On a per-person basis, Philly is in worse shape than Chicago. Here's a recent scene from Philly.
.66% 2/3rds, TWO-THIRDS OF ONE PERCENT. That’s the extreme low percentage of 2 out of 303….under 1% of people arrested with an illegal gun in previous two years (Violations of Uniform Firearms Act) in Southwest Philly @PhillyPolice districts got state prison time @FOX29philly https://t.co/j7LZ2aVEBQ pic.twitter.com/6LJNoSJtTs
— Steve Keeley (@KeeleyFox29) July 8, 2021
So the Chicago partisans don't feel left out, here's one from that burg.
Chicago. Move out of cities. pic.twitter.com/sNh2u07mmp
— Ian Miles Cheong @ stillgray.substack.com (@stillgray) July 7, 2021
Just for grins, let's revisit New York City.
Male suspect opens fire in New York City, children nearly killed after getting caught in the crossfire. pic.twitter.com/7dKkrvEOWt
— Katie Daviscourt🇺🇸 (@KatieDaviscourt) June 18, 2021
Politics Isn't The Answer
One policy solution is to hire more cops, appoint more judges, build more jails and fill them as fast as you can. Another might be to rev up the money printer to Ludicrous Speed and hand out cash because they're shooting each other for bread. Or something.
Putting down your red and blue flags for a moment, is that a solution you would propose, starting with a blank slate? I mean, jails would solve it and everything, but locking up thousands upon thousands isn't a great plan.
What's happening is that the culture shown above has decayed to the point where you can no longer rely on a reasonable number of laws, courts, cops and prisons. This is what John Adams meant when he said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Bonus Bit: Kneeling
Sports teams kneeling doesn't seem to be working. I suppose we could try having them play their matches on their knees and see if that helped.
14 comments:
==Sports teams kneeling doesn't seem to be working. I suppose we could try having them play their matches on their knees and see if that helped.==
I have to share that on Fascistbook and Gab.
Feel free to tell people you were the source. I can handle it. ;-)
I noticed the tweet referred to "state prison time", which doesn't address federal or local prison time at all.
Of course, to send people to prison, they (effectively) need to be charged/convicted with felonies. It's refreshing to see a conservative demand stricter gun legislation.
Also, we already have a higher percentage of our population incarcerated than any other country. Do you feel that's been effective? If not, why would more incarceration help?
Do you think mass incarceration is helpful or hurtful for your goal of getting more people into two-parent family units?
Does you evaluation change if it turns out the the Philadelphia 18th precinct (upon whom the original tweet was based) contains a couple of the safest neighborhoods in Philadelphia?
One Brow,
Commenting on the lack of enforcement of existing violent felony crimes is not demanding stricter gun legislation.
WC Varones,
One Brow has *never* been noted for his ability to reason correctly ... or intellectually honestly.
WC Varones,
Commenting on the lack of enforcement of existing violent felony crimes is not demanding stricter gun legislation.
I agree completely. Where in that tweet did you see any mention of "violent felony crimes". All I saw was "illegal firearms arrest", which means possession of the firearm was the top charge at the arrest, so there is no reason to assume violence.
Did you actually bother to read the tweets, or did you just let the outrage take over before you thought about it (which, of course, is the goal of the tweets)?
IlĂon,
One Brow has *never* been noted for his ability to reason correctly ... or intellectually honestly.
Frankly, I've never seen any sign of sufficient intelligence in your posting that would make your opinion of mine worth considering, nor have I seen sufficient signs of neutrality in your thinking to trust your opinion of who is or is not honest.
So, I won't call you a liar, as you call me. You seem to be a stupid, blinded hyper-partisan of the everyday sort, spreading the lies you believe to be true.
According to his favorite -ism, there is no "way things ought to be"; and consequently, there is no such thing as "right and wrong". Yet, One Brow is constantly passing moral judgment on the world at large and on other persons.
According to his favorite -ism, all events and state-changes are mechanistically determined by prior events and states, tracing ultimately to the Big Bang; and consequently, there is no such thing as "free will". Yet, One Brow constantly refuses to acknowledge that if I say, "One Brow is an intellectually dishonest God-denier", or if I say, "One Brow glerp derp", it's really all the same. And it's not really *me* saying it (*), anyway; it's "the universe" saying it.
According to his favorite -ism, as all events and state-changes are *mechanistically* determined by prior events and states, and as logical relationships are neither physical/material, nor *mechanistically* determined, nor temporally constrained, therefore logical reasoning about logical relationships is logically impossible; and consequently, there exist no entities able to engage in logical reasoning ((Did you sww what I did there?)) Yet, One Brow is constantly demanding that we all pretend that he is engaging in careful and sound reasoning, to which we should (**) attend, when he sprays leftist propaganda all over the place.
According to his favorite -ism, given the above, no one "thinks" (***) or says what he "thinks" or says due to having engaged in logical reasoning about the matter"; and consequently, there is no such thing as "knowledge". Yet, One Brow is constantly claiming to know this or that, and claiming to know that what he "knows" is the truth. Oddly enough, what One Brow "knows" is almost always just leftist propaganda.
(*) for, according to God-denial, I don't even exist.
(**) according to God-denial, there is no such thing as "should".
(***) according to God-denial, there is no such thing as "thinking".
According to his favorite -ism, One Brow doesn't even exist. Yet, there he is, posing as though he has taken the moral high ground.
By the way, I have never once accused One Brow of being a liar. I accuse him of be *worse* than a liar; I accuse him of being a fool. For, a liar lies episodically, about some fact or other, but a fool lies systemically, about the very nature of truth.
IlĂon said...
Oddly, conservative Christians and other rational and intellectually honest persons don't try to pretend (*) that "hate" (**) makes an actual crime "worse" than that same crime sans the "hate".
Of course not. It the implied threat to the objects of hate that make it worse.
To repeat myself: "In what *sane* world does it matter a damn whether the thug did it because the kid was black or because he just gets his jollies assaulting persons smaller and weaker than himself
In a world where you threaten other members of a group by making a verbal annoucements that mere group membership is sufficient for you to attack someone, while in the process of attacking a member of that group as proof. Something that most people recognize as a crime when it does not serve their political interests.
'One Brow' has not (and never will) engage that question,
Sure I did, by giving a less detailed version of that answer. You seem to be too self-blinded to understand it, but it is an answer.
IlĂon said...
According to his favorite -ism,
I doubt the "-ism" you have in mind is in my top 5 "-ism"s.
there is no "way things ought to be"; and consequently, there is no such thing as "right and wrong".
See? I have no "ism"s that teach this.
Yet, One Brow is constantly passing moral judgment on the world at large and on other persons.
I am human.
According to his favorite -ism, all events and state-changes are mechanistically determined by prior events and states, tracing ultimately to the Big Bang; and consequently, there is no such thing as "free will".
I certainly acknowledge that people are capable of making a choice based on need or preference, in fact even computers make choices based on their programming and incoming data. If you mean something else by "free will", please offer a definition that you can prove exists.
Yet, One Brow constantly refuses to acknowledge that if I say, "One Brow is an intellectually dishonest God-denier", or if I say, "One Brow glerp derp", it's really all the same.
Ilion, I acknowledge that when *you* say "One Brow is an intellectually dishonest God-denier", or if *you* say, "One Brow glerp derp", they mean basically the same thing. It's not true for many people that I encounter, but your use of vocabularly is so askew from common usage that it is true for you.
And it's not really *me* saying it (*), anyway; it's "the universe" saying it.
I do think you are a part of the universe, yes.
According to his favorite -ism, as all events and state-changes are *mechanistically* determined by prior events and states,
From my understanding of radioactive decay, that is untrue.
and as logical relationships are neither physical/material, nor *mechanistically* determined, nor temporally constrained, therefore logical reasoning about logical relationships is logically impossible;
Every instance of a logcial relationship observation supervenes over a material basis, so all logical relationships are defined by material things creating similar abstract patterns.
and consequently, there exist no entities able to engage in logical reasoning ((Did you sww what I did there?))
Yes, you took a particularly inferior version of the Argument from Ra=eason and made it even less valid.
Yet, One Brow is constantly demanding that we all pretend that he is engaging in careful and sound reasoning, to which we should (**) attend, when he sprays leftist propaganda all over the place.
I don't really care if you think I am engaging in reasoning or not. I don't recommend that anyone pay attention, unless they think there is some profit in so doing for themself. Around here, I most ask questions and point out discrepancies, which only a rabid partisan would interpret as being propaganda.
IlĂon said...
According to his favorite -ism, given the above, no one "thinks" (***) or says what he "thinks" or says due to having engaged in logical reasoning about the matter"; and consequently, there is no such thing as "knowledge".
Oddly, the "-ism" to which you refer says nothing at all about personal reality, morality, or the existence of thought. I had discussion with atheists who believe in ghosts, in reincarnation, and/or in magic.
Yet, One Brow is constantly claiming to know this or that, and claiming to know that what he "knows" is the truth.
The greatest truth is that no human can ever be sure of an abstract truth.
Oddly enough, what One Brow "knows" is almost always just leftist propaganda.
I know a few other things, but they don't seem to fit the discussion in here.
According to his favorite -ism, One Brow doesn't even exist. Yet, there he is, posing as though he has taken the moral high ground.
Hypocrisy is one of the things I detest, even in myself. I try to purge it from myself, although it's hard for any person to truly say they are successful in such a pursuit.
Outside of that, I see K T Cat as much more victim that anything else in his personal history, but unless he wants to read why, I don't see much reason for going into the details.
By the way, I have never once accused One Brow of being a liar.
To be "intellectually dishonest" is to deliberately deceive a person by using fallacious reasoning, which is certainly a form of lying, unless you are the sort of person who doesn't believe in "lies of omission".
I accuse him of be *worse* than a liar; I accuse him of being a fool. For, a liar lies episodically, about some fact or other, but a fool lies systemically, about the very nature of truth.
No objection. I've called you far worse that in this very response.
Me: "Yet, One Brow is constantly claiming to know this or that, and claiming to know that what he "knows" is the truth."
OB: "The greatest truth is that no human can ever be sure of an abstract truth."
Consider, consider *deeply* what OB has asserted. Consider the multi-level absurdity (*), and thus falsehood, of it.
His assertion of this absurdity just now is not some mere, and innocent, and understandable, mistake of failure to reason properly. He has been corrected *many times* over *many years* over just this sort of "failure to reason properly" -- but he is committed to denying the reality of God, and therefore *must* assert the absurdities which inescapably follow from God-denial.
He constantly asserts falsehood and absurdities, *knowing* that the assertions are false and/or absurd.
This is intellectual dishonesty. This is why I *accuse* him of being intellectually dishonest, of being worse than a mere liar. This is why I do my best to ignore him -- to not even *see* any post he has made to any blog on which I participate.
This is why I will not be reading, much less responding to, the remainder of the several posts he has made in "response" to posts I have made. This one sentence happened to catch my eye as I was clearing out my email inbox, and so I decided to comment upon it, as it perfectly illustrates the truth of my moral condemnations of the man.
(*) In case you're still not getting it, one absurdity is that it is an assertion that no human being can ever know that he knows anything at all; that "abstract truth" bit is just a distraction. Another absurdity is that the assertion is itself a claim to know "an abstract truth", and thus the assertion is self refuting.
.
Post a Comment