Hurricane relief

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
Many of the victims are to blame. Doesn't it give you pause when you
learn the extent to which the people left there are behaving in a way
*opposite* to what you would do or expect others to do? Using a natural
disaster as an opportunity to plunder and rape and attack those that are
trying to help is *exactly* what you should expect from people who have
socially evolved over decades to live off the efforts of others.

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

If you have none, then how *dare* you

Inherent bravery. I'm touched you noticed...

characterize the behavior of a tiny
minority as though it were typical of the larger group? That is the
*essence* of pernicious sterotyping.

It isn't politically correct to say this but most of the people carting
off alcohol and TV sets instead of essential supplies have lived as wards
of the welfare state, and quite happily so, for their entire lives.

What is incorrect--not just politically, but also morally, logically, and
intellectually--is to make accusatory claims that are founded on nothing
but derogatory stereotypes, feeling no obligation to find or present
supporting evidence, and yet to misrepresent those assertions as
established fact, both in your own mind and in your rhetoric. What is, in
fact, morally and intellectually *bankrupt* is for a "personal
responsibility" advocate to hide under a hood of anonymity to avoid taking
any personal responsibility for his unfounded public accusations against
his favorite scapegoats.

Comment:

Make up your mind. Maybe I'm not so daring after all. And, I post from an
ISP. I'm not anonymous. But I do understand that you feel that something
should be done about people like me. My opinions are worth exactly what you
pay. But they're usually correct. The "derogatory stereotypes" are a
figment you defend. To opine that many victims are not masters of their
demise or that the social conditions which are making relief efforts a
secondary concern are mostly the fault of a government that doesn't care
enough is stupid.

moo

The rules of engagement are hard to enforce,
when the illusion of conflict meets the illusion of force.

G. Downey

"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? What a profound abrogation
of intellectual responsibility! (Even in a *literal* war zone, there is not
necessarily more than one person in a hundred participating in the
hostilities.)

All that is obvious is that *some* of the stranded N.O. residents have
behaved violently. What I asked, specifically, is whether the percentage is
nonnegligible. You have not been able or willing to articulate any reason to
think so.

--Gary

"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, in a lame attempt to claim I'm a bigoted anonymous
coward. Idiot.

moo

"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