What an idiot, part two!

[Derec]

Why should the retail stores be on the hook for that? I mean, it’s a frequent lefty lament that people in poor neighborhoods don’t have close access to goods and services. Yet these same lefties promote policies that increase theft and victimization - resulting in store closures. For example, California now has a law which effectively decriminalizes theft below $950. And, shockingly, Walgreens and CVS are closing stores in San Francisco due to a shoplifting epidemic. Residents are angry that that the stores are closing. But this is the obvious consequence of the policies they voted for!

Sometimes it's not even just thefts. Sometimes activists will actually protest against stores because they believe making a neighborhood no longer be a "food desert" is "gentrification".
Trader Joes deal collapses after public outcry

And as is well known in woke circles, gentrification is the worst thing ever, worse even than intergalactic civil war.


And I do not think anybody is surprised that that happened in Portland of all places.

 

[Derec]

If you provide them with the things that they need,

It's not about needs, it's about wants. It is a myth that criminals are all desperate people struggling to survive or that today's US is like revolutionary France.

 

[Derec]

I took a girl out.

Even I think that's a bit harsh punishment for shoplifting.

 

[Derec]

The words in her statements as quoted do not say what you claim, even if she meant what you think.

You obviously need to work on your reading comprehension.

Your are entitled to your opinion.

And your grammar.

 

[Trausti]

Somewhat OT but highlights the disconnect between lefties and the real-world consequences of their irrational policies.

https://mobile.twitter.com/yuhline/status/1399502974272131078

 

[Derec]

Says the guy on the side of those who are doing, and have done, everything they can conceivably think of to reduce or eliminate that social safety net.

I am in no way in favor of eliminating the social safety net. But I do think some recent additions to it, like super-unemployment and additional $3-3.6k per child are ill conceived.

You allude to the tragedy of Les Miserable in this thread, but we all know that if Jean Valjean was a contemporary black man in the US, you would be posting derogatory memes about him on a daily basis.

Why should his race matter? Shoplifting is wrong no matter his or her race. And blacks have access to the same government programs whites do. In fact, blacks have access to more government programs than whites.
USDA to start debt forgiveness and payouts to some 13,000 Black, Hispanic and other minority farmers in June

In any case, my point with Jean Valjean is that modern US is nothing like revolutionary France. Nobody needs to steal to survive.

 

[Derec]

I'm sure you must realize that in order to claim the EITC, you must work for a living.

I guess stealing for a living is easier, especially when you live in a city where they rarely prosecute thievery.
And sure, technically earned income is required, but you can claim EITC as long as they have even a $1 of earned income in a year.

I'm not condoning shop lifting, but you seem to have a very uninformed opinion about what it's like to be working for the minimum wage or a dollar or two above the minimum wage.

I realize that it is not lavish lifestyle, but I never claimed that. My point was that there are many government programs for poor people and that nobody needs to steal for a living.

And it's hilarious that you mentioned TANF. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to receive TANF and how insanely low the TANF benefits are? Plus the T stands for temporary, and it's not even available to single adults without children. TANF is a joke.

It's not meant to be a lavish benefit. But you have to look at it together with all other benefits, like SNAP, EITC, Section 8 and so on.

My father grew up during the depression and he confessed to me that sometimes he had to steal food to survive. If you were penniless, and there were no jobs available, would you risk stealing to survive or would you simply let yourself die of starvation? Put yourself in the place of others before you judge so harshly. Again, I don't condone stealing, but I do understand that sometimes desperate people feel forced to do things that they normally wouldn't do.

This is not depression era. For one, the social programs are lightyears removed from what was available then. Today, nobody is in danger of starving if they don't steal.

Why not advocate for a much higher minimum wage so that poor workers wouldn't need so much help from government programs? I'm sure that you realize that by providing SNAP, and other aide, it's the employers who benefit the most, since it keeps them from having to provide a living wage to their employees.

The problem with a much higher minimum wage is that some jobs do not justify paying people $15 per hour. And what is even "living wage"? It is very different for a single adult vs. somebody with (many) kids. Do you advocate that all jobs must pay enough to comfortably raise a (large) family or that employers should pay people different rates based on family size? To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities?

 

[Derec]

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.

- Anatole France

Ramblings by some French Communist poet are not legitimate arguments for thievery.

 

[bilby]

Like fauxgressive cities not prosecuting many crimes. Or downgrading charges for for serious crimes like robbery and aggravated assault. That encourages crime. You are coming around I see.


Bullshit. This is "how he gonna get his money" excuse for burglarizing people all over again.

It's obviously not the only such incentive. But it's equally obvious that the cast majority of criminals aren't just 'bad people', born to commit evil; Psychopathy is rare, and few psychopaths are known for their shoplifting.

Psychopathy is not that rare actually and "no chase policies" contribute to thieves feeling that they will never get caught no matter how brazen they get.

People become criminals for reasons.

Like wanting to take shortcuts, getting money and/or stuff without having to work for it.

And if severe punishments were effective in reducing criminality, that would be obvious by now. What correlation there is between crime rates and severity of punishments indicates that it is not. The absence of correlation is evidence of the absence of causation.

Soft on crime attitudes in places like San Francisco are obviously correlated to increase in crimes there. If the criminals don't fear getting caught, you get more criminals.

Nonsense. Criminals don't expect to get caught. They expect to get away with it. That's why harshness of sentencing has little or no impact on rates of crime.

 

[bilby]

If you provide them with the things that they need,

It's not about needs, it's about wants. It is a myth that criminals are all desperate people struggling to survive or that today's US is like revolutionary France.

It's a myth that none of them are, too.

The existence of people committing crimes for wants is not an argument against the existence of other people who commit crimes for needs; Nor is it a justification for treating the latter group harshly.

 

[bigfield]

The "poor people are lazy" argument is a show-stopper.

When a person believes that poverty is due to the moral failings of the poor, they are never going to agree with any solution to either poverty or theft based on the premise that poverty is due to a lack of means.

 

[KeepTalking]

Says the guy on the side of those who are doing, and have done, everything they can conceivably think of to reduce or eliminate that social safety net.

I am in no way in favor of eliminating the social safety net. But I do think some recent additions to it, like super-unemployment and additional $3-3.6k per child are ill conceived.

You allude to the tragedy of Les Miserable in this thread, but we all know that if Jean Valjean was a contemporary black man in the US, you would be posting derogatory memes about him on a daily basis.

Why should his race matter?

Good question. Why should race matter, Derec? Why is it that the vast majority of the memes you post are derogatory towards blacks?

 

[laughing dog]

Says the guy on the side of those who are doing, and have done, everything they can conceivably think of to reduce or eliminate that social safety net.

I am in no way in favor of eliminating the social safety net. But I do think some recent additions to it, like super-unemployment and additional $3-3.6k per child are ill conceived.

Why? Because who have done the research and know the statistics think they will reduce poverty among children without significantly altering the incentives to work?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From what I read, Ms Nixon was not advocating forgoing enforcement of shoplifting laws.

I do not know how you can read "Miranda's" statements other than that she advocates just that, at least for certain types of perps.

She is saying things are fucked up if stores have to lock up detergent because poor people are desperate enough to steal it! And she's right. If people are stealing Tide, we're failing as a nation.

She made the rather common sense observation that prosecuting them does not solve the problem of desperation and need.

I wonder how many of those shoplifters wear Nikes and have iPhones.

And 573 babies!

US has plenty of social safety net programs. This is not revolutionary France. Nobody needs to steal a loaf of bread to survive.

Glad you think so. You are wrong, but glad you think it's all good.

 

[laughing dog]

The words in her statements as quoted do not say what you claim, even if she meant what you think.

You obviously need to work on your reading comprehension.

Point to her words in your link that you believe indicate she is clearly against prosecuting shoplifters. Go ahead and try to prove your point.

And your grammar.

LOL. A misspelled word is not a grammatical mistake. If you are going to engage in petty snide comments, at least get them right.

 

[TomC]

Poor people across the developed world are often overweight, while also being malnourished. Cheap high calorie food and drinks are rarely an adequate diet, but are often all that people can afford, both in terms of time and of money.

That's BS. Fresh produce is not expensive, but it takes some effort to prepare. So it's more about laziness than inability to afford it.

It's really not that simple.
Over 10 years ago, somebody brought up the concept of a "food desert". A place where good food was impossible to get. I thought about it, and realized that I lived in one.

I lived in the old part of a small city in semi rural Indiana. The lower income part. Within a 15 minute walk were over a dozen places to get food. But they were either horrible or expensive. From the gas station selling hot dogs to upscale Italian, there was food available. But all of it was either pricey or crap. If I wanted a bag of potatoes, some carrots, broccoli, stew meat, and salad, I had to walk over half an hour there and then back carrying my stuff. The good grocery stores were closer to an hour each way, out on the edges of town. I owned a car, so I hadn't noticed how difficult it would be to live there without one. Because I don't like eating out, I want to prepare my own food. But I had to have a reliable vehicle to do it. I didn't have kids to deal with while I went grocery shopping. It just wasn't the same for me as it was for a poor old guy or a single mother of two.

And we aren't just talking about adults who could choose differently. Millions of kids are growing up in these food deserts. For me, growing up was home cooked food. Restaurant food was an exotic treat. I learned how to cook from my mom. Millions of kids don't.

Our infrastructure was designed to cater to auto owners. They get big subsidies, like our socialist(taxpayer funded) road system. And we subsidize low nutrition food, like soybeans, corn, and wheat. Far less than nutrient dense food like tomatoes, nuts, and spinach. We've designed, subsidized, and built a country where healthy eating is more difficult and expensive than living on Doritos and McDonald's.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Poor people across the developed world are often overweight, while also being malnourished. Cheap high calorie food and drinks are rarely an adequate diet, but are often all that people can afford, both in terms of time and of money.

That's BS. Fresh produce is not expensive, but it takes some effort to prepare. So it's more about laziness than inability to afford it.

Some produce. Spinach is $4 a bag. Can get four or five boxes of Kraft Dinner that'll feed 8 or so for that price. Bananas are better.

And of course, shopping at the big box store grocery stores provides lower prices than small markets due to sales by bulk. Those marts don't exist in lesser affluent areas.

 

[Trausti]

Hang on. Who’s shoplifting spinach?

 

[TomC]

Hang on. Who’s shoplifting spinach?

Hang on. How is that relevant?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hang on. Who’s shoplifting spinach?

Hang on. How is that relevant?
Tom

A: *Claim*
B: *Debunk Claim*
C: *derail*