We all know there are double standards in this thing of ours. It is a social fact  with human behavior. You have the in group and the out group.  The in group feeds false rhetoric to the out group to gain their compliance. It is social fact,  I am not attacking any group or particular person. Although it is also social fact that someone will take this as a personal attack. 

The false rhetoric I am speaking of is this 

You cannot be tried and convicted guilty of your fathers actions. You know that better than anybody, surely?

This was stated by someone in another conversation, I forget which one. 

This false rhetoric: Something that is repeated as the truth, but it is deceptive and misleading. 

The truth is if you are part of the in group or one of their groupies you cannot be tried and convicted guilty for your father's actions. 
If you are not part of this group you are indeed tried and convicted for your father's actions. This is an example of the nefarious side of blood lining.

So, the discussion I would like is why do people propagate this false rhetoric? 

Grace was pleased to see discussion sprouting up around the streets once again, so she eagerly wanted to join in. Listening carefully she nodded her head, not so much in agreement but mostly to show that she was listening.

"As a woman of science, I personally have a great interest in genetics and the hereditary nature of genes." Grace said once the woman had stopped. "I don't believe the offspring of those who have done something deserving of death are killed due to their lineage." She said, "But due to genetics, and that old saying about the apple and the tree, while some are quick to assume, which has yet another saying attached to it I might add, I suspect that all crotch-goblins of the fallen are given a fair chance, but in my experience and extensive scientific research and education due to being a doctor..."

Grace stopped to take a deep breath, "Well most children end up being just like their parents. And while you can say until you're blue in the face that its because of who their parent was, its never the main reason." The doctor gave a shrug, "So how you can call it false rhetoric, I'm not sure you're correct in that point." 

So Grace you are saying nature takes precedence over nurture? 

That the offspring is incapable of seeing the issue. Therefore incapable of changing? 

"Genetically, nature plays a large part. But nurture plays a role in it as well. People can change, but given how close the consanguinity between parents and their children, rarely does it happen." Grace said. "Personal growth is something you can consider, but again how long are you supposed to allow the chance of growth before you stop ignoring that the proverbial apple is practically at the base of the the rotting tree?" 

So Grace let me see if I understand, a person can be held to their father's deeds then?

Instead of held to their actions they are held to their predecessors actions? 

So this means that the statement made by someone else in another discussion

You cannot be tried and convicted guilty of your fathers actions. You know that better than anybody, surely?

Is deceptive and therefore false rhetoric?  

Name and shame this person, Terrah. We've all got our pitchforks out. Who is this deceiver?! He who delivers false rhetoric in a society of social facts???

Grace stood for a second and then shook her head, "No, I'm stating that people will not be convicted for their parent's actions, but usually because the child is stuck like glue to the parent until the time of death, the odds are that they will not change and whatever caused the parent's death may happen again due to the child's upbringing." 

"The statement about the apple and the tree means that they are very similar in personality and behavior. They may share the same ideals, beliefs and mannerism. People can change, but the usual end result around these streets, is that they never change forever and the shared ideals, behavior and beliefs that their parent held, come shining through and thus they meet the same fate." 

I haven't seen much in the way of people being tried and convicted for actions of their family, but I can see what you're talking about. My family has been here a very long time, and over the years we've noticed a trend. 

If your grandfather was a dick, your father was a dick, your long-lost cousin was a dick, mother was a cunt, why would we expect the newest generation to be anything less. 

At a certain point the burden of proof is no longer on the masses to find out if this new generation is a dick and it becomes their responsibility to show everyone else that they have changed. 

So you are all saying that, that statement is false. 

I did  go look back to see who said it, because I am almost positive that it was one of the in group who stated  it in a conversation on the streets in recent months, in one of Kuku's discussions.  This was stated. While all the discussions I have read are marked there is just to much misdirection by respondents to find it. 

At what  point  then does someone  become judged by their actions and not their parents actions? Or are too many of the in group  just jaded like Dr_KennethNoisewater is implying.

Grace sighed, "People are judged on their actions, what we are saying is that the statement is true and you're not grasping that it is possible that people make the same terrible choices their parent's made, and thus reach the same demise. Do you have proof that people are being murdered for their parent's actions? Actual proof, not hearsay or what you've observed. I'm a woman of facts and science." 

I don't think that it is a set point Terrah. It is going to be different for each instance. 

If a person is known to be from a long line of problems, they shouldn't expect to be welcomed with open arms just because they show up and say they've changed. Long term damage can take generations to correct and rebuild what was lost. 

Well observation is science, it is used  in ethnography to name but one field of science that uses observation. 

Why do I need actual proof, when  people  are killed and wars are started on things that haven't been proven?  This happens all the time, but you ask me for proof. 

Observe with your owns eyes, if you can do it as objectively as you can. Although the act of being  objective with your observations and subjective is another discussion entirely. 

I believe where you are mistaken Terrah is your use of the word deeds or misdeeds. The in or out crowd cares little for the deeds of your mother or father, in fact your mother or father may have no deeds or misdeeds. It is a simple equation of family line and where yours fits into society. So yes, you may be descended from a line who once upon a time wrought a great injustice, and someone now in power had a father or grandfather who was a victim of that injustice. But at the same time its equally possible that someone in power victimizes your line because they see it as funny, humorous or in some way engaging. The issue in many cases is not the sins of your progenitors but rather the power welded by your taunter. For example, say persona A over time becomes GFC of NY, and they are strolling through the streets. They hear your great grandfather tell a story, and they think to themselves, stupid fucking story. So they tell your grandfather his story is shit, and to be gone and stop orating. Your Grandfather takes umbridge at this and speaks out, an argument ensues, and the GFC has your grandfather killed.

Your father xomes to these shores and speaks out, and an argument ensues, and the GFC has your father killed. You arrive, but you have lesrned not to argue with the GFC, for surely he'll just have you killed, so you keep your head down, join a nice family, and pay your way. You venture to the streets and tell a story, and boom, you are dead. Your son returns, all wtf happened? Turns out it was the GFC. Now, did he kill you because a) your daddy and he argued, or b) because he knows it angers members of your family and he is the big dick around these parts, and like all big dicks he likes to fuck people? The only question is, does he get off more on the act of killing you, or the reaction of your kin? 

The sad truth in this life that many don't grasp, is few are ever truely terrorfying enough to warrent killing again and again. Sure some just can't learn a lesson, and I'm not talking about you here, but there are a few who like a non house trained dog require correction again and again until they learn to obey the rules, but for the most part people whose line are killed over and over again are killed purely for shits and giggles.

So ask yourself this, are you a person so reviled and hated because of the despicable things your ancestor did, or is it more likely that someone in a position of power (or not, some are truely anarchists and will sacrifice themselves in the persuit of harrassment) gets a semi everytime they murder a member of your family whether dirrectly or indirrectly?

You see, the one thing my family has learned after all these many, many, long years, is that outside of your circle of friends, few will ever actually give a fuck who you are.

Dr.KennethNoisewater I appreciate your opinion. So it is a case by case issue then.  

It is understandable that it takes time for the feeling of  those holding judgement  and resentment in their hands to dissipate? 

  But does this  become unhealthy for the ones holding the resentment and judgement and for the one it is held against and the community? 

"Personally unless I'm told directly that someone died because of who their father was, and that was the main reason, I will avoid making any sort of assumption about the reasoning behind it." Grace said, "Because even with observations, because complex factors are involved such as the minds of people, which we can not read, we'll never be absolutely certain for the reason of any death unless it is directly stated. And even then people have been known to lie, so can we ever truly know? Unless of course you're the one pulling the trigger on the offender, I suppose not." 

I get what you are saying Lincoln_Lawyer. 

 I never once thought you were talking about me, my bloodline has not done anything to regret. I would say yes some of it just someone getting their jollies off, but only a sadist would do that. So on that note I would say that is a small population in this thing of ours.   

  But does this  become unhealthy for the ones holding the resentment and judgement and for the one it is held against and the community? 

I will break this down into two parts. The first looking at your first question, does it become unhealthy. I think, no it does not. Having seen this up close I think this has quite the opposite effect.  By keeping these problem people separated you are able to minimize the amount of damage that they can cause. If the problem people are trying to make amends I think you'll find most are willing to give them a chance to prove themselves different from past generations. 

The second part, I would consider again a case by case issue. There are some people who are very happy to operate outside the confines of what we consider 'normal.' Others, find it extremely hard to cope with being left out.

In my experience, anytime someone is actively trying to change their ways the community is generally accepting of them and welcome them back into the fold. If that trust is then betrayed, then they have nobody to blame but themselves for being shunned. 

I want to thank those who actually held this conversation with me. 

I appreciate your input and opinions. Thank you for your time.

The issue is a small population within a small population can be a big percentage. We are small in number, the numbers of those in power is small, but a veritable constant. Few in power right now could hold their hand up and proclaim their father or grandfather was not a GF, CL, RHM or LHM.  Even less could claim none of those posistions in the last 10 generations. So it is as both Dr Grace and Dr_KennethNoisewater I'm sure will concur, a statistical probability that at least one sadist currently holds one of those positions. 

I would hazzard a guess that the only line currently killed repeatedly because of who they are, would be the kuku line and that in part is often a result of their actions, not their forefathers. Any one else who is feeling likewise victimised, is probably at the mercy, for the lack of a better term, of one of your 'sadists'. The use of the term sadist does not preclude the possibility of victimisers having a differnt pathology such as psychopathic or sociopathic tendancies.

To expound on Lincoln_Lawyer's idea here: 

I would hazzard a guess that the only line currently killed repeatedly because of who they are, would be the kuku line and that in part is often a result of their actions, not their forefathers. Any one else who is feeling likewise victimised, is probably at the mercy, for the lack of a better term, of one of your 'sadists'.

It wouldn't be farfetched to even say that this type of killing rarely happens outside of targeted attacks orchestrated by 'secret' groups of "IN" people as Terrah would call them. The fact of it is, many deaths and killings are done for a good reason brought on by an acute scenario.