8 ms·

It's discriminatory against the poor, not the homeless

RobertRoberts 8y ago
I've been poor most of my life. It's not discriminatory against the poor at all. I lived in a van with my wife, and we didn't steal. There were people in the parks that would steal, and the police would come after them, not us. I speak from life experience. You are helping spread a deadly lie. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. Go be genuinely poor, it's really easy to do. Just use a tiny amount of money to live off of. And see if it causes you to commit crimes. Move to a single room apartment, or be homeless. It does not make you immoral or unethical or cause you to mug people or steal.
- bllguo 8y ago
  You seem to be taking this personally. I don't see how your personal experiences address the claim that the poor are disproportionately inclined to commit petty crimes
  - lliamander 8y ago
    I don't think he's disputing that crime and poverty are correlated. I think he's disputing both the idea that poverty causes crime and the idea that cracking down on petty crime hurts the poor. There are many people who are poor due to unfortunate circumstances, but more than likely, if a poor person commits crimes, it has less to do with their poverty and more to do with other factors that caused both their poverty and criminality. We may have reasons to feel sympathy for or try to help the criminally inclined poor, but showing them leniency doesn't usually help them. It also doesn't help poor people in general, because typically the victims of poor criminals are other poor people.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      I would add that sometimes, getting really in trouble is what helps some younger people straighten up in life. It's a disservice to the poor to ignore their crimes against others.
      - kakarot 8y ago
        It's a disservice to the poor to allow them to become unfairly entrenched in the legal system. No one is ignoring crimes wholesale. This argument is about which of these "crimes" are legitimate and which aren't.
        RobertRoberts 8y ago
        My mother's family was so poor that they ran out of beans to feed 7 kids one winter. They never stole, hurt anyone or broke any laws.
        kakarot 8y ago
        That's great for her, but that doesn't define the moral boundary.
        RobertRoberts 8y ago
        Society decides the moral boundry, and currently stealing is immoral.
        kakarot 8y ago
        No. It's all about context. Thinking in such absolutes is a sign of low intelligence and empathy.
        RobertRoberts 8y ago
        Then clarify your context, what crime is appropriate for homeless people and the poor to be arrested for? I say it's the laws that currently exist, what do you say?
        kakarot 8y ago
        What kind of question is that? It doesn't even make sense and I don't know what kind of answer you expect. Why do you continue to derail this conversation so hard?
    - kakarot 8y ago
      You're telling me that if I was rich I would still have risked my freedom to steal food from the supermarket during the time when I was homeless and extremely sick and unable to work? And conversely, that I should have just starved instead of stealing food in order to maintain my moral standing? That is arguably an illogical position.
      - lliamander 8y ago
        Obviously I am saying neither of those things, because I am speaking in generalities (as they apply in the US) and have no knowledge of you in particular.
        kakarot 8y ago
        That's exactly my point. Your absolutisms and generalities discriminate against many individuals.
        lliamander 8y ago
        If the generalizations I am making are an inaccurate reflection of the reality of poverty and crime, then please enlighten me.
      - RobertRoberts 8y ago
        In America (my personal frame of reference) I could eat 7 meals a day as a homeless person. No one starves here if they go and look for food. I got food stamps the day I walked into the social services office. "Starving or stealing" in the US today is a straw man argument.
        kakarot 8y ago
        That's not a straw man. What you're thinking of is a false dichotomy. Not everyone is in the same position you were, and it's stupid to think that your experience is the baseline experience. Sounds like you were doing a lot better than others.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    I don't disagree that they are "inclined" to commit petty crime, just like the rich are more inclined to cheat on their taxes. (when is that last time you heard a poor person rant against the inheritance tax?) But, I disagree that your social status decides guilt. Rich/famouse/politicians shouldn't get away with crimes they commit based on their status anymore than a poor person should. Crime is crime. Just because the judge/police/whoever feels social pressure to not enforce the law means everyone else suffers. Feeling pity for someone's situation does not absolve them of their actions. Personally knowing poor/homeless people gives me a perspective that they aren't total victims and that they don't deserve absolution based on status. (just like the rich don't)
- kakarot 8y ago
  I've been extremely poor most of my life. I've been homeless. And neither of our personal anecdotes have any bearing on the reason why the drug war began. I suggest checking out The Emperor Wears No Clothes for a background behind the start of drug prohibition as a new way to discriminate and make use of bolstered police forces after the failure of alcohol prohibition, as well as prevent the disruption of several entrenched industries. It's a short read, extremely informative, and it's available freely online here: https://jackherer.com/emperor-3/ https://jackherer.com/emperor-3/ > Go be genuinely poor, it's really easy to do. Just use a tiny amount of money to live off of. And see if it causes you to commit crimes. That's not the correct way to look at it. We are artificially creating crimes from things which shouldn't be illegal and which infringe upon basic freedoms, and then creating the conditions that lead to people committing those "crimes". "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime," as Beria says. The Drug War is a tool to, among other things, benefit the new tax-supported slave trade disguised as a private industrial prison system. Affluent citizens are usually able to circumvent the system, as designed, and thus these laws are able to discriminate against the poor while seeming "fair".
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    I don't disagree with anything you are saying. But you aren't hearing what I said, being poor doesn't cause you to commit crimes. If you have been homeless, you know that there are both good and wonderful people that are homeless and rotten crooks. Neither of which adding money to their pocket would change.
    - kakarot 8y ago
      The argument isn't about being poor causing someone to commit crimes. That's a complete straw-man. Let's focus. The argument is about discriminatory laws and conditions forcing a percentage of those in poverty to be considered criminals. Specifically, the drug war. That was all my original comment deconstructed. We could extend the moral boundary to stealing food in order to survive provided you don't hurt anyone, but that's it. I never made any claim that being poor causes some kind of effect on people that turns them into criminals. You're barking up the wrong tree.

I've been poor most of my life. It's not discriminatory against the poor at all. I lived in a van with my wife, and we didn't steal. There were people in the parks that would steal, and the police would come after them, not us. I speak from life experience. You are helping spread a deadly lie. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. Go be genuinely poor, it's really easy to do. Just use a tiny amount of money to live off of. And see if it causes you to commit crimes. Move to a single room apartment, or be homeless. It does not make you immoral or unethical or cause you to mug people or steal.

bllguo 8y ago
You seem to be taking this personally. I don't see how your personal experiences address the claim that the poor are disproportionately inclined to commit petty crimes
- lliamander 8y ago
  I don't think he's disputing that crime and poverty are correlated. I think he's disputing both the idea that poverty causes crime and the idea that cracking down on petty crime hurts the poor. There are many people who are poor due to unfortunate circumstances, but more than likely, if a poor person commits crimes, it has less to do with their poverty and more to do with other factors that caused both their poverty and criminality. We may have reasons to feel sympathy for or try to help the criminally inclined poor, but showing them leniency doesn't usually help them. It also doesn't help poor people in general, because typically the victims of poor criminals are other poor people.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    I would add that sometimes, getting really in trouble is what helps some younger people straighten up in life. It's a disservice to the poor to ignore their crimes against others.
    - kakarot 8y ago
      It's a disservice to the poor to allow them to become unfairly entrenched in the legal system. No one is ignoring crimes wholesale. This argument is about which of these "crimes" are legitimate and which aren't.
      - RobertRoberts 8y ago
        My mother's family was so poor that they ran out of beans to feed 7 kids one winter. They never stole, hurt anyone or broke any laws.
        kakarot 8y ago
        That's great for her, but that doesn't define the moral boundary.
        RobertRoberts 8y ago
        Society decides the moral boundry, and currently stealing is immoral.
        kakarot 8y ago
        No. It's all about context. Thinking in such absolutes is a sign of low intelligence and empathy.
        RobertRoberts 8y ago
        Then clarify your context, what crime is appropriate for homeless people and the poor to be arrested for? I say it's the laws that currently exist, what do you say?
        kakarot 8y ago
        What kind of question is that? It doesn't even make sense and I don't know what kind of answer you expect. Why do you continue to derail this conversation so hard?
  - kakarot 8y ago
    You're telling me that if I was rich I would still have risked my freedom to steal food from the supermarket during the time when I was homeless and extremely sick and unable to work? And conversely, that I should have just starved instead of stealing food in order to maintain my moral standing? That is arguably an illogical position.
    - lliamander 8y ago
      Obviously I am saying neither of those things, because I am speaking in generalities (as they apply in the US) and have no knowledge of you in particular.
      - kakarot 8y ago
        That's exactly my point. Your absolutisms and generalities discriminate against many individuals.
        lliamander 8y ago
        If the generalizations I am making are an inaccurate reflection of the reality of poverty and crime, then please enlighten me.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      In America (my personal frame of reference) I could eat 7 meals a day as a homeless person. No one starves here if they go and look for food. I got food stamps the day I walked into the social services office. "Starving or stealing" in the US today is a straw man argument.
      - kakarot 8y ago
        That's not a straw man. What you're thinking of is a false dichotomy. Not everyone is in the same position you were, and it's stupid to think that your experience is the baseline experience. Sounds like you were doing a lot better than others.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  I don't disagree that they are "inclined" to commit petty crime, just like the rich are more inclined to cheat on their taxes. (when is that last time you heard a poor person rant against the inheritance tax?) But, I disagree that your social status decides guilt. Rich/famouse/politicians shouldn't get away with crimes they commit based on their status anymore than a poor person should. Crime is crime. Just because the judge/police/whoever feels social pressure to not enforce the law means everyone else suffers. Feeling pity for someone's situation does not absolve them of their actions. Personally knowing poor/homeless people gives me a perspective that they aren't total victims and that they don't deserve absolution based on status. (just like the rich don't)
kakarot 8y ago
I've been extremely poor most of my life. I've been homeless. And neither of our personal anecdotes have any bearing on the reason why the drug war began. I suggest checking out The Emperor Wears No Clothes for a background behind the start of drug prohibition as a new way to discriminate and make use of bolstered police forces after the failure of alcohol prohibition, as well as prevent the disruption of several entrenched industries. It's a short read, extremely informative, and it's available freely online here: https://jackherer.com/emperor-3/ https://jackherer.com/emperor-3/ > Go be genuinely poor, it's really easy to do. Just use a tiny amount of money to live off of. And see if it causes you to commit crimes. That's not the correct way to look at it. We are artificially creating crimes from things which shouldn't be illegal and which infringe upon basic freedoms, and then creating the conditions that lead to people committing those "crimes". "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime," as Beria says. The Drug War is a tool to, among other things, benefit the new tax-supported slave trade disguised as a private industrial prison system. Affluent citizens are usually able to circumvent the system, as designed, and thus these laws are able to discriminate against the poor while seeming "fair".
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  I don't disagree with anything you are saying. But you aren't hearing what I said, being poor doesn't cause you to commit crimes. If you have been homeless, you know that there are both good and wonderful people that are homeless and rotten crooks. Neither of which adding money to their pocket would change.
  - kakarot 8y ago
    The argument isn't about being poor causing someone to commit crimes. That's a complete straw-man. Let's focus. The argument is about discriminatory laws and conditions forcing a percentage of those in poverty to be considered criminals. Specifically, the drug war. That was all my original comment deconstructed. We could extend the moral boundary to stealing food in order to survive provided you don't hurt anyone, but that's it. I never made any claim that being poor causes some kind of effect on people that turns them into criminals. You're barking up the wrong tree.