Skeptic Project

They say here that every concrete motorway bridge has at least one body in it..

http://www.missingpeople.org.uk/media-centre/papers/detail.asp?dsid=603

Just where do you think some of these missing people end up.. ?

Point is that RBE, or RBE like solutions would I reckon make a noticable dent in the murder rate, because far more crimes are money related than you are aware of.

I think if I had to add up all the 'stories' of murders I'd heard over the years, it would amount to thousands, even tens of thousands.

Sure we cannot magic way every crime, I don't think we disagree about that, only about the numbers that could reasonable be expected to be done away with.

For an example of an RBE style community and low crime rate, lets look at Monaco:

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/europe/monaco.html</p>

> The crime rate in Monaco is low compared to other developed countries.

Why might that be ?

Could it be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco</p>

> wealthy foreigners make up the majority of the population at approximately 84%.

> has the largest police force (515 police officers for 32,000 people) and
> police presence in the world.

So for low reported crime, all you might need is lots of wealthy people and tons of police..

Its nothing to do with anything other than the only people living in Monaco and able to be there are the type who are not criminals in the first place, they are hard working rich people, or inheritance moneyline families. There is no need for them to go out and wreck the neighbourhood, plus like you already said earlier reported crimes !!

rich people are insufferable with image and public opinion of them, and will cover up any of their families misdeeds.

They are not scum bag druggies from your local council estate, its fucking obvious why its low crime rate there.

All of Nanos' evidence exists only in his mind.

Along with many other aspects of his life I suspect.

@Un-Ed-ucated / falkner

My point is that no matter how perfect society is (which is utterly a fruitless statement as society cannot be perfect) there will always be violent action.

Then you missed Jacque Fresco saying: "The system we propose is not perfect. It is just better, than what we have now."

So how can anyone be so arrogant as to think they know the system that will do away with behaviors we don't even fully know the cause of?

"Meet the Natives" already shows the system => that is the environment is the cause. They don't have murderers, that just like to do what they do. Right now there are around 20 thousand people in island of Tanna that has an area of 550 km2 (212 sq mi). If their population would triple, problems would start to unfold.

@Muertos
"They'll never accomplish it, so it's more worthwhile (in my opinion) to focus on the conspiracy aspects of the ZM."
Then focus on the creators of the sources of that information. Not Zeitgeist movies. As you said PJ is the collector, not the creator of information, while you go attacking him mostly.

@anticultist

Top 5 reasons to murder someone:
http://irrelevantvoice.blogspot.com/2007/10/top-5-reasons-to-murder-someone.html</p>

Nice a blog with a name "another irrelevant voice" with no credentials and no sources. Is it you?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/12.htm</p>

Arguments, other felonies, other motives and unknown... how can someone even make an assessment from this.. highly crude information?

And that was your prime evidence?

He has not provided a shred of evidence to prove RBE will reduce the murder rate.

Because drugs will be legal. They won't be highly distributed worldwide, but you will be allowed to grow anything you want and have all available information on positive and negative effects on them. Most drug addicts, capable of murder, kill people for money and possessions that can be sold for money with which to buy drugs. Free drugs, way less murder.

but then you have the people who get high and go ape shit and kill people

You seem to not understand why people use drugs either: "I had a very lousy day today. God, I hate my school/job, but I feel I served society. So I'll just sit, watch TV and smoke some weed. Yeah, smoke some weed!"

If you still don't understand that, then I can't help you.

> they are hard working rich people

LOL!!!

Really, that is funny..

Many rich people I know are lazy fuckers, many are landlords and sit on their ass all day enjoying a nice life whilst the rest of us suffer.

Sure there are hard working ones, but not that many..

> are the type who are not criminals in the first place

You do know that for the majority of people to get rich they have to screw over countless other folk to get there, and are some of the most criminal minded people you could hope to meet..

> They are not scum bag druggies from your local council estate

Actually they are..

Where do you think rich drug dealers retire to ?

I'm pretty sure there's just one definition for anecdote. You can handle looking the word up yourself.

Damn these blank slate cult members are silly, they come here with nothing and expect respect. Pendrokar you have nothing, if anything is a blank slate its your evidence tray.

deleted

@aaronmhatch

Pendrokar, do you believe in blank slate theory?

Yes. What...? You think you and others have some level of violent gene, then?

I remember my brother telling me something like how the greeks and romans wanted to find out which language comes natural. So two very young kids were isolated and after a few years released and neither spoke any language. Whenever this is a true event, I can't tell. But undoubtedly the result is unquestionable.

I actually can nolonger grasp the notion that emotional states can be inbred. I might be quite different from my brothers. But that's hardly connected to my DNA.

@Sil

Guess what happened during those brief 5 minutes? The Chief shoved some woman off a cliff, injuring her pretty badly.

Must have been Meet The Native US. There was nothing like that on MTN UK. Only watched the first part of MTN US. It seems I'll have watch all of it.

@anticultist

Damn these blank slate cult members are silly, they come here with nothing and expect respect. Pendrokar you have nothing, if anything is a blank slate its your evidence tray.

That's it? You ignore what I said and you won't continue discussion?

So basically Pendrokar doesn't care what scientists and psychologists think.

Since he doesn't want to believe that people are pre-disposed to certain behavior traits he won't.

How am I supposed to take this guy seriously?

> blank slate theory

From what I understand, some parts of us are blank, but not all, just how much is and isn't, I don't entirely know, I only know there is a mixture.

How do I know this, well, my parents used to breed animals and every now and then one would be born that was different behaviour wise to the others, it was either extra smart, or extra stupid, or aggressive, or timid, etc.

Also, if you think about domestication of animals, which is done by breeding out the aggressive genetic parts and encouraging the civilised genes to become dominent, if the blank slate theory was entirely true, you wouldn't need to breed animals to make them behave less aggressively!

As I see it, all we need to agree on is to do tests to help figure out which parts of our behaviour appear genetic and which parts enviornmental, and also to see if there is perhaps some behaviours that are a mixture.

Then we can design the environment to effect those parts we can effect, and try and breed out those other parts with a bit of carrot and stick approach.

> RBE is such an undeveloped idea it really deserves no serious consideration. There
> are far more intelligent systems and arguments out there to focus on to change
> the world.

I see it as a collection of ideas from elsewhere, only its missing some vital parts, like money! (Though this does appear to be recently corrected by Fresco, that its ok to go and ask corporations for money and resources..)

> won't continue discussion?

Some of us are more than happy to discuss with you and explore answers, just not everyone here has a full set of marbles to play with.

> There's really no need to use anecdotal evidence to prove that both nature and
> nurture are important. T

Shock horror, anecdotal evidence matches peer-reviewed research!

Who could have guessed..

> This has been well established via peer-reviewed research for a while.

I wonder why some people don't listen to this ?

"Also, if you think about domestication of animals, which is done by breeding out the aggressive genetic parts and encouraging the civilised genes to become dominent, if the blank slate theory was entirely true, you wouldn't need to breed animals to make them behave less aggressively!"

Your patient is ready, Dr. Mengele.

Also Pendrokar I notice you havent read the full thread as per normal from your explanations of not completing Ayn Rands novel. If you had you would of noticed the pdf I had placed at the top of this page discussing murder trends [pre 2000], an official government document citing statistics from public records and police documents about murder cases.

Within this document it explains the following:

In the early 1990s females accounted for more (around 40% of) victims.
Almost four fifths of female victims and just over half of male victims knew their killer. A present or former partner or lover killed almost half of female victims. Around a third of men
were killed by someone they knew (but not family/partner) and another third by a stranger.

So its saying in black and white here, most murders are to do with a personal grievance between people who know each other and end up killing each other. It even goes so far to say it is ordinarily a lover/former partner who does the murdering [4/5ths of females knew their murderer thats 80%]. Then its states a third were killed by someone they knew but not a family member, and a third by a stranger.

It should be remembered that murder is relatively rare, so large year-on-year variations are to be expected in the numbers of offences committed and it is unwise to place too much emphasis on the most recent year's figures.

Murder itself is not a common occurrance despite all the fear mongering in this thread from people, and the television and the news. Its only reported on profusely because its a sensationalist and shocking story, in reality the percentages of murder cases in most capitalist societies is not that high compared to population quotas.

Offences recorded by the police:
Recorded crime statistics relate to incidents as originally noted by the police. As the Home Office acknowledges, they do not show the true level of crime, since not all crimes are reported; the biennial British Crime Survey, which interviews individuals on a confidential basis about their experiences of crime in the previous year, records far higher levels. In general, the less serious the offence, the less likely it is to be reported. For homicide however, such a serious offence, under-reporting or under-recording is likely to be negligible.
So homicide is one of the few crimes for which recorded crime figures provide a reasonably accurate measure of crime levels.

So as Nanos earlier tried to infer it is shown here to be bullshit, homicides are normally reported upon, and just because Nanos doesnt know of the phone calls made by his neighbours does not mean that it was not reported on. The statistics show the more violent the offence the more likelihood someone is going to report it. And the negligible unreporting figures in homicide cases stands as fact.

The Home Office counting rules were revised in 1998, partly in an attempt to measure
one crime per victim in more cases (and more closely equate BCS results with recorded crime). Clearly this will increase recorded crime levels, and the net effect has provisionally been estimated by police forces to be an increase of around 20% in recorded crime from next year. However, the main impact will be on the fraud, theft, and criminal damage categories. For homicide, the new rules should make little difference, apart from a switch to recording on a financial year basis.

The police had to change their counting methods for crimes to show actual violent cases per person instead of reporting in bulk crimes for each criminal. This had an effect on the proceeding statistics for each year, which will of shown an increase in crime stats, but as it clearly denotes not in murder cases, only in theft and petty crime/criminal damage cases.

In 1997, the latest year available, 738 deaths were initially recorded as homicide. Thiswas a 9% rise from 1996, and the second highest total this century, exceeded only by 753
in 1995. Not too much should be inferred from this, since these numbers are relatively small, so quite wide variation can occur from year to year.

We should not be overly analytical and apply conclusions as to why murder rates increase or decrease per year since variations can and do occur, it does not suggest that crime is on the increase or decrease as a trend. We should even not go so far as to blame them on a particular matter, therefore blaming the monetary system is complete nonsense.
Plus as a side note you need to consider population increases against crime rates when comparing statistics.

For the 650 offences currently recorded as homicide in England and Wales for 1997,
almost two thirds of the victims (426 offences) were male. There were 224 female victims. The proportion of female victims has been around a third for the past three years, but in the early 1990s the proportion of female victims was higher, at around 40%. Almost four fifths of all female victims and just over half of all male victims knew the main or only suspect before the killing. A present or former partner or lover killed almost half of female victims, while for men the same held for only 8% of victims. A fifth of women victims were killed by family members and a third of men by someone they knew but not family or a partner. Only 12% of women were killed by a stranger, compared to 31% of men.

650 people murdered
426 males
50% knew their murderer = 213
present or former partner or lover killed 8% of male victims = 34.08.
A third of men by someone they knew but not family or a partner = 134
31% of men were killed by a stranger = 125.48

So what can we take from these numbers?
If you are a man you are almost as likely to be murdered by someone who you dont even know as you do know, 30% against 50%... And it is less likely your female partner will murder you, in fact it is more likely you will murder her.

224 females.
4/5ths 80% knew their murderer = 189.2.
A present or former partner or lover killed almost half 50% of female victims = 112.
A fifth of women victims 20% were killed by family members = 44.8
Only 12% of women were killed by a stranger = 26.88
If you are female it is best to keep an eye on people you know as they are more likely to murder you than a complete stranger is. 50% likely hood is it will be your partner, 20% likelihood is it will be one of your family murdering you, and 12% likelihood its a stranger.

Stats taken from this: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-056.pdf