by that logic we should blame all of the crime problems in various cities on all the individual criminals and shouldn't worry about improving the various policies of those cities which might affect crime?

that really is some weak logic.

7/27/2007 12:38:11 PM

Quote :

"we should blame all of the crime problems in various cities on all the individual criminals "

you mean blame crimes on the criminals who commit those crimes? what a concept! hold people responsible for their actions? i like the sound of that

7/27/2007 12:42:28 PM

you failed to include the second half of the sentence there buddy.

7/27/2007 12:44:27 PM

no i said all that was needed

you're the one who thinks policy changes will transform criminals into law-abiding citizens

you accuse me of weak logic then you ridicule BLAMING CRIMINALS FOR CRIME?

course you wouldnt have a problem blaming Bush with a crime...you'd never blame the policies that allow him to commit the crimes...surprise surprise

7/27/2007 12:45:37 PM

you're misrepresenting what i was saying. like normal.

all i'm saying is criminals respond to market forces like other people. if there's no need for them to be around to protect/transport people who are in hiding, they won't be as prevalent. certainly that's not the only reason criminals are in this country. certainly i think criminals should be punished. but to claim that our policies shouldn't be addressed to make crime less alluring to mexicans would be silly.

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 12:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2007 12:46:40 PM

i'll humor you

Quote :

"we should blame all of the crime problems in various cities on all the individual criminals"

YES WE SHOULD

Quote :

"and shouldn't worry about improving the various policies of those cities which might affect crime?"

improving the policies? what policies? you mean like making the laws more relaxed so certain activities aren't considered crimes? how exactly is improving policies going to decrease crime? please elaborate

7/27/2007 12:53:34 PM

no i mean policies where we don't let in unskilled workers legally from south of the border, but we effectively turn our back to their coming in. we also turn our backs when they're in communities. i can see arguments for clamping down on illegal immigration and clamping down on all the illegals already in this country. but this option seems very expensive. i can't predict the future and say what would work perfectly.

all i've said here is that our current immigration policy has created a market for organized crime to take advantage of illegal immigrants.

7/27/2007 12:57:07 PM

Quote :

"policies where we don't let in unskilled workers legally from south of the border, but we effectively turn our back to their coming in"

so your idea is to legalize certain things which are currently illegal so that there will technically be less crimes? if thats not your idea please let me know cause i dont want to misquote you but you seem to prefer generalizations when making these policy suggestions instead of something specific

but i'm the one with the weak logic for suggesting the criminals be blamed for the crimes they commit...for encouraging responsibility for your own actions

maybe somebody else will come into the thread and point out to you how far out there you are with this asinine theory since you obviously dont believe me when i tell you how ludicrous it is

7/27/2007 1:03:06 PM

all i'm saying is our current system allows organized crime to flourish. it needs to be changed. i don't know how exactly it should be changed. i think throwing every illegal out of the country and building a wall across the whole border would be prohibitively expensive and ultimately probably wouldn't work anyway. i haven't suggested a solution. you've just attributed those to me.

7/27/2007 1:07:07 PM

i just dont understand how when i say "yes, criminals who commit crimes should be blamed for the crimes they commit" you call that weak logic...your logic seems a lot weaker

7/27/2007 1:15:35 PM

they should be blamed for the crimes that they commit, BUT that shouldn't mean that there aren't faults in our immigration system that make conditions ripe for organized crime.

7/27/2007 1:30:57 PM

there will always be faults in any of our systems since they're all made up by people who aren't perfect...there will also always be criminals and they should always be held responsible for their crimes that they commit

7/27/2007 1:33:00 PM

i'm failing to see what reservation you have about my statements.

7/27/2007 1:36:05 PM

Quote :

"One of these is more expensive and makes us look bad to the rest of the world (causing even more problems)"

Why would restricting our borders make us look bad to the world? Last time I checked, most countries (that we care about at least) have controlled borders that they take seriously.

7/27/2007 1:37:09 PM

i didn't say that.

7/27/2007 1:41:48 PM

^^^you SEEM to be placing some blame on an imperfect system which will always be imperfect...I prefer to blame the lawbreakers when laws are broken

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 1:43 PM. Reason : ^^^]

7/27/2007 1:43:18 PM

i prefer to punish criminals for their acts, but also to act rationally to make future crimes less likely.

7/27/2007 1:44:30 PM

as long as your method of making future crimes less likely isn't to legalize those crimes then i'm with you

i could make future violent crimes less likely by legalizing assault but that doesnt mean it will have any practical effect whatsoever

7/27/2007 1:47:45 PM

Quote :

"Hey I work hard too, can I pick some laws to break? "

You probably already did/do.

7/27/2007 2:10:30 PM

Quote :

"Hey I work hard too, can I pick some laws to break?"

Well, if the law was effectively "you cannot work hard in this country," like it currently is, I'd have to say "yes."

Good Lord, Treetwista.

The man started out by pointing out that organized crime can flourish as a result of the current immigration system. Neither he nor I am suggesting that we legalize something so that there will technically be fewer crimes. What I will suggest, though, is that opening up immigration so that it doesn't have to take place in a criminal, underground context will undermine said mafia's ability to exist and commit other crimes.

The average illegal isn't a gangbanger, but he may be forced to deal with them in order to avoid exposure to US authorities. This may come in the form of paying for transportation across the border. That payment is eventually going to go into other aspects of the business -- guns, drugs, whores, whatever. The illegal doesn't want to be paying for all this shit, it's just the only way to get into the country.

Now, make it so that he has another way, a legal one that doesn't require staying under the radar. He no longer has to pay to get carried across the border. The money from this aspect of the gang's business is no longer going into other parts of the business.

So now you technically have fewer crimes in that you're no longer counting the immigrants, but you actually have fewer crimes in that the mafia or gang or whatever has reduced influence and income.

7/27/2007 2:14:06 PM

Quote :

"Neither he nor I am suggesting that we legalize something so that there will technically be fewer crimes"

I must have misread your last post because its sounds like thats exactly what you're suggesting

Quote :

"opening up immigration so that it doesn't have to take place in a criminal, underground context"

sounds kind of like legalizing drugs so that drug use and drug deals don't have to take place in a criminal, underground context...except the end result is the same

7/27/2007 4:16:00 PM

There is a difference between:

"If we legalize X, then there will be fewer crimes because every time X happens it will no longer be a crime."

and

"If we legalize X, then there will be fewer crimes because people will stop doing Y."

Nobody actually stops doing anything in the first situation -- everything continues perfectly normally, you're just calling it something different -- "legal". But an undesirable activity is actually reduced in the second case.

Quote :

"sounds kind of like legalizing drugs so that drug use and drug deals don't have to take place in a criminal, underground context...except the end result is the same"

Drugs aren't a bad comparison, though I think you're mangling it horribly.

If drugs were made legal tomorrow, then a great many people who fund criminal empires in large part through illicit drug trafficking would have a large part of their income taken away. People would still use drugs, that wouldn't stop. What would stop is a lot of the other crime -- robbery, violence, etc -- that is motivated or funded by profits from illegal drug trafficking.

So it wouldn't just be, "There are fewer crimes because now doing coke doesn't count as a crime." It would be, "There are fewer crimes because now gangs can't afford as many guns," or some such. Therefore the end result is decided not the same. There are fewer undesirable actions taking place.

Now, of course, this isn't the only factor to consider. I tend to think that certain drugs should remain illegal because I think expanding their availability would cause worse problems than reducing some of the damage associated with them, including other, peripheral crimes. Likewise, you somehow clearly think that continuing to perpetuate a failed and unjust policy is worth the fact that it directly benefits an expansive criminal organization.

And don't start, "Well I blame the criminals and not the enforcement," either. If we're doing something that materially -- if indirectly -- benefits dangerous criminals, you need to aoccept it.

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2007 4:47:16 PM

there have been criminals who have broken laws for hundreds or thousands of years...there is never going to be any type of system with no crime...there will always be dangerous criminals...you need to accept that

Quote :

"What would stop is a lot of the other crime -- robbery, violence, etc -- that is motivated or funded by profits from illegal drug trafficking."

sure but you'd have new crimes like gangs robbing drug storage facilities...alcohol is legal and theres still plenty of violence...just because you eliminate some of the kingpins in favor of letting the govt be the kingpin by taxing everything doesnt mean you dont have the same problems

Quote :

"you somehow clearly think that continuing to perpetuate a failed and unjust policy is worth the fact that it directly benefits an expansive criminal organization"

no it just upsets me that complete idiots dont understand the concept of taking responsibility for ones own actions...i dont blame fucking airport security for 9/11 i blame the god damn terrorists who carried out the attacks

7/27/2007 4:50:57 PM

Quote :

"alcohol is legal and theres still plenty of violence"

Plenty??? Compare today to the Prohibition era. The difference is so marked as to make the occasional liquor store robbery inconsequential. I can't recall any booze-related St. Valentine's Day Massacres since the fall of Prohibition.

It's true that there will always be dangerous criminals, but it's also true that part of government's job is to minimize their number and their effect on society. Clearly, as with alcohol, legalization can sometimes have sweeping impact on certain kinds of crime.

Quote :

".i dont blame fucking airport security for 9/11 i blame the god damn terrorists who carried out the attacks"

It's not zero-sum. You can have greap heaps of blame for a number of different people. For example, I don't think it's unreasonable to blame the terrorists as well as various individuals on our side who did not take appropriate steps to prevent the attacks. It's called "negligence." It's also a crime.

7/27/2007 5:07:29 PM

^^ So when our government continues undertaking liberty stealing measures (wiretapping), measures that manage to fail drastically at great cost (TSA water bottle fiasco), and just generally dragging their feet implementing Homeland Sec. advisory recommendations...

and another terrorist attack happens

You aren't going to assign any blame to the government who has launched a 500 billion dollar war against this effort?

7/27/2007 5:13:31 PM

^^do you think the negligence was willful? cause obviously unintentional negligence is nowhere near as bad as masterminding and carrying out the attack....clearly we didnt have enough security as is evident by the attacks...but i dont think anyone wants to go police state extreme to really prevent attacks at the expense of all types of freedoms...that brings up the freedom vs safety balance topic...i just think the unintentional problems with various programs and systems are only worth a miniscule shred of blame...if the president is assassinated do you blame the secret service for not protecting his life sufficiently or do you blame the actual assassin...but when you say blame the terrorists as well as various people on our side, it almost sounds like youre dishing out equal blame...when i think its clear that the masterminds and terrorists who carried out the attacks deserve the huge majority of the blame

^always trying to pass of your speculations as facts arent you

7/27/2007 5:15:10 PM

blame blame blame

There is enough blame to go around everywhere. It isn't like there is some fixed percentage of blame that anyone is trying to assign to any specific group.

It seems like that is what you do with any given debatable topic.

Speculations as facts? As usual, you aren't making any sense.

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 5:19 PM. Reason : *]

7/27/2007 5:17:35 PM

all you like to do in general is blame and complain...im just telling you to blame the people who intentionally, willfully, purposefully attacked the country a lot more than you blame people who did what they thought was a good job and it turned out to not be good enough

"another terrorist attack happens" = SPECULATION, NOT FACT

As usual I have to spell out everything for you

7/27/2007 5:18:58 PM

Does anyone here really need to make a post explicitly saying the terrorists are at fault? No shit sherlock. I think it is pretty fucking obvious that there is no one in America save for an extremist that gives those guys a free pass.

Pointing out how our government dropped the ball, is in no way giving them a free pass. But in your fucked up THC smashed brain, apparently that is the case.

^ I wasn't even fucking speculating that another attack would happen, which is why I didn't know what the fuck you were talking about. I set up a hypothetical situation (which was very similar to 9/11) to see what your answer to it would be, and as usual, you couldn't answer it with any respect or dignity.

It's much easier for you to troll while assuming I am trolling you, and not reveal too much of your stupidity, than to actually answer like everyone else does.


Are you so paranoid that I am trolling you, that you just preemptively troll me to keep from being made the fool?



[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 5:24 PM. Reason : *]

7/27/2007 5:22:15 PM

another thread ruined by State409c

what a surprise, he's complaining more than a woman, as usual

Quote :

"^ I wasn't even fucking speculating that another attack would happen, which is why I didn't know what the fuck you were talking about. I set up a hypothetical situation"

do you even know what speculate means?

7/27/2007 5:23:49 PM

Excuse me? So you're admitting you can't rationally answer my straightforward questions? You're basically telling the rest of the TSB posters, that you aren't going to answer any question that I ask you, instead resorting to just being a dick face, so I shouldn't bother?

Because that seems to be the case. And what normally happens is I play your game, and then the rest of the folks here hate me too, but not quite being bothered enough to pressure Duke to have you suspended.

Oh well, I won this battle as usual. No more posts from me until you bother to answer my questions like a normal human being.

pussy

7/27/2007 5:27:09 PM

Quote :

"No more posts from me "

if only TWW The Internet could be so lucky

7/27/2007 5:27:49 PM

Quote :

"cause obviously unintentional negligence is nowhere near as bad as masterminding and carrying out the attack"

I agree. But that doesn't mean we should keep quiet about it. It should go without saying that the terrorists are scum. There's nothing to really discuss there. But various institutional things we did wrong, both in terms of leaving ourselves vulnerable and perhaps also helping to foment the hatred against us beforehand -- these are worthy of some debate.

And again, blame isn't zero-sum. There isn't a finite amount of it to go around.

7/27/2007 5:35:56 PM

Quote :

"(aka mexicans)"

i see how you're being discriminatory vs all those other aliens

you know from Alpha Cigni 8

7/31/2007 11:46:51 AM

good thing we got this guy http://www.charlotte.com/209/story/218076.html

he was only able to rape 3 joggers before we caught him in 2 years

7/31/2007 11:52:27 AM

how does this guy go to jail 8 TIMES, 8 FUCKING TIMES and doesn't get deported. Execute his fucking ass

7/31/2007 12:09:15 PM

Quote :

"Rivera faces 16 charges in the three attacks. Fourteen are felonies. The charges are: • Five counts of kidnapping. • Four counts of rape. • Three counts of sexual battery. • Two counts of sex offense. • One count each of robbery with a dangerous weapon and breaking and entering "

he's probably just a hard worker who came here for a better life

7/31/2007 12:12:14 PM

thank god white americans dont do this shit.

7/31/2007 12:52:15 PM

It's a well-known fact than only Mexicans commit rape.

7/31/2007 1:13:32 PM

what kind of logical fallacies did each of you just use? i'm trying to find the term for your shitty retorts

7/31/2007 2:31:58 PM

blame shifting...instead of admiting this fence hopper needs to die, you blame white people for other crimes....fucking dipshits

7/31/2007 2:42:52 PM

Quote :

"blame shifting...instead of admiting this fence hopper needs to die, you blame white people mexicans for other crime "

and this isn't what you're doing?

7/31/2007 2:48:36 PM

i'm actually blaming the guy who would grab women in the Dilworth neighborhood of Charlotte a couple miles from where I live and rape them...I'm pretty sure he deserves the blame in this case

7/31/2007 2:50:01 PM

Yeah, this guy, who happens to be mexican, who was sent to jail 8 times, who skipped over the border, then rapped 3 women in charlotte. He deserves the blame, cunt rag

7/31/2007 2:52:39 PM

being mexican has nothing to do with it. being a criminal has everything to do with it.

the fact that you keep bringing up his ethnicity proves that you're trying to associate his ethnicity with criminality.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be kicked out, I'm just saying that him being an illegal immigrant has nothing to do with him raping someone.

7/31/2007 3:05:25 PM

HIM BEING AN ILLEGAL ALIEN HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HIM RAPING PEOPLE....YOU DUMB FUCKING IDIOT.....BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE UNITED STATES RAPING AMERICAN WOMEN.

7/31/2007 3:10:07 PM

so you're saying american citizens don't rape women?

i'm honestly trying to figure out your logic because i don't see how him being illegal has any correlation to rape whatsoever.

7/31/2007 3:19:49 PM

i wish i knew the terms for the logical fallacies you're using to defend this guy

7/31/2007 3:25:18 PM

if you can't understand that this person shouldnt be here, and if he wasnt the crimes wouldnt have been commited, then there is no hope for you....

7/31/2007 3:30:51 PM

i'm not defending him. rape is a horrible thing. i'm just saying that him being a mexican, or illegal immigrant, does not make him a rapist.

By the way, the logical fallacy that you guys are using is called "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" or "correlation does not imply causation."

and

Quote :

"if you can't understand that this person shouldnt be here, and if he wasnt the crimes wouldnt have been commited, then there is no hope for you.... "

is an example of "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" aka "after this, therefore because of this"

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 3:32 PM. Reason : idiot]

7/31/2007 3:31:14 PM