Hurricane relief

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
"Many" of the victims are to blame? *How* many have engaged in the
predatory violence you refer to? Even one in a hundred? If so, what is
your evidence?

Evidence? Please.

Yes. Evidence. Please.

It's a veritable war zone. Res ipsa loquitor.

"Res ipsa loquitor [sic]"? So you think your beliefs in this matter are
just obviously correct, and thus require no evidence?

Yes. The word I used was "many". Look it up. I made no mention of a
percentage. You did,

Right. I *asked* you if you had evidence of violence by even one percent of
the victims, in an attempt to understand why you characterized the violence
as "what you should expect" from people who receive public assistance. And
in response to that question about the percentage, your reply (translated
from the misspelled Latin) was: "Evidence? Please... It's self-evident.".

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
"Res ipsa loquitor [sic]"? So you think your beliefs in this matter are
just obviously correct, and thus require no evidence?

Yes. The word I used was "many". Look it up. I made no mention of a
percentage. You did,

Right. I *asked* you if you had evidence of violence by even one percent
of the victims, in an attempt to understand why you characterized the
violence as "what you should expect" from people who receive public
assistance. And in response to that question about the percentage, your
reply (translated from the misspelled Latin) was: "Evidence? Please...
It's self-evident.".

I'm always touched by the occasional dweebish tactic of repeated using a
typo to bolster a bull**** argument. I used the word "many" in reference to
victims who mastered their own misfortune. I made no mention of
percentages. You seem to think it's incumbent upon me to do this and that a
failure to meet your expectations diminishes my valid and self-evident
point. My references to welfare cases did not disparage the entire group
nor did I refer to them as one nor do I think that the majority are social
leeches. I referred to a subset of from whom I would expect the observed
behavior. And, I said that most of the people carting off TV sets and
alcohol instead of essential supplies were wards of the welfare state.
We'll see. And, to that, you responded with a paragraph that consisted
entirely of a personal attack. Got anything else?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
My references to welfare cases did not disparage the entire group nor did
I refer to them as one nor do I think that the majority are social
leeches. I referred to a subset of from whom I would expect the observed
behavior.

If that was your intent, then your sentiment was indeed less extreme than
your original phrasing (asking rhetorically, "what should you expect" from
welfare recipients?) suggested.

But even if you merely meant to suggest that receiving welfare payments
caused an elevated level of violence in a *minute fraction* of recipients in
N.O., your assertion is still unfairly issued without any
foundation--indeed, without even any *attempt* to provide a foundation. You
have not even shown that there *is* a higher level of violence in N.O. than
in other dire emergencies in the world in which civil authority collapsed
(in the absence of any history of welfare support)--let alone showing that
welfare support is the *cause* of the supposedly higher level of violence in
N.O.

For what it's worth, I think a much more plausible speculation (but only a
speculation) about the social policies underlying the violence is that it's
partly fallout from drug prohibition. The most combat-like violence in N.O.
seems to be coming from the organized criminal gangs. And we know from our
alcohol-prohibition era that such prohibitions readily promote runaway
organized crime that can ravage cities with violence even in the absence of
widespread disasters. (Or do you attribute the rise of the Mafia to welfare
payments, too?)

--Gary

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

For what it's worth, I think a much more plausible speculation (but only a
speculation) about the social policies underlying the violence is that it's
partly fallout from drug prohibition. The most combat-like violence in N.O.
seems to be coming from the organized criminal gangs. And we know from our
alcohol-prohibition era that such prohibitions readily promote runaway
organized crime that can ravage cities with violence even in the absence of
widespread disasters.

I don't believe prohibitions cause or promote organized crime. The
prohibitions create demand for a product, but organized crime is not
dependent on the prohibition - organized crime will find *something*
even if it has to create it (e.g., "protection").

But at least we can agree that criminal gangs seem to be a primary
source of the violence in New Orleans - even if we can't agree on the
underlying cause(s).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

For what it's worth, I think a much more plausible speculation (but only
a
speculation) about the social policies underlying the violence is that
it's
partly fallout from drug prohibition. The most combat-like violence in
N.O.
seems to be coming from the organized criminal gangs. And we know from
our
alcohol-prohibition era that such prohibitions readily promote runaway
organized crime that can ravage cities with violence even in the absence
of
widespread disasters.

I don't believe prohibitions cause or promote organized crime. The
prohibitions create demand for a product, but organized crime is not
dependent on the prohibition - organized crime will find *something*
even if it has to create it (e.g., "protection").

Prohibited alcohol and other drugs are an especially lucrative source of
illegal income. That they are not the *only* source does not imply that they
don't significantly fuel the rise of violent gangs.

--Gary

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

Prohibited alcohol and other drugs are an especially lucrative source of
illegal income.

true.

That they are not the *only* source does not imply that they
don't significantly fuel the rise of violent gangs.

Are you saying that making drugs legal would be a net benefit
to society?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

Prohibited alcohol and other drugs are an especially lucrative source of
illegal income.

true.

That they are not the *only* source does not imply that they
don't significantly fuel the rise of violent gangs.

Are you saying that making drugs legal would be a net benefit
to society?

Aren't we off-topic enough already without launching *that* debate?

--Gary