Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Rich Family Dies, World At Peril!!! (Score 1) 167

by ScentCone (#49755085) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

This is just a tautology

Not at all. It summarizes a causal relationship. The disingenuous GP is the one that says, "Having little money is a case of having little money." He doesn't address the why, whereas I'm pointing out that it's the lack of specific action that causes the lack of desired results.

Comment: Re:Rich Family Dies, World At Peril!!! (Score 2) 167

by ScentCone (#49753469) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

"Cultural issues" my ass, white boy.

There are plenty of poor white people who are poor for their own cultural reasons. The fact that you think culture is the same as skin color shows what a confused person you are. Culture is about behavior, not pigment. Avoiding that reality is just more PC deflection on your part. Nice try. Well, not really.

Poverty is caused by lack of money.

No, it's not. Poverty is caused by not doing the things that make you prosperous. Certainly a kid born into a household where nobody does the things necessary to provide a prosperous environment is a victim indeed. The parents are the only ones responsible for that, period (yeah, yeah, we can make exceptions to that ... women who are raped and never the less bear the child, and don't take advantage of endless opportunities to allow the child to be adopted into better circumstances, etc).

A kid born into a family where there is no culture of learning, or creativity, of movement towards the things that have lifted untold millions out of poverty ... that kid is poor because of the culture into which she was born. Not because there is no prospect for a comfortable life in the world, but because those prospects are being squashed by the local culture. In some cases, that culture is no larger than the single parent. Or it might be the size of a multi-generational household. Or a whole city block. Or an entire nation-state. But it's cultural, pure and simple.

In order to avoid having to give up on your moral relativism and turn in your PC/SJW card, you'll pretend that you just read someone talking about skin color. The fact that you so reflexively resort to that perspective in order to avoid talking about the real problem is, ironically, a stellar display of either disingenuous, craven intellectual dishonesty (or just a juvenile lack of rhetorical skills) on your part, or the sign of someone who really hasn't thought this through.

Address these things and poverty is reduced

Ah, an "addressor" in our midst. Say what you, mean. Tear down people who have something so you can spread it around, right? No. Places like west Baltimore are saturated in lavish education spending, free or heavily subsidized transportation (and walkable blocks from places without even needing it), awash in grant money that's just looking for ways to turn abandoned properties into livable homes and viable businesses, and it's been run by people at the legislative and executive levels (since you're so obsessed with this) roughly the same color as those who live there. Health and legal expenses? Covered by taxpayer-funded medical care and legal clinics where you can hear the crickets chirping for lack of interest in use other than when someone's arrested for street crime.

We've been "addressing" those issues, lavishly, for decades. Miles away, there's prosperity. In that spot? People living in fear of the local street gangs and those squatting in abandoned homes and businesses. Why? Because the members of those gangs, the thugs who make that area intolerable as a place to live or run a business, have safe haven, culturally, in the households in which they were so passively raised. Ask the people who live there, and they'll tell you that's exactly the problem. "Addressing" that problem means (ready?) not tolerating the crime. And that means police presence and activity. But we're being told, by the president no less, that what's really needed is a less visible and active police force. And indeed, the police in that area have dialed it way back in the last few weeks ... and surprise! The violence level, including murder on the street, has surged hugely.

Just what you look for when deciding where to build your next fire-proof retail store, right?

Comment: Re: Rich Family Dies, World At Peril!!! (Score 1) 167

by ScentCone (#49753293) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect
Really, you're going to split those hairs?

OK, so really the GP is saying that the only reason we have people in poverty is because we have other people who aren't in poverty. Which is nonsense.

Prosperity is not a fixed-size meal to be spread around. If it were, we'd all be living like paupers because the population has grown so much. Prosperity is created, and people of modest means create it all the time. Then they become the ones who are resented for no longer being impoverished. Too bad, they earned it. The fact that they are no longer impoverished is not what's keeping someone else from having a better life.

IMO, the only decent/moral solution is for a society in which things are more equitable. I'm not saying that a CEO shouldn't earn more than an employee, but 100X seems immoral.

So, impoverished people will suddenly start raising kids in two-parent households, or start teaching kids to read and think critically and have a work ethic ... if we can only just limit what CEOs earn? If we can just tear down immoral prosperity, that will fix the broken household and neighborhood cultures that prevent prosperity from taking root in those places? Are you even listening to yourself?

How about CEOs that make 50X? Does that pass your moral standard? 49.5%? 49.4%? When exactly does a business owners or director's pay become "moral." What is the standard you're using? Do you really mean that morality is based on statistics, not on actual principles? You agree that the person who runs a company is worth more than a person who sweeps the floor at that company. Why? What MORAL grounds to you have for that distinction? Be specific. And then in one percent pay increments, start describing exactly when it's suddenly immoral.

Because once you nail that down, you'll see how you've just set yourself up to be the immoral one for making more money, yourself, than someone else does. By someone else's standards (if we use your model), you yourself pure evil for not being as poor as someone else. How DARE you live a lifestyle so rich that you can afford the time to sit around expressing opinions on the internet! Other people don't have that luxury, so you must be immorally prosperous. If you stop being that prosperous, that will finally other people to be prosperous, right?

Yeah, right.

Comment: Re:Rich Family Dies, World At Peril!!! (Score 2) 167

by ScentCone (#49752319) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

Me on the other hand? I'm an island in a sea of indifference.

Which is fine until you're killed by someone who irrationally thinks you're responsible for their poverty. Or your home loses half its value because a change in the local demographics means an encroaching street crime problem. Indifference doesn't change the problem you'll have renegotiating your upside down mortgage. But that's fine, you're much too cool to worry about such stuff.

Comment: Re:Said and unsaid (Score 1) 167

by ScentCone (#49752295) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

I don't understand why the fact that Black people kill Black people negates the fact that law enforcement is often racist. Can't both be true?

Yes, there can be racist cops, just like there are racist black people. That has nothing to do with the assertion that the DC police only went after this quadruple murderer because the killer is black and victims are white. DC police go after killers every day. Given the local demographic, most of the killers are black, just like most of their victims. The GP wants to imagine that the DC police don't ever go after killers of black victims, which is BS on the face of it.

Comment: Re: Rich Family Dies, World At Peril!!! (Score 1) 167

by ScentCone (#49752255) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect
What are you talking about? I'm not comparing the lower crime rates in Appalachia to the higher crime rates in west Baltimore. I'm addressing the GP's argument that it's the fact there are rich people in the world that we have poverty in those areas. The entire concept is laughable.

Comment: Re:Rich Family Dies, World At Peril!!! (Score 4, Insightful) 167

by ScentCone (#49750563) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

Reduce minority poverty, and minority crime will probably drop too. There are lots of ways to do that, but it takes a huge effort to do so.

So what do you propose? Use government power to force minority mothers to marry, and to force the fathers or children to stay at home, become educated, and care enough to raise children who will actually attend school? Are you saying that a kid who is born into a household with one young, under-educated parent is going to be starting out life with that disadvantage because other people aren't poor? Do you really think that places like Baltimore, which spend way above average per student on education, and have an endless parade of subsidies and programs to provide resources to people in poverty ... just need to have the government do more than is already being done?

The problem is cultural. Persistent poverty in the worst parts of Appalachia, or in west Baltimore, don't exist because other people are prosperous. That entire meme is just SJW hand-wringing BS. Poorly disguised resentment of success that's trotted out to do anything to avoid addressing the cultural issues that are the actual problem in such places.

Comment: Re:Rich Family Dies, World At Peril!!! (Score 2) 167

by ScentCone (#49749787) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

If you pick a black person and then pick a random victim, it's more likely the victim will be white than black, because there are more white people than black people.

Then why are there more murders committed by black people (against all sorts of victims) then would be accounted for by their percentage of the population? What is your point, exactly? Yes, there are more "white" people than "black" people in the general population. That's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the rate of crime coming out of specific demographics.

Comment: Re:Said and unsaid (Score 1) 167

by ScentCone (#49749777) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

"After we found out he is a black man that allegedly killed a white family - oh, and their maid, I guess."

Well, sure. Because the SJWs are insisting that police do less to hunt down black guys who are responsible for the plague of murders the commit within their own demographic. Since, you know, it's racist and oppressive to attempt to arrest those guys.

Comment: Re:If the rich carried their fair share... (Score 3, Insightful) 167

by ScentCone (#49749639) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect
So you're already attributing this to mental health problems? They guy worked for the company owned by the victim. This isn't a case where families like those of the victim (who pay the vast majority of the country's income taxes - well more than "their fair share" in terms of the income they make) somehow short-changed the guy who decided to murder them. The bad guy, in this case, decided to extort $40,000 in cash from his employer by holding the family hostage and torturing a ten year old boy until the cash was delivered by the employer's personal assistant.

Your whole "this is the fault of rich people" narrative is a bunch of SJW BS.

Comment: Re:there aren't that many high paying wage (Score 1) 1067

by ScentCone (#49747943) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

Naming an extraordinarily unusual retailer does not bolster your point.

Of course it does. It's AN example of what I'm talking about. There are plenty of retailers who pay entry-level employees more than minimum wage. Why? Because they want to keep them around - churn is expensive, even at the stock/clerk level. Flipping burgers isn't supposed to be a career. You're not supposed to do things like have babies while you're on your first, menial job.

Comment: Re:Bad Solution (Score 1) 817

by ScentCone (#49739521) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax
Leaving aside the fact that your plan is to punish success, destroy incentive, and force people who are successful to hide their money ... taxing "wealth" is such a capricious activity that it, even more than the current system, is essentially designed to be divisive. As it stands, the wealthy people pay the vast majority of the income taxes, and the poorer HALF of the country pays essentially no income tax at all. You're proposing that every year you take away some of a successful person's assets until they are as poor as the lower half, right? Or would you just keep taking some of everyone's assets, every year, until nobody has anything left?

Your goal, rather than doing any of the things that actually create prosperity, is to simply tear down anything successful in the name of resentment. Which also happens to kill the goose laying the golden tax revenue egg that currently pays the bills.

Comment: Re:Bad Solution (Score 1) 817

by ScentCone (#49738489) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

If it is fair to say the person using the roadway should pay it's cost because they get the benefit, it's fair to point out that 70-90% of the benefit is gotten by their employer.


The employer personally uses the road to drive to his business. Done.

The employees use the road the same way. Done.

The business' customers also use the road the same way (when visiting that store). Done.

All of them spend a bit of time on the road, and pay taxes on the fuel they burn in order to pay for the service of having the road available to them.

When the business owner receives a shipment of new shoes, he's paying the freight company (or his supplier is, and passing that cost along in one way or another) to make that delivery. That's a different use of the road. Big rigs and busy commercial operators are (in most places) taxed differently because they are buying a different class of service from the city, county, state, or federal agency that maintains the road they're using. The business owner picks up a portion of that higher wear-and-tear cost by being a paying customer of the freight company that is being taxed based on their heavy vehicles/use.

Your world view, which includes the government being involved in the running of the shoe store and going over everyone's books to decide when a shoe sale is profitable so that the shoe store owner (who may actually lose money that year, even while his employees earn taxable income) can be capriciously taxed at a much higher rate as he drives his Hyundai the same 5 miles to work as his sales people, is just a thinly veiled dose of contempt for people who own businesses. The guy is already paying property taxes as he locates and operates his store, and countless other fees.

You want to use MORE tax dollars to keep a running tally on what percentage of the value of a road's use is reflected in the ebbing and flowing profitability of all of the businesses that might be located somewhere along or connected to a given municipality's various types of roads? Wow, it's a Progressive's wet dream! That would require enormous numbers of new bureaucrats, funded by whole new tax schemes, just to allow that to (badly) take place. All so that you punish the business owner, or his better-than-average sales person, for making more money than someone else at the end of exactly the same commute.

Even if your fantasy of "percentage of value" could EVER be calculated as millions of people and businesses use the roads in different ways on different days, what would be the point? I know: your point is that you don't like the idea of government being thought of as a service provider, you like it when they are directly involved in people's personal business decision making, as a forced partner in their budgeting and profit considerations. All of this in the service of what ... trying to prop up the false picture of prosperity as a fixed pie, with the government's role being the arbiter of slice sizes in the name of Social Justice? Please. Your attempt to hide a confiscatory/redistributionist agenda behind a loopy road value formula based on impossibly intrusive and subjective measurements of personal achievement is just laughable. Or would be if it didn't represent such a toxic wider philosophy.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759