[Mustang19]

That's part of it, but I don't think that online communication substitutes for closer families or face-to-face interaction. And the issue of family values is it's own thread.

Basically everything I'm saying can be summed up by selecting a society that has strong traditional values- say, the Amish- and pointing out things like their lower crime and suicide rates. Do you think this is a valid comparison?

[The E]

All that tells me is that people aren't organizing in formal clubs. Also, the results seem rather specifically targeted at the US.

Basically everything I'm saying can be summed up by selecting a society that has strong traditional values- say, the Amish- and pointing out things like their lower crime and suicide rates. Do you think this is a valid comparison?

Amish populations have higher incidences of particular genetic disorders, including dwarfism (Ellis-van Creveld syndrome),[26] various metabolic disorders,[27] and unusual distribution of blood-types.[28] Amish represent a collection of different demes or genetically closed communities.[29] Since almost all Amish descend from about 200 18th century founders, genetic disorders from inbreeding exist in more isolated districts (an example of the founder effect). Some of these disorders are quite rare, or unique, and are serious enough to increase the mortality rate among Amish children. The majority of Amish accept these as "Gottes Wille" (God's will); they reject use of preventive genetic tests prior to marriage and genetic testing of unborn children to discover genetic disorders. Amish are willing to participate in studies of genetic diseases. Their extensive family histories are useful to researchers investigating diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and macular degeneration.

Just saying. They're paying an awfully high prize for that.

[General Battuta]

That's part of it, but I don't think that online communication substitutes for closer families or face-to-face interaction. And the issue of family values is it's own thread.

Basically everything I'm saying can be summed up by selecting a society that has strong traditional values- say, the Amish- and pointing out things like their lower crime and suicide rates. Do you think this is a valid comparison?

I think there are too many confounding variables to draw a conclusion there.

I also think that even if strong social groupings had benefits in reducing crime and suicide, you could obtain the same benefits with very nontraditional values like group marriages or gay partnerships or whatever, because the benefits derive not from a characteristic of the traditional structure but simply by building close social bonds and providing a support network.

[Mustang19]

Good study The E. Now it would be interesting to see if crime rates still spiked in other countries post 1960. Not that it would prove anything.

Dwarfism doesn't have much to do with cultural values other than that the Amish have to inbreed because they don't want to associate with mainstream society.

I also think that even if strong social groupings had benefits in reducing crime and suicide, you could obtain the same benefits with very nontraditional values like group marriages or gay partnerships or whatever, because the benefits derive not from a characteristic of the traditional structure but simply by building close social bonds and providing a support network.

Indeed, but in the absence of any structure problems arise. When traditional values decline and nothing takes their place, that's bad.

[Mustang19]

Source on UK crime rates; they went up too. Inequality didn't increase much nor did immigration, although drugs may have had something to do with it.

[Marcov]

Actually, yes. If a 12 year old tries to lecture me about how much easier life today is, then the best he can hope for is to be laughed at. Because you lack experience in the matters which you discuss, simple as that.

However, don't you think you should read his post first before declaring him as an inexperienced kid? Contrary to your ideology of good debate, laughing at someone without actually considering their post first is hardly what I'd call "sophisticated".

Wrong. If you are too young to have first-hand experience of the topics, then you have no business spouting your opinions, because whatever you are thinking? It's almost certainly not correct.

...and I'm happy to tell you that such an assumption could be made only if you know the person beyond some basic HLP posts.
...look at Youtube videos so you can re-think this belief of yours. Certainly, ANYONE...literally anyone (who has an account) can post a comment. Pardon this, but I find this line pretty snobbish, don't you think? I willfully criticize your criticism.

Just saying that the things you talk about are not valid globally. And since this is an international community, well....

I'd have to say, this may be correct. As I've pointed out, there are hundreds of things to consider when discussing such huge a topic.

Because your posts are insubstantial and content-free and his aren't?

Prove to me that my posts are insubstantial and content-free.

No, but you can discard arguments because they're incoherent and ignorant and then figure out it's because the person making them is 12

Sad to say, I'm sensing the Oh-So-Superior Syndrome of yours that may be the cause of your proud Trollface. You declare that Mustang's posts are incoherent and ignorant. Prove it, it looks like you've won the debate, which isn't really, since Mustang is STILL sorting out several arguments off his ass. You haven't won, so you can't say that.

[Grizzly]

Source on UK crime rates; they went up too. Inequality didn't increase much nor did immigration, although drugs may have had something to do with it.

It does not mention anything about murder rates and such. It also does not take into account rise in population.

In 1955 fewer than 500,000 crimes were recorded by the police in England and Wales. By the end of the 1960s there were over 1.5 million. By the end of the 1970s there were 2.7 million (p.xii).

THis might also mean that the police has simply gotten better at doing their jobs.

[General Battuta]

Sad to say, I'm sensing the Oh-So-Superior Syndrome of yours that may be the cause of your proud Trollface. You declare that Mustang's posts are incoherent and ignorant. Prove it, it looks like you've won the debate, which isn't really, since Mustang is STILL sorting out several arguments off his ass. You haven't won, so you can't say that.

Sorry bro, I'm talking about your posts, not his.

[Mustang19]

Population in most developed countries has been pretty stagnant since 1960.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk+population

THis might also mean that the police has simply gotten better at doing their jobs.

It might, but I doubt that all we're seeing is a nearly sixfold statistical discrepancy.

[Grizzly]

By the way, what do drugs have to do with anything? They are semi-legal (and semi-illegal) in the Netherlands, and the Netherlands has signaficantly lower crime rates then the US (rankings are based on per 1000 persons and all).

[General Battuta]

The problem in the US is that many drugs are illegal, which creates a lucrative black market, which draws crime, often involving immigrants and organized rings.

[Luis Dias]

What about Moore's theory that americans have lots 'f crimes due to so many guns, 2nd ammendment and such?

[Mustang19]

Arresting people for drug crimes inflates the official crime statistics.

edit: That was to Joshua.

[Nuclear1]

The drugs themselves aren't the cause of crime (despite what the anti-drug crowd would have you believe, smoking pot and crack doesn't make you want to rape your neighbor and eat his organs), it's their legal status.

See:  Prohibition.

[Luis Dias]

Arresting people for drug crimes inflates the official crime statistics.

I thought drug-related crimes are still crimes?

[Grizzly]

Arresting people for drug crimes inflates the official crime statistics.

Including assaults, murders, rapes, etc?

[Mustang19]

Including assaults, murders, rapes, etc?

Not necessarily unless drugs were involved. Mainly the overall arrest numbers.

In any case it hasn't just been drug crimes which have increased in frequency, murders and burglary are more common too since 1960. Of course drugs confound this since for instance a large part of home burglaries are done for drug money.

[General Battuta]

More people live in cities since 1960. There are all sorts of reasons for changes in crime pattern.

[The E]

Here's Germany's official crime statistic for 1987 to 2009. Note that while the total number of incidents recorded has risen from 4,444,108 to 6,054,330, the actual number of cases per capita has stayed the same (And is actually steadily falling after peaking in the late 90s).

[Grizzly]

There's the dutch one, on a n absolute basis. Note that this one is not measuring such a big period, but still... I can't think of any major cultural changes since 2001...