Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "More Concepts out of a Hat" and will be moderated by Tym Parsons. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Tym. OK.. I assume most of you already know what the game entails, but I'll review it for those who don't... "Concepts in a Hat" was a game that Ayn Rand liked to play, wchich involved juxtaposing seemingly unrelated concepts.. And determining the commonality between them Since all facts of reality are necessarily interconnected, all concepts have to be also. For example... (I'll answer this one) What's the commonality between environmentalism and animal rights? The answer is hatred of man... Now obviously there will be many things in common with juxtaposed concepts, so we're looking for the most *fundamental* relationships.. i.e. those aspects upon which everything else depends. Any questions so far? Is it really *everything* else? Gilles: it's a requirement of integration that all of your knowledge is integrated with everything else you know. Gilles: I mean that has the broadest scope of application. Integrated up to a point... there's no way anyone can ever in their lifetimes begin to "fully" integrate their knowledge, it's an ongoing process.. So aren't fundamental relationships the ones one which *most* of the other relationships depend? one=on Gilles: Yes, on which most depend. Gilles: most, numerically, or the most important ones? Gilles: Most fundamental within YOUR context of knowledge. joe: That which explains the most. Gilles: by "everything" I meant essentials. phil: It's true that integration is an on-going process, but what you have is not knowledge of a particular aspect of existence if you don't have it integrated in some manner with everything else. Is it possible for there to be more than one relationship needed to explain the other essentials? Gilles: sure. Context determines that. Gilles: That happens a lot. You can often find many connections between ideas -- context again. Tym: When I played this game in the past, we had several steps. First we defined the two concepts, then we determined whether either depended on the other or if both were dependent on something else. Your description seemed to imply we jump to the last step and name the connection. Oh, you wrote it plural in the first place. Sorry, I misread that. Jim: well, that's the essence of the game. It's a value driven process ... Sherlock Holmes looking for the connection between a piece of hair and a culprit will look for other connections than a biologist studying hair growth and nutrition Phil: right Any other questions? The game is supposed to hone in on the *method* of reason, not merely getting the right answer. Tom: right TomM: right. That's why I liked the way we had played it years ago. We went through the steps. Following each concept to a common link on the hierarchy is the best method. Jim: we'll try to do that here. That is, determine the relationship and the context. OK first question.. Egalitarianism and multiculturalism The destruction of moral judgment and justice. Gilles: right. Why? Anyone? Egalitarianism is from metaphysics, stating that all things (all men) are in fact equal, regardless of the facts. Egalitarianism holds that all values and people are equal. Multiculturalism holds that all cultures are equally valid and to be respeced. Therefore Multiculturalism is a form of egalitarianism. Both deny standards of values. Both say that we should regard all cultures or all individuals as morally equivalent Multiculturalism is from culture (art) and says that all art-forms or culture are equal, regardless of the facts. Jim: you mean objective standards? Both are forms of nihilism, and in that sense, both are anti-man and anti-evaluation. The motivation underlying both: Attacking the objectively superior by undercutting it via equation with everything else Tom: which is more fundamental, the anti eval or the anti man? Tym: the more fundamental of the two is egalitarianism. Once you see that it denies a recognition of the facts, you see it is nihilism. So it is more fundamentally anti-existence. I was asked if I meant objective values just before I was disconnected... Tom: no, I'm asking which is the more fund commonality btw egal and mult Egalitarianism rejects any standards, which includes objective standards. However, it is only one of many systems that deny objective standards. Jim: is multiculturalism another one? Tym: I just answered that. However, if both are anti-existence, then it means neither permits identification and evaluation. Tym: I can see a differentiation between motives and methods, here, re: fundamentality. A motive may drive the creation of certain methods of attack Tym: Yes, as I said, multiculturalism is a form of egalitarianism. e.g. Kant inventing his philosophy, the motive being hatred of Man Tym: It is egalitarianism applied to cultures. Tom: say we're assuming a epistemological rather than metaphysical context. Tym: but more specific to what you are asking, each denies evaluation, which we know is anti-man. Jim: right Tym: Thus it denies that any standards, including objective standards, should be used to judge cultures. Tom: isn't objectivity more fundamental than anti-man? Jim: right. That's what I'm looking for. OK, next question. This one's a chestnut... Tym: Egalitarianism is fundamentally anti-existence, which denies man the ability to judge anything or to know anything. Sex and art. Both objectify one's sense of life. Betsy: right on. How come? ... via concrete instantion of abstractions? instantiation rather Certain kinds of abstractions. Both give you a way to comtemplate your own values "out there" in reality. I got disconnected...is the web that bad off tonight? Anyone disagree with Betsy or have more to add? Both have the _potential_ to objectify sense of life, but both have been robbed of their potential by those who are anti-values. Did she say anthing before that? ie dada Those abstractions that go into forming one's sense of life. TomM: That both objectify one's sense of life. CHamilton: No, nihilists simply express _their_ values/sense of life accordingly Both what? TomM: Sex & Art. OK, how does art DIFFER from sex -- in the way it objectifies values, I mean. ;-) Oh, we must be on another set of concepts? CHamilton: "objectify" here means portray. Ok.. ;) Both sex and art are a means of concretizing the value of being man (or woman ;) ) Betsy: well, since you asked...anyone? To be objective you need to relate concrete instances in existence to abstract ideas, I think that's where the concept of objectify comes in In terms of visibility of oneself? Betsy: Art concretizes an artists metaphysical value judgements. In sex, you experience your own value judgements. Next question... Sex integrates mind and body. Art, by concretizing value abstractions also integrates mind and body. Materialism and "victimology" Jim_N: But you experience your own value judgements when contemplating the kind of art you enjoy the most. Can you elaborate on the latter term, Tym? Betsy: True. Materialism denies the mind, that it has any function in human existence. Victimology denies the mind as well, stating that the "victim" couldn't help it...i.e. his mind was helpless in that situation. By "victimology" do you mean putting the responsibility of your failures on someone or something else? Both terms emphasize lack of spiritual values. Subetai: Yes. You're just a victim of your environment, etc. Both deny volition argh Tym was a victim of bad connection due to the material of the web ;) Tom: yeah :/ He hit the close window button. Denial of volition is the best match-up. Phil, Tom: OK, why? Subetai: but he couldn't help it ;) Tym: By "victimology" you mean the view that criminals etc. "couldn't help it"? Phil: right Could someone define "materialism" again? Since both deny the mind, and man's mind is primarily volitional, then both deny the nature of the mind at the root. And materialism is the view that Man is determined, right? phil: Yes. Because he has no spirit, is just a mechanistic collection of chemicals.. Phil: view that denies consciousness It says only the body exists and controls a man's actions. Materialism is the denial of consciousness. Only material causes are important. Thus a materialist is a determinist. ok I would still say then that denial of volition is the most important connection Jim: yr the closest to my original intent. Denial of volition and determinism being closely allied Phil: right So a criminal couldn't help it because his mind "lost control" of his body, or never had that function in the first place. OK, next Coercion and value Coercion is fundamentally anti-value actio is their essential link , one the denial of and the other the pursuit of a thig Phil: you mean anything obtained by coercion isn't a value? Why not? A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. Coercian attempts to get you to accept something against your value judgement. I mean, I snatched this valuable purse here ;) or to take it away from you. Tym: I mean that the act of coercion negates the action of valuing. In the human concept, man's mind is the root of values, and coercion cuts off reason from action In this case, there is no connection per se, but a denial of one by the other. lol Phil: so? That's just my victim. Doesn't cut off MY valuing the purse. They are both ways of obtaining values: by offering a value (trade) or by using coercion (force). Betsy: strictly speaking, coercian gains no values. Obtaining values from others, I mean. Man has no automatic code of values. He must discover and choose his values. Coercion prevents a man from acting to gain his values. It's not a value if obtained via force. Betsy: but are you really obtaining values? objectively Tym: Yes, in the broad sense Not objectively phil: Nope. Tym: You're getting someone else's values from him. We've been over the "objective value" versus "value" debate. Let's stick to the simple definition of value - that which one acts to gain and/or keep. And let's not get into a value (1) vs value (2) discussion ;) Betsy: I meant value to you as the coercer. Values are that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The question of what are the appropriate things to value, and how to acquire them, is a separate study. We could say good values/bad values; good approaches/bad approaches; etc. Brad: right, I don't want to gety into that right now. right Tym: By stealing the purse, you've stopped the person who owned it from achieving their value of the purse. AddContextItem(value=act to gain/and/or keep) Tym: That is a debatable issue whether it is of value to the coercer. The only two ways a person can get my values away from ME is to offer me a value or to use coercion. Betsy: it's not debatable to Objectivists. Betsy: does Objectivism hold it as a debatable issue? Tym: That depends on the context: value(1) or value (2), etc. Betsy: I mean the narrower sense. Let's put it this way: The item taken by force will not do the forcee any good. Tom: why not? nor the forcer ;) Tym: Then that is a motivational issue which requires knowledge of the coercer. A person who takes something in an emergency in order to survive and uses force is different than someone who wantonly destroys for no reason. Tom: because it destroys man's whole reason for being in society? (I meant to say forcer) But it doesn't do the forcee any good, because a value was taken from him; it doesn't do the forcer any good because justice is metaphysical. value(act to gain/keep) = something held to be value(furthers life) qua reality, they are opposites. Qua epistemology, coercion is a form of acquiring values (an irrational one) Peikoff's lecture last year defended the need for 2 definitions of values. THe only sense in which it isn't debatable is that depending which definition of value is used, it can be judged absolutely. Jim: I mean the narrower sense. Betsy: I'm referring to the typical context of men's lives, not emergencies. Tym: If so then your question really needs to be: coercion and objective value. The answer is different, then Tym: The narrower being that which benefits your life qua man? Tym: Then probably not. It won't do the forcer any good objectivisely, because he is encouraging a denial of existence within himself. Jim: what Phil said. objectively OK, ready to move on to the next? Let's keep an objective context in mind throughout, or we will be spinning out too many hypotheticals. What's the link? (Think we've covered that one for now) Glenn: it's more of an anti-link ;) Tom: right Man achieves his values by reason. When man turns to coersion against other men rather than using reason with them, he is acting against his own life. It is not a value to destroy the means of all values. Given that _in reality_ the non-objective exists in abundance and must be dealt with, "assuming objectivity" is not necessarily a good idea in terms of grasping human action Next question. Cloning and emergencies phil: I didn't mean assume the forcer is objective, I meant let's keep the objective meaning of the terms in mind. Whoa! :) Creating vital organs through cloning that you might need in an emergency? :) strawmen for ethics? special cases Both are marginal issues. Subetai: I'm laughing even if yr not joking ;) Both are situations where most people say the usual rules don't apply. Well, it's an odd one. :) Kpart: close Tym: trying to make policies (principles) based on the most extreme case Betsy: closer Cloning is a means of duplicationg living beings. An emergency means the ordinary context does not apply. Well, the anti-cloning people assume the worst case scenario and thus are acting on the "ethics of emergencies" premise Emergencies are situations where quick action is need to prevent harm. It is a type of situation. Cloning is a means of duplicating a life form. It is a process. Paul: I agree with you. That's a good connection. Paul: bingo! Phil: right In other words, you are claiming that the ethics of emergencies is similar to the ethics of cloning? I disagree with that. Tom: they're both borderline categories in ethics. right? Tym: Are both instances of "Hard cases make bad law?" Tym: Ok, I'll bye that. Yeah, wait a minute. What's wrong with cloning? Betsy: yup Gilles: not saying there is. I don't really see where there is any problem with cloning. Is it really a borderline case? Nothing's wrong with cloning, objectively. A clone that fits the definition of man (i.e., rational animal) has the same rights as anyone else. Cloning is evil. Identical twins should be locked up :| So again we're not assuming objectivity? The media and religionists are making it a special case. I think Tym is trying to say that the problems due to cloning are not something that we need to worry about as we live our lives on a daily basis. Phil *laugh* :) Tom: right Both are used as excuses to suspend rational standards and rights. What problems due to cloning? Tym: My problem with these two concepts are that you aren't looking at emergencies as such but decisions made based on borderline cases. I had no idea what kinds of emergencies you had in mind. Tym: Actually, you could make an interesting connection between cloning and materialism. The anti-cloners assume determinism in a sense -- they assume that the genetically equiv. person would be literally identical I really don't see anything "borderline" about cloning, but we can talk about that later. Gilles: Even assuming objectivity, I don't see where cloning adds any new problems in the field of ethics...BUT...those who are against it are assuming we are in an emergency situation re cloning. Jim: emergencies are borderline categories, and so is cloning. Phil: right TomM: Exactly: we're assuming their context. Subetai: It is a "hard case" -- a new issue in ethics/law where the relevant principles have not been previously well-defined. Sube: mean borderline ethics. After all, clones are decanted a la Brave New World, not born ;) Gilles: Actually, I think we were assuming the current context of what has been said about cloning. Betsy: right Betsy: I don't see that it calls for any new principles. The old one applies: man is a rational animal. No mention of where he came from. I was partly serious -- identical twins are _precise_ genetic clones I agree that it's a case of applying old principles to circumstances that haven't existed before. Tym: they'd actually have to be born, but that's a technical issue ;) Tym thewy are conceived that way still woild be born to a woman who carried them to term , no ? Sube: what Tom said. assuming humans of course Clones exist, people That is what ident. twins are Anyway, we can discuss the clone issue after this. Any more concept pairs, Tym? clones are intentional ide twins Subetai: There are many new issues: Does one have any rights to one's own genetic material? How much responsisibility does one have toward one's clone? Etc. "I think I'm a clone now.." oopps..."Send in the Clones..." ;) Betsy: right OK next question.. Mind/body dichotomy and intrinsicism Betsy: i don't see any of that as new...it would be exactly parallel to giving birth to a child. Hmm Betsy: One's genetic material in one's body, to which one has full rights. Anyway, on with the discussion. TomM: Old priciple, new application. Tom: we can come back to that later if like. Betsy: yes. plus the pundits and all are confusing cloning with putting someone in one of Calvin's duplication boxes Sure...move along... Well, here's a grope: mind/body dichotomy gives intrinsic value to either mind or body, but not their integration Phil: interesting, but not what I had in mind.. Both m/b and intrins. deny objectivity and the RELATIONSHIP between existence and consciousness. We started late so we'll do another 10 minutes, folks. Intrinsicism states that knowledge comes about without observation of existence. Mind/body dichotomy states that the senses are untrustworthy and only the mind can be trusted (or variants thereof). Betsy: good. Elaborate? or the mind is untrustworthy and only the body can be trusted (materialism). Question: Is the essence of objectivity precisely the integration of concepts and specific facts? phil: Yes. Phil: not sure where yr going with that one. And both deny the posibility of obtaining objectivity. the essence of objectivity is the idea that existence is independent of consciousness Mind roughly equates to concepts, body roughly equates to "specific" In m/b, a person favors one or the other and ignores either existence or consciousness. In intrinsicism, knowledge is just out there and one just knows it -- without the proper epistemological relationship between existence and consciousness. phil: You can do it more directly by showing that intrinsicists deny the need for facts, while the m/b dichotomy denies either one of two facts: man is a being of *both* mind and body. specific facts proerly integrated are conepts , no ? In the value realm, intrinsicism destroys choice and therefore makes one have to ignore feelings, emotions, pleasure (body) and only go by what reality has imprinted in his mind. Betsy: very good. So, how would that relate the doctrines of say Descartes and Plato? Tym: Both Plato and Descartes were out of touch with reality. .. Gilles: interesting idea. Knowledge is an integration of sensory evidence. Intrinsicism denies such evidence, and m/b dichotomy denies such integration. The denila of integration is the more fundamental connection. re Plato, he lumped bodily pleasures in with the "flaw" specifics of observed reality. The mind was "pure" oops denial TomM: Well put. Thanks. Betsy: so Knowledge as Forms and m/b dchotomy are both intrinsicist positions? Phil: interesting point. Tym: in that sense, i think m/b is more fundamental. In other words, both intrinsicism and materialism are two sides of the same m/b dichotomy. Tym: Not necessarily. There are several forms of the m/b split and not all of them are intrisicist. Materialism usually isn't, but idealism usually is. Tom: in the sense that volition is more fundamental than cognition? The m/b dichotomy denies a relationship between mind and body. An intrincist denies that knowledge is based on sensory evidence, so denies that relationship to the body. So, yes, MBD is more fundamental. Tym: No, what Betsy said. Betsy: ok Away from keyboard away from keyboard ok. Next Q Tym? i thought there was a Kennedy i did not know about So, Jasra is here in spirit but not in body? ;) Phil: I'm not sure we've chewed the last one yet ;) Tym: what other connection(s) are you looking for? Betsy: I guess I mean intrinsicist in the sense that Descartes reified mind as Plato did ideas. Tym: isnt mind a material entity K:line: no Intrinsicism is the view that values are intrinsic in existence, not a relationship between a valuer and the valued, yes? Kline: No, it's the processing of evidence. Tym: ok, its a process then? Tym: After studying Descartes as a philosophy major many years ago, I'm not sure exactly _what_ he was doing. phil: That's part of it. Betsy: DesCartes was a kind of common sense version of Plato ;) Tym: Okay, but we covered that by saying that the intrinsicist denies that knowledge is based on sensory evidence, that the mind can exist without a body to first perceive existence. Jim: that's right. OK, I'm done...spring yr own concepts or wander at will! Thanks, Tym. :) Thanks thanks Tym Tym: before you go, please define mind? I have to go now. Thank you all for a good discussion. It went better this time than last, so good show. Tym: Those last few pairs where real thought-provokers! Betsy: hope so :) Phil: Intrinsicism is more fundamental than that: It says that you can get knowledge without doing any processing. It just comes into your brain. Gilles: Ok K:line: mind is consciousness, an attribute a body has. tym: physical effect of a physical cauuse, i.e. workings of the brain? Kline: well, yes, in the sense that nothing is divorced from physical reality. Can we discuss cloning now? Can we discuss cloning now? Thanks for the concepts Tym. The only one that lost me was the "cloning & emergencies". Vied merely as concepts and not as current events threw me off. Sure. Ha ha ha *chuckle* IRC cloning? We kill cloners on here. Standard procedure. Tym nice discussion , fun to chew I agree with Subetai -- the issue is straightforward, since a person is the logical owner of their own DNA, it is up to them to decide. Subetai: Should there be congressional hearings about #geekspeaks practices? ;) Ha. tkTad: thanks Imagine Subetai being questioned by all those senators? BradA: To decide to be cloned? Or to decide what rights the clone has? I would only agree to the first. BradA: What about theft of DNA? Brad: however there's the bioethical issue of neurologic capacity to reason. Jim, the former, not the latter, obviously. Tym thanks for an interesting discussion, that was my first Concepts out of a Hat game. "Oh, Jonny's so cute, I'm going to take one of his hairs and make one for myself" cjs: bitte :) What's that again, Tym? lol Sube: what's what? CH they would have to wait for a number of years and carry to term "The neurologic capacity to reason" This would not be a simple case of theft. If someone took Jonny's wallet, Jonny has the right to reclaim it. Can Jonny take his clone back? Where does his right to the DNA end? DNA is simply information. Ident. twins have no rights to each others' life Sube: I'm referring to the context where clones are made not born. Now one interesting question is: Does _anyone_ have the right to take _anyone elses's_ DNA and create a clone? If a person has the right to his own DNA (it's a part of his body, to which he owns exclusive rights), it's not simply information. also this whole thing about making a clone to obtain spare parts. if they mean treating the clone like an animal and killing it for parts, that would be criminal. if they mean obtaining non-destructive donations like bone marrow: this has already been done with normal birth (parents of a 20 year old had another child to obtain bone marrow) Phil: if it's ok with the original. Tym: What if it ain't? Isn't it more a parental rights and responsibilty issue ? -Phil: then no, obviously. Tym , made ? Tym: Why? don't they already grow skin from your own skin cells to repair damage from burns? Is that a form of cloning? Phil: oh, you mean like getting nail clippings outta the trash and cloning that? :) Phil: No, that isn't exactly what I meant. You can't use someone else's tissue and DNA without their consent. In the case of twins, it would require consent of one or the other. However... in this case, one twin could conceivably seek a court order barring the other from *some* kinds of activity, if using the dna could be dangerous to him. Sube: maybe something like a liver, but a lung? Subetai: Can they clone an entire organ without cloning the whole organism? We are already cloning skin to treat burn victims. Tym: sipmly apply the proper hormones at the proper time to a common cell, and you'd eventually grow lung cells. Jim: You can do it for tissues like liver and skin so far. Grow them properly and they will form a lung Tym: Easier than cloning a deliberately anencephalic human. Isn't organ donation a more efficient way to handle such cases ? Chamilton: that's a stretch. CHamilton: Not true -- organs grow in a context of adjacent cells which provide key chemical signals needed for development. Ah, they can repair the liver with cloned cells. But do they just produce liver cells, or do they produce an entirely new liver? tkTad: risk of rejection. But, that could be mimicked. do you think there is a package-deal here, cloning plus genetic engineering? Brad: That's what I had meant. ok They can't grow a completely new liver. Sube: at our current level of technology it cannot be done. Tad - there is an increasing gap between available donors and those who need organs Subetai: Okay. Still, it's already impressive that they can repair a liver, and repair damaged skin. Rejection is almost inherent in the nature of human tissue and immune system. Vastly better to develop organs from one's own genetic material, otherwise you are waging a massive, complex battle against the body. What I said, Chris. Lurch but to grow an "organ" by cloning would take a certain amount of time , no ? Current anti-rejection treatments leave the body wide open to infections. Lurch: Of course, the issue of organ doners is interesting in itself. I read a great article by Walter Williams one time on the benefits of allowing marketing of donor organs, and how that would increase incentive, etc. Tad - sure - but how much? months? a year? people are waiting for years to get matching organs Lurch true , hey cloning is new to me :) Hmm..black market. "Hey buddy. Wanna buy a gall bladder? Dirt cheap". :p gall bladder Jim - true.. though that has potential to lead into the land Larry Niven describes in his Gil Hamilton books Jim: yeah, there's a real shortage. Jim: Yikes. They are already killing people in China to harvest their organs. A free market in organs would guarantee dictatorships would vastly expand their vile practices. ;) CHamilton: I would prefer an free market. supposdly organs are sold in asia. the donors are paid. Gall bladder seemed a little more humorous than "liver" or whatever. Brad: guess we'll have to embargo China eh? :| market forces already operate in some sense , no ? the hospitals that set up and support organ transplant programs ? tkTad: there's a huge amount of rationing. Tym: Actually, I would favor a technique that worked, such as withdrawing all diplomatic recognition and offical ties. Larry Niven, the SF novelist, wrote a few novels about the potential evils of organ harvesting and dictatorships BradA: Well, I wouldnt' suggest trade with China anyway. I don't consider slavery to be part of a free market. All donors would be voluntary. Williams did a great job of explaining how this would increase the willingness of people to donate, as well as help contribute to more healthy donors. I.E. you get more money if you keep your organs healthy. better chance of obtaining a transplant in John's Hopkins than county medical center tkTad: they make all sorts of arbitrary decisions like whether the life of an alcoholic is worth more than a teen, etc. Tym: Where'd you hear that? Brad: curbing crime doesn't always "work" either ;) Jim: *Live* donors? Yuch. Tym: Right. Other people decide whether you are worthy of the organ, rather than you having the right to earn it by paying for it. I thought it was based simply on which transplant had the best chance of "taking" followed by who would die sooner if they didn't get one. There are stories about Chinese concentration camp guards blowing the brains out of political prisoners and giving to aging fathers for "virility" etc. :\ if you can afford to pay for srevices and get into a major hospital , your chances of a sucessful transplant are increased, no ? Tym: Actually, it seems to turn out that curbing crime is mostly a matter of keeping neighborhoods in good repair, and avoiding interventions that cause crime. BradA: Live? The organs must be alive. You'd agree to sell your organs when you die. What's so yukky about that? You can't do anything about the fact people have free will. Jim: No, I thought the idea was people sell their organs while they are alive. Brad - people give up kidneys all the time a la Monty Python (one each,but... ) Brad: that's overly simplistic. BradA: No. Though, I guess that would be an option too. But obviously you couldn't donate your heart before you die. Brad: white collar crime costs FAR more dollarwise. What do you mean Tym? ;) Phil: lol Tym:Well, there happens to be great empirical evidence -- crime has dropped dramatically in NYC in the last decade, and coincident with a concerted effort to clean up the surroundings and to police locally. funny. Brad: "coincident". Demographics played a part too. Brad:crime has dropped nationwide Npt in my little burg the local papers run special stories almost daily about the rise in violent crime , drive by shootings and the like