Walmart Raided by Dole Customers During "Glitch."

[pErvinalia]

Why? What's the problem?

[Coito ergo sum]

Really. Got any evidence to back that up?

What causes crime then? Poor genetics? Poor character? Good ol' conservative Social Darwinism right there. Can't say I'm surprised.

I'll be happy to, but you made the assertion about "poor" people committing crimes first. So, please back your assertion up first. That would be the polite and cordial thing to do. Or, you could just act like your usual self. Your call.

So touchy.

No, just sick of the way you make these kinds of demands, but rarely provide such information when it's requested of you. It's bad form.

And I didn't make an "assertion". I posed it as a question - i.e. a possibility. Once again, you can't seem to parse English properly. My reasoning for positing such a thing would be that they are likely to be far more in need of things than a person with more money. But you have made an assertion to the contrary. Therefore, you must have some evidence to back this up?

Well, if you have any evidence to back up your hypothesis, bring it on. I made no assertion of any kind about the causes of crime until after you posited one by the interrogative 'poor?" If you don't have any evidence for that potential theory, then fine. Just say so. If all you have is speculation that because they are in need of things, they will be more likely to steal, then great. That's all you have. Just let me know clearly and unequivocally.

I never said anything about genetics or character or social darwinism. I do happen to think that stealing stuff evidences somewhat of a poor character.

Where does this "poor character" come from? If it's not environmental - like growing up and/or being poor - then what is it?

I don't know. You brought it up. However, I would hesitate to suggest that poor people tend to be of lower character than non-poor people. That would, to me, be a rather impertinent thing to suggest, and one that I would like to see some evidence for. I'd certainly be willing to entertain the proposition if there is some evidence for it, but until then I'll dismiss it without evidence and keep my basic premise that rich people and poor people are approximately equally likely to commit theft and other crimes. I haven't seen anything different, have you?

[Audley Strange]

@ rEv

Seriously? You sound like a kid with a grudge that goes out of their way deliberately to misread and assume intent, then create a projection based on that to malign your opponent. Now, by all means do so if you so desire, but seriously you are not doing yourself any favours.

I'm not sure if it is well meant because of your belief system or you are just trying to troll CES, but honestly, you've been suspended here more times than anyone else I can think of and given the nature of this place, I think that speaks to your character mate.

I'm trying to keep this civil but honestly, you are haemorrhaging respect by doing this. If that doesn't matter to you, so be it.

[pErvinalia]

And I didn't make an "assertion". I posed it as a question - i.e. a possibility. Once again, you can't seem to parse English properly. My reasoning for positing such a thing would be that they are likely to be far more in need of things than a person with more money. But you have made an assertion to the contrary. Therefore, you must have some evidence to back this up?

Well, if you have any evidence to back up your hypothesis, bring it on.

I just gave you my reasoning in the fucking post you are quoting.

I made no assertion of any kind about the causes of crime until after you posited one by the interrogative 'poor?" If you don't have any evidence for that potential theory, then fine. Just say so.

Why would I say so? I just fucking gave you my reasoning for my question.

If all you have is speculation that because they are in need of things, they will be more likely to steal, then great. That's all you have. Just let me know clearly and unequivocally.

What is unclear about what I have said?

Stop fucking avoiding the crap that comes out of your keyboard. Do you, or do you not have evidence to back up YOUR assertion that the crime and poverty aren't linked? How fucking hard is this to answer?

I never said anything about genetics or character or social darwinism. I do happen to think that stealing stuff evidences somewhat of a poor character.

Where does this "poor character" come from? If it's not environmental - like growing up and/or being poor - then what is it?

I don't know. You brought it up.

And you just confirmed right here above that you think poor character plays a part. If you don't know, why did you make that statement then?

However, I would hesitate to suggest that poor people tend to be of lower character than non-poor people. That would, to me, be a rather impertinent thing to suggest, and one that I would like to see some evidence for. I'd certainly be willing to entertain the proposition if there is some evidence for it, but until then I'll dismiss it without evidence and keep my basic premise that rich people and poor people are approximately equally likely to commit theft and other crimes. I haven't seen anything different, have you?

Umm, that's not how it works, chief. YOU made a positive assertion. What does that have to do with me? You are either willing or not to back it up. Make a choice.

[Coito ergo sum]

And this is why I am always on at Coit when he starts casting aspersions (or at least appears to be, like here) on poor and disadvantaged people. So much hate and disgust is reserved for poor people doing wrong as opposed to rich people doing wrong by conservatives. I just don't understand how a rationalist can have that skewed a perception.

You're the one who theorized that poor people commit more crimes. I said the exact opposite. And, you claim that I "cast aspersions?" Nonsense. If you think "because they're poor" is an answer to the question of what its' like to be such a person who would do this, then it is you, not me, who is casting aspersions on the poor or disadvantaged, because it is you that suggests that being poor makes people do this kind of thing.

And, I've plenty of times ridiculed the rich for ripping off the taxpayers -- we've had threads about Solyndra and other American boondoggles - rich folks defrauding the "Stimulus" package, general discussions about the wealthy and how they fleeced the public during the 2008 collapse and such. I've argued vigorously in favor of prosecutions under federal and state anti-fraud laws, securities laws. I argued against bailing out the wealthy - the 2009 bailouts which bailed out mostly the wealthy -- and I argued FOR letting them go into bankruptcy and having the SEC and FBI run roughshod over those finance companies and let the heads start rolling.

All this garbage of yours is just more made-up stuff, and you're not capable of holding a civil conversation. Just stop it, please.

[pErvinalia]

@ rEv

Seriously? You sound like a kid with a grudge that goes out of their way deliberately to misread and assume intent, then create a projection based on that to malign your opponent. Now, by all means do so if you so desire, but seriously you are not doing yourself any favours.

That's a bold claim. Back it up. Where have I misread intent? I'm not only basing my judgement from this thread alone. CES has a long history of getting his panties in a twist about poor people ripping off 10's of dollars from the state, while he barely posts anything (unless harangued by me or others) concerning the MASSIVELY disproportionate amount that rich people rip off the state. He also has a history of bashing the disadvantaged.

So put up, or go shove your sanctimonious bollocks.

I'm not sure if it is well meant because of your belief system or you are just trying to troll CES, but honestly, you've been suspended here more times than anyone else I can think of and given the nature of this place, I think that speaks to your character mate.

What does that have to do with what I've said to CES in this thread? How's your character stack up under that assertion? Looks to me like you've got a grudge against me because I dared call out some of your bollocks in the past. You've got a long glorious career of posting contrarian nonsense presumably for the kicks it gets you in appearing to be "different". Or perhaps you actually believe some of the crap you post. Whatever the case, you appear to be shitty because I've called some of this crap out in the past.

Put it this way - butt out of my interactions with others, or fucking back up your crap. You've tried this on once before and when I took it to you, you pranced off and refused to debate. You either back up your shit, or I call it for what it is.

I'm trying to keep this civil but honestly, you are haemorrhaging respect by doing this. If that doesn't matter to you, so be it.

Of course it doesn't matter to me. That's the great thing about being a rationalist. I don't need the respect of argumentative cocks on the internet. The only thing I listen to is rationality. If you can't pony that up, then I don't really give a fig what you have to say.

[Tyrannical]

one woman was detained because she rang up a bill of $700.00 and only had .49 on her card. She was held by police until corporate Walmart said they wouldn't press charges if she left the food.

Whut? What could they possibly have charged her with? Being poor? Your card not working at the checkout wasn't a crime last time I looked.

The idea is that she knew she had nothing left on her EBT card, and purposely took advantage of the outage. That is theft by deception. Wal-mart was trying to help people during the outage by trusting people not to cheat them. They could have refused all EBT sales but chose not to.

[Coito ergo sum]

And I didn't make an "assertion". I posed it as a question - i.e. a possibility. Once again, you can't seem to parse English properly. My reasoning for positing such a thing would be that they are likely to be far more in need of things than a person with more money. But you have made an assertion to the contrary. Therefore, you must have some evidence to back this up?

Well, if you have any evidence to back up your hypothesis, bring it on.

I just gave you my reasoning in the fucking post you are quoting.

Reasoning like that makes for a nice hypothesis. Now if you have "evidence" to back it up, that would be nice. "Reasoning" is not "evidence."

I made no assertion of any kind about the causes of crime until after you posited one by the interrogative 'poor?" If you don't have any evidence for that potential theory, then fine. Just say so.

Why would I say so? I just fucking gave you my reasoning for my question.

Sure, but I asked for evidence. Many things that can be formed into a rationale are nevertheless unsupported by evidence. Is there any evidence that the poor are in fact more criminally inclined?

If all you have is speculation that because they are in need of things, they will be more likely to steal, then great. That's all you have. Just let me know clearly and unequivocally.

What is unclear about what I have said?

Nothing, but saying "I think the poor commit more crimes because they need more stuff than rich people" is a great hypothesis, but until you support it with evidence, it's just a nice If/then statement.

Stop fucking avoiding the crap that comes out of your keyboard. Do you, or do you not have evidence to back up YOUR assertion that the crime and poverty aren't linked? How fucking hard is this to answer?

I will answer that as soon as you tell me if you have any EVIDENCE to support your hypothesis. I'm not avoiding anything. I've given you my precondition. You want evidence, then give me your evidence (if any) first, and if you don't have any tell me. Your "reasoning" is not evidence.

To make it clearer for you: Galileo "reasons" that if he takes two cannonballs, one 5 kilos and the other 10 kilos, to the top of the leaning tower of Pisa, that they will both fall at the same rate of acceleration and hit the ground at the same time. That's nice reasoning, but Galileo's less intelligent brother could also "reason" that the heavier object will surely fall faster because heavier things will surely fall faster than lighter things.

That's reasoning, and we have two separate hypotheses. However, neither one is supported by evidence, until one of them goes up to the top of the leaning tower of Pisa and drops the cannonballs simultaneously, and then does so a bunch of times to prove which one is right.

That's the difference between "reasoning" and "evidence."

I never said anything about genetics or character or social darwinism. I do happen to think that stealing stuff evidences somewhat of a poor character.

Where does this "poor character" come from? If it's not environmental - like growing up and/or being poor - then what is it?

I don't know. You brought it up.

And you just confirmed right here above that you think poor character plays a part. If you don't know, why did you make that statement then?

Those are two different things. I think that stealing is an indicator of poor character. However, that has nothing to do with rich or poor. A rich man who steals has evidenced poor character too. Character, also, is not necessarily innate or something people are born with or without. Environmental factors enter into how someone's moral or ethical compass will point.

However, I would hesitate to suggest that poor people tend to be of lower character than non-poor people. That would, to me, be a rather impertinent thing to suggest, and one that I would like to see some evidence for. I'd certainly be willing to entertain the proposition if there is some evidence for it, but until then I'll dismiss it without evidence and keep my basic premise that rich people and poor people are approximately equally likely to commit theft and other crimes. I haven't seen anything different, have you?

Umm, that's not how it works, chief. YOU made a positive assertion. What does that have to do with me? You are either willing or not to back it up. Make a choice.

I told you I was more than willing. You, however, asked me for evidence. I then told you I would answer your inquiry in that regard AFTER you provided me with evidence for your proposition. You declined to do so, so far only giving me some "rationale" or "reason" that you thought up. Then you proceed to ask me not for my "reason" for thinking that poverty does not cause crime -- you ask me for "evidence." If you want evidence from me, then you need to give evidence for your proposition first, or at least say "I don't have any evidence." Once you do that, I will be happy to respond in kind.

[PsychoSerenity]

Hmm.. When getting all-you-can-eat from Walmart is seen by many as such a rare opportunity for relative luxury that it's worth racing to stuff shopping-carts full, it paints a rather poor picture of the current state of affairs.

[pErvinalia]

And this is why I am always on at Coit when he starts casting aspersions (or at least appears to be, like here) on poor and disadvantaged people. So much hate and disgust is reserved for poor people doing wrong as opposed to rich people doing wrong by conservatives. I just don't understand how a rationalist can have that skewed a perception.

You're the one who theorized that poor people commit more crimes. I said the exact opposite. And, you claim that I "cast aspersions?" Nonsense. If you think "because they're poor" is an answer to the question of what its' like to be such a person who would do this, then it is you, not me, who is casting aspersions on the poor or disadvantaged, because it is you that suggests that being poor makes people do this kind of thing.

You really don't get it. What I am saying is that being poor is largely a case of environmental factors. That is, treating it simplistically, poor people are trapped in a cycle and in some senses it isn't their fault. Now of course, that's a simplistic characterisation, and before you jump to any stupid conclusions, that's not meant to be an absolutist statement. What it's meant to show is a distinction between the idea that in many social respects we are a product of our environment, as opposed to the common conservative ideas of "social darwinism" and the like. You have displayed in the past a belief that poor people and other disadvantaged people face a simple choice in certain behaviours and lifestyles. This, to me, is perfectly reflective of the conservative social darwinism idea. THAT's where I am coming from. THAT is the distinction. It's about you appearing to espouse a social darwinistic idea that disadvantaged people are to blame for their condition, and thereby justify your rather regular disparagement of disadvantaged people. When I say that poor people are perhaps more likely to commit crime, it's not because of some inherent deficiency they possess, it's because of factors that are broadly outside of their control. THAT is not disparaging poor people. It's giving them the benefit of the doubt until other evidence comes to light.

And, I've plenty of times ridiculed the rich for ripping off the taxpayers -- we've had threads about Solyndra and other American boondoggles - rich folks defrauding the "Stimulus" package, general discussions about the wealthy and how they fleeced the public during the 2008 collapse and such. I've argued vigorously in favor of prosecutions under federal and state anti-fraud laws, securities laws. I argued against bailing out the wealthy - the 2009 bailouts which bailed out mostly the wealthy -- and I argued FOR letting them go into bankruptcy and having the SEC and FBI run roughshod over those finance companies and let the heads start rolling.

I haven't seen any threads from you in the past year or two disparaging the rich. It's been almost constant disparagement of the disadvantaged.

[pErvinalia]

And I didn't make an "assertion". I posed it as a question - i.e. a possibility. Once again, you can't seem to parse English properly. My reasoning for positing such a thing would be that they are likely to be far more in need of things than a person with more money. But you have made an assertion to the contrary. Therefore, you must have some evidence to back this up?

Well, if you have any evidence to back up your hypothesis, bring it on.

I just gave you my reasoning in the fucking post you are quoting.

Reasoning like that makes for a nice hypothesis. Now if you have "evidence" to back it up, that would be nice. "Reasoning" is not "evidence."

I never said there was evidence, ffs. I gave a possible answer to your question and gave the reasoning for that possibility. You are flipping over backwards to avoid the assertion that YOU made. Do you have evidence or not? Yes or no?

I made no assertion of any kind about the causes of crime until after you posited one by the interrogative 'poor?" If you don't have any evidence for that potential theory, then fine. Just say so.

Why would I say so? I just fucking gave you my reasoning for my question.

Sure, but I asked for evidence.

I don't give a fuck what you asked for. I never claimed it was a fact. I never made an assertion. Can you understand this simple point? YOU MADE AN ASSERTION. Are you going to back it up or not? You do this every fucking time. You try and turn the argument back onto your interlocutor. Own your fucking words for once.

Many things that can be formed into a rationale are nevertheless unsupported by evidence. Is there any evidence that the poor are in fact more criminally inclined?

I don't know. What does that have to do with YOUR positive claim that they aren't? Will you ever answer this question?

If all you have is speculation that because they are in need of things, they will be more likely to steal, then great. That's all you have. Just let me know clearly and unequivocally.

What is unclear about what I have said?

Nothing, but saying "I think the poor commit more crimes because they need more stuff than rich people" is a great hypothesis, but until you support it with evidence, it's just a nice If/then statement.

Good. We agree then. So now, to YOUR CLAIM. When will the evidence be forthcoming?

Stop fucking avoiding the crap that comes out of your keyboard. Do you, or do you not have evidence to back up YOUR assertion that the crime and poverty aren't linked? How fucking hard is this to answer?

I will answer that as soon as you tell me if you have any EVIDENCE to support your hypothesis. I'm not avoiding anything. I've given you my precondition. You want evidence, then give me your evidence (if any) first, and if you don't have any tell me. Your "reasoning" is not evidence.

As I explained above, I never made a positive claim. I posited a possible answer. I don't claim that it is correct. YOU, however, made a positive claim. Will you ever back it up? Can you back it up?

To make it clearer for you: Galileo "reasons" that if he takes two cannonballs, one 5 kilos and the other 10 kilos, to the top of the leaning tower of Pisa, that they will both fall at the same rate of acceleration and hit the ground at the same time. That's nice reasoning, but Galileo's less intelligent brother could also "reason" that the heavier object will surely fall faster because heavier things will surely fall faster than lighter things.

That's reasoning, and we have two separate hypotheses. However, neither one is supported by evidence, until one of them goes up to the top of the leaning tower of Pisa and drops the cannonballs simultaneously, and then does so a bunch of times to prove which one is right.

That's the difference between "reasoning" and "evidence."

Thanks for the lesson, professor.

Why are you totally incapable of owning your own words?

I never said anything about genetics or character or social darwinism. I do happen to think that stealing stuff evidences somewhat of a poor character.

Where does this "poor character" come from? If it's not environmental - like growing up and/or being poor - then what is it?

I don't know. You brought it up.

And you just confirmed right here above that you think poor character plays a part. If you don't know, why did you make that statement then?

Those are two different things. I think that stealing is an indicator of poor character. However, that has nothing to do with rich or poor.

And I asked you "where does that poor character come from"? Are you incapable of parsing simple English?

However, I would hesitate to suggest that poor people tend to be of lower character than non-poor people. That would, to me, be a rather impertinent thing to suggest, and one that I would like to see some evidence for. I'd certainly be willing to entertain the proposition if there is some evidence for it, but until then I'll dismiss it without evidence and keep my basic premise that rich people and poor people are approximately equally likely to commit theft and other crimes. I haven't seen anything different, have you?

Umm, that's not how it works, chief. YOU made a positive assertion. What does that have to do with me? You are either willing or not to back it up. Make a choice.

I told you I was more than willing. You, however, asked me for evidence. I then told you I would answer your inquiry in that regard AFTER you provided me with evidence for your proposition. You declined to do so, so far only giving me some "rationale" or "reason" that you thought up. Then you proceed to ask me not for my "reason" for thinking that poverty does not cause crime -- you ask me for "evidence." If you want evidence from me, then you need to give evidence for your proposition first, or at least say "I don't have any evidence." Once you do that, I will be happy to respond in kind.

You must be a troll. It's the only reasonable explanation for your total inability to debate honestly.

[Coito ergo sum]

And this is why I am always on at Coit when he starts casting aspersions (or at least appears to be, like here) on poor and disadvantaged people. So much hate and disgust is reserved for poor people doing wrong as opposed to rich people doing wrong by conservatives. I just don't understand how a rationalist can have that skewed a perception.

You're the one who theorized that poor people commit more crimes. I said the exact opposite. And, you claim that I "cast aspersions?" Nonsense. If you think "because they're poor" is an answer to the question of what its' like to be such a person who would do this, then it is you, not me, who is casting aspersions on the poor or disadvantaged, because it is you that suggests that being poor makes people do this kind of thing.

You really don't get it. What I am saying is that being poor is largely a case of environmental factors. That is, treating it simplistically, poor people are trapped in a cycle and in some senses it isn't their fault.

So what? I never said it was there fault, or even implied it. I just said I thought poverty didn't cause crime in response to your assertion that being poor did cause them to commit crime. I just asked you if you had any evidence for that.

Now of course, that's a simplistic characterisation, and before you jump to any stupid conclusions, that's not meant to be an absolutist statement. What it's meant to show is a distinction between the idea that in many social respects we are a product of our environment, as opposed to the common conservative ideas of "social darwinism" and the like.

Well, I'm not a social darwinist or a conservative, nor have I suggested anything of the kind. Didn't stop you from jumping to stupid conclusions, though.

You have displayed in the past a belief that poor people and other disadvantaged people face a simple choice in certain behaviours and lifestyles.

I have? Where? I mean, everyone faces choices in certain behaviors in lifestyles, rich and poor alike. What are you getting at here? What do you think I said?

This, to me, is perfectly reflective of the conservative social darwinism idea. THAT's where I am coming from. THAT is the distinction. It's about you appearing to espouse a social darwinistic idea that disadvantaged people are to blame for their condition, and thereby justify your rather regular disparagement of disadvantaged people. When I say that poor people are perhaps more likely to commit crime, it's not because of some inherent deficiency they possess, it's because of factors that are broadly outside of their control. THAT is not disparaging poor people. It's giving them the benefit of the doubt until other evidence comes to light.

Where did I blame anyone? Did I even suggest a cause? Or, did YOU suggest social darwinism and such and then attribute it to me? Think about it, Revolutionist. Think long and hard about it. Aren't you inventing what you think I think, and then attacking me for it?

My "regular disparagement of disadvantaged people?" I have never "disparaged the disadvantaged qua disadvantaged." I.e., I've disparaged people, but I have not had any special scorn for the disadvantaged at all. I think what you're doing is mistaking your EXCUSING bad behavior by disadvantaged people for me being somehow especially hard on them. I'm not. I make no class based distinction here. You, however, seem to make allowances for things based on income. Maybe you think that if someone defrauds the government, but they're needy, that it's not so bad because rich people do bad things too on a bigger scale. Well, I don't agree with that. I don't make such excuses. However, I also don't go after the disadvantaged harder.

And, I've plenty of times ridiculed the rich for ripping off the taxpayers -- we've had threads about Solyndra and other American boondoggles - rich folks defrauding the "Stimulus" package, general discussions about the wealthy and how they fleeced the public during the 2008 collapse and such. I've argued vigorously in favor of prosecutions under federal and state anti-fraud laws, securities laws. I argued against bailing out the wealthy - the 2009 bailouts which bailed out mostly the wealthy -- and I argued FOR letting them go into bankruptcy and having the SEC and FBI run roughshod over those finance companies and let the heads start rolling.

I haven't seen any threads from you in the past year or two disparaging the rich. It's been almost constant disparagement of the disadvantaged.

So? I don't give a shit what you saw and I am not limited in my commentary to threads that I've started.

You're wrong, and you're out of line. And, you've been insulting and made personal attacks on me AGAIN.

But, that's my fault for bothering to engage with you in the first place. Anyway, I have to leave for a meeting, so toodle-oo, Sunshine.

[Audley Strange]

And this is why I am always on at Coit when he starts casting aspersions (or at least appears to be, like here) on poor and disadvantaged people. So much hate and disgust is reserved for poor people doing wrong as opposed to rich people doing wrong by conservatives. I just don't understand how a rationalist can have that skewed a perception.

This post here.

You deliberately point out you always target Coit even when you think or imagine he is casting aspersions on poor or disadvantaged people. From your inference you go on to exaggerate his positions and worldview into something you can vilify and then go on to claim that his perception is skewed but yours somehow which seems exactly the opposite, is not. And you do this over and over again.

I state my opinion and if you want to nitpick on and on and on about it fine but don't expect me to debate or discuss anything reasonably with you, because despite your constant claims about rationality, you are one of the most irrational people I've witnessed on this forum. Too quick to take offence, assume the worst of your rivals, insult them then play the victim. You want evidence? Look at your fucking posting record. Angry, filled with personal invective and constant uncharitable readings and pre-formed assumption.

You are a perfect candidate for A+.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, thought that given the fact we have for years managed to discuss and debate things without you coming across like an angry brat, that you might actually have the decency to accept that not everything needs to be necessitated by charts and graphs. I thought we might have some form of mutual respect. Clearly I was wrong.

You, however, never are are you? Thus being a boring arrogant angry never-wrong you join the list amongst such luminaries as Red Celt and Scheibster.

Ciao.

[Azathoth]

one woman was detained because she rang up a bill of $700.00 and only had .49 on her card. She was held by police until corporate Walmart said they wouldn't press charges if she left the food.

Whut? What could they possibly have charged her with? Being poor? Your card not working at the checkout wasn't a crime last time I looked.

Attempting to defraud the government. If you try to get benefits to which you're not entitled, it can be a misdemeanor or even a felony.

Read the second sentence again and rethink your answer

[pErvinalia]

@Coit... Typical. Walking away from your own words. Either you can produce evidence for your positive claim or you can't. It's simple.