patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
750,530 comments in 77,137 posts by 11,006 registered users, 10 online now: APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE, BayAreaObserver, Blurtman, Dan8267, FortWayne, goat, just any guy, Kepi, kgk01, PCGyver

new post

Dan8267's comments

1   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   7:41am today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Statistically, African Americans commit more violent crimes than whites do. This is a correlation. It is not, however, causality. It is not caused by genetics or melanin. It's caused by a number of factors including
- poverty
- the inability to escape poverty
- segregation (although no longer a legal policy, it's still in effect)
- self-fulfilling proficiencies
- the war on drugs
- crappy elementary and secondary education and non-safe schools
- positive feedbacks caused by the above

So yes, being born a black male makes you far more likely to commit and be convicted of a violent crime. However, it's not a genetic thing. Its an environmental thing. The only way to solve the problem is to fix the environment.

2   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 9:56pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

FortWayne says

That's a thing about socialism, very soon "everyone" is taxed.

Taxes are inherently socialistic. Taxes are socializing the cost of public infrastructure and government services like the military and the police. You simply cannot have any society without them. If you want to be free of taxes, move to Slab City. It's anarchy at it's finest.

FortWayne says

Liberals love taxes, they constantly add taxes to everything "to help the little guy".

I'm a liberal, and I don't love taxes. None of my liberal friends do, either. You clearly have not spent any times with liberals.

However, unlike you, I realize that taxes are a necessary evil for society to work. No society can work unless most people contribute something to that society. Ideally all would, but a society can tolerate a few disabled persons or a few parasites. But no society can function without contributions by the population to maintaining that society. Either you contribute your time through unpaid labor, or you contribute your time through taxes on paid labor. The later is far more efficient in a developed economy.

Furthermore, as a liberal, under my leadership you would be taxed far less. How can I do this? Easily. Cut wasteful military spending. Get those defense contractor welfare queens off the government teat.

The federal government takes in $1.9836 trillion in federal income tax. It spends $834.2 million on defense, of which 90% is pure waste. By cutting defense alone, I could reduce the total federal income tax to $1149.4 million. Distributing this decrease by bracket, I would reduce everyone's tax burden by 42%

Fuck, a 42% cut in your federal income tax immediately simply by reigning in wasteful military spending that does nothing to keep us safer. And if the savings were distributed equally, unless you are in the top 10%, $127,695/yr or more income, your federal income taxes would go to zero.

Put a liberal like me in office and on day one I'll make the first $127,695 of your income tax free. That's better than any conservative would ever do.

The reason your taxes are so high is that they are wasted on defense contractors and needless empire building. And you can blame the right for this. It's not the family on food stamps that is costing you 25% to 35% of your income. It's the war profiteers. This is the truth that FortWayne will never be honest enough to admit.

3   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 9:34pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Patrick says

TheMightyOne says

There was no mention of height, weight or shoe size either. Why won't they tell this information.

Because those characteristics have zero correlation with these crimes.

Bullshit. We all know that fat midgets with big clown feet kill far more people proportionally than normal sized people. Stop censoring the truth!

4   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 6:22pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

5   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 5:08pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

Senescent Trumpzheimer Forgets That Israel Is in the Middle East Like the Demented Retard Everyone Knows He Is!

In his defense, we haven't yet fought a war with Israel, and that is god's way of teaching geography to Americans.

6   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 5:08pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

7   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 5:03pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Patrick says

Why can't BART have human conductors patrolling the cars?

It's BART. They could, but they would end up paying them $300,000/yr with 200 hours a week of overtime even though no one sees them working.

8   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 5:02pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Straw Man says

Paging Bernie Goetz...

You do realize that Bernie Goetz was recently arrested for selling pot to a cop, right? Unless you think that pot should be legal, it's entirely hypocritical of you to glorify a criminal, and yes, he's a criminal by definition.

Personally, I think a person being a criminal does not make the person bad unless the law broken is justifiable. In the case of pot, it's not. So I can heroize Goetz without hypocrisy. Unless you agree that
1. Pot should be legal, including it's sale.
2. Being a criminal does not make a person bad
then you are being completely hypocritical.

9   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 4:47pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

BlueSardine says

Wow. So you're in contact?

Let us know how it goes...

Yes, I am the only person in the world who has access to Google. That was sarcasm.

10   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 4:45pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

That's a non-argument.

11   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 4:42pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

Evolutionary dead end.

Evolution created sex to have kids.

A simplistic and inaccurate view of evolution.

Direct reproduction is hardly necessary. Many species do mostly without it. Furthermore, over 99.9% of your genetic code is identical to every human being on the planet. Even without having kids, considerably more than 99.9% of your genetic material survives as long as the species survives. Ecological destruction and nuclear war are the pretty much the only way any person alive today could become an evolutionary dead end.

When you add to that the inevitability of designer babies, all of your useful genes will survive whether or not you reproduce and all of your inferior genes will not regardless of whether or not your reproduce.

Of course, why should you even care if your genes survive? They aren't you. They aren't your allies. At best, genes are a means to an end, not an end of themselves except to themselves. Eventually the entire human race will evolve to the point where our descendants don't have much of your genes anyway regardless of how many offspring you have. Who cares how our descendants get to point C, whether through path A or B, when the destination is the same?

And genetic immortality means nothing as well. How much does it mean to you if some of your cells are kept alive and replicating indefinitely and harvested for research like Henrietta Lacks? What does mindless reproduction of cells with your genetic code amount to?

12   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 3:03pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

BayArea says

- People are waiting longer to have kids... often into years that extend beyond the prime sexual years.

Delayed reproduction would only lower the fertility rate for a short period of time. That cannot be the explanation because for every kid a 20-something does not have because he's waiting to be 30-something is a kid that a 30-something will have ten years later that he wouldn't have had otherwise. Delayed reproduction is not lower reproduction.

The statistics clearly show that fewer people are having children and those who do are having fewer children, and that these changes happened over the past 30 years.

Porn reduces rape, not the desire of men to become fathers. Perhaps sex with condoms has reduced the fertility rate because of eliminating unwanted pregnancies, but that's a good thing and it does not explain why many men and women are choosing to never have children. Nor is there anything magical about electronics over the past 30 years that have reduced the desire of men and women to have children.

What does seem to have an effect are
1. Overcrowding (particularly in Japan)
2. Financial stress
3. What's been called feminism since the 1970s
4. The family court system raping men
5. The unattractiveness of most women because of obesity and (3).
6. The fact that men are biologically wired not to want to settle down with women who have mated with other men. Commitment is very costly for men, so they need parental certainty in exchange or its not worth forgoing other sexual pursuits.
7. Female hypergamy
8. A change in the belief that one's value comes from reproduction to valuing happiness in life.

In any case, the fewer people crapping out children and the fewer children being crapped out is ultimately a good thing. Why add pressure to a pot that's already ripe for exploding?

13   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 2:51pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

FortWayne says

It's the sun

Either you are lying or you are stupid. Take your pick. Only an idiot could possibly believe that man is having zero effect on the temperature after all the greenhouse gases we've emitted. That's just batshit crazy.

14   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 2:49pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

If the situation were reversed and a civilian avoided cameras and shot a cop, you'd call that criminal intent.

And what possible reason could justify lowering the window and shooting the person instead of shouting "police, freeze" or driving the car away from the situation?

Shoot first and ask questions later is criminal intent.

Also, get your story straight with your buddy Strategist. I can't be both unwilling to call this cop a criminal and too willing to do so.

15   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 2:43pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

I think the fact that planes smell like stale clam farts

Clams fart? How do they get away with that when the bubbles would be so visible?

16   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 2:37pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

zzyzzx says

The bike tax is aimed at raising $1.2 million per year in order to improve and expand paths and trails for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Well, then it's not earmarked for improvements for cyclists. Since you cannot practically tax pedestrians, this would be a solid case to use general tax funds rather than a bike tax. Also, the law seems to be targeting an arbitrary subset of cyclists.

zzyzzx says

a $15 excise tax on the sale of bicycles costing more than $200 with a wheel diameter of at least 26 inches

Because of those two things, I would oppose this tax. The infrastructure improvements should be made using general funds, not a tax on a narrow arbitrary subset of the persons benefiting from the improvements.

17   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 2:33pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Patrick says

The only good tax is the land-value tax.

You mean public resource value tax. Such taxes should include fishing the ocean and lakes, using the extremely scarce geostationary orbits, taking up the EM spectrum, etc.

If a bicycle tax is levied to pay for bicycle lanes, that is effectively a tax on the land use to pay for both the building of the lanes and the use of the land.

Personally, I'd rather the people using the resources and infrastructure pay for them than everyone paying for them, especially when the vast majority don't use the resources. It promotes more efficient allocation of resources.

18   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 2:31pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

zzyzzx says

Orgeon to start taxing bicycles!

What exactly is your problem with this? From your referenced article...

zzyzzx says

the funding has been earmarked for improvements that will benefit cyclists

So the options are
1. Don't make improvements that benefit cyclists.
2. Make improvements that benefit cyclists and socialize the costs over the entire population including the vast majority of people who don't cycle.
3. Make improvements that benefit cyclists and socialize the costs over only cyclists. I.e., tax the people receiving the benefits rather than people who aren't.

I would think that you'd prefer (3) over (2). And (1) is just saying fuck infrastructure. Let's all live in a slum.

Sounds like taxing cyclists for infrastructure benefiting specifically cyclists is far more fair and fiscally responsible. Would you prefer the government use general tax dollars instead?

19   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 12:36pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

The corrupt and vile family court system is certainly one of the primary reasons most men today won't ever consider marrying, and it does contribute to the decrease in birthrates.

20   Dan8267   3581/3628 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 12:34pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

The examples in the original post demonstrates that America is not at all fundamentally different from Russia. It's only a matter of how frequent such injustices are. Fundamentally, both countries are the same.

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home