> Retitled thread to tease it apart from other dialogue. > > You have me somewhat confused. Let me recap, see where you are losing me. > > First, you cite the Pirsig quote about how "crime" is up due to intellects > failure to support social patterns. > > This would seem to indicate the stronger social patterns equals less crime, > but then you cite a study indicating how America is safer than all those > "socialist" European countries. Okay, I said, then if America is so safe, > what's the problem.
Wrong. You made the claim that the U.S. led all other countries in crime. I corrected you with the EVIDENCE of a UN study showing that some socialist countries had a higher per capita crime rate than the U.S. Many socialist countries on the list had much lower crime rates than the U.S. So your accusation that I claimed the U.S. is "so safe" is a complete distortion. > No, you said, those who live near or in areas of "large black populations" > are in danger, as this is where the problem is. > > So, I ask. Are you saying that modern "intellect" has failed only the black > communities? If its a larger metaphysical problem (the failure of > intellect), why is it only "blacks" are effected by the problem? I agree with Pirsig that modern intellect has failed to deal with crime regardless of the skin color. > But then I wonder, why is it you bemoan the soft-treatment of Michael Vick, > but rally to the defense of the guy who played Kramer? Why is your "free > speech" issues always tied to things like "the right to use the word > nigger". These are straw men and you know it. > I say this to preface my next question... do you think the "inner > city problems" you mention are colorblind? That is, do you think that it is > the "inner city" that is the problem, or do you think that it is "blacks" > that are the problem? Urban ghettos where crime is higher than in other areas of society which happen to be in large part inhabited by blacks but not exclusively as you seen to suggest. > I also recall a conversation we had about public schools, one where you > once again called the state sponsorship of education "the problem". When I > cited the evidence that Japan's schools are both "public" and among the top > ranked in the world, you replied this was due to Japan having a > "monocultural population". So, I wondered, here again the real trouble with > the schools was not the "public" side of the equation, but again "the > presence of blacks". The real problem with public schools is the NEA. But let's stick to the subject. > So I am curious, before we continue, what exactly you think is the root > cause of this "inner city crime"? Hopelessness? Poverty? A violent culture? Drugs, gangs, rap, and an intellectual "let's talk crime to death" attitude. > And if these things only effect "blacks" and not "whites", if "intellect" > has only failed for the "blacks" in our country, but not the whites, why > you think that is? In other words, is this a "problem" or a "black > problem"? It's a problem, but let's not be afraid to identify those most affected for fear of being called "racist.". > Finally, are there any other solutions you'd think would help, other than > "cracking down with police", humiliating kids in school, and discipline in > the homes? Yes -- appointing or electing judges who will uphold the law. Also taking the enforcement steps like Guilani initiated as mayor of New York. (As usual you distort what I said about humiliation which is simply one tool in the bag of disciplining kids at school or at home, not as you suggest the only way to treat miscreants at school.) OK, now it's your turn. Tell us what you would do to reduce crime in the urban ghettos and elsewhere. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
