Interesting Statistics

[Vandy Vol]

Nothing but love . 

I think you and GarMan are best friends gay lovers merely putting on a show for us.

Fixed.

[GarMan]

I agree that there are tons of simply lazy people out there.  In fact, I'll even go as far as to say that most poor people have probably gotten themselves into that situation by only taking what comes easily to them and not trying for anything more. 

Bingo!  You finally got it right!!!

But to suggest that, for those of you who aren't lazy, all you need to do to earn more money is get off your ass and get a better job?  I think that this "solution" fails to address a lot of problems and a lot of real barriers that prevent many people from just strolling into a new economic class.

Mobility from one socioeconomic class to another is easier in the United States than any other country.  Problems and excuses will always exist, but the ultimate solution always resides with the individual.  Those who fail to adapt, learn how to overcome those barriers and execute accordingly will continue to flounder. 
 

If no one made the argument that areas with high crime rates are mostly populated with morally reprehensible and generally irresponsible people, then my point stands as correct:  a high crime rate in an area has virtually no correlation to voting results in that area.

You took the original suggestion to an absurd extreme.  Nobody said, "areas with high crime rates are mostly populated with morally reprehensible and generally irresponsible people."  That perspective is incorrect.  Those areas with higher crime rates are populated by individuals who tend to have lower standards and values than those individuals who reside in safer areas.  Appeal to those lower standards...  You can draw your own conclusions from there. 

[Vandy Vol]

Mobility from one socioeconomic class to another is easier in the United States than any other country.  Problems and excuses will always exist, but the ultimate solution always resides with the individual.  Those who fail to adapt, learn how to overcome those barriers and execute accordingly will continue to flounder.

Easier than other countries, yes, but I still don't think it boils down to simply strolling out of your shitty, run down apartment and obtaining a better job just because you had the motivation to do so.  I will readily admit that there are tons of people who don't attempt to better themselves, but even for those that do try, it's not as simple as you make it sound.  You can't simply get a better job if there are none available.
 

You took the original suggestion to an absurd extreme.  Nobody said, "areas with high crime rates are mostly populated with morally reprehensible and generally irresponsible people."  That perspective is incorrect.  Those areas with higher crime rates are populated by individuals who tend to have lower standards and values than those individuals who reside in safer areas.  Appeal to those lower standards...  You can draw your own conclusions from there.

Being morally reprehensible is, to me, the equivalent of having lower moral standards.  If your moral standards are lower, that means that in the eyes of the general populace, you are immoral, and thus are morally reprehensible.  The same goes for having lower values.  You act irresponsibly?  Then you are considered to have lower values.

Nonetheless, even with this clarified statement that areas with high crime rates are populated by individuals who have lower moral standards and values, this is still far too generalized.  Based upon this generalized conclusion, people living in Philadelphia have lower moral standards.  People living in St. Louis have lower moral standards.  People living in Birmingham have lower moral standards.  This is obviously an overly broad statement, as certainly an entire city of hundreds of thousands of people don't have lower moral standards just because the large geographical area in which they live has a high crime rate.

Now, if you're talking more specifically to individual neighborhoods and communities, such as Ensley, Fairfield, Midfield, etc., then sure, it's a little easier to make such generalizations.  Still not completely accurate, as you can't definitively state what each person's moral standards are just based upon where they live, but at least with a smaller, more defined neighborhood, your focus is narrowed and such generalizations can be slightly more accurate.  But with the stats that were cited, the crime rate was by county.  Your argument, when applied to the stats that were originally cited, would indicate that anyone living within a county that has a high crime rate would have lower moral standards.  You might as well be telling the millionaires in Mountain Brook that they have lower moral standards because they live in Jefferson County.

[AUJarhead]

People living in St. Louis have lower moral standards. 

Doom on you!

[Vandy Vol]

Doom on you!

Doom GarMan, not me...I'm just pointing out the fallacy of his generalization.  Hell, I'll be in St. Louis next weekend.

[AUJarhead]

Doom GarMan, not me...I'm just pointing out the fallacy of his generalization.  Hell, I'll be in St. Louis next weekend.

It's been fucking balls hot.  Hope you can hit the Cards game!

[Vandy Vol]

It's been fucking balls hot.  Hope you can hit the Cards game!

Probably not...I'll be driving up from Gulf Shores on Friday morning, so I won't be there until late in the evening.  And on Saturday I have a wedding to attend, and then I'll be heading back to Birmingham on Sunday.

It would be cool to go to a game at some point though; I've been meaning to visit more MLB stadiums, but haven't really had the funding or time.

[GarMan]

Easier than other countries, yes, but I still don't think it boils down to simply strolling out of your poopty, run down apartment and obtaining a better job just because...

Really?  This doesn't even warrant a response.  We all know that you have to do a bit more than just stroll out of your apartment to improve your life.  You're stating the overwhelmingly obvious. 

Being morally reprehensible...

Again, your terminology and absurd application of the original comments...  Extending the original comments to these absurd conclusions is ridiculous.  Discussion is pointless...

[Vandy Vol]

Really?  This doesn't even warrant a response.  We all know that you have to do a bit more than just stroll out of your apartment to improve your life.  You're stating the overwhelmingly obvious.

Sure, but your over-simplified response of "get a better job" is just that:  over-simplified.  We all know that getting a better job is not always possible, so it's not some easy, universal solution like you make it out to be.

Again, your terminology and absurd application of the original comments...  Extending the original comments to these absurd conclusions is ridiculous.  Discussion is pointless...

rep·re·hen·si·ble/ˌrepriˈhensəbəl/
Adjective: Deserving censure or condemnation.

Your terminology was that they have "lower moral standards."  Are you trying to tell me that someone who has lower moral standards doesn't deserve severe reproof and strong censure regarding their lack of acceptable moral standards?  I don't see where you're getting that my terminology and your terminology are somehow drastically different...it seems rather nit-picky, actually.

[GarMan]

Sure, but your over-simplified response of "get a better job" is just that:  over-simplified.  We all know that getting a better job is not always possible, so it's not some easy, universal solution like you make it out to be.

That's ridiculous.  You're just deriving and accepting more pathetic excuses here.  It was over-simplified to mock the pathetic nature of the majority of our poor.  Nobody's suggesting that jobs grow on trees, but jobs are still available.  This "not always possible" excuse holds no weight in the real world.  If a better paying job isn't immediately available, you get a second part-time job until you find that better paying job.  Excusing and accepting mediocrity is just another example of the lower standards and weaker values plaguing these subcultures (and political parties). 

rep·re·hen·si·ble/ˌrepriˈhensəbəl/
Adjective: Deserving censure or condemnation.

Your terminology was that they have "lower moral standards."  Are you trying to tell me that someone who has lower moral standards doesn't deserve severe reproof and strong censure regarding their lack of acceptable moral standards?  I don't see where you're getting that my terminology and your terminology are somehow drastically different...it seems rather nit-picky, actually. 

Actually, I didn't use the phrase "lower moral standards" in this thread.  That was also your terminology, and it implies something more extreme than my original statement.  You also introduced the term, reprehensible, which is also something that I did not use.  While I might mock and even berate the lessor standards that I referenced in this thread, I never suggested that they were necessarily reprehensible.  That was your play on words. 

[Vandy Vol]

That's ridiculous.  You're just deriving and accepting more pathetic excuses here.  It was over-simplified to mock the pathetic nature of the majority of our poor.  Nobody's suggesting that jobs grow on trees, but jobs are still available.  This "not always possible" excuse holds no weight in the real world.  If a better paying job isn't immediately available, you get a second part-time job until you find that better paying job.  Excusing and accepting mediocrity is just another example of the lower standards and weaker values plaguing these subcultures (and political parties).

And what happens when that part-time job barely pays (or even fails to pay) for the gas that you use in going to that job?  Again, I'm not saying that there aren't lazy people out there.  But what I am saying is that there are many real obstacles for many people, and those obstacles aren't always overcome by simply getting a "better" job, or a new job, or a second job, etc.  This is especially the case when you're talking about the current status of our economy.

Actually, I didn't use the phrase "lower moral standards" in this thread.

Again with the nit-picking...have a look-see at the following quotes:

Of course, we all know that individuals should be responsible for their own actions, but a community (or village of morons) that produces or fosters an excessive number of felons will likely lack the standards or morals that are beneficial to a society.

Those areas with higher crime rates are populated by individuals who tend to have lower standards and values than those individuals who reside in safer areas.

Sorry for not using your exact phrasing, but I didn't know that my use of "lower moral standards" was going to be viewed by you as the antonym of "lower standards" and "lower values."

You also introduced the term, reprehensible, which is also something that I did not use.  While I might mock and even berate the lessor standards that I referenced in this thread, I never suggested that they were necessarily reprehensible.  That was your play on words. 

Stating that someone's morals, standards, and values are "lower" or "lacking" indicates that there is an acceptable norm.  If your standards don't meet the acceptable norm, then they're deserving of censure.  Guess what censure means?  The expression of disapproval.  I'd consider mocking and berating their standards as a form of expressed disapproval.  But, of course, it wasn't the exact wording that you used, so I'm sure I'll still catch hell for it nonetheless.  Synonyms be damned!

[GarMan]

And what happens when that part-time job barely pays (or even fails to pay) for the gas that you use in going to that job?  Again, I'm not saying that there aren't lazy people out there.  But what I am saying is that there are many real obstacles for many people, and those obstacles aren't always overcome by simply getting a "better" job, or a new job, or a second job, etc.  This is especially the case when you're talking about the current status of our economy. 

Excusing mediocrity is just as much a part of the problem as their psuedo-inability to improve their situation.

Again with the nit-picking...have a look-see at the following quotes:

Sorry for not using your exact phrasing, but I didn't know that my use of "lower moral standards" was going to be viewed by you as the antonym of "lower standards" and "lower values."

Degrees, Honey...  If you don't keep your yard maintained as well as the rest of the neighborhood, you don't necessarily have reprehensible moral standards.  You just lack the same standards or localized accepted norms of your neighbors. 

Stating that someone's morals, standards, and values are "lower" or "lacking" indicates that there is an acceptable norm.  If your standards don't meet the acceptable norm, then they're deserving of censure.  Guess what censure means?  The expression of disapproval.  I'd consider mocking and berating their standards as a form of expressed disapproval.  But, of course, it wasn't the exact wording that you used, so I'm sure I'll still catch hell for it nonetheless.  Synonyms be damned! 

Well SugarShorts, we could throw all thorts of thynonymths out there, but they would be just azth inappropriate.  Maybe, we could try one of the following; disgraceful, abominable, despicable, disgusting, abhorrent, rotten, vile, demeritorious, delinquent, deplorable, opprobrious, disreputable, ignominious, inglorious, miscreant...  After all, thynonymths mean the exact thame thing.  Intelligence be damned! 

[Vandy Vol]

Excusing mediocrity is just as much a part of the problem as their psuedo-inability to improve their situation.

This is like calling a paraplegic lazy for not getting off the couch and walking to the refrigerator.  Sure, there are those people who are just too fucking lazy to go to the refrigerator, but then there are also those who, for any variety of reasons, are simply unable to do so.  Many people make excuses, but not necessarily all of them do.

Again, I'm not even saying that most poor people aren't lazy.  There's not really a way to accurately quantify that.  However, I think it's a stretch to assume that all or most poor people are lazy, and that all they really need to do is just go find a better job.  There are too many factors to boil the solution down to this overly simple statement.

Degrees, Honey...  If you don't keep your yard maintained as well as the rest of the neighborhood, you don't necessarily have reprehensible moral standards.  You just lack the same standards or localized accepted norms of your neighbors.

You explicitly stated in an earlier post that they lack morals.  You also stated that they lack values.  Thus, you can try to hold onto this whole "standard" argument all you want, but you obviously made references to their lack of morals as well.

Well SugarShorts, we could throw all thorts of thynonymths out there, but they would be just azth inappropriate.  Maybe, we could try one of the following; disgraceful, abominable, despicable, disgusting, abhorrent, rotten, vile, demeritorious, delinquent, deplorable, opprobrious, disreputable, ignominious, inglorious, miscreant...  After all, thynonymths mean the exact thame thing.  Intelligence be damned!

Let's try this again, shall we?

I use the phrase "morally reprehensible."  You say, "No, no, no!  That's not what I said.  I said they have lower standards."  But, in reality, you also said they lack morals and have lower values, not just some vague concept of standards that could apply to the manner in which they manicure their pubic hair.  You then went on to state that you would "mock" and "berate" them for this lack of morals/values/standards.

rep·re·hen·si·ble/ˌrepriˈhensəbəl/
Adjective: Deserving censure or condemnation.

cen·sure/ˈsenSHər/
Noun: The expression of formal disapproval.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you mock and/or berate someone for their lack of morals, then you are expressing disapproval of their morals.  And if their morals are deserving of your censure, then they are considered morally reprehensible by you.  This is not some grand stretch using weakly related synonyms as you make it out to be.  But then, of course, you plainly deny stating anything about their morals when, in reality, it's clearly there in your post, so it's obviously going to take a miracle to have you acknowledge any of this if you don't even recognize what's blatantly stated in your own posts.

[GarMan]

This is like calling a paraplegic lazy for not getting off the couch and walking to the refrigerator.  Sure, there are those people who are just too effing lazy to go to the refrigerator, but then there are also those who, for any variety of reasons, are simply unable to do so.  Many people make excuses, but not necessarily all of them do.

Again, I'm not even saying that most poor people aren't lazy.  There's not really a way to accurately quantify that.  However, I think it's a stretch to assume that all or most poor people are lazy, and that all they really need to do is just go find a better job.  There are too many factors to boil the solution down to this overly simple statement.

You've essentially contradicted yourself in the same paragraph.  Discussion with you is pointless...  Yes, there are factors.  Some are preventable, and some are not.  When we focus on those factors that are not preventable, we're likely no longer addressing "most poor people" anymore.

You explicitly stated in an earlier post that they lack morals.  You also stated that they lack values.  Thus, you can try to hold onto this whole "standard" argument all you want, but you obviously made references to their lack of morals as well. 

Actually, I said that a community (or village of morons) that produces or fosters an excessive number of felons will likely lack the standards or morals that are beneficial to a society.  That doesn't imply that they all have reprehensible moral standards as you are asserting. 

Let's try this again, shall we? 

No...  No need...  Your play on words bores me and clouds the point where we actually seem to agree to some extent. 

[GH2001]

I wish more Presidential debates were this good.

Ya'll two are in love. 

[Vandy Vol]

You've essentially contradicted yourself in the same paragraph.  Discussion with you is pointless...  Yes, there are factors.  Some are preventable, and some are not.  When we focus on those factors that are not preventable, we're likely no longer addressing "most poor people" anymore.

There is no contradiction.  You conveniently skipped over the sentence in which I stated that there's not really a way to quantify the number of lazy poor people.  This is why I said that I am not saying that most poor people aren't lazy; I can't sit here and tell you that they are.  I then went on to say that it's a stretch to just assume that all or most are lazy and that all they need to do is get a better job.  That doesn't mean that I'm claiming to know that most aren't lazy, I'm only saying that you can't simply assume that and also assume that they can just better their situation by getting a better job.

I'm merely pointing out that your over-simplified solution will not work for everyone.  I'm merely stating that the poor, as a class of millions of people, can not be stereotyped and given one simple command that will supposedly better their lives and bring them into the middle or upper class.

Even if getting a better job is the solution for many of those people, their failure to get a better job is not always due to laziness.  It's not always due to a lack of trying.  So even if your solution applies to the majority of poor people (which, again, would be hard to quantify one way or the other), it's not as simple as you make it sound.  That's the only point I'm making.

Actually, I said that a community (or village of morons) that produces or fosters an excessive number of felons will likely lack the standards or morals that are beneficial to a society.  That doesn't imply that they all have reprehensible moral standards as you are asserting. 

They lack of morals.  You mock and berate, or express disapproval of, those morals.  Thus, you find them to be morally reprehensible.

Of course, if you have some subjective connotation of what reprehensible means, then I guess you would disagree with the use of the word.  But if you take the actual meaning of the word, then it's accurately descriptive of your views on their morality.

[GarMan]

You sonofawhoreson bitch! I wish I knew how to quit you.

So even if your solution applies to the majority of poor people (which, again, would be hard to quantify one way or the other), it's not as simple as you make it sound.  That's the only point I'm making. 

OK...  It's not as simple as I make it sound.  Does that make you feel better, Honey?  If you don't dedicate the appropriate amount of effort to improve your situation, your situation won't magically improve.  If you don't learn how to accomplish something, you'll never accomplish it.  Those are the points I'm making. 

They lack of morals.  You mock and berate, or express disapproval of, those morals.  Thus, you find them to be morally reprehensible.

Of course, if you have some subjective connotation of what reprehensible means, then I guess you would disagree with the use of the word.  But if you take the actual meaning of the word, then it's accurately descriptive of your views on their morality. 

Once again I said, a community (or village of morons) that produces or fosters an excessive number of felons will likely lack the standards or morals that are beneficial to a society.  That doesn't imply that they all have reprehensible moral standards or I find them to be morally reprehensible.  If you want to play with other colorful adjectives or thynonymthz to summarize that, go for it.  We all know that there are several alternative words with similar actual meanings that technically imply a degree of severity or contempt that exceeds my originally intended meaning. 

[GarMan]

I wish more Presidential debates were this good.

Ya'll two are in love. 

Is this for the Presidency?  Rockin... 

[Vandy Vol]

You sonofawhoreson bitch! I wish I knew how to quit you.

No you don't.  I complete you.  We're like a gay transformer that combines to make...umm...well...something gay.

OK...  It's not as simple as I make it sound.  Does that make you feel better, Honey?  If you don't dedicate the appropriate amount of effort to improve your situation, your situation won't magically improve.  If you don't learn how to accomplish something, you'll never accomplish it.  Those are the points I'm making.

Yes, sweetie pie, that works.

Once again I said, a community (or village of morons) that produces or fosters an excessive number of felons will likely lack the standards or morals that are beneficial to a society.  That doesn't imply that they all have reprehensible moral standards or I find them to be morally reprehensible.  If you want to play with other colorful adjectives or thynonymthz to summarize that, go for it.  We all know that there are several alternative words with similar actual meanings that technically imply a degree of severity or contempt that exceeds my originally intended meaning.

Again, if you have a subjective view on the word "reprehensible" that makes you uncomfortable in using the word to describe your views of people who lack morals, then your opposition to that word being used is subjectively understandable.  But just go going by the actual definition as it is worded, it pretty accurately describes your view on their morality, especially given the fact that you are expressing your disapproval of it.  Something that is reprehensible is deserving of expressed disapproval.