3% of US population behind bars, on parole or on probation last year

[KrazyHorse]

Unless "multicultural" was a code word for "multiracial", whatever the hell race is...

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.cis.org/articles/1999/back199.html

In 1998 the US population contained 9.8% immigrants

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo46a.htm

In 2001 the Canadian population contained 18.4% immigrants.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by korn469


looks like kid is a member of peta

Nah, i don't care about the little forest creatures.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Did anyone ever do a cost-benefit analysis of that one?

Transportation, the nazi's borrowed the word btw, was really about reducing population rather than punishing crime.

Britain gained immensely from having a global network of colonies populated by Europeans loyal to the crown.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious
So you made it out, and now you want to make it harder for others to escape and blame them for being there in the first place.

Boy talk about cognitive dissonance! How do you read my statements to mean that I want to make it harder for people to make their way into the middle class? As for blame, I don't "blame" people for being born poor and remaining there, inertia is both the easiest and most likely path. But neither do I celebrate those who complain about their station and do nothing improve it.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Poverty certainly has to be in the mix. Sure there are poor neighborhoods where there are no gangs shooting each other, but there could very well be something else that is working together with poverty to cause gang violence in the inner cities. Maybe it's the cities, because living in a rural setting seems to prevent this.

I'm sure poverty has something to do with it, but I wonder how much is cause and how much is effect. In other words, do the lifestyle choices made by people who get out of poverty also tend to make them less prone to commit crimes? Do the mindests of people who don't make it out of poverty contribute to the likelihood that they become criminals? I would say yes to both. Few people are forced into crime in the sense that they have to steal in order to avoid starvation. Many people afflicted by mental illness meanwhile are far more likely to commit crimes and far more likely to be unable to achieve economic success.

I agree that having money makes life easier, and the reduction in stress makes it more likely that people will be able to cope with their stress (including getting appropriate medical attention when necessary) in a healthier manner, minimizing to some extent a potential for criminal behavior. But I don't see this as the end all solution. Plenty of neglected and abused children from wealthy backgrounds end up as criminals too.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Do Americans use handguns for hunting?

I have. A real test of skill.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Unless "multicultural" was a code word for "multiracial", whatever the hell race is...

I meant culture, race is meaningless unless you are a racist. The more cultures your society has to juggle, the more friction your society has to deal with. It's much like speed differentiation on the highway. The greater the difference in speed between vehicles, the more likelihood of accidents occuring. Having many different speed groups with a wide range in their speeds insures a high friction environment. How many Canadian cultures for instance are as different statistically as say African-Americans (and by that I mean the descendents of slaves in the U.S., not African or Carribean immigrants) and European descended Americans? The difference between lower class African-Americans and middle class African-Americans is enormous.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Your remarks are simply classist. You are implying that rich people work hard and poor people are lazy. I'm not in the mood to argue with you about that right now.

There is no mention of laziness, etc in my post, I was citing the argument often given by liberals - that poverty is a major cause of crime. So what did you say within a few posts of mine?

Some how though, poverty has resulted in gangs shooting each other though.

Now who is being "classist"? Want more?

Poverty certainly has to be in the mix. Sure there are poor neighborhoods where there are no gangs shooting each other, but there could very well be something else that is working together with poverty to cause gang violence in the inner cities. Maybe it's the cities, because living in a rural setting seems to prevent this.

Now answer my question, you weenie. Here it is again:

Is taking the risk or not taking the risk reckless behavior if it leads to poverty which leads to crime? If poverty leads to crime, which is your rationale for punishing drug users, i.e., drug use leads to crime, then being poor is reckless. Paint yourself out of that corner, Kid.

And Kid, the drug war you love is the primary cause of inner city violence. Poverty may indeed be a factor, but give poor people in the inner city the chance to make lots of money selling drugs and don't be surprised if many do exactly that. But since they don't have the courts and police to protect their business endeavors, they employ gangs and violence for protection just as the Mafia did during alcohol prohibition.

Ted -

Fine. Mix those 3 with a poor neighborhood and see what happens.

What is the difference between a poor and middle class neighborhood that accounts for this ruination in the former and little or no effect in the latter?

Or take those 3 away from a middle class neighborhood and watch the neighborhood improve.

You mean people in my neighborhood won't venture out of the neighborhood to buy alcohol or watch strippers?

[Berzerker]

Boy talk about cognitive dissonance! How do you read my statements to mean that I want to make it harder for people to make their way into the middle class?

He did that to me too, it's easier for him to attack the messenger than deal with the message.

[KrazyHorse]

How many Canadian cultures for instance are as different statistically as say African-Americans (and by that I mean the descendents of slaves in the U.S., not African or Carribean immigrants) and European descended Americans? The difference between lower class African-Americans and middle class African-Americans is enormous.

"Different statistically"?

What does that mean?

We have people in Canada from across the world. We have more people who have been living with each other for a shorter period than the US does. We accept over twice the number of immigrants per year per capita than you do. Most of these immigrants are not from Western Europe. Most are from the developing world, speak very little English upon arrival and are visible minorities with very different attitudes about what a normal society is.

Why is it that these immigrants have not become the same type of underclass that much of the black population of the US has? We have a much stronger policy of multiculturalism than the US does and have much more diversity in terms of culture. Socioeconomics is a separate, though related, subject.

If you want to argue that the US is socioeconomically more diverse than Canada is then I tend to agree with you. If you want to argue that this has something to do with the higher rates of certain crimes then I'll agree with you too.

But a difference in culture does not necessarily imply a difference in socioeconomic status. Two Pakistanis (if they have not melted completely into North American society) living in Toronto are members of the same culture. If one is a doctor and one is a janitor, however, then they are members of different socioeconomic spheres.

I think this is probably what you meant, but I think it's important to draw a distinction between multiculturalism and socioeconomic inequality. I'm for one and against the other...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

There is no mention of laziness, etc in my post, I was citing the argument often given by liberals - that poverty is a major cause of crime. So what did you say within a few posts of mine?

Look up the word imply in the dictionary. And check your bias.

Originally posted by Berzerker
And Kid, the drug war you love is the primary cause of inner city violence. Poverty may indeed be a factor, but give poor people in the inner city the chance to make lots of money selling drugs and don't be surprised if many do exactly that. But since they don't have the courts and police to protect their business endeavors, they employ gangs and violence for protection just as the Mafia did during alcohol prohibition.

How about giving poor inner city youth a chance to make a living not commiting crime. Capitalism is the problem weenie. That doesn't mean that we should commit injustice by allowing people who are reckless with public safety to continue.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker

What is the difference between a poor and middle class neighborhood that accounts for this ruination in the former and little or no effect in the latter?

Because in the poor neighborhoods people have worse conditions, and less access to alternatives. They have a harder life, so the temptation to turn to things like booze is way higher. Put a nice available liquor store there and bam, you've go them hooked.

You mean people in my neighborhood won't venture out of the neighborhood to buy alcohol or watch strippers?

Yes, they will.

Outside of your neighborhood.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Look up the word imply in the dictionary. And check your bias.

So you were implying poor people are lazy? YOU Classist!

How about giving poor inner city youth a chance to make a living not commiting crime.

I'm all for it, stop the drug war since it induces violence. Otherwise, we'll continue to see thousands of inner city youth say no to your "living" and opt for the expectation of big money involved with illegal drugs. Oh yeah, the country with arguably the highest rate of alcoholism was the Soviet Union under communism.

Capitalism is the problem weenie.

Yeah, it's always capitalism.

That doesn't mean that we should commit injustice by allowing people who are reckless with public safety to continue.

Notice the word "public" there? You keep arguing that sitting in your home using a drug threatens public safety even though millions do it without even going outside.

Ted -

Because in the poor neighborhoods people have worse conditions, and less access to alternatives. They have a harder life, so the temptation to turn to things like booze is way higher. Put a nice available liquor store there and bam, you've go them hooked.

So didn't poverty ruin the neighborhood? Alcohol is a symptom, not the cause.

Yes, they will.

Outside of your neighborhood.

Well thank God they're ruining someone else's neighborhood and act civilised when they get home.

[KrazyHorse]

What the **** is a matter with you haters?

There's nothing wrong with liquor stores. They're where I go to buy precious alcohol.