The Death Penalty should be reintroduced.

[brian ross]

The Genetic studies that I related to, by Appelbaum and Scurich is what you should be talking to, not the Criminology Institute, Bogan. Get back to us when you have scientific evidence, in a published, peer reviewed scientific journal, not a study release from Toni Makkai (whom BTW I know personally).

[cods]

The Genetic studies that I related to, by Appelbaum and Scurich is what you should be talking to, not the Criminology Institute, Bogan. Get back to us when you have scientific evidence, in a published, peer reviewed scientific journal, not a study release from Toni Makkai (whom BTW I know personally).

of course you do dear.... we suspect you know everyone who is worth knowing..


dont we? peasants..

[brian ross]

The Genetic studies that I related to, by Appelbaum and Scurich is what you should be talking to, not the Criminology Institute, Bogan. Get back to us when you have scientific evidence, in a published, peer reviewed scientific journal, not a study release from Toni Makkai (whom BTW I know personally).

of course you do dear.... we suspect you know everyone who is worth knowing..


dont we? peasants..

She was partnered to the then head of Politics at ADFA, Professor Ian McAllister, when I was studying there. She was working down the corridor from me when I worked at the Research School of Social Sciences at the ANU. All very incestuous actually. I knew her well enough to say hello to in the corridor but nothing more, Cods. This was nearly 30 years ago in the late 1980s.

You are not a peasant, you're just not moving in the rights circles.

[Bogan]

I just did, Brian. Now you are accusing the Behavioural scientists in the Australian Institute of Criminology of being unscientific because they have admitted that there is a genetic link to criminal behaviour.?

You are just like a Creationist. Same mindset.

[brian ross]

The link is "tenuous" at best, Bogan. The Institute of Criminology is staffed by Criminologists, not Geneticists. They know SFA about Genetics. I would take the word of a Geneticist working in Genetics over a Criminologist as far as a Genetics question is concerned.

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

The link is "tenuous" at best, Bogan. The Institute of Criminology is staffed by Criminologists, not Geneticists. They know SFA about Genetics. I would take the word of a Geneticist working in Genetics over a Criminologist as far as a Genetics question is concerned

I don't need to convince you, Brian. Any more than I need to convince a Creationist that he is wrong. All I need to do is submit reasoned arguments supporting my position, and sit back while you squirm and prevaricate and come up with premises that are real doozies. My posts are really aimed at the other contributors.

If some of them support my position, then I am giving them information and arguments which they will use on other sites to argue the case for the reintroduction of the death penalty. If some of them oppose my position, I have given them something to think about, and I think that at the very least, they would agree that I have presented a convincing case. You are actually helping my position because you can not formulate a convincing argument at all. You have done nothing but attack some of my premises while ignoring almost all of the 8 points I made in my opening statement. That would not even impress your own supporters on this issue.

Any impartial observer reading our exchanges would be struck by the differences between your tactics and mine. You are clearly on the defensive, and all you can do is to focus upon something I have said and try to get as much mileage out of it as you can.

I will address your latest misdirection. Katherine Morley and Professor Wayne D. Hall are both research assistants at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience, which sounds to me like they have something to do with genetics to me. Next, your premise is, that since behavioural scientists who are Criminologists are not geneticists, they are not qualified to link crime and genetics. You could turn that one around and say that since geneticists are not criminologists, they too are not qualified to link crime and genetics. So, no scientist of any discipline is allowed to link crime and genetics? I doubt if any person capable of impartial thought would be convinced by that logic.

Finally, unlike yourself, I bought a book written by the opposition to the clear link between genetics and crime, because I was really interested in how the author would counter the very convincing arguments put forward by the scientists, both geneticists and criminologists, that genetics and crime are linked. ("The war Against children"- Brevin) I was shocked to discover, not only did the author not address the scientific arguments at all, he bragged about how he and the US NAACP *National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People) had successfully lobbied the US Congress to withhold any research funds to any scientist engaged in any research linking genetics with crime. I decided then and there, that any credibility the Brian Ross clones had, just went right out the window. Any organisation which proposes an ideology based upon the suppression of science is obviously logically bankrupt.

Last but not least, you have laughingly claimed that unless I can post up scientific articles confirming that crime and genetics are linked, my whole argument is invalid. All you had to do was look at the last pages of the AIC report to note that the paper had been the result of the two authors studying 17 scientific papers which did just that.

[brian ross]

You really are quite deluded, aren't you, Bogan?

[Bogan]

Another devastating and well reasoned argument by Brian Ross.

[Nicole]

Another devastating and well reasoned argument by Brian Ross.

He does that when he’s stuck.

[Bobby]

dear Brian,
when you hang a man you better look at him.