THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A FUCK!!!

[jbird4049]

Are you fucking serious?

Pretty serious yeah. Apparently, we can judge a crime rate now by just looking at an area, and feeling our feelz. And that's somehow more relevant than the actual crime rate, because feelz.

Also, urban shitholes are shitholes because street crime, not poverty, not redlining, not economic devastation. Just some random wave of muggings makes Detroit look like Somalia.
This shit is getting ridiculous.

The inner city was created by white flight. Start there and the reasons for it.

In Detroit, the jobs left when the factories did. That meant the taxbase too. So no money to maintain or build anything. The housing stocks, the social services, the police and fire, the water and sewerage, all went bye. Which caused the values of the remaining residents' homes to crash even more and push even more businesses and residents out, which decreased the property values, incomes, and taxbase to crash more which...

All that's left is this Hellscape full of despairing broken people. It really is no different than in areas where the mines shut down. Only there it was/is whites and meth/oxy not blacks and crack.

[Speaker to Animals]

Negative. That's now how the inner cities were born. This happened many decades before factories left for slave markets overseas.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Negative. That's now how the inner cities were born. This happened many decades before factories left for slave markets overseas.

Well, that was a good attempt jBird, but as you can see, StA has overwhelmed you with solid argument, and logic. Better luck next time, fella.

[Speaker to Animals]

Negative. That's now how the inner cities were born. This happened many decades before factories left for slave markets overseas.

Well, that was a good attempt jBird, but as you can see, StA has overwhelmed you with solid argument, and logic. Better luck next time, fella.

LOL!

White flight predates free trade by several decades, genius.

The inner city was born in the 1960s.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Negative. That's now how the inner cities were born. This happened many decades before factories left for slave markets overseas.

Well, that was a good attempt jBird, but as you can see, StA has overwhelmed you with solid argument, and logic. Better luck next time, fella.

LOL!

White flight predates free trade by several decades, genius.

The inner city was born in the 1960s.

And, as I've been telling you for years, "Free Trade" is not our problem.

[Speaker to Animals]

Well, it certainly has jackshit to do with this conversation..

[StCapps]

Blame LBJ, The War on Poverty and The Great Society. Come on guys, that's an easy lay up.

[Okeefenokee]

Blame LBJ, The War on Poverty and The Great Society. Come on guys, that's an easy lay up.

Shhh, he's about about to say brown people.

[jbird4049]

Negative. That's now how the inner cities were born. This happened many decades before factories left for slave markets overseas.

Well, that was a good attempt jBird, but as you can see, StA has overwhelmed you with solid argument, and logic. Better luck next time, fella.

LOL!

White flight predates free trade by several decades, genius.

The inner city was born in the 1960s.

The destruction of manufacturing started about 1970. It only started to get noticed in the '80s. Most of the current long term Black communities arose right were factories, shipyards, rail yards, and warehouses were.

[JohnDonne]

I can't tell what Okee is arguing? Is he saying that using percentages is not the way to make engineering decisions? That you go by raw numbers? Can't be...

A Concentrated-wealth guy (Republican) was debating me on a Conservative forum, and he made the declaration that The Rich pay a LOT of taxes, and you have to go by the dollar amount, not the percentage. I couldn't continue the argument after that; lost cause.

If the presence of bears per capita is the same in a national park as it is in a school cafeteria, does the person in the room with the bears have a statistically equal chance of being attacked as the person with several miles between him and the nearest bear? Say it's ten bears and one person in the park, and in the cafeteria. Per capita, the rates are the same. Anybody see where this approach might have a flaw?

That is what is being asserted by saying the per capita rates mean crime in cities is the same as outside a city.

I think you mean bear attacks, not bears, for your example. We're talking about crime, not criminals if I''m not mistaken, and we're talking about risk.
If there are ten people in the woods and twenty in the cafeteria, and each year a single person in the woods is mauled by a bear and two in the cafeteria are mauled the risk is the same, although the fact that you would witness the bear mauling others in the cafeteria would be frightening and stressful.