2 ms·

Yes, there are laws about not picking up shit after dogs and they apply to rich people who get ticketed and sued for that, don't use your imagination, use Googl

Yes, there are laws about not picking up shit after dogs and they apply to rich people who get ticketed and sued for that, don't use your imagination, use Google to check basic facts about the real world. No, gentrification is not "equivalent" to camping, look it up. Laws are unequal by definition, why would anybody had two equal laws? Laws are different and not equal to each other. It's irrelevant to the topic of the discussion where you obviously understand that we do indeed punish actions and not poverty but since you like the quote so much you are desperately trying to move the discussion into the one about how being rich is easy. Yes it is. People would rather be rich than poor. If you spend more time thinking and less time imagining you might stumble upon the casual relationship between doing things that are punished and being poor and doing things that are rewarded and being rich.

underlipton 2y ago
>and they apply to rich people Nominally. The magnitude of the fine matters, because the magnitude of the wealth available to pay the fine is notably higher than any given other person also subject to it. Hence the original quote. >No, gentrification is not "equivalent" to camping "both corrupt existing urban streetscapes to the best of their respective financial abilities". "Look it up" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. This is what I mean when I say that they've already gotten to you, and that you're beggaring the question. The causal relationship between wealth (which is acquired, at best, amorally) and "things that are punished/rewarded" is that wealth allows one to set those rules themselves. Naturally, the wealthy reward their behavior and punish what offends them. This is a disjointing of morality and criminality, per the whims of the rich, which is the entire point of the quote. Meanwhile, there is behavior common to wealth that SHOULD be punished, but isn't.

underlipton 2y ago

>and they apply to rich people Nominally. The magnitude of the fine matters, because the magnitude of the wealth available to pay the fine is notably higher than any given other person also subject to it. Hence the original quote. >No, gentrification is not "equivalent" to camping "both corrupt existing urban streetscapes to the best of their respective financial abilities". "Look it up" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. This is what I mean when I say that they've already gotten to you, and that you're beggaring the question. The causal relationship between wealth (which is acquired, at best, amorally) and "things that are punished/rewarded" is that wealth allows one to set those rules themselves. Naturally, the wealthy reward their behavior and punish what offends them. This is a disjointing of morality and criminality, per the whims of the rich, which is the entire point of the quote. Meanwhile, there is behavior common to wealth that SHOULD be punished, but isn't.