Todays London Stabbing/Shooting

Romford, is London as far as I am concerned.
Like wise this village is more than likely still Manchester.

Thread title need to change then.. It's misleading

Todays London Stabbing/Shooting


Ps my family used to live in Edmonton/Romford area
 
Last edited:
Genetic links to a predisposition to aggression are well known, one only has to look at dogs that are bred for fighting, Spanish fighting bulls and fighting cockerels. You can take examples of any of these and divorce their progeny from their parents near birth and bring them up away from their parents and siblings yet most will still display aggressive behaviour. Despite some physical attributes being bred for there is also a desire to breed for aggressive temperament. It's common for siblings of aggressive animals to display aggression naturally, despite their environment and associates. To suggest the human being is not subject to aggressive traits from certain genetic make ups is risible. Aggression can be taught, or extracted by physical taunting, but some animals and some people are genetically predisposed to being more aggressive than others, whatever their environment.
 
Genetic links to a predisposition to aggression are well known, one only has to look at dogs that are bred for fighting, Spanish fighting bulls and fighting cockerels. You can take examples of any of these and divorce their progeny from their parents near birth and bring them up away from their parents and siblings yet most will still display aggressive behaviour. Despite some physical attributes being bred for there is also a desire to breed for aggressive temperament. It's common for siblings of aggressive animals to display aggression naturally, despite their environment and associates. To suggest the human being is not subject to aggressive traits from certain genetic make ups is risible. Aggression can be taught, or extracted by physical taunting, but some animals and some people are genetically predisposed to being more aggressive than others, whatever their environment.

Tell us more about the practical application of eugenics.
 
Genetic links to a predisposition to aggression are well known, one only has to look at dogs that are bred for fighting, Spanish fighting bulls and fighting cockerels. You can take examples of any of these and divorce their progeny from their parents near birth and bring them up away from their parents and siblings yet most will still display aggressive behaviour. Despite some physical attributes being bred for there is also a desire to breed for aggressive temperament. It's common for siblings of aggressive animals to display aggression naturally, despite their environment and associates. To suggest the human being is not subject to aggressive traits from certain genetic make ups is risible. Aggression can be taught, or extracted by physical taunting, but some animals and some people are genetically predisposed to being more aggressive than others, whatever their environment.

Accoriding to this study, scientists have identified 40 genes relating to aggressiveness in humans and mice.

In particular, they identified forty genes in humans and mice that can lead to a risk of aggressive behaviours "and that take part in biological processes that are related to the development and function of the central nervous system, communication within cells and cellular function maintenance," adds researcher Fernàndez Castillo (IBUB-CIBERER-IRSJD). "Some gens are likely to function as important nodes of the genic networks prone to a violent behaviour, and those would be probably related to other genes which play a minor role," adds the researcher.

"If any of those central genes is altered, it could affect the other genes and lead to the aggressive phenotype. For instance, RBFOX1 gene, identified in the new study and cited in a previous article by our team (European Neuropsychopharmacology, 2017), regulates the expression of fifteen out of the forty genes that we identified in the study. Another gene we marked -MAOA, which codes a metabolizing enzyme of the serotonin neurotransmission-, is related to drugs used to treat several psychiatric pathologies, sycg as selective inhibitors of serotonin reuptake or SSRIs."

However, they acknowledge the impact of externalities on aggressiveness:

"However -says Cormand- aggressiveness has a significant environmental element, which was not considered in this scientific study. Therefore, it would be interesting to combine genetic and environmental data from the same individuals to consider the interactions that can occur between the same risk factors that influence this kind of behaviour."

What you would have to do to support your notion is prove that the gene (or gene combinations) that dictate ‘race’ directly correlates with and causes those alterations that lead to the phenotype linked with increased aggressiveness.
 
Tell us more about the practical application of eugenics.


Irish Tom has linked to some experts, I am a mechanic, but breed a few cattle and a lot of dogs, so I have some practical experience of aggression being genetically linked. I HAVE read a lot of tomes by experts who believe this to be a fact however. Google will give a plethora of fact (and opinion). As for eugenics again there is a raft of information and opinion, some I might subscribe to, some I would not. I doubt in modern liberal times where I heard a Leicester University criminologist "expert" just now on BBC claiming racially targeted stop and search is bad as those targeted "don't like it, so it shouldn't be contemplated", I doubt proactive eugenics will happen any time soon ;) Critical appraisal of a partner extending beyond looks and class might allow some amateur eugenics to occur, most people seem to spend more time studying a new puppies pedigree than they do investigating the family of a potential husband or wife.
 
I think it's fairly accepted that certain non-physical traits are/can be passed on through genetics?

Ie gun dogs and their love for chasing things down holes (can't purely be related to their physical attributes - ie size and shape). Eg that huskies/malamutes love to run long distances (they really, really want to run and pull things).

Nature and nurture definitely both play a part.

Whether that translates to humans tho... I'd not want to draw any conclusions. But the idea in principal doesn't seem too outrageous.

Well in fact the whole "morning/afternoon person" thing... that's been linked strongly to genetics. If that can be genetic then so can a range of other behaviours.
 
I think it's fairly accepted that certain non-physical traits are/can be passed on through genetics?

Ie gun dogs and their love for chasing things down holes (can't purely be related to their physical attributes - ie size and shape). Eg that huskies/malamutes love to run long distances (they really, really want to run and pull things).

Nature and nurture definitely both play a part.

Whether that translates to humans tho... I'd not want to draw any conclusions. But the idea in principal doesn't seem too outrageous.

Well in fact the whole "morning/afternoon person" thing... that's been linked strongly to genetics. If that can be genetic then so can a range of other behaviours.


Gun dogs retrieve shot birds, if they start chasing things down holes they may well get shot themselves as for being useless and slacking :) Terriers go down holes.
 
Damn, you exposed me just as I was trying to pass myself off as one of the gentry, what what. Or even as someone who vaguely knows what they're talking about.

I like cats more anyhow.
 
I think it's fairly accepted that certain non-physical traits are/can be passed on through genetics?

Ie gun dogs and their love for chasing things down holes (can't purely be related to their physical attributes - ie size and shape). Eg that huskies/malamutes love to run long distances (they really, really want to run and pull things).

Nature and nurture definitely both play a part.

Whether that translates to humans tho... I'd not want to draw any conclusions. But the idea in principal doesn't seem too outrageous.

Well in fact the whole "morning/afternoon person" thing... that's been linked strongly to genetics. If that can be genetic then so can a range of other behaviours.
I don’t think anyone is questioning that genetic variations can have an effect on behaviour.

It’s more a question of “are there demonstrable links between the genetic variations we define as ‘race’ and the genetic variations which dictate specific types of behaviour?”

For instance…

If you could prove that Sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants are predisposed to an X% increased chance of having the genetic mutation Y, which correlates with a Z% increased chance of displaying aggressive behaviour, you would potentially have a case for saying that some Sub-Saharan Africans are more likely to be aggressive than other ‘races’.

However, if there’s effectively a random distribution of mutation Y across all ‘races’, then any correlation between ‘race’ and an increase in aggressive behaviour must be due to some other externality.
 
No it’s not simply a ‘view’, it’s literally how British people are, all talk and then when it comes to election time - ‘how much bribery shall I listen to today to reduce my taxes, with no thought into how it actually affects me’.

It’s no wonder that Theresa May just said that knife crime has nothing to do with reduced police numbers, the cheek.

Directly contradicted by head of MET Police

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47452799
 
I think it's fairly accepted that certain non-physical traits are/can be passed on through genetics?

Ie gun dogs and their love for chasing things down holes (can't purely be related to their physical attributes - ie size and shape). Eg that huskies/malamutes love to run long distances (they really, really want to run and pull things).

Nature and nurture definitely both play a part.

Whether that translates to humans tho... I'd not want to draw any conclusions. But the idea in principal doesn't seem too outrageous.

Well in fact the whole "morning/afternoon person" thing... that's been linked strongly to genetics. If that can be genetic then so can a range of other behaviours.

Thing is, we did the selective breeding of dogs/cats/farm animals to push such traits through. To the point that we have radical variations within certain species (poodle vs great dane).

You do not have such great variations within the human genome, and violence has existed within the realms of caucasians for plenty of time (slave trade, various 'white' empires). Wasn't Genghis Khan one of the most violent men in history? Those damn peace-loving asiatics.
 
Pillory in the town square :p



The modern military won't want the dead weight of society. They often have more applications than places, so they aren't going to take some brainless scrote on a police watch list.


It's to teach them a good lesson in life.
Not for going to war or anything like that.
 
Thing is, we did the selective breeding of dogs/cats/farm animals to push such traits through. To the point that we have radical variations within certain species (poodle vs great dane).

You do not have such great variations within the human genome, and violence has existed within the realms of caucasians for plenty of time (slave trade, various 'white' empires). Wasn't Genghis Khan one of the most violent men in history? Those damn peace-loving asiatics.
Well the world was a lot more violent/brutal in general back then. We wouldn't go around subjugating entire continents these days, because we'res supposed to be more civilised/enlightened.

In today's (polite) society there isn't so much need of direct physical violence, just to survive/prosper. The vikings aren't going to come raid your village in 2019 (Scandinavian women always welcome to raid my village, see signposts for directions).

How representative was Genghis of his civilisation? How representative are these violent criminals of the communities they are growing up in? Or just their generation?

Hard to tell.
 
Romford, is London as far as I am concerned.
Like wise this village is more than likely still Manchester.

Thread title need to change then.. It's misleading

Todays London Stabbing/Shooting


Ps my family used to live in Edmonton/Romford area

No Romford is a town in Havering which is a borough of London, Harold Hill is part of Romford also.

Romford is not London.

It’s like these reporters that put place names under a large bracket, for example the girl who was killed in Harold Hill, news reporters keep saying Romford, they should be more precise, it’s lazy and doesn’t help.
 
No Romford is a town in Havering which is a borough of London, Harold Hill is part of Romford also.

Romford is not London.

It’s like these reporters that put place names under a large bracket, for example the girl who was killed in Harold Hill, news reporters keep saying Romford, they should be more precise, it’s lazy and doesn’t help.

Anything connected to London is London for the rest of the UK.
 
Back
Top Bottom