I'm curious what you find ludicrous about the argument. I claim the poor are predominantly no-income people and disproportionately violent. The violence include

I'm curious what you find ludicrous about the argument. I claim the poor are predominantly no-income people and disproportionately violent. The violence includes all sorts of violence with no economic motive, e.g. intimate partner violence. The Census and BJS support this claim. Do you disagree? The rhetorical strategy is very simple: pointing out that duaneb did not disagree with me on this. He just clumsily redefined his terms so as to avoid the facts I presented - e.g. redefining lazy to mean "desk job" rather than "no job" in a manner that renders his parent comment nonsensical. Consider the possibility that I'm not selling duaneb anything; the target of my comments might instead be the moderate people persuaded by facts.