|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 18, 2022 0:27:59 GMT
Every child in the UK will soon have the right to be taught "in their mother's tongue" according to a BBC report the other day. Talk about cultural integration but like you say Red, it has stopped making sense long ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 18, 2022 0:40:35 GMT
Every child in the UK will soon have the right to be taught "in their mother's tongue" according to a BBC report the other day. Talk about cultural integration but like you say Red, it has stopped making sense long ago. LOL that's hilarious. It's politically correct minority appeasing left wing virtue signalling on an epic scale. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 18, 2022 7:48:36 GMT
No need. I understand perfectly already but you're getting confused. Fine then you've already seen my answers. I'll stop the one liners with you immediately and await a more detailed post from you. I won't hold my breath. TSM is right. You are very confused - and you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. There's always a problem when complex systems have a vast number of factors, many of which affect each other - or appear to affect each other. The relationship between poverty and crime is complex because there are many cofactors, as I said. But you've also got the problem that crime tends to lead to poverty, as Magrathea said, because in most cases employment is better paid. On the other hand there's no proof that poverty leads to crime. At least you'd expect, if this is the case, that recessions would lead to increased crime. But they don't. You'd also expect that, when the general standard of living rose, crime would go down - but the opposite seems to happen. It's the old problem with complex systems. What the scientists do is try to build a model and then vary the two factors, while leaving all others unchanged, and see what happens. But the system is too complex to do this. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 18, 2022 8:04:27 GMT
Every child in the UK will soon have the right to be taught "in their mother's tongue" according to a BBC report the other day. Talk about cultural integration but like you say Red, it has stopped making sense long ago. LOL that's hilarious. It's politically correct minority appeasing left wing virtue signalling on an epic scale. Its also untrue. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 18, 2022 8:31:01 GMT
Fine then you've already seen my answers. I'll stop the one liners with you immediately and await a more detailed post from you. I won't hold my breath. TSM is right. You are very confused - and you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. There's always a problem when complex systems have a vast number of factors, many of which affect each other - or appear to affect each other. The relationship between poverty and crime is complex because there are many cofactors, as I said. But you've also got the problem that crime tends to lead to poverty, as Magrathea said, because in most cases employment is better paid. On the other hand there's no proof that poverty leads to crime. At least you'd expect, if this is the case, that recessions would lead to increased crime. But they don't. You'd also expect that, when the general standard of living rose, crime would go down - but the opposite seems to happen. It's the old problem with complex systems. What the scientists do is try to build a model and then vary the two factors, while leaving all others unchanged, and see what happens. But the system is too complex to do this. I understand the difference between cause and correlation perfectly well thank you. Correlation would be that more tall people watch horror movies, where on examination there is no causal link. But there is a causal link between poverty and theft. Poor people steal to get the things they cannot afford to buy and envy having. They also steal because they feel no link to the society they live in. There are a heap of other factors but that does not make poverty just correlation. Mags has never explained the reasoning behind her claim that crime causes poverty. But going with your explanation. Yes crime can cause poverty, but you would need to add the reason the person committed crime in the first place. So here you state work pays better, but what if there is no work or what there is doesn't pay enough. Now you have a vicious circle where crime is used to supplement income but which in turn leads to unemployment. We have recognised this ever since the end of the Victorian age when they tried every method you could imagine to stop crime without cutting poverty and failed. But moving on from the academic nuances of correlation or cause, In London 80% more crimes are recorded in deprived (low income) areas. So if low income is a coincidental factor what is the cause and how can we tackle it. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 18, 2022 8:54:12 GMT
LOL that's hilarious. It's politically correct minority appeasing left wing virtue signalling on an epic scale. Its also untrue. How on earth can every child in this country be taught in their mothers tongue? It's absolutely ridiculous. Some years ago I listened to a headteacher who said her staff were struggling because the kids at her infant/junior school spoke 31 different languages, in order to communicate with the kids teachers had devised a system of hand signals. That's just one of thousands of schools in exactly the same situation. Do you think the department for education should simply hire tens of thousands of language teachers? In some instances it would be a case of a teacher hired for a single pupil. How much do you think it would cost? Hundreds of £millions? £billions? And even if this left wing woke idea was remotely deliverable, do you think teaching kids in a language other than English is encouraging them to fit in and assimilate and get on in life, or do you think they are more likely to stay within their own immigrant enclaves? Tell you what ZG, Hitler did less damage to this country than stupid minority appeasing virtue signalling outraged bloody lefties are doing now. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 18, 2022 9:05:57 GMT
How on earth can every child in this country be taught in their mothers tongue? It's absolutely ridiculous. Some years ago I listened to a headteacher who said her staff were struggling because the kids at her infant/junior school spoke 31 different languages, in order to communicate with the kids teachers had devised a system of hand signals. That's just one of thousands of schools in exactly the same situation. Do you think the department for education should simply hire tens of thousands of language teachers? In some instances it would be a case of a teacher hired for a single pupil. How much do you think it would cost? Hundreds of £millions? £billions? And even if this left wing woke idea was remotely deliverable, do you think teaching kids in a language other than English is encouraging them to fit in and assimilate and get on in life, or do you think they are more likely to stay within their own immigrant enclaves? Tell you what ZG, Hitler did less damage to this country than stupid minority appeasing virtue signalling outraged bloody lefties are doing now. As I said Red. Its not true, its mischief making and clickbait. forces to the right of you want you to feel the country has gone mad in order to push you further right. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 18, 2022 9:12:59 GMT
How on earth can every child in this country be taught in their mothers tongue? It's absolutely ridiculous. Some years ago I listened to a headteacher who said her staff were struggling because the kids at her infant/junior school spoke 31 different languages, in order to communicate with the kids teachers had devised a system of hand signals. That's just one of thousands of schools in exactly the same situation. Do you think the department for education should simply hire tens of thousands of language teachers? In some instances it would be a case of a teacher hired for a single pupil. How much do you think it would cost? Hundreds of £millions? £billions? And even if this left wing woke idea was remotely deliverable, do you think teaching kids in a language other than English is encouraging them to fit in and assimilate and get on in life, or do you think they are more likely to stay within their own immigrant enclaves? Tell you what ZG, Hitler did less damage to this country than stupid minority appeasing virtue signalling outraged bloody lefties are doing now. As I said Red. Its not true, its mischief making and clickbait. forces to the right of you want you to feel the country has gone mad in order to push you further right. Correct, it will never happen. Something we agree on. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 18, 2022 9:22:52 GMT
As I said Red. Its not true, its mischief making and clickbait. forces to the right of you want you to feel the country has gone mad in order to push you further right. Correct, it will never happen. Something we agree on. Excellent. I thought for a moment you had been duped, but I know you're more canny than that. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 18, 2022 11:10:10 GMT
Again explain your reasoning so we can see which is the cart and which the horse. Zany, to me you seem so keen to gallop towards your preferred conclusion, you are unable to pause long enough to take a step back and examine your method Given the information that crime and poverty are correlated, the notion that crime causes poverty, or the notion poverty causes crime, are both of equal explanatory validity - both hypothesis would explain the correlation. However, given just that information, there is no logical reason to select one over the other (or a multiplicity of alternatives). However, you asked for my reasoning for selecting the latter (crime causes poverty) as having the far stronger case- Just about every crime can be modelled as a business loss. To illustrate through extremis - If, on their journey to a shop, a person has a 50% chance of being robbed, it won't be long before that shop goes out of business. Those losses pass down to the employees, their families and anyone who might have traded with them. This is a true mechanical / causal relationship between crime and poverty. In some areas, crime becomes so common that no significant proper business can be conducted. Everyone in the area is being mechanically impoverished by crime. Crime is a parasitic social form, the more of it you have, the poorer people will be in aggregate. But there is a causal link between poverty and theft. Poor people steal to get the things they cannot afford to buy and envy having. I wouldn't call that notion a meaningful causal link. Crime is, in a sense, always caused by the motivation to commit the crime. In reality, that's all you are noting here. If you have 100 pounds in your wallet and I have 50 pounds in mine, then It might be said that I rob you because I want 150 pounds in my wallet rather than 50 ..ie my crime is caused by the fact that my wallet did not have 150 ponds in it. To me, this is an absurd tautology. However, I will give the notion some credit - if people are stealing food to eat or clothes because they don't have enough to wear, then it is fair to assume these crimes are strongly linked to their situation (ie likely wouldn't happen if their situation changed). However, the amount of this sort of crime in the uk is tiny. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 18, 2022 11:51:29 GMT
Again explain your reasoning so we can see which is the cart and which the horse. Were they my methods you might have a point, but they are not. There are studies on studies evidencing the causal link between poverty and crime. That violent crime is far higher in poor areas and theft reported far higher in rich areas. But that criminals are 80% more likely to come from poor backgrounds. To claim this is coincidence (correlation) is ridiculous unless you can explain why, given that the causal links are so obvious. Yes, were you starting from scratch you might explore both, but many people have already done the testing for you. My question is why do you ignore them in favour of your own unstudied speculation. Again you start from the point at which the robbing comes first. IE halfway through the equation. And again, the crime has happened, but you use the results to explain why there is crime. Thus, crime is caused by crime. I'm sure that is a multiple, but it does not explain why the crime came in the first place more in poverty areas than not. But there is a causal link between poverty and theft. Poor people steal to get the things they cannot afford to buy and envy having. Argument absurdium is never a good method. If I have enough in my wallet £50 I am unlikely to consider stealing yours because I have too much to lose compared to what I gain. Only if I have £2 in my wallet and no future prospects of getting more do I consider the gain of £150 to be worth the risk of being caught and punished. Here you get nearer the crux. The wealth gap (envy) is also a big driver in theft. Two families both having only just enough to eat are still unlikely to steal from each other. A bigger driver of crime among the poor is the chance of having money and what it brings. I want things other people have, I can't get them through legitimate means, then I do consider delivering drugs for a tenner. Then I'm trapped into that world. The reason poverty causes crime is complex poorer schools, bad education, the people you live amongst because the poor and criminal tend to end up in cheaper poorer areas, the attitude of those around you who feel deserted by society. But the bottom line to all this is the money. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 18, 2022 12:56:37 GMT
Were they my methods you might have a point, but they are not. There are studies on studies evidencing the causal link between poverty and crime. That violent crime is far higher in poor areas and theft reported far higher in rich areas. But that criminals are 80% more likely to come from poor backgrounds. To claim this is coincidence (correlation) is ridiculous unless you can explain why, given that the causal links are so obvious. Once again - I did not claim the correlation was a coincidence. The correlation almost certainly has an explanation. Can you explain why the same observed phenomena cannot be satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis that (say) poverty is caused by crime and that criminals choose targets? You can't. You can't do this because, given just the correlation, there is no logical way to do so. Again you start from the point at which the robbing comes first. IE halfway through the equation. I started at that point because I was explaining my alternate hypothesis and why it is so strong in comparison to yours. You choose a different starting point because you have a different preferred hypothesis. My broader point is, that given just the correlation, there is no logical reason to do either - i.e. that you are simply selecting the version you prefer. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 18, 2022 13:15:33 GMT
How on earth can every child in this country be taught in their mothers tongue? It's absolutely ridiculous. Some years ago I listened to a headteacher who said her staff were struggling because the kids at her infant/junior school spoke 31 different languages, in order to communicate with the kids teachers had devised a system of hand signals. That's just one of thousands of schools in exactly the same situation. Do you think the department for education should simply hire tens of thousands of language teachers? In some instances it would be a case of a teacher hired for a single pupil. How much do you think it would cost? Hundreds of £millions? £billions? And even if this left wing woke idea was remotely deliverable, do you think teaching kids in a language other than English is encouraging them to fit in and assimilate and get on in life, or do you think they are more likely to stay within their own immigrant enclaves? Tell you what ZG, Hitler did less damage to this country than stupid minority appeasing virtue signalling outraged bloody lefties are doing now. As I said Red. Its not true, its mischief making and clickbait. forces to the right of you want you to feel the country has gone mad in order to push you further right. Whether true or not it was reported on Radio 4. I think it was a News item. It was up to a certain age as well, which is even more incomprehensible. Your view that I said it to make mischief is entirely untrue. I'm actually very particular about accuracy. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 18, 2022 14:29:19 GMT
Were they my methods you might have a point, but they are not. There are studies on studies evidencing the causal link between poverty and crime. That violent crime is far higher in poor areas and theft reported far higher in rich areas. But that criminals are 80% more likely to come from poor backgrounds. To claim this is coincidence (correlation) is ridiculous unless you can explain why, given that the causal links are so obvious. Then what is the link if its not the obvious one as found in so many studies? Stop dancing around it. I could attempt to explain if this sentence made any sense. I have already stated that in your hypothesis your criminals already magically exist in poverty areas in order to start the chain reaction you claim brings them into being. A bonkers circular argument far less convincing than the obvious cause. And quick as that you are back to claiming its just correlation. Again you start from the point at which the robbing comes first. IE halfway through the equation. If you can't get that your hypothesis starts with the existence of the criminals you claim it creates. Then I'm stuck. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 18, 2022 15:13:35 GMT
hen what is the link if its not the obvious one as found in so many studies? 'The link' is a correlation. However a correlation doesn't(neccesarily) indicate causation. People have pointed out several times that you are conflating correlation and causation and you have claimed that you understand the distinction, but, again and again, you appear to conflate the two. If you can't get that your hypothesis starts with the existence of the criminals you claim it creates. Then I'm stuck. I was outlining a mechanism of causation and, to do so, I need a start (cause) and an end (effect). You did the same when you outlined your hypothesis / mechanism. |
|
