How he gonna get his money?

[laughing dog]

It took you almost a month to come up with the moronic excluded middle fallacy that it is either rags or expensive clothes. You are not fooling anyone with your bigoted and idiotic assumptions.

No, it did not "take me a month". I was reminded of the case/thread when I saw the moronic tweet.

It's been almost a month. You're not fooling anyone.

[
As to "excluded middle" we already had the discussion - there is plenty of decent, inexpensive clothes in the US such that nobody is forced to burgle houses just to put clothes on their back. Trendy, brand-name clothes, quite a different matter.

And yet you assume that the motive for the burglary was to buy expensive clothes. You are not fooling anyone with your bigoted and idiotic assumptions.You are not fooling anyone with your bigoted and idiotic assumptions.

 

[ronburgundy]

“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” said Harris. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”

I'm baffled by this statement.

It's a shocking state of affairs.

You're baffled that some people feel empathy toward others?

I don't see that statement as expressing empathy, no. What I find baffling is her attitude that breaking into houses to steal people's money in order to finance her brother's thug life is something I need to understand and live with. Maybe it's a black thang and I just don't get it, me being the color and all that.

You're inserting your racist assumptions into what she said. So, then your baffled by your own racist statement, not anything she said.
Without your added assumptions, all she said was that a kid trying to get money to buy clothes he needs to attend school shouldn't be needlessly shot just because the property owner wants their TV back. That is what she said, and it baffled you.

 

[TSwizzle]

You're inserting your racist assumptions into what she said. So, then your baffled by your own racist statement, not anything she said. Without your added assumptions, all she said was that a kid trying to get money to buy clothes he needs to attend school shouldn't be needlessly shot just because the property owner wants their TV back. That is what she said, and it baffled you.

That is not what was said in the quote I provided. I am being asked to understand that when a youth (any youth) from "the hood" is desperate for new sneakers or whatever and they break into my house I should just accept that as a consequence of something. I am baffled by this attitude. It seems to me there is just a general acceptance that if you want something really, really badly, then theft is the way to get it. Forget about whether the kid is shot or peacefully apprehended, that's neither here nor there. It just seems that stealing is just part of what is done.

 

[ronburgundy]

You're inserting your racist assumptions into what she said. So, then your baffled by your own racist statement, not anything she said. Without your added assumptions, all she said was that a kid trying to get money to buy clothes he needs to attend school shouldn't be needlessly shot just because the property owner wants their TV back. That is what she said, and it baffled you.

That is not what was said in the quote I provided. I am being asked to understand that when a youth (any youth) from "the hood" is desperate for new sneakers or whatever and they break into my house I should just accept that as a consequence of something. I am baffled by this attitude. It seems to me there is just a general acceptance that if you want something really, really badly, then theft is the way to get it. Forget about whether the kid is shot or peacefully apprehended, that's neither here nor there. It just seems that stealing is just part of what is done.

Once again, pure racism grossly distorting what was objectively stated. Growing up in the hood is not a reference to a need for expensive sneakers. That is your assumption-laded interpretation. It is more likely a reference to the intense poverty that pervades "the hood".

BTW, most first-world people tend to feel that a kid's life is worth more than a TV, even if he's shallow enough to want a flashy luxury sneaker to help mask the shame and self-doubt he feels of being dirt poor with little reason to think he's likely to be anything but that.

If he was in the act of breaking in when she shot him out of fear he might be there to harm her, then that is a whole different story. But your reaction was based in assuming that even if he was unarmed, leaving, and of no physical threat to her that she should not have hesitated to kill a kid who tried to take her TV.

 

[TSwizzle]

Once again, pure racism grossly distorting what was objectively stated. Growing up in the hood is not a reference to a need for expensive sneakers. That is your assumption-laded interpretation. It is more likely a reference to the intense poverty that pervades "the hood".

His sister seems to be using this "intense poverty" as a justifiable reason for breaking into people's houses and stealing and we should just understand that and accept that. Should people who are not experiencing "intense poverty", just standard poverty, be excluded from this phenomenon ? Does it make any difference if the money is used for buying sneakers from Payless Shoes (oh the horror !) or Nordstrom ?

 

[Playball40]

When there are more people than jobs, 'maybe get a job?' is not an option available to all, so suggesting it as a solution is just silly. Even if this individual managed to get a job, there will be plenty more people without jobs to take his place as burglars.

When there are insufficient welfare provisions for those without jobs, crime is the only option. (Oddly, nobody ever chooses to just go without, which is the other possibility I guess - would you? Honestly?)

I think it is a valid question - "How he gonna get his money?". It's not a justification of burglary as such; it is a direct and clear indictment of the society the US has created.

Unsurprisingly, poor people who can't get work and can't get enough to live on from welfare, turn to crime. Why this should surprise anyone is beyond me.

If you don't want burglaries, the single best thing a society can do is not 'allow homeowners to use lethal force', nor is it 'employ lots of police', nor is it 'impose harsh penalties on convicts'. No, the single most effective way to reduce theft and burglary is to give poor people enough money so that they don't feel driven to take it.

This is not an argument about being 'nice' to poor people, or about being 'soft' on crime, either; It isn't about the poor people AT ALL; It is a simple assessment of the best thing FOR THE REST OF SOCIETY. You WILL end up supporting the poor. You DON'T have a choice - if you don't do it voluntarily, then they will take stuff by force.

It is cheaper to pay taxes to support generous benefits for the unemployed, than it is to pay for insurance against theft.
It is cheaper to pay taxes to support generous benefits for the unemployed, than it is to pay for enough police to prevent theft.
It is cheaper to pay taxes to support generous benefits for the unemployed, than it is to pay for replacements for the stuff they steal.

But because Americans are crazy, they would rather pay more, and live in a more dangerous environment, and have less nice stuff, and have less personal freedom, than allow 'freeloading'. That's not a sane position to take - no matter how popular it is.

But is it always about the poor not having enough to live so they turn to burglary/crime? Is it EVER just stupid teen entitlement idiocy? Not that I think it should be punishable by death - I don't. But nor do I think it's accurate to say that better benefits will alleviate petty crime.

 

[Elixir]

Once again, pure racism grossly distorting what was objectively stated. Growing up in the hood is not a reference to a need for expensive sneakers. That is your assumption-laded interpretation. It is more likely a reference to the intense poverty that pervades "the hood".

His sister seems to be using this "intense poverty" as a justifiable reason for breaking into people's houses and stealing and we should just understand that and accept that. Should people who are not experiencing "intense poverty", just standard poverty, be excluded from this phenomenon ? Does it make any difference if the money is used for buying sneakers from Payless Shoes (oh the horror !) or Nordstrom ?

Nobody is asking you (AFAIK) to accept that a person experiencing "intense poverty" should be allowed to steal your shoes or whatever. But is it beyond the pale for you to indulge in a little empathy, and understand that while intense poverty may not be a valid excuse, it IS a real reason? It can and and does drive people to acts they would otherwise not commit. I suppose you'd have to experience "intense poverty" to understand how it can drive people...

 

[TSwizzle]

Nobody is asking you (AFAIK) to accept that a person experiencing "intense poverty" should be allowed to steal your shoes or whatever. But is it beyond the pale for you to indulge in a little empathy, and understand that while intense poverty may not be a valid excuse, it IS a real reason? It and and does drive people to acts they would otherwise not commit. I suppose you'd have to experience "intense poverty" to understand how it can drive people...

I don't know about the bit in bold. There seems to be a culture where if you want something, you just take it and that's cool because "intense poverty".

 

[JonA]

Only $220? My shoes cost $325.

Assuming your shoes are like the ones you posted about before and not some baller branded sneakers, again, completely different thing and you know it.

What's this two and three hundred dollar nonsense?

Anything above $50 is way too much money for a college kid to be spending on shoes.

 

[JonA]

How does one properly give ranking to the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

 

[abaddon]

Anything above $50 is way too much money for a college kid to be spending on shoes.

You're unique in having distinguished between real needs and perceived needs. Americans, Europeans, Australians generally don't do that. Poor and rich, and everyone in between, are taught via product marketing that the meaningfulness of their lives is not in a quality relation with self and community but in acquiring "nice stuff" and establishing a social status that way. In first world nations, "poor" most usually means "not enough 'nice stuff'."

 

[bilby]

When there are more people than jobs, 'maybe get a job?' is not an option available to all, so suggesting it as a solution is just silly. Even if this individual managed to get a job, there will be plenty more people without jobs to take his place as burglars.

When there are insufficient welfare provisions for those without jobs, crime is the only option. (Oddly, nobody ever chooses to just go without, which is the other possibility I guess - would you? Honestly?)

I think it is a valid question - "How he gonna get his money?". It's not a justification of burglary as such; it is a direct and clear indictment of the society the US has created.

Unsurprisingly, poor people who can't get work and can't get enough to live on from welfare, turn to crime. Why this should surprise anyone is beyond me.

If you don't want burglaries, the single best thing a society can do is not 'allow homeowners to use lethal force', nor is it 'employ lots of police', nor is it 'impose harsh penalties on convicts'. No, the single most effective way to reduce theft and burglary is to give poor people enough money so that they don't feel driven to take it.

This is not an argument about being 'nice' to poor people, or about being 'soft' on crime, either; It isn't about the poor people AT ALL; It is a simple assessment of the best thing FOR THE REST OF SOCIETY. You WILL end up supporting the poor. You DON'T have a choice - if you don't do it voluntarily, then they will take stuff by force.

It is cheaper to pay taxes to support generous benefits for the unemployed, than it is to pay for insurance against theft.
It is cheaper to pay taxes to support generous benefits for the unemployed, than it is to pay for enough police to prevent theft.
It is cheaper to pay taxes to support generous benefits for the unemployed, than it is to pay for replacements for the stuff they steal.

But because Americans are crazy, they would rather pay more, and live in a more dangerous environment, and have less nice stuff, and have less personal freedom, than allow 'freeloading'. That's not a sane position to take - no matter how popular it is.

But is it always about the poor not having enough to live so they turn to burglary/crime? Is it EVER just stupid teen entitlement idiocy? Not that I think it should be punishable by death - I don't. But nor do I think it's accurate to say that better benefits will alleviate petty crime.

They won't eliminate petty crime; but a simple comparison of the US with the rest of the OECD nations suggests that better benefits would significantly alleviate the problem.

Burglary is FAR easier to reduce via policing when it is infrequent; and when the motive behind it is less pressing.

 

[bilby]

Anything above $50 is way too much money for a college kid to be spending on shoes.

You're unique in having distinguished between real needs and perceived needs. Americans, Europeans, Australians generally don't do that. Poor and rich, and everyone in between, are taught via product marketing that the meaningfulness of their lives is not in a quality relation with self and community but in acquiring "nice stuff" and establishing a social status that way. In first world nations, "poor" most usually means "not enough 'nice stuff'."

Unless you are planning to isolate the poor from the rest of society, this observation, while undeniably true, belongs in the 'so fucking what?' basket.

Or are you perhaps under the illusion that erudite philosophising on the relativity of poverty, and the effects of the media and marketing on the perceptions and desires of the proletariat, is a common pastime in the poorer neighbourhoods?

 

[abaddon]

Unless you are planning to isolate the poor from the rest of society, this observation, while undeniably true, belongs in the 'so fucking what?' basket.

Or are you perhaps under the illusion that erudite philosophising on the relativity of poverty, and the effects of the media and marketing on the perceptions and desires of the proletariat, is a common pastime in the poorer neighbourhoods?

You always say "the poor" as if it's all just one thing: a lack of real needs. But Trevon had clothes for going to school in; his degree of being poor is relative. The argument of being driven by a real desperation is bullshit. My “erudite philosophising” is that whatever desperation he felt wasn’t real desperation.

 

[abaddon]

Part of the tragedy of the young man’s death is it’s possible for young people to learn from their wrongs. But what helps that along when it happens, and maybe is essential, is family and friends who'll say “Doing that is wrong so don't ever do it”.

The excuses for Trevon like those from his cousin, if that's the sort of crap he heard while still alive, helped doom him. If they justify burglary by saying he’s gotta “get his money” then it’s a crap message to send out to relatives and neighbors. It doesn’t take erudite philosophy, just some bit of thinking in place of impulsing.

The difference between a young man that turned his life around and the ones that don't are the support in their communities: the former was castigated for burgling, people were on his case about it. He stopped burgling not because he was given “his money” but because he made a choice not to burgle anymore. Trevon wasn’t likely to make that change because, had he lived, he didn’t have that kind of support; instead he had people who are open to justifying stealing.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Part of the tragedy of the young man’s death is it’s possible for young people to learn from their wrongs. But what it takes is family and friends to say “What you did is wrong”.

The excuses for Trevon like those from his cousin are not just stupid, they’re harmful to their own communities. If they justify burglary by saying he’s gotta “get his money” then it’s a crap message to send out to relatives and neighbors. It doesn’t take erudite philosophy, just some bit of thinking in place of impulsing.

The difference between a young man that turned his life around and the ones that don't are the support in their communities: the former was castigated for burgling, people were on his case about it. He stopped burgling not because he was given “his money” but because he made a choice not to burgle anymore. Trevon wasn’t likely to make that change because, had he lived, he didn’t have that kind of support; instead he had people justifying his need to “get his money”.

What did Trayvon burgle again?

 

[JonA]

Anything above $50 is way too much money for a college kid to be spending on shoes.

You're unique in having distinguished between real needs and perceived needs.

That 'unique' ability comes from being raised poor.

Even now it would be difficult for me to justify a shoe purchase of more than $100, and the shoes I do own all cost less than that.

I can see nothing that would prompt someone to consume so far above their means - nothing besides stupidity that is.

 

[Jayjay]

Part of the tragedy of the young man’s death is it’s possible for young people to learn from their wrongs. But what it takes is family and friends to say “What you did is wrong”.

The excuses for Trevon like those from his cousin are not just stupid, they’re harmful to their own communities. If they justify burglary by saying he’s gotta “get his money” then it’s a crap message to send out to relatives and neighbors. It doesn’t take erudite philosophy, just some bit of thinking in place of impulsing.

The difference between a young man that turned his life around and the ones that don't are the support in their communities: the former was castigated for burgling, people were on his case about it. He stopped burgling not because he was given “his money” but because he made a choice not to burgle anymore. Trevon wasn’t likely to make that change because, had he lived, he didn’t have that kind of support; instead he had people justifying his need to “get his money”.

What did Trayvon burgle again?

Are you saying that Trayvon Martin (I presume) might as well have been burglarizing houses, because he got shot anyway?

 

[bilby]

Unless you are planning to isolate the poor from the rest of society, this observation, while undeniably true, belongs in the 'so fucking what?' basket.

Or are you perhaps under the illusion that erudite philosophising on the relativity of poverty, and the effects of the media and marketing on the perceptions and desires of the proletariat, is a common pastime in the poorer neighbourhoods?

You always say "the poor" as if it's all just one thing: a lack of real needs. But Trevon had clothes for going to school in; his degree of being poor is relative. The argument of being driven by a real desperation is bullshit. My “erudite philosophising” is that whatever desperation he felt wasn’t real desperation.

I understand that. But HE DOESN'T. And nor should a reasonable person expect him to. So it is completely irrelevant to any discussion of what to do about the problem of poor people engaging in theft and burglary in an attempt to alleviate their poverty.

There is a pamphlet the NT government hands out to tourists warning about crocodiles. It describes the two species - freshwater and saltwater - and talks at length about how dangerous the salties are; It then says "Freshwater crocodiles are much less dangerous, and rarely attack humans, unless threatened. What constitutes a threat, however, is up to the crocodile".

Poverty IS relative. What constitutes poverty is up to the poor person. You or I are not qualified to decide whether an individual feels 'real desperation'; and pretending that we are, because we don't imagine we would feel desperation in a given situation, is about as useful as saying "But I wasn't threatening you!" to a freshwater crocodile that has a mouthful of your leg.

 

[bilby]

You're unique in having distinguished between real needs and perceived needs.

That 'unique' ability comes from being raised poor.

Even now it would be difficult for me to justify a shoe purchase of more than $100, and the shoes I do own all cost less than that.

I can see nothing that would prompt someone to consume so far above their means - nothing besides stupidity that is.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that stupidity is either rare, or is a choice.

It is neither.