The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

... I hate you.

Originally posted by Publius II
... I hate you.

I mean, hell, I'd have self-esteem problems as well if I were elected Homecoming Kong.

That's like, the epitome of all fat jokes.

Edit: That was weird. What I meant was... Kong is still awesome.

And for the record, I spent six pages trying to understand why someone thought King Kong would take Optimus Prime in a fight.

Obviously because a gorilla could take a human in a fight. Iz ezii iinit.

Originally posted by Publius II
Edit: That was weird. What I meant was... Kong is still awesome.

And for the record, I spent six pages trying to understand why someone thought King Kong would take Optimus Prime in a fight.

Plus he kills dinosaurs while carrying Naomi Watts and her legs in one hand.

Wtf

Oh, and Megatron ripped Jazz in two, so obviously Kong can do the same to Optimus.

what thread is this from

Kong vs Optimus Prime.

Wouldn't that be like comparing Chewbacca to General Grievous?

I should really put that guy on ignore.

Me?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I never claimed poverty can NEVER cause crime. Your assertion was that poverty causes crime, period. I proved the opposite. I'm sure poverty causes crime in some cases but it is no way the majority.

You haven't proven anything. The studies Red Nemesis supplied, the survival instinct factor, and basic logic all suggest that poverty is a cause of crime. Of course it's something of a cycle; poverty generates crime, that crime contributes to poverty, etc. But poverty was the initiating factor of it all.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
This is not the point. I don't believe I deserve any of the money I have made over the past few years because I have been blessed with everything and have worked for virtually nothing. That is why I give away as much of it as I can.

You were 'blessed' with money and didn't have to work your ass off in order to survive; therefore, you're not a suitable comparison to the working class. In their cases, the choice is generally between 'work or die', which is why basic human impulses prevent laziness from taking place.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
We're going in circles. This is your assessment. Mine is that people don't want to work to be successful so they do what is easier. They take the easy route and sell drugs, or murder, steal, etc, and that causes crime and poverty.

Here are several alternatives for poor people:

A. Due to the inferior access to education, they would likely have to pursue more manual jobs which pay considerably less. The choice is to take a job of this sort- insanely hard, insanely low pay.
B. Work ten times as hard as the rich and middle class.
C. Indulge in criminality in order to compensate for a lack of education and access to proper-paying job.

Here's a bit of info: humans are fallible beings. Now, A is clearly the most prevalent choice among them (suggested by the unemployment vs. poverty line statistics). It is unfair to demand someone to work far harder than somebody else simply because they don't have the same amount of fortune; it's the government's responsibility to act as the external factor in this case, to make up for a lack of fortune.

As for the third one? Many people simply don't have a choice. Crime is the only option for them to survive, and it is human nature to do that.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
THis is bullshit. It doesn't debunk anything. You give someone something, they'll want more. You give more, they'll want even more. This is the way of the world.

No it's not. The government doesn't have to give everybody the right to buy a Porsche. They simply have to ensure that everybody is capable of leading at least a survive-able way of life.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
As someone who's attended both private and public schools, the disparity is minimal at best. And I do believe that anybody could get an education, and anybody could go to college. I've shown you that the steps to do it are easy.

You know, this is really a vast disparity between our respective arguments. You seem to argue from an all important 'personal experience' point of view, while I operate on approved statistics and facts. You want some?

Fact: The average level of private schools in the U.S is higher than the average level of public schools. This also goes along with logic; higher budget, higher pay, attracts better teachers.

Fact: The more education people have, the higher their average income is.

Fact: Colleges are likely to choose people who can fund their personal courses, and, of course, people who have a previous remarkable academic record. The privileged have a far easier time doing both, the first for obvious reasons and the second because of the options of private schools, tutors, courses, and parental encouragement.

Fact: The more prestigious colleges have a higher average income for their students. And let's face it- if your were a CEO of a high-tech company, who would you hire? A Harvard graduate with honorary degrees from several prestigious private schools and a note of recommendation from private tutors, or an *insert random low-level university here* graduate with only 'typical public school' records?

The rich are always going to get a head start on educational matters; they will have to work far less in order to achieve far more. This is completely unfair.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Obviously the rich student is going to have more tutoring, but that doesn't guarantee success at all. Public school teachers offer free tutoring, unless of course your contention is that private school teachers are almost certainly better than public school teachers.

Which is based on logic and statistics. I'm sure there are plenty extremely talented public school teachers, but the low pay for teachers from the government and the luxuries of private school teaching is likely to attract the more talented.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Proven where? Do you know how easy it is to get an education in this country?

People in poverty are, at best, going to get an average public school education and be accepted into an 'okay' college. Privileged people have private schools, tutors, parental encouragement, funds for better colleges and an easier time getting higher grades. Can you see the unfairness of the situation?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Assuming they really WERE factors and these poor people didn't turn out poor because of their choices.

Which they don't. They get a lesser education, and the high-tech, cerebral world of today calls for extensive studying and grades; in this matter, poor people are immediately left behind due to their lack of equal opportunities. Therefore, their only choice for a career is industrial, manual labor which doesn't pay nearly enough. Welfare must be given in order to balance the odds and act as a supplement for people who work their asses off and still cannot get decent pay.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Who cares about the elite colleges? The best lawyers I've met come from regular public law schools. The harvard lawyers are pompous douchebags who like to go over legal minutia while overbilling their clients.

Personal experience vs. statistics. Which one wins?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
And you have to be a genius to get into ivy league? Absolutely not. My LSAT score was almost in the 75th percentile for ivy league schools. My GPA was garbage. You don't have to be a genius, you just have to work hard.

I'm referring to poor people. They have to be either geniuses (which is an innate skill) or have to work far harder than anybody else (which is unfair) in order to get into the major league.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Again, ridiculous assertion. How about all of those minorities that DO succeed? There are more of them now than ever.

Right. Let's use your own statistics- 80% of people in America are whites. 15% of people in America live below the poverty line. If everything was equal, 80% of these people would be white- 12%, in other words. This, however, is not reality. In fact, the vast majority of the people below the poverty line are minorities. Hell, 46% of African American kids live in poverty.

To me, this indicates that there is still a problem with American society. Racism may be deteriorating, but it's far from gone.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
As usual, you list specific cases in order to make a general decision.

Only it isn't. 26.6% of single parents in the U.S live in poverty. 40% of black single parents live in poverty.

Hell, this is based on evidence. A considerable number of poor families are dysfunctional, which would call for the kids to act on their own power to fund their families. This both leads to potential criminality and takes away from the time spent on education.

I'll get to the rest of the stuff later. Don't bother posting a rebuttal yet.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

And yet you haven't. You haven't shown me anything other than (apparently) baseless assertions.

I'm sick of the "oh look! we elected a black guy so that meanz rasism is dead!111" argument. It doesn't work:
[websites][/quote]
OH look, I claim welfare exists and I need an excuse for people!

Yeah! Lets expect exactly the same results out of everyone!

That's rich coming from you- you've only got one source for your argument, and it was user generated content.

Here's how it went:
Crimzon: Racism exists: people might not hire hispanics- they pick whites instead.

DS: Whites make up 80% of the country.

I might have read it wrong, but it looked like you were using the ubiquity of whites as an excuse for unfair hiring practices. I pointed out the silliness. Care to tell us what you really meant?

Crimzon: innate skill...

You: wtf is innate skill?

Me: intelligence is an innate skill

They aren't. For unemployment, at least, the benefits are based off of one's previous salary. But on this point, at least, I think we come close to agreeing. I see aid programs as providing a baseline of reasonably modernized life. I don't think it should be a one way ticket to easy street.

The article isn't right, but it is more respectable. While it succinctly illustrates that crime can cause poverty, it does nothing to discuss the cause of the initial crime rate. This may be a case of a destructive positive feedback loop: Poverty causes crime which intensifies the poverty which... The point remains that you haven't proven crime as the prime cause of poverty while this site has shown a causal link with poverty as the independent variable. [/B]

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Neither have you.

Here's another one.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/226760/a_solution_to_welfare_abuse_a_call.html

OH look, I claim welfare exists and I need an excuse for people!

Seeing as how there's absolutely no proof that racism is any way dominant anymore, I fail to see your argument.

And you have a CNN poll. "Oh look CNN says it so its true!"

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

*sigh*
Those were hard facts, taken from the Dept. of Labor. The source cited was from the government. observe:
[quote]quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/19/do...ment/index.html
(CNN) -- Here are some facts about unemployment among minorities from tonight's broadcast that you might find interesting.

* Whites (3.9 percent)
* Blacks (8.5 percent)
* Hispanics(5.8 percent)

[b]Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2007

Do you see how that works?[/b][/quote]Get it yet?

Intelligence is an innate skill? ROFL. That's hilarious. You'll have to show me a study that confirms this stupidity.

I don't doubt poverty causes crime, but it is my understanding that crime causes poverty on more occasions.

Originally posted by Publius II
Do you see how that works?[/b]

See, most people have something called an "IQ." I'm surprised you missed that considering you've bragged about having a "near-genius" one.

You've provided no sources to corroborate that theory. [/B]

Except I have and it's not a theory.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/cause-and-effect-crime-and-poverty/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=224&topic_id=1102&mesg_id=1102
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485052,00.html
http://www.children.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1671
http://davidism.blogspot.com/2007/12/dennis-prager-does-poverty-cause-crime.html

Or are all of these sources not acceptable to you? This isn't a theory, it's common sense. For someone who spends most of his time correcting people, you sure seem to lack a lot of it.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Do you notice I wasn't arguing this?

Originally posted by You
And you have a CNN poll. "Oh look CNN says it so its true!"

Are you going to continue trolling?

Either add your argument or shut up.

You're not here to correct other people.

If you have a problem, report me so REX can laugh at you, or put me on ignore. Simple as that.

This is considered a "skill"? Or a "talent"? Or neither?

Except I have and it's not a theory.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/cause-and-effect-crime-and-poverty/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=224&topic_id=1102&mesg_id=1102

Poverty absolutely does not cause crime. I am reminded of an email I received from Sojourners (the Jim Wallis group of "Christians for Peace and Justice"😉 just the other day, about the best way to combat poverty being voluntary poverty.

Choosing to live in poverty, like the nuns and the monks do, frees up the resources for the people who are driven to poverty by external circumstances - people who did not get the chance to choose poverty. People who are not ready for it.

When you see poverty in an area, you know (if only sub=consciously) that crime has been there. Now, you have two choices. Choose to dwell in the poverty voluntarily, like the nuns and the monks, or choose to escape it.

I believe that all corporations are criminals.

This is a better idea than welfare to you?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485052,00.html

Also, more evidence that you don't read your "sources":

Police chiefs across the country are saying this recession is causing a jump in crime. Of roughly 200 police agencies asked, 44 percent reported increases in burglary and theft from cars — all somehow linked to the economic crisis.

Now, this connection might be valid, but I don't know.

Good job.

http://www.children.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1671

Read. What. You. Link.

http://davidism.blogspot.com/2007/12/dennis-prager-does-poverty-cause-crime.html

Unfortunately, some liberal groups and individuals continue to believe the latter. The credo of contemporary liberalism is that "poverty causes crime". Followers of this "Lie of the Left" rely in their belief that "the lack of jobs" or "the failure to spend more on our cities" or "socioeconomic conditions" is the root cause of crime in America. Consider the following representative liberals who have publicly confirmed their belief in the Credo of Liberalism: Cleveland Mayor Michael White commented on NBC's Meet the Press that, "Many of the problems you're seeing in the cities of today evolve not from social conditions. They evolve from economic deprivation".

Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell agreed in saying that "the long run answer [to solving the problems of our inner cities] is economics." The liberal credo that poverty causes crime is still widely believed despite numerous conflicting facts, including: The vast majority of poor people do not engage in criminal behavior. Crime was extremely low during the Great Depression, when a far larger percentage of Americans were unemployed and experiencing great poverty. Few robberies, let alone rapes or murders, are committed to obtain subsistence items such as food or clothing. Impoverished cities in India are safer than far more affluent American cities. If poverty causes crime, it logically follows that affluence causes honesty and morality.

Finally, are we to suppose that a 70 percent-plus out-of-wedlock birth rate, the absence of fathers, and a lack of religion or other conscience-building institutions are not significant causes of crime and that "economic deprivation" is the problem, and economics "is the long-run answer"? Only when we blame criminals rather than poverty, and seek answers to society's problems through the inculcation of moral values more than through increased social spending, will we overcome this Lie of the Left. Do higher rates of imprisonment reduce crime? Is crime a result of poverty, unemployment, and the like? Are alternatives to incarceration more effective in preventing criminals from repeating their crimes?

The reasoning behind Prager's assertion that poverty isn't a cause of crime is that most poor people aren't criminals. He also statesimplies that wedlock and any lack of adherence to religion are causes of crime. If I take his word literally and assume it be true, there should be a direct correlation between atheism and crime.

Seriously.

Or are all of these sources not acceptable to you?

This isn't a theory, it's common sense.

For someone who spends most of his time correcting people, you sure seem to lack a lot of it.

Have fun.

Originally posted by Publius II
[B]Lie more, please.

I can't respond to your posts, now? Too much for you?

I'd rather not have to keep correcting people, but it's not my fault you're so often wrong.

I'm still waiting on a source that links poverty directly to crime, or rather, poverty causing crime. Do you even know WHAT I was arguing btw? Tell me what you THINK I was arguing so I can make sure you're not just posting for shits and giggles. The gist of the argument was whether the welfare system is frequently abused, which I can give you PLENTY of news sources with statistics, and whether we should give EVERYONE in the lower class aid just because they're lower class. My contention is that it should apply to people who work hard, not to people who live off welfare and do nothing. My contention was ALSO that we would have to change our government aid system to the point where this abuse is decreased and the people that deserve government assistance, get it. People do not deserve aid just because they are poor or because they live in this country.

So i ask you again, what the hell are you arguing? OR rather, what are you claiming that I'm arguing? Or are you just posting to read your posts?

And again I ask you, if poverty causes crime, explain the white collar crimes in rich neighborhoods.

Rich people are dicks?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I was disputing a CNN source,

like I would dispute a fox news source as bias to some degree.

That doesn't mean I was arguing the point nor lying. Try again.

Not at all, I just find it humorous that you don't have an argument, you would just prefer to critisize them.

And my criticisms are clearly spot-on, since you ignored all but three lines of a several thousand character post.

Saying this doesn't make it so.

Do you even know WHAT I was arguing btw? Tell me what you THINK I was arguing so I can make sure you're not just posting for shits and giggles.

The gist of the argument was whether the welfare system is frequently abused, which I can give you PLENTY of news sources with statistics,
and whether we should give EVERYONE in the lower class aid just because they're lower class. My contention is that it should apply to people who work hard, not to people who live off welfare and do nothing. My contention was ALSO that we would have to change our government aid system to the point where this abuse is decreased and the people that deserve government assistance, get it.

People do not deserve aid just because they are poor or because they live in this country.

So i ask you again, what the hell are you arguing? OR rather, what are you claiming that I'm arguing?

After all, if your stance is sound, you should have no problem with a rebuttal.

And again I ask you, if poverty causes crime, explain the white collar crimes in rich neighborhoods.