parents or parent. I made it a point in my life to make and save enough money to make sure my daily life is less effected by society's ills. Iam just at SS age......for early collection so I am living a good life happy with my choices....and happy that my children are educated enough to put themselves in the same position I am in.

All you did above is call me names and critique the messenger...however you did not and could not debate the issue I put forth.

" In the United States today, there are nearly 13.6 million single parents raising over 21 million children. Single fathers are far less common than single mothers, constituting 16% of single-parent families."

thats 21 million children born with one hand tied behind their back as far as being able to excel in the world, Thats a fuck load of damage to our society. Because if you look up the drop out rate of single parented kids.....its pretty high
"Children in one-parent families also have lower grade point averages, lower college aspirations, and poorer attendance records. ... While 19 percent of all children drop out of high school, the dropout rate for children in two-parent families is 13 percent."

Thats a 45 percent higher drop out rate. And that doesnt address the actual reading level at graduation or their IQ

That one out of 5 of the 21 million single parent kids will drop out of school.....thats 4 milion drop outs unleashed on society. And some of those drop outs.will be pregnant and the beat goes on and on

So all people can do is be like me......put yourself in the position to avoid this shitas much as possible. Pay your taxes and take care of these people.....and live a life void of these people and the people who encourage them.

And people who cant afford to be like me . they have to live with it. With the deterioration of society under their noses. You know..like the dregs of society that air their penis out n public and write about it.....or the uncivilized behavior of making yourself sick in public and then vomiting in public in a trash can in front of people who are eating or about to eat.....Those are the people who dont live near me. Now when i go to reno...i cant avoid them.... but I keep my distance.

.

---

This entire post should be accepted by, agreed with, and supported by any and all responsible, accountable adults--and especially, those with children and grandchildren.

When someone as needy as Mission comes along and stumps for free this and free that, all because of social failure and flat out laziness and thinking they can get away with it all since they voted for a degenerate "safety net", all that stupid theory just melts in the face of reality.

Go smoke some weed with the weirdos on WoV and see where that'll get you. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Go smoke some weed with the weirdos on WoV and see where that'll get you. :)

---

Here in stumptown it'll get you high as a kite.

Great dope these days, and the prices IN THE STORES are dropping.

I never dreamed things would be this cool someday.

Some poor schmuck in the deep south can get sentenced to hard time for possessing what I can buy in my local store.

"Go west, young man!"

Fine...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

miserable??? no not me. I live in a country club in a town that has no or almost no wild children running around the streets raised by poorly educated poorly raised parents or parent. I made it a point in my life to make and save enough money to make sure my daily life is less effected by society's ills. Iam just at SS age......for early collection so I am living a good life happy with my choices....and happy that my children are educated enough to put themselves in the same position I am in.

---

Okay, so you live in a country club town and you find yourself distraught that single mothers are sometimes given the rudiments needed for basic survival. Why? That's really all that I want to know. How can you possibly have a problem with all of these things if you admit that they do not have any great effect on you?

More importantly, and I think I already said this, it's really about supporting the children.

Quote:

---

All you did above is call me names and critique the messenger...however you did not and could not debate the issue I put forth.

---

What am I going to debate? That every single mother in history does not fall under, in your words, "You are an ill raised pathetic fuckdoll that will undoubtedly unleash a poorly raised child to help destroy our community."

Yeah, I don't really need to debate that. It's pretty self-evident that what you just said can't be applied to everyone so situated.

By the way, do you want to get pissed at me some more for making a blonde joke after that one? I can see where you would legitimately find blonde jokes grievously offensive.

Quote:

---

thats 21 million children born with one hand tied behind their back as far as being able to excel in the world, Thats a fuck load of damage to our society. Because if you look up the drop out rate of single parented kids.....its pretty high

---

First of all, I don't know how you can make assumptions about every single one of them having a hand tied behind their back.

Secondly, just yesterday you told me that the dropout rate, ("Dropout," is one word, by the way) in general, is at an all-time high. It's at an all-time LOW. How the fuck am I supposed to believe what you say about drop out rates? Go find a source for that and bring it back to me.

Is it higher than it is in two parent households? Yeah, probably. I think I would stipulate that. I'm guessing it's still lower than the OVERALL dropout rate as little as 15+ years ago.

Quote:

---

"Children in one-parent families also have lower grade point averages, lower college aspirations, and poorer attendance records. ... While 19 percent of all children drop out of high school, the dropout rate for children in two-parent families is 13 percent."

---

Yes, and you seem to think that reducing welfare will somehow solve that problem. I'd also like to see your source, because according to the National Center for Education Statistics, a Government agency by way of the U.S. Department of Education, it's nowhere near that:

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16

Maybe if you're including people who, "Drop out," and eventually get a GED we can get closer to your number, but nothing is getting you to 19%.

So, if you want to know why I hesitate to debate you, the answer is, "Because actual facts and statistics are irrelevant to you."

I can't debate things that actually exist against things that come from someone's imagination, because you can beat me with your imagination every time. Your imagination can make the dropout rate among single-parent household children 99.3% if your imagination wants to.

Quote:

---

Thats a 45 percent higher drop out rate. And that doesnt address the actual reading level at graduation or their IQ

---

Nor does any number you've provided me thus far. I don't think you understand how debate works. Make a claim, back it up. The claim is what is known as a, "Thesis," and the stuff you back it up with is known as, "Supporting evidence."

Not wholly necessary when it comes to subjective determinations such as, "A nuclear family is better." Unfortunately for you, if you're going to be throwing around actual numbers, they need backed up.

Quote:

---

So all people can do is be like me......put yourself in the position to avoid this shitas much as possible. Pay your taxes and take care of these people.....and live a life void of these people and the people who encourage them.

---

Well, good. Shut up and be happy that you have it so well. I'm happy with how well I have it, and I don't even think I have it as well as you do.

Quote:

---

And people who cant afford to be like me . they have to live with it. With the deterioration of society under their noses. You know..like the dregs of society that air their penis out n public and write about it.....or the uncivilized behavior of making yourself sick in public and then vomiting in public in a trash can in front of people who are eating or about to eat.....Those are the people who dont live near me. Now when i go to reno...i cant avoid them.... but I keep my distance.

---

You know, comedians come up with new material every couple years or so. I know you're not a comedian, but you might give the new material thing a try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Go smoke some weed with the weirdos on WoV and see where that'll get you. :)

---

Here in stumptown it'll get you high as a kite.

Great dope these days, and the prices IN THE STORES are dropping.

I never dreamed things would be this cool someday.

Some poor schmuck in the deep south can get sentenced to hard time for possessing what I can buy in my local store.

"Go west, young man!"

---

You'd better be ready to incur LarryS' righteous wrath. You're contributing substantially to the degradation of society, in his view, I imagine.

we are heading to thrid world status

The U.S., which had some of the highest graduation rates of any developed country, now ranks 22nd out of 27 developed countries.

LarryS you have a point with the women should of stayed home in the kitchen and that us Men did not protect our women in the long run and throughout the last 100 years or so in this new country.

Mission146 claims to be a Libertarian or slightly on the Left side of Center but it is clear he is far more on the Left than he knows or believes. He has admitted that he is divorced with two children and that he now has a fiancee and that he would most likely not give up alcohol because he loves it too much... I am paraphrasing this. We know he is a writer. Writers always drink or have problems with alcohol and problems with relationships and have a high chance of suicide. No big deal though... I am in the same or just as bad of a ship that is sinking. We all are but it is more fun to point fingers and blame the other guy for basically the same things we are guilty of ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

we are heading to thrid world status

The U.S., which had some of the highest graduation rates of any developed country, now ranks 22nd out of 27 developed countries.

---

LarryS,

I was actually looking back at historical charts of overall graduation rates as compared to other countries, (we're still at or near all-time highs in graduation rates, by the way) so all what you said above tells me is that those other countries have a ton of graduates.

In the meantime, I figured out where you're getting your 19%, "Drop-Out," number from and must come to one of a few conclusions:

A.) You're trolling.
B.) You intentionally falsely equivocated two different, but semi-related things.
C.) You legitimately did not understand that the two semi-related things are different.

I stumbled across some numbers that referred to an, "81% four-year graduation rate."

Therefore, I can see where you might say, "Okay, 100-81 = 19, so that means that 19% dropped out."

Of course, that ignores a great many things:

1.) People who would get GED's do not count toward that 81% number, and arguably, aren't true dropouts.

2.) Some people get through traditional high school, they just don't do it within the first four years. That can happen for a wide variety of reasons, but the most common one is not having the required number of credits to graduate after that four years. Failing the wrong class as a senior, in and of itself, can cause that.

In terms of not having attained a high school diploma, or equivalent, by the age of 24, my source says that applies to 5.9% of the population.

I will stipulate that you were using, "Dropout," colloquially and that's there's an outside possibility you made a legitimate mistake citing the 19% as an actual dropout rate.

Anyway, what I would consider, "The real number," is somewhere between 5.9% and 19%, at least in terms of colloquial usage of the term, but I still maintain the, "Real number is at an all-time low." Unfortunately, if we were to agree to terms on what constitutes a dropout, (I would say someone who hits the age of 21 and has neither a H.S. Diploma or GED whether or not enrolled in GED classes.) I don't think we would be able to easily find numbers on it.

Either way, the drop out rate is the lowest it has ever been (or close) and the graduation rate the highest (or close). I'm sorry that those two facts do not satisfy your narrative and fly in the face of your original assertion, that dropout rates are higher, but that's just how it goes sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

LarryS you have a point with the women should of stayed home in the kitchen and that us Men did not protect our women in the long run and throughout the last 100 years or so in this new country.

Mission146 claims to be a Libertarian or slightly on the Left side of Center but it is clear he is far more on the Left than he knows or believes. He has admitted that he is divorced with two children and that he now has a fiancee and that he would most likely not give up alcohol because he loves it too much... I am paraphrasing this. We know he is a writer. Writers always drink or have problems with alcohol and problems with relationships and have a high chance of suicide. No big deal though... I am in the same or just as bad of a ship that is sinking. We all are but it is more fun to point fingers and blame the other guy for basically the same things we are guilty of ourselves.

---

Thanks for the concern. I would quit drinking if I had to for health reasons. I actually did end up quitting smoking and I doubt quitting drinking would be as difficult as that was.

I should like to go by way of suicide, doctor-assisted or otherwise, but not until a good many years from now, obviously. I think that is as high on my list as just dying in my sleep on some random night. The suicide thing is actually slightly better, though (even though it would mean getting diagnosed with something incurable, or very difficult to cure) because then you can have all of your affairs nice and neat and say goodbye to everyone.

The worst way to go would be one in which your loved ones have to watch you suffer and wither away over a prolonged period of time. Not to mention being responsible for you from a personal care (read: wiping your ass and dressing you) standpoint, or alternatively, sticking you in a building with a bunch of other people so situated. I'd just as easily choose not to be a burden when the time comes.

The stock market has done well under Trump, no question about it, but this success has come at the cost of massive deregulation.

Goodbye, EPA.

I guess I'm going to miss having clean air and water; oh well, quid pro quo, I suppose.

Too bad the guy has the ethics of a snake in the grass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

The stock market has done well under Trump, no question about it, but this success has come at the cost of massive deregulation.

Goodbye, EPA.

I guess I'm going to miss having clean air and water; oh well, quid pro quo, I suppose.

Hellos, smokestack industries.

Too bad the guy has the ethics of a snake in the grass.

---

I told a friend the word was his new foreman was a class A asshole. His response was "that's what I need right now." It's the same with the presidency. Trump is the asshole we need right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

1.) Violent crime is currently about where it was in the early 70's. It peaked around '92 and then started to drop again. It fluctuates from year to year, and I imagine that it has about leveled out, but it's way off of its high point.

2.) Homicide rates were higher in the early 70's than at least 2016. 2016 was around levels comparable to the 60's.

---

your crime statistics are not truly meaningful because it does not include missing people particularly children and it would have to be assumed that a significant % of them have met with foul play.
I don't believe statistics on missing people were even kept in the 60s and 70s. If you will allow an anecdote, in 1975, walking distance from my house; 2 sisters, the Lyons sisters ages 10 and 12 disappeared. They were never found. The case has attracted national media attention. Nothing like that had ever been heard of at that time. I was a young adult at the time and it was the first time I had ever heard about anything like that. Now, thousands of incidents similar to this are reported every year. I believe that there are currently a tremendously greater number of missing persons, particularly children then there were in the 60s and 70s.

Here are some statistics from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children:




"In 2017 NCMEC assisted law enforcement and families with more than 27,000 cases of missing children.

Case type:

91 percent endangered runaways.
5 percent family abductions.
3 percent critically missing young adults, ages 18 to 20.
1 percent nonfamily abductions.
Less than 1 percent lost, injured or otherwise missing children.


Of the nearly 25,000 runaways reported to NCMEC in 2017, one in seven were likely victims of child sex trafficking. Of those, 88 percent were in the care of social services when they went missing."


these statistics do not include adults. there are also a tremendous number of missing adults and it can fairly be assumed that a significant % of them are victims of foul play.

http://www.missingkids.com/keyfacts

First of all, I don't know how you can make assumptions about every single one of them having a hand tied behind their back.

really thats what you want to argue..that its not 100 percent. Ok i would argue that it is 100 percent and that some will overcome it. All things being equal a stable 2 parent home is better than a stable one parent home. And then add to that , a single parent home has a greater chance of being unstable. And oh yeah, 80 percent of people in jail are drop outs. Add it all together and they are indeed born with one hand tied behind their backs.

Okay, so you live in a country club town and you find yourself distraught that single mothers are sometimes given the rudiments needed for basic survival. Why?


where did i say I was "distraught" ? I said I am hhappy to live where I live and pay taxes to support these irresponsible people..as long as the govt feeds and houses them and their children far away from me and my community. Thats fine with me. Let the missions of the world deal with the poorly parented masses unleasehed on society...while society pats the baby making machines aon the back and talks about "baby daddies" as if they are pets.......where the more you have the better person you must be.

STop looking at statistics and just open your eyes. In the 60's when I was 10 years old I would get on a bus by myself and go to a neighboring town tosee a movie on saturdays. To a town that later had riots a year or 2 later. Yet it was safe at that time. Today what fucking kid could take a bus by themselves anywhere at 10 years old. The truth is ...they cant. Not if they have decent parents watching them.
Eton Paetz started a new era and put society on notice that a kid couldnt even walk to a school bus corner.

Compare the carnage in te newspapers today compared to the events of the 60s and 70s and then tell me society has not deteriorated drastically

When Brenda Spencer shot up a school from across the street in her home..it was big news for monts. I think 2 people killed and 6 or more wounded. Now that is weak news. Only 2 killed..what the fuck is that.

Thats where we are today as we read statistics that ell us there is less crime and therefore our children are safer than ever before.....adults are safe than ever before. Does anyone believe that?

Regarding violent crime, it's a bit more complicated than you guys are making it out to be.

Violent crime rose in the US for decades, peaking in 1990.

Then, for reasons which are still not fully clear, it started dropping. It fell for 23 consecutive years, from 1991-2013.

Mind you, crime was still VERY HIGH in the first half of the 90s, but it was indeed decreasing year after year.

The 23-year streak of decreased violent crime spanned several Presidents (of both parties), several economic situations (good, bad, and okay), and several cultural changes over the decades.

The one constant was that violent crime dropped each year.

Then, in 2014, it stopped dropping, and started rising again. And it increased in 2015. And it increased in 2016. And it increased in 2017. Certain large cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, and Las Vegas saw especially big increases.

While the cause of the fall in crime has been hotly contested (some even think the Roe v. Wade decision of 1972 caused it, because unwanted babies were terminated starting 1972, who would have been 18 in 1990), the cause of the crime spike in 2014 seems to be related to the Ferguson police shooting and the after-effects.

Simply put, police are now afraid to do their jobs without being hit with bogus brutality claims, and violent criminals quickly learned this.

Even a guy who did a whole series of studies initially debunking "The Ferguson Effect" later conceded that, yes, it probably played a role in the increase in violent crime.

The problem with statistics here is that they can easily be manipulated.

For example, during the 2016 election season, Hillary's campaign claimed "crime is lower now than 10 years ago", which was true, but very misleading. Why? Because crime DROPPED yearly from 2016-2013, and ROSE sharply from 2013 forward. So, yes, the crime did spike under Obama, and yes, he was likely somewhat at fault for stoking the flames of resentment toward police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Regarding violent crime, it's a bit more complicated than you guys are making it out to be.

Violent crime rose in the US for decades, peaking in 1990.

Then, for reasons which are still not fully clear, it started dropping. It fell for 23 consecutive years, from 1991-2013.

Mind you, crime was still VERY HIGH in the first half of the 90s, but it was indeed decreasing year after year.

The 23-year streak of decreased violent crime spanned several Presidents (of both parties), several economic situations (good, bad, and okay), and several cultural changes over the decades.

The one constant was that violent crime dropped each year.

Then, in 2014, it stopped dropping, and started rising again. And it increased in 2015. And it increased in 2016. And it increased in 2017. Certain large cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, and Las Vegas saw especially big increases.

While the cause of the fall in crime has been hotly contested (some even think the Roe v. Wade decision of 1972 caused it, because unwanted babies were terminated starting 1972, who would have been 18 in 1990), the cause of the crime spike in 2014 seems to be related to the Ferguson police shooting and the after-effects.

Simply put, police are now afraid to do their jobs without being hit with bogus brutality claims, and violent criminals quickly learned this.

Even a guy who did a whole series of studies initially debunking "The Ferguson Effect" later conceded that, yes, it probably played a role in the increase in violent crime.

The problem with statistics here is that they can easily be manipulated.

For example, during the 2016 election season, Hillary's campaign claimed "crime is lower now than 10 years ago", which was true, but very misleading. Why? Because crime DROPPED yearly from 2016-2013, and ROSE sharply from 2013 forward. So, yes, the crime did spike under Obama, and yes, he was likely somewhat at fault for stoking the flames of resentment toward police.

---

I dont doubt the facts and figures...but they dont jive with reality.

I lived in the 60s 70 and 90s.....and no one can tell me its safer for children to walk the streets today in 2018 then it was in the late 90s.

or safer to go to school.

or sager for women to walk though town at night.

Hell Nancy Grace made a whole career around missing kids.....starting with the Holloway girl.....and going on week after week with the new missing child du jour.

I agree with Half smoke....missing children used to be a national story...front page. Now just about every state has their share of missing children from toddlers to teens.

There are more schools now with metal detectors than in the 80s and 90s out of necessity. The technology was available then....but the need wasnt justifying the expense.

police shootings are a dime a dozen these days

mass shootings are the norm that are no longer so shocking.

tories of grandmothers being raped, infants raped, mothers killing their children, parents abusing their children..... Fuck where woud DR Phil be without this deterioration of society.

you can literally in one single day, watch DR phil talking about parents the kept 6 children chained up in a home like animals while they were beaten and starved, and then watch Nancy Grace talk about a 6 year old snatched in a playgound, and then watch the nightly news detail a school shooting and a 2 police killed while they sat in their car..............and that could be viewed as a normal news day. It wouldnt turn heads.

I am not even talking about the chance of terrorists entering our lives. Just the normal crime we see daily detailed on tv. Thats life in 2018,....a school shooting, a kidnapped kid, a parent accuses of monumental abuse, and 2 police killed........and no one here would blink

yet the numbers tell us that we are better off than 1990. Somehow the numbers and reality dont jive. It doesnt pass the eye test. Am I going to believe the numbers or am i going to believe my lying eyes.

Part of me thinks there may be creative book keeping by municipalities to prove to the citizens that the politicians and law enforcement is doing a great job.

LarryS., if the numbers are correct then the obvious explanation is that the media, both news and social, trumpet and display the lurid crime details today, unlike "back in the day."

The same shit was going on, it just wasn't splashed in front of our eyeballs on our big screens and our computers/i phones.

SS, very DD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

LarryS., if the numbers are correct then the obvious explanation is that the media, both news and social, trumpet and display the lurid crime details today, unlike "back in the day."

The same shit was going on, it just wasn't splashed in front of our eyeballs on our big screens and our computers/i phones.

SS, very DD.

---

I dont buy it.
I used to read newspapers daily back in the day, from front to back.......and cop shootings, school shootings, a family of children chained to each other and starved, missing children....all were front page news no matter where in the country it occured. There was no reason to bury these types of stories.

Eton Paetz was a national story forthe longest time....but today he would be just another child that went missing. back page news if that.

Somehow I cant wrap my mind around that the NYC subways are safer today than in the 90's, that san francisco with all the homeless is safer, san diego with all the homeless is safer, any school in any town in the usa is safer,...I just dont see it.

At least having lived in those days.....outside of my community...I dint feel safer.

Are the big inner city communities safer???

I just read this whole thread.
Here are my thoughts:

1. Holy shit... Kentry! Wazupppp.... Did you ever get that haircut?
2. I like this forum. Its like a reunion of sorts.
3. Did Singer reproduce? OMG. Your husband must be very lucky.
4. We all (including me) need to work on making our points with fewer words. Long live Twitter!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

LarryS., if the numbers are correct then the obvious explanation is that the media, both news and social, trumpet and display the lurid crime details today, unlike "back in the day."

The same shit was going on, it just wasn't splashed in front of our eyeballs on our big screens and our computers/i phones.

SS, very DD.

---

This is correct.

We just have very heightened awareness compared to before, thanks to the constant access to 24/7 coverage of everything (including amateurs with smartphone videos).

The only thing that has gotten significantly worse over the years has been the school shooting situation. Unfortunately this became much more commonplace after Columbine 20 years ago, whereas prior to that, disturbed kids generally didn't think of doing this.

But it's still very uncommon and affects a tiny, tiny percentage of kids in the US.

Anyway, yes, violent crime was far worse in 1990 than today. I'm speaking about adult-on-adult crime, which comprises an extremely high percentage of violent crime.

In fact, there are plenty of really rough neighborhoods I remember from the early 1990s which are far safer today. Maybe not quite as safe as 5 years ago, but still a lot better than 1990.

Regarding Kentry:

(I might split this thread into two parts later on, as we have two separate topics going)

I also think there's a possibility that he's a troll. I'm not going to ban him, but Mission raises a good point that he seems like a caricature of a bottom-tier, low-limit, problem gambler.

I mean, taking haircut money from your mom and gambling with it? And then posting on forums about it?

Possible, I guess, but it really does smack of parody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Regarding Kentry:

(I might split this thread into two parts later on, as we have two separate topics going)

I also think there's a possibility that he's a troll. I'm not going to ban him, but Mission raises a good point that he seems like a caricature of a bottom-tier, low-limit, problem gambler.

I mean, taking haircut money from your mom and gambling with it? And then posting on forums about it?

Possible, I guess, but it really does smack of parody.

---

18 years ago I was driving trough Tahoe 11:30 at night on the way to Harrahs to check in with my wife.....and about a half mile from the hotel someone shot a bebe gun pellet in the passenger side window and shattered it. the window stayed mostly in tact but there was a inch hole made in it. i pulled into a dennys and asked them to call the police(no cell phone owned at the time). The police vame and looked at it, and said it must have shattered from the cold. And I pointed out the hole but that was about it. I came to think that writing up reports and entering data might increase the crime level for a town and may make the "numbers" look bad for people who visit or want to move there. Visitors and new citizens moving in make money for the police and the city.
Now with the internet where people can look up crime rates for every city in the country......and decide if they want to move there or visit......or send their kid there for school, or open a new business there......the crime stats are very important to the health of a city or town.

I think that with the internet and the open availability of getting "numbers"...cities and townships have it in their best interests to low ball crime reporting if they know whats good for them. For the health of the city, for the re-election of the politicians, for the job security of the police commissioner......

I think we are living in a world where we visually see one thing, and physically experience one thing......and the numbers tell us another thing.

With less cops walking the beat, with less cops due to cutbacks as cities have had to make cuts, with police in their cruisers rather than on the streets, with more drugs, with more "stuff" out there that people want to have compared to 1990...with single parent households and less child supervision, and even less child supervision in 2 parent households.....with the Uas falling to 22 outof 27th in drp out rate compared to other developed countries.....and from the visual view of the world through my eyes......I dont trust the numbers. I trust my lying eyes.

I tend not to trust govt figures especially if they can gain by it. And in my opinion town cities and municipalities have alot to gain financially and politically by lowballing the numbers,

I tHINK WE ARE BEING LOWBALLED INTO A SENCE OF SECURITY

Been a busy few days, sorry guys, I've barely even been on WoV.

Okay, this conversation has kind of dwindled off, so I'm just going to respond to everyone at once.

Half Smoke:

I'll grant that the statistics don't include that, but that's only because you don't know you have a violent crime until you know that you have a violent crime. While unfortunate that many of them probably aren't, certainly a good many of them are just runaways.

In the overall sense, if you just regarded all of them as having fallen victim to a violent crime (which isn't even close to the case) it still wouldn't move the needle too much on the overall crime rate. We certainly wouldn't be looking at, "All-time highs," that LarryS claimed and that I was originally contesting.

LarryS:

I believe that I already stipulated two parents are better than one on an, "All else equal," basis. It would be kind of silly for me not to concede that much.

I don't know where you get the idea that having a ton of kids and, "Baby daddies," is in anyway glorified. Granted, the women aren't generally denigrated the way you seem to think they should be, but I don't think they are lauded as heroes for pushing out a few kids.

I only know what the statistics say. If you want to extrapolate your personal experiences to the entire country, that's up to you. I just go by what the numbers say. For the purposes of debate, I would suggest that Government statistics hold more water than do personal observations.

Dan Druff,

Those are all interesting, and quite valid, points. I think it's kind of a slippery slope because, on the one hand, you do want to keep the crime rates down and part of that entails criminals having a healthy fear of police. On the other hand, I think we would all agree that unarmed people getting gunned down is a bad thing.

I'd really have to sit down and think about it to decide where I stand on the issue. I think body cams are a good thing, but I think police should at least be allowed to say whatever they want to suspects, it takes a good deal of their effectiveness away if they're not allowed to be intimidating. I think the biggest problem in this regard honestly is easy media, you have millions of people (most of whom aren't trained police officers) Monday Morning Quarterbacking something that was done in the heat of the moment.

So, yeah, don't kill people and don't egregiously beat the shit out of people. Other than that, I'd be willing to give police officers a wide range. My understanding is that people are supposed to be a little intimidated by cops, especially if the person happens to be a criminal.

As far as statistics, it doesn't change that the crime peaked in the early 90's and we are currently at levels comparable to the 60's and 70's...whatever it was the chart said. Violent crime was one and overall crime was the other. I was just countering LarryS' fallacious claim that crime is at an, "All-time," high. It's not even close.

LarryS (Again):

You can only fit so much print in a newspaper and you can only fit so much coverage in a half hour news segment. Half of what you read and saw back in the day was probably local paper and local news, why should a newspaper in Lake Tahoe (or wherever you grew up) care about a kidnapping in Georgia, for example? In contrast, there is no limit to how much print you can put on the Internet.

As to your most recent post, rationalize whatever you want. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but again, I can't debate against someone's imagination. If you think there is an unspoken effort to lowball the crime rate for the purposes of ZIP code property values, then you can think that. I don't know how you expect me to present a counterargument against that, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrooveStreerforlife

How lucky we are that we do not need to go to Vegas to play some casino like bgaming casino list. You do not waste money on flight tickets, on hotels and on strippers lol. And you can win same amount of money as you do in Vegas. So, if i were you i would have thought about that.

---

While I believe your post is a spam for a gambling software developer, I agree that we no longer have to go to Nevada to gamble.

I do not and never would gamble online: for me, the alternative is tribal casinos.

People correctly point out the potential problems with tribal casinos, e.g. lack of accountability and transparency, but at the end of the day they offer a reasonalby good gamble.

Their craps tables offer much the same thing as the ones in Las Vegas, they offer entertainment and often comped food and a comped room.

So yeah, who needs to fly to Las Vegas anymore just to gamble?

There are now viable alternatives much closer to home which are much easier and less expensive to get to.

I don't know where you get the idea that having a ton of kids and, "Baby daddies," is in anyway glorified. Granted, the women aren't generally denigrated the way you seem to think they should be, but I don't think they are lauded as heroes for pushing out a few kids....mission

there is more than one tv show that centers around DNA testing for to fnd the father. Often the owman comes back multiple times with different men...and its all great fun...isnt it?There as a time that a woman would be viewed as a tramp if 4 or 5 different men could have been the father and they all ccame back negative. Or even one positive test out of 1...but without a stabnle marriage also would be viewed negatively. And because of this lax view of motherhoods standards we have the streets in some communities over run with poorly parented kids.

All races in the USA have increased the single parent family model. And in thiis model kids are generally less educated, and therefore are less finacially stable as an adult due to lower paying jobs.
The black community has 72 percent single parent households.......how is that working out for them? Not so good. You can blame the white man all you want....but beofre the white man can touch them adversely when they go out into the workplace......they have already sealed their fate in the years leading to that point.

You can only fit so much print in a newspaper and you can only fit so much coverage in a half hour news segment. Half of what you read and saw back in the day was probably local paper and local news, why should a newspaper in Lake Tahoe (or wherever you grew up) care about a kidnapping in Georgia, for example? In contrast, there is no limit to how much print you can put on the Internet.....mission

exactly. Because there was a time where a missing child was so rare that it was a national story. And now they are a dime a dozen. A parent that chained and kept them in a cage would be a national story at one point in our hisotry. Now we are immune to the horror of what goes on around us.

the bar has been raised with 9-11.....and a few deaths here and there dont phase us anymore.

The news story of Colombine went on for months and months and even produced a documentary.that was nationally released by Michael Moore. Now school shooting gothrough a couple wee news cycle and die out.

The shooting in vegas are a distant memory. The church shooting is long forgotten. The movie theater shooting is an afterthought. But there was a time people would still be talking about it.

Its just that our society has deteriorated to such a point where daily murder and crime is nothing to us. And yes there was a time that a child killing in georgia would matter to someone in california. This is how fucked up crime has become over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

there is more than one tv show that centers around DNA testing for to fnd the father. Often the owman comes back multiple times with different men...and its all great fun...isnt it?There as a time that a woman would be viewed as a tramp if 4 or 5 different men could have been the father and they all ccame back negative. Or even one positive test out of 1...but without a stabnle marriage also would be viewed negatively. And because of this lax view of motherhoods standards we have the streets in some communities over run with poorly parented kids.

---

I know that not all the Springer guests were legitimate, so the first thing I accept is that it is quite possible this is rigged. It doesn't even need to be rigged by the show, some woman can come in with guys who they KNOW are not the father, but have them tested, because the show compensates both for being there...in many cases. I know the cases are real on Judge Judy, for example, but the people are also compensated just for being there.

I think people do think that the ones with four or five negative testing guys are tramps. I certainly have no plans to stick it in someone promiscuous enough to have had sex with five different guys in such a short period of time that they could all be the father, I don't know about you.

Quote:

---

All races in the USA have increased the single parent family model. And in thiis model kids are generally less educated, and therefore are less finacially stable as an adult due to lower paying jobs.
The black community has 72 percent single parent households.......how is that working out for them? Not so good. You can blame the white man all you want....but beofre the white man can touch them adversely when they go out into the workplace......they have already sealed their fate in the years leading to that point.

---

I don't know where you're getting the notion that I ever disputed that single-parent households are generally poorer, have higher crime rates and lower graduation rates than kids from two-parent households. I never disputed that. I disputed your initial erroneous assertions that graduation rates are at all-time lows and crimes are at all-time highs. Neither of those statements is even close to true, again, I'm sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative or viewpoint.

Quote:

---

exactly. Because there was a time where a missing child was so rare that it was a national story. And now they are a dime a dozen. A parent that chained and kept them in a cage would be a national story at one point in our hisotry. Now we are immune to the horror of what goes on around us.

the bar has been raised with 9-11.....and a few deaths here and there dont phase us anymore.

The news story of Colombine went on for months and months and even produced a documentary.that was nationally released by Michael Moore. Now school shooting gothrough a couple wee news cycle and die out.

The shooting in vegas are a distant memory. The church shooting is long forgotten. The movie theater shooting is an afterthought. But there was a time people would still be talking about it.

Its just that our society has deteriorated to such a point where daily murder and crime is nothing to us. And yes there was a time that a child killing in georgia would matter to someone in california. This is how fucked up crime has become over time.

---

I think more like there was a time when it was rare for a missing child story to even come to be known by a national news station. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, two totally different things. I don't think a sheriff in Cobb County, Georgia necessarily got a missing child report in the 70's and said, "Oh, I'd better call CNN with this," whenever it happened.

I don't think the Sheriff of Sacramento County, California called WTOV-9 News in Steubenville, OH and said, "Hey, I've got this double homicide, do you guys want to talk about it in your half hour news show?"

The point is, if you need air filler, you can just hop on the Internet, find your filler, report it.

As to the rest, I think you're confusing an increase in mass shooting incidents with an increase in overall crime rate. An increase in one doesn't necessarily result in an overall increase to the other.

Mission146:


your quoting of crime statistics did not include crimes against children - specifically sexual abuse and molestation and distribution of child pornography.

I don't think they kept statistics earlier than 1976. This is from a U. of New Hampshire crimes against children research center (linked).

"After growing dramatically between 1976 and 1992, rates of child maltreatment reports and substantiations have been at a plateau since 1992."

distribution of child pornography which is a general crime against all children and is not included in these statistics surely has increased by a tremendous amount because of the internet

your statistics do not consider that although the per capita rate of homicide may be similar, because of a huge increase in the population there are many more homicides than for example in 1960 when the U.S. population was only a little greater than half of what it is today.

so, if you consider your neighborhood to be a 5 block area of Chicago, and in 1965 there were only 2 homicides within that area, and now in the same area there may be 4. the homicide rate may be the same but a person doesn't feel the same. they feel much more endangered.

also, the nature of the crime today is much more horrific, i.e. the Newtown masssacre. there was nothing remotely similar to anything like that in the 60s or 70s. there are many other examples of horrific crimes in the modern world which never or only very, very rarely happened in the 60s and 70s.

so, all in all, your crime statistics may demonstrate something but they are far from truly representative of the difference between the 1960s and 1970s and today.



http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet.html

Half Smoke,

That's true, but it still wouldn't matter in the context of the original argument. LarryS said all-time highs, crime was higher in the 90's (significantly, actually) because crime was higher in the 90's, we cannot now be at all-time highs.

If you're going to go the child pornography route, and it hasn't been included in the statistics. You need to have a report or arrest in order to have a known crime. Besides, even if you are right, (which you quite probably are) that has to do with the existence of the Internet, not how people were raised, which was LarryS' original contention.

LarryS said, "Crime rate," not number of homicides. There are probably some third-world countries someone so inclined could move to that have a comparatively much smaller number of actual incidents...if that's what someone is looking at. Problem is, they're much more violent and the probability of that person being involved in one shoots way up.

I'll concede your last few paragraphs, except I would point out that more 24 hour news channels, and most importantly, the Internet, give us a greater range of access to what is or is not going on around the country crime-wise.

Anyway, LarryS said, "Crime Rate," which means incidents per 100,000 people. That's how, "Crime Rate," is almost Universally defined for statistical purposes. He then said, all-time high, which I take to mean higher than at any other time. I don't think any amount of massaging or redefining is going to get you up to early-90's crime levels, and we're over two decades removed from that.

I can't emphasize this enough, I was contending, "All-Time high." That's all. I wasn't alive in the 60's or 70's, so I have no claims to make about how people felt or crime levels were perceived then.

Can you Wong into progressives and machines left in a favorable state by previous players online ?

Progressives, yes. Some online progressives go positive.

Time to say something nice about Mission. He seems a lot cooler than I originally thought he was.