Image ImageImage Image

OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger

Moderators: HomoSapien, Payt10, RedBulls23, coldfish, AshyLarrysDiaper, fleet, kulaz3000, Michael Jackson, Ice Man, dougthonus, Tommy Udo 6 , DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat

User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 55,478
And1: 15,622
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#121 » by dougthonus » Tue May 17, 2022 10:39 pm

ShouldaPaidBG wrote:It's impossible to have less of a social safety net than America has.


Not sure how many countries you have been to, but I assure you that is most definitely not true.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,213
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#122 » by League Circles » Tue May 17, 2022 10:47 pm

League Circles wrote:
jnrjr79 wrote:
League Circles wrote:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country

Finland is sorta close to the bottom but not nearly at it. I don't have time to dig to the bottom of these metrics, but I was going on the info at the link.

We have many reasons for crime. Don't discount our lax social culture, our celebration of vice, our near world leading substance abuse problems, and our lack of value of human lives and family structure. I know it's popular in some circles to ignore all countries that aren't tiny European countries, but most of the people in the world that live in societies with lower crime than us live in societies with smaller social safety nets and harsher punishment of crimes. Imagine that.


Your link does not support your assertion.

Ummm, here was the bottom of the list:

111 Brunei 29 445,431
112 Cuba 28.33 11,305,652
113 Romania 28.3 19,031,335
114 Singapore 27.96 5,943,546
115 Finland 27.59 5,554,960
116 Netherlands 27.16 17,211,447
117 South Korea 26.68 51,329,899
118 Denmark 26.22 5,834,950
119 Bahrain 25.64 1,783,983
120 Austria 25.54 9,066,710
121 Czech Republic 25.52 10,736,784
122 Saudi Arabia 25.23 35,844,909
123 Rwanda 24.89 13,600,464
124 Croatia 24.59 4,059,286
125 Iceland 23.75 345,393
126 Estonia 23.71 1,321,910
127 Georgia 23.38 3,968,738
128 Armenia 22.79 2,971,966
129 Slovenia 22.28 2,078,034
130 Japan 22.19 125,584,838
131 Hong Kong 22 7,604,299
132 Switzerland 21.62 8,773,637
133 Oman 20.34 5,323,993
134 Isle of Man 19.25 85,732
135 Taiwan 15.46 23,888,595
136 United Arab Emirates 15.23 10,081,785
137 Qatar 12.13 2,979,915

I just realized I didn't address what you bolded exactly - I thought you were bolding a previous point. These countries almost surely contain the majority of the world population in countries with lower crime rates than the US, and I feel pretty safe in saying they don't approach our social safety net, at least certainly not what it means in terms of standard of living:

Egypt
Vietnam
Indonesia
India
Pakistan
Phillipines
Russia
Turkey
Thailand
China

Hell, that's probably well over half the world's population right there. I just browsed the list for the big population countries where most people live.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,213
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#123 » by League Circles » Tue May 17, 2022 11:09 pm

ShouldaPaidBG wrote:
League Circles wrote:
ShouldaPaidBG wrote:
Right because that's who you think is doing violence in the city

Good talk.

You only wish your ideological thirst was quenched by such a thoughtless, prejudiced characterization.

What I was getting at is that our closest relatives the chimpanzees exhibit much of the same brutal social violence that we do despite not having the material trappings.

And again, there are countries far poorer than the US with notably lower crime rates. So it can't all be secondary to economics. These are our basic emotions of conflict and aggression and our inability to control them.


It's a dumb argument and a Freudian slip at best.

Far poorer than the US? By what measure? GDP? Lol. Most people in "poorer countries" have more purchasing power than people in America. GDP is inflated by counting rent and interest payments as "production", it has no impact on the quality of non- rich people's lives. Cost of basic needs strips most Americans of their wages.

https://www.worlddata.info/cost-of-living.php

Umm, your link shows that the only countries in the world with higher purchasing power per person than the US are 3 microcountries, Qatar and Singapore.

You really couldn't have failed harder there.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
TokeBulls
Pro Prospect
Posts: 774
And1: 891
Joined: Feb 09, 2022

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#124 » by TokeBulls » Wed May 18, 2022 12:29 am

ShouldaPaidBG wrote:It's impossible to have less of a social safety net than America has.

Lol. Sure thing bud.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,745
And1: 33,374
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#125 » by DuckIII » Wed May 18, 2022 12:33 am

dougthonus wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
Dominater wrote:Bingo. No amount or lack of amount of police means anything at all if parents aren't raising better kids. If they were we wouldn't need police in the 1st place.


People from awesome families become criminals as well. We’ll always need police. We’re humans.


:dontknow:

I mean sure, but I would guess there's a pretty strong correlation between quality of family and crime rates. However, just telling people to be awesome parents doesn't solve the problem. Most people fundamentally want to be awesome parents and struggle to be awesome parents due to other constraints that they can't solve, not due to total apathy.


I’m not the one who said if parents were better no one would need police. Just pointing out the absurdity of such an extreme statement, not because I think good parenting doesn’t matter to crime rates.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,745
And1: 33,374
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#126 » by DuckIII » Wed May 18, 2022 12:37 am

jnrjr79 wrote:
League Circles wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
Clearly without subsidy, those single parent households would stop existing and become two parent households. The reason why the couples don't stay together is because of the subsidy.


You make a good point with your sarcasm, but I think there is some underlying truth to the idea that public policy incentivizes (or at least doesn't adequately disincentivize) single parenthood and that there are serious and predictable social consequences to that.



I suppose it's true that if you leave people in an economically insecure place, they'll be less likely to leave relationships upon which they are financially dependent. One of the serious and predictable social consequences to that is an increase in domestic abuse.


This is where I was going to go when I asked the earlier poster to explain himself. My mind swims with the near limitless horrifying consequences of providing strong incentives for people to stay in bad situations just to qualify for desperately needed public assistance.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
User avatar
Dominator83
RealGM
Posts: 19,409
And1: 29,371
Joined: Jan 16, 2005
Location: NBA Hell

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#127 » by Dominator83 » Wed May 18, 2022 12:56 am

DuckIII wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
People from awesome families become criminals as well. We’ll always need police. We’re humans.


:dontknow:

I mean sure, but I would guess there's a pretty strong correlation between quality of family and crime rates. However, just telling people to be awesome parents doesn't solve the problem. Most people fundamentally want to be awesome parents and struggle to be awesome parents due to other constraints that they can't solve, not due to total apathy.


I’m not the one who said if parents were better no one would need police. Just pointing out the absurdity of such an extreme statement, not because I think good parenting doesn’t matter to crime rates.

Ok maybe not none! But a hell of a lot less
Fantasy Hoops/Football/Baseball fans..

For info on a forum that actually talks Fantasy sports and not spammed with soliciting leagues, PM me. The more the merrier !
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,745
And1: 33,374
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#128 » by DuckIII » Wed May 18, 2022 1:29 am

Dominater wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
:dontknow:

I mean sure, but I would guess there's a pretty strong correlation between quality of family and crime rates. However, just telling people to be awesome parents doesn't solve the problem. Most people fundamentally want to be awesome parents and struggle to be awesome parents due to other constraints that they can't solve, not due to total apathy.


I’m not the one who said if parents were better no one would need police. Just pointing out the absurdity of such an extreme statement, not because I think good parenting doesn’t matter to crime rates.

Ok maybe not none! But a hell of a lot less


Look, I absolutely agree there is a strong correlation between environment and criminal behavior and that the quality of parenting is in turn a significant percentage of that environmental influence. But bad parents produce amazing children and amazing parents produce awful children. And those aren’t extremely rare exceptions either.

I mean, I was raised in a stable, middle class, Christian, two parent household. My parents had an exemplary relationship, openly loving towards each other and to their kids. Fair discipline, enthusiastic and active support in my interests, you name it. I spent my entire 30s and early 40s as an alcoholic, and the last few years a shockingly chronic one. I can’t even count how many times I drove over the legal limit and I’m ashamed of it still. Thankfully I never injured or killed anyone. I’m sober now over 4 years. But I did that. I did all that. That behavior wasn’t a product of my environment. It was a product of me.

Point being, in our present manner of debate people tend to take shortcuts to extreme opinions or just jump to assumptions. But all of these issues of culture, crime, parenting and socioeconomics are extremely complicated on both and macro and micro level.

We’ll never really get anywhere without both sides of these issues recognizing that each of those sides has some elements to them that are perfectly valid and warrant attention.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
User avatar
Dominator83
RealGM
Posts: 19,409
And1: 29,371
Joined: Jan 16, 2005
Location: NBA Hell

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#129 » by Dominator83 » Wed May 18, 2022 3:06 am

DuckIII wrote:
Dominater wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
I’m not the one who said if parents were better no one would need police. Just pointing out the absurdity of such an extreme statement, not because I think good parenting doesn’t matter to crime rates.

Ok maybe not none! But a hell of a lot less


Look, I absolutely agree there is a strong correlation between environment and criminal behavior and that the quality of parenting is in turn a significant percentage of that environmental influence. But bad parents produce amazing children and amazing parents produce awful children. And those aren’t extremely rare exceptions either.

I mean, I was raised in a stable, middle class, Christian, two parent household. My parents had an exemplary relationship, openly loving towards each other and to their kids. Fair discipline, enthusiastic and active support in my interests, you name it. I spent my entire 30s and early 40s as an alcoholic, and the last few years a shockingly chronic one. I can’t even count how many times I drove over the legal limit and I’m ashamed of it still. Thankfully I never injured or killed anyone. I’m sober now over 4 years. But I did that. I did all that. That behavior wasn’t a product of my environment. It was a product of me.

Point being, in our present manner of debate people tend to take shortcuts to extreme opinions or just jump to assumptions. But all of these issues of culture, crime, parenting and socioeconomics are extremely complicated on both and macro and micro level.

We’ll never really get anywhere without both sides of these issues recognizing that each of those sides has some elements to them that are perfectly valid and warrant attention.

But atleast you weren't out there robbing, mugging or killing people. Your demons were more of the self harm variety.

But seriously though, congrats on identifying your issue and overcoming that! Not everybody does. keep up the good work.
Fantasy Hoops/Football/Baseball fans..

For info on a forum that actually talks Fantasy sports and not spammed with soliciting leagues, PM me. The more the merrier !
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,745
And1: 33,374
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#130 » by DuckIII » Wed May 18, 2022 11:34 am

That’s not really what I was trying to get at, but I do appreciate your nice words Dom.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,213
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#131 » by League Circles » Wed May 18, 2022 11:42 am

DuckIII wrote:
jnrjr79 wrote:
League Circles wrote:
You make a good point with your sarcasm, but I think there is some underlying truth to the idea that public policy incentivizes (or at least doesn't adequately disincentivize) single parenthood and that there are serious and predictable social consequences to that.



I suppose it's true that if you leave people in an economically insecure place, they'll be less likely to leave relationships upon which they are financially dependent. One of the serious and predictable social consequences to that is an increase in domestic abuse.


This is where I was going to go when I asked the earlier poster to explain himself. My mind swims with the near limitless horrifying consequences of providing strong incentives for people to stay in bad situations just to qualify for desperately needed public assistance.

Consider, though, that frequently there is no "bad situation" being left, but rather is a situation that was never really given a chance. Also consider that inherently, people need less assistance when they team up.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,213
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#132 » by League Circles » Wed May 18, 2022 11:56 am

DuckIII wrote:
Dominater wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
I’m not the one who said if parents were better no one would need police. Just pointing out the absurdity of such an extreme statement, not because I think good parenting doesn’t matter to crime rates.

Ok maybe not none! But a hell of a lot less


Look, I absolutely agree there is a strong correlation between environment and criminal behavior and that the quality of parenting is in turn a significant percentage of that environmental influence. But bad parents produce amazing children and amazing parents produce awful children. And those aren’t extremely rare exceptions either.

I mean, I was raised in a stable, middle class, Christian, two parent household. My parents had an exemplary relationship, openly loving towards each other and to their kids. Fair discipline, enthusiastic and active support in my interests, you name it. I spent my entire 30s and early 40s as an alcoholic, and the last few years a shockingly chronic one. I can’t even count how many times I drove over the legal limit and I’m ashamed of it still. Thankfully I never injured or killed anyone. I’m sober now over 4 years. But I did that. I did all that. That behavior wasn’t a product of my environment. It was a product of me.

Point being, in our present manner of debate people tend to take shortcuts to extreme opinions or just jump to assumptions. But all of these issues of culture, crime, parenting and socioeconomics are extremely complicated on both and macro and micro level.

We’ll never really get anywhere without both sides of these issues recognizing that each of those sides has some elements to them that are perfectly valid and warrant attention.


Your ongoing success in sobriety is awesome. We should all strive for that frankly. But I'm sure your behavior was more of a product of your environment than you'd think. It's commendable to take the full blame yourself, but perhaps not accurate. I know for certain that you were exposed to the encouragement and celebration of alcohol use via our mass marketing brainwashing machine and culutral norms. I'd also guess that perhaps your own (probably excellent overall) parents drank in front of you and probably didn't threaten to stop supporting your life efforts as a young person if they found out that you were experimenting with the highly addictive poison that contributes so heavily to crime.

Again, just to be clear, I'm not judging anyone. I think my parents were pretty great overall also, but they drank in front of me, and then I grew up drinking, and made similarly criminal mistakes that you admit to. All I'm trying to highlight with my points in this thread is that strict punishment is, at least in a vacuum, an effective deterrent of crime, even in poor societies with very high levels of inequality. And that everyone can do better to prevent antisocial/criminal behavior among youth by modying behavior easily within their grasp, certainly including me. Fwiw I'm not necessarily advocating for a drastically more punitive criminal law system, as I am at heart a libertarian. But, I am saying that doing so would likely reduce crime significantly. Especially crimes that are the products of (frankly understandable) risk/reward calculations. I reject the implication offered by some that suggests it's fundamentally a systemic problem that needs to be solved by external forces and elevated "support".
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,745
And1: 33,374
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#133 » by DuckIII » Wed May 18, 2022 12:32 pm

League Circles wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
Dominater wrote:Ok maybe not none! But a hell of a lot less


Look, I absolutely agree there is a strong correlation between environment and criminal behavior and that the quality of parenting is in turn a significant percentage of that environmental influence. But bad parents produce amazing children and amazing parents produce awful children. And those aren’t extremely rare exceptions either.

I mean, I was raised in a stable, middle class, Christian, two parent household. My parents had an exemplary relationship, openly loving towards each other and to their kids. Fair discipline, enthusiastic and active support in my interests, you name it. I spent my entire 30s and early 40s as an alcoholic, and the last few years a shockingly chronic one. I can’t even count how many times I drove over the legal limit and I’m ashamed of it still. Thankfully I never injured or killed anyone. I’m sober now over 4 years. But I did that. I did all that. That behavior wasn’t a product of my environment. It was a product of me.

Point being, in our present manner of debate people tend to take shortcuts to extreme opinions or just jump to assumptions. But all of these issues of culture, crime, parenting and socioeconomics are extremely complicated on both and macro and micro level.

We’ll never really get anywhere without both sides of these issues recognizing that each of those sides has some elements to them that are perfectly valid and warrant attention.


Your ongoing success in sobriety is awesome. We should all strive for that frankly. But I'm sure your behavior was more of a product of your environment than you'd think. It's commendable to take the full blame yourself, but perhaps not accurate. I know for certain that you were exposed to the encouragement and celebration of alcohol use via our mass marketing brainwashing machine and culutral norms. I'd also guess that perhaps your own (probably excellent overall) parents drank in front of you and probably didn't threaten to stop supporting your life efforts as a young person if they found out that you were experimenting with the highly addictive poison that contributes so heavily to crime.

Again, just to be clear, I'm not judging anyone. I think my parents were pretty great overall also, but they drank in front of me, and then I grew up drinking, and made similarly criminal mistakes that you admit to. All I'm trying to highlight with my points in this thread is that strict punishment is, at least in a vacuum, an effective deterrent of crime, even in poor societies with very high levels of inequality. And that everyone can do better to prevent antisocial/criminal behavior among youth by modying behavior easily within their grasp, certainly including me. Fwiw I'm not necessarily advocating for a drastically more punitive criminal law system, as I am at heart a libertarian. But, I am saying that doing so would likely reduce crime significantly. Especially crimes that are the products of (frankly understandable) risk/reward calculations. I reject the implication offered by some that suggests it's fundamentally a systemic problem that needs to be solved by external forces and elevated "support".


I was referring to parenting only. Of course everyone is subject to the same general social pressures and marketing campaigns surrounding intoxicants. And no, none of that describes my parents.

I wasn’t debating the significance of punishment to crime prevention. Data shows it’s not the deterrent many claim it to be but I still consider it an essential element to crime prevention. Some issues are cut and dry and there truly is a “wrong” side. This debate isn’t one of them (in a general sense, obviously there are extreme opinions that are nonsense). There are quite a few meritorious points on both side of these issues and we’d all be better served to accept that with intellectual sincerity despite our petty desires for one side to “win” over the other, which is what almost everything is these days.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
User avatar
ChiefILL53
Starter
Posts: 2,260
And1: 826
Joined: Jun 15, 2013
       

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#134 » by ChiefILL53 » Wed May 18, 2022 1:52 pm

I moved back in 2016, but it doesn't sound like things have gotten better. Lightfoot and Fox have been terrible for the city. All I hear about a lot of the shootings is how the person (teen or adult) had prior convictions or arrests and shouldn't have been on the street in the first place. During the onset of the pandemic Lori saw kids playing basketball when she implemented a curfew and they told her to go screw off lol. Nobody takes her seriously and her partnership with Fox is not helping the city at all. I always kinda worry about my loved ones knowing you can't even enjoy downtown like that anymore.

Sent from my HD1907 using RealGM mobile app
jc23 wrote:Goran + Lonzo + Zach = the Dragon Ball Z line up.
jnrjr79
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,214
And1: 2,344
Joined: May 27, 2003
Location: Chicago

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#135 » by jnrjr79 » Wed May 18, 2022 2:00 pm

League Circles wrote:
jnrjr79 wrote:
League Circles wrote:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country

Finland is sorta close to the bottom but not nearly at it. I don't have time to dig to the bottom of these metrics, but I was going on the info at the link.

We have many reasons for crime. Don't discount our lax social culture, our celebration of vice, our near world leading substance abuse problems, and our lack of value of human lives and family structure. I know it's popular in some circles to ignore all countries that aren't tiny European countries, but most of the people in the world that live in societies with lower crime than us live in societies with smaller social safety nets and harsher punishment of crimes. Imagine that.


Your link does not support your assertion.

Ummm, here was the bottom of the list:

111 Brunei 29 445,431
112 Cuba 28.33 11,305,652
113 Romania 28.3 19,031,335
114 Singapore 27.96 5,943,546
115 Finland 27.59 5,554,960
116 Netherlands 27.16 17,211,447
117 South Korea 26.68 51,329,899
118 Denmark 26.22 5,834,950
119 Bahrain 25.64 1,783,983
120 Austria 25.54 9,066,710
121 Czech Republic 25.52 10,736,784
122 Saudi Arabia 25.23 35,844,909
123 Rwanda 24.89 13,600,464
124 Croatia 24.59 4,059,286
125 Iceland 23.75 345,393
126 Estonia 23.71 1,321,910
127 Georgia 23.38 3,968,738
128 Armenia 22.79 2,971,966
129 Slovenia 22.28 2,078,034
130 Japan 22.19 125,584,838
131 Hong Kong 22 7,604,299
132 Switzerland 21.62 8,773,637
133 Oman 20.34 5,323,993
134 Isle of Man 19.25 85,732
135 Taiwan 15.46 23,888,595
136 United Arab Emirates 15.23 10,081,785
137 Qatar 12.13 2,979,915


EDIT: I see you later addressed the social safety net point I was making. And your list here refutes your point, because it includes scores of countries with a bigger social safety net than the U.S.

This is obviously a multivariate issue. It's not as simple as "social safety net = no crime" or vice versa. But your list here contains places that mostly have more of a social safety net than the U.S. I mean, Jesus, your list here contains Qatar, whose citizens enjoy the greatest wealth of any country in the world and whose government provides waaaaaaaaaay more social benefits than we have in the U.S. (along with doing a lot of abhorrent things to migrant workers).

Your subsequent post cites China - China! - as a counter-example. Hey Siri, what is socialism?

Singapore is also on your list. This one jumped out at me just b/c my brother used to live there and I've spent a little time there, so I know more about it than I otherwise might. Singaporeans enjoy the benefit of an insanely generous housing program where the government constructs giant apartment buildings, people rent them, and then they buy the units subsidized in large part by other payments from the government!

Singapore offers residents substantial grants and awards—up to S$60,000 for first-time buyers—toward the purchase of an HDB apartment. But the crucial piece of the financing puzzle is a policy introduced in 1968, which allows the use of Central Provident Fund savings (the Singaporean social security program) to make down payments and monthly mortgage installments. Today, 80% of HDB homeowners make no cash outlay on their mortgage payments, but instead have the entire amount drawn from their CPF account.


https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore

So, sure, Singapore punishes crime very harshly. But they also have virtually no housing insecurity due to a social safety net that is vastly more generous than the U.S. How much to attribute to each of those factors - I guess we don't know.

Say whatever you want about the relationship between punishment and crime, but the idea that providing people with more cash transfers, housing, healthcare, education, etc. leads to more crime seems truly crazy.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,213
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#136 » by League Circles » Wed May 18, 2022 3:00 pm

jnrjr79 wrote:
League Circles wrote:
jnrjr79 wrote:
Your link does not support your assertion.

Ummm, here was the bottom of the list:

111 Brunei 29 445,431
112 Cuba 28.33 11,305,652
113 Romania 28.3 19,031,335
114 Singapore 27.96 5,943,546
115 Finland 27.59 5,554,960
116 Netherlands 27.16 17,211,447
117 South Korea 26.68 51,329,899
118 Denmark 26.22 5,834,950
119 Bahrain 25.64 1,783,983
120 Austria 25.54 9,066,710
121 Czech Republic 25.52 10,736,784
122 Saudi Arabia 25.23 35,844,909
123 Rwanda 24.89 13,600,464
124 Croatia 24.59 4,059,286
125 Iceland 23.75 345,393
126 Estonia 23.71 1,321,910
127 Georgia 23.38 3,968,738
128 Armenia 22.79 2,971,966
129 Slovenia 22.28 2,078,034
130 Japan 22.19 125,584,838
131 Hong Kong 22 7,604,299
132 Switzerland 21.62 8,773,637
133 Oman 20.34 5,323,993
134 Isle of Man 19.25 85,732
135 Taiwan 15.46 23,888,595
136 United Arab Emirates 15.23 10,081,785
137 Qatar 12.13 2,979,915


EDIT: I see you later addressed the social safety net point I was making. And your list here refutes your point, because it includes scores of countries with a bigger social safety net than the U.S.

This is obviously a multivariate issue. It's not as simple as "social safety net = no crime" or vice versa. But your list here contains places that mostly have more of a social safety net than the U.S. I mean, Jesus, your list here contains Qatar, whose citizens enjoy the greatest wealth of any country in the world and whose government provides waaaaaaaaaay more social benefits than we have in the U.S. (along with doing a lot of abhorrent things to migrant workers).

Your subsequent post cites China - China! - as a counter-example. Hey Siri, what is socialism?

Singapore is also on your list. This one jumped out at me just b/c my brother used to live there and I've spent a little time there, so I know more about it than I otherwise might. Singaporeans enjoy the benefit of an insanely generous housing program where the government constructs giant apartment buildings, people rent them, and then they buy the units subsidized in large part by other payments from the government!

Singapore offers residents substantial grants and awards—up to S$60,000 for first-time buyers—toward the purchase of an HDB apartment. But the crucial piece of the financing puzzle is a policy introduced in 1968, which allows the use of Central Provident Fund savings (the Singaporean social security program) to make down payments and monthly mortgage installments. Today, 80% of HDB homeowners make no cash outlay on their mortgage payments, but instead have the entire amount drawn from their CPF account.


https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore

So, sure, Singapore punishes crime very harshly. But they also have virtually no housing insecurity due to a social safety net that is vastly more generous than the U.S. How much to attribute to each of those factors - I guess we don't know.

Say whatever you want about the relationship between punishment and crime, but the idea that providing people with more cash transfers, housing, healthcare, education, etc. leads to more crime seems truly crazy.

There are 2 distinct points I was making:

One was that most of the lowest crime rate countries are wealthy AND strict on crime (at least I think). Look at the bottom of that list and let me know if countries like Qatar, UAE, Taiwan, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Japan, Saudi etc are in fact not strict on crime, and, as I mentioned, social strictness, so to speak.

The other, distinct, point, was that most of the people in the world who live in societies with lower crime rates than the US live in countries that are poorer, with a lower social safety net, and are harsher on crime than the US. That was my follow up list of countries including China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. Just because a country is "socialist" or communist doesn't at all prove that they have a higher social safety net than us, though I can somewhat understand if you disagree, which is why I specified it in terms of standard of living. For example, in China perhaps you get "universal health care" or whatever, but your standard of living dictated by public policy overall is wildly lower than in the US.

This second point isn't that "most countries with lower crime index than the US are harsher on crime and have lower safety nets." I would concede that you may be correct that that would be false. I appropriately weighed the claim to factor in population. Tiny countries like Finland, Singapore etc don't belong in the same breath as massive countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines etc, let alone China and India.

And I never claimed the bolded part.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
AshyLarrysDiaper
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 15,785
And1: 7,448
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Location: Oakland

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#137 » by AshyLarrysDiaper » Wed May 18, 2022 3:25 pm

League Circles wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
jnrjr79 wrote:

I suppose it's true that if you leave people in an economically insecure place, they'll be less likely to leave relationships upon which they are financially dependent. One of the serious and predictable social consequences to that is an increase in domestic abuse.


This is where I was going to go when I asked the earlier poster to explain himself. My mind swims with the near limitless horrifying consequences of providing strong incentives for people to stay in bad situations just to qualify for desperately needed public assistance.

Consider, though, that frequently there is no "bad situation" being left, but rather is a situation that was never really given a chance. Also consider that inherently, people need less assistance when they team up.


Incentivizing people to remain in marriages with the benefits they need to survive would literally get women killed. It’s an awful idea for a host of reasons, but that’s close to the top of the list.
Contribute to the "Fire GarPax" billboard here:
https://www.gofundme.com/3v7fc-let-our-voices-be-heard-firegarpax
jnrjr79
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,214
And1: 2,344
Joined: May 27, 2003
Location: Chicago

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#138 » by jnrjr79 » Wed May 18, 2022 3:28 pm

League Circles wrote:
jnrjr79 wrote:
League Circles wrote:Ummm, here was the bottom of the list:

111 Brunei 29 445,431
112 Cuba 28.33 11,305,652
113 Romania 28.3 19,031,335
114 Singapore 27.96 5,943,546
115 Finland 27.59 5,554,960
116 Netherlands 27.16 17,211,447
117 South Korea 26.68 51,329,899
118 Denmark 26.22 5,834,950
119 Bahrain 25.64 1,783,983
120 Austria 25.54 9,066,710
121 Czech Republic 25.52 10,736,784
122 Saudi Arabia 25.23 35,844,909
123 Rwanda 24.89 13,600,464
124 Croatia 24.59 4,059,286
125 Iceland 23.75 345,393
126 Estonia 23.71 1,321,910
127 Georgia 23.38 3,968,738
128 Armenia 22.79 2,971,966
129 Slovenia 22.28 2,078,034
130 Japan 22.19 125,584,838
131 Hong Kong 22 7,604,299
132 Switzerland 21.62 8,773,637
133 Oman 20.34 5,323,993
134 Isle of Man 19.25 85,732
135 Taiwan 15.46 23,888,595
136 United Arab Emirates 15.23 10,081,785
137 Qatar 12.13 2,979,915


EDIT: I see you later addressed the social safety net point I was making. And your list here refutes your point, because it includes scores of countries with a bigger social safety net than the U.S.

This is obviously a multivariate issue. It's not as simple as "social safety net = no crime" or vice versa. But your list here contains places that mostly have more of a social safety net than the U.S. I mean, Jesus, your list here contains Qatar, whose citizens enjoy the greatest wealth of any country in the world and whose government provides waaaaaaaaaay more social benefits than we have in the U.S. (along with doing a lot of abhorrent things to migrant workers).

Your subsequent post cites China - China! - as a counter-example. Hey Siri, what is socialism?

Singapore is also on your list. This one jumped out at me just b/c my brother used to live there and I've spent a little time there, so I know more about it than I otherwise might. Singaporeans enjoy the benefit of an insanely generous housing program where the government constructs giant apartment buildings, people rent them, and then they buy the units subsidized in large part by other payments from the government!

Singapore offers residents substantial grants and awards—up to S$60,000 for first-time buyers—toward the purchase of an HDB apartment. But the crucial piece of the financing puzzle is a policy introduced in 1968, which allows the use of Central Provident Fund savings (the Singaporean social security program) to make down payments and monthly mortgage installments. Today, 80% of HDB homeowners make no cash outlay on their mortgage payments, but instead have the entire amount drawn from their CPF account.


https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore

So, sure, Singapore punishes crime very harshly. But they also have virtually no housing insecurity due to a social safety net that is vastly more generous than the U.S. How much to attribute to each of those factors - I guess we don't know.

Say whatever you want about the relationship between punishment and crime, but the idea that providing people with more cash transfers, housing, healthcare, education, etc. leads to more crime seems truly crazy.

There are 2 distinct points I was making:

One was that most of the lowest crime rate countries are wealthy AND strict on crime (at least I think). Look at the bottom of that list and let me know if countries like Qatar, UAE, Taiwan, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Japan, Saudi etc are in fact not strict on crime, and, as I mentioned, social strictness, so to speak.

The other, distinct, point, was that most of the people in the world who live in societies with lower crime rates than the US live in countries that are poorer, with a lower social safety net, and are harsher on crime than the US. That was my follow up list of countries including China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. Just because a country is "socialist" or communist doesn't at all prove that they have a higher social safety net than us, though I can somewhat understand if you disagree, which is why I specified it in terms of standard of living. For example, in China perhaps you get "universal health care" or whatever, but your standard of living dictated by public policy overall is wildly lower than in the US.

This second point isn't that "most countries with lower crime index than the US are harsher on crime and have lower safety nets." I would concede that you may be correct that that would be false. I appropriately weighed the claim to factor in population. Tiny countries like Finland, Singapore etc don't belong in the same breath as massive countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines etc, let alone China and India.

And I never claimed the bolded part.


The bolded part is what a social safety net is. Maybe we're talking past each other with the use of that term?

And social safety net is a concept distinct from overall wealth/GDP. The US is a very wealthy country, but its poorest people have a lot less protection in terms of basic housing, income, health care, etc. than other places. And I don't think it's controversial to say that if you don't have a roof over your head, have a substance abuse or mental health problem and can't afford treatment, or become bankrupt due to medical debt, that those things tend to increase the chance that you may participate in crime.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,213
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#139 » by League Circles » Wed May 18, 2022 3:42 pm

AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:
League Circles wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
This is where I was going to go when I asked the earlier poster to explain himself. My mind swims with the near limitless horrifying consequences of providing strong incentives for people to stay in bad situations just to qualify for desperately needed public assistance.

Consider, though, that frequently there is no "bad situation" being left, but rather is a situation that was never really given a chance. Also consider that inherently, people need less assistance when they team up.


Incentivizing people to remain in marriages with the benefits they need to survive would literally get women killed. It’s an awful idea for a host of reasons, but that’s close to the top of the list.


Again, many or most single parent familes were never 2 parent families to begin with, and didn't fail to become 2 parent families due to violence.

It's the public policy removal of the fundamental need to pool resources and contributions that lets so many people believe that there is no necessity in raising a child together, and therefore choose to do so. Historically and biologically, that's anti-science IMO. Most people throughout history have lived in great fear of the natural world, which can gyide behavior in a virtuous way. We're trying to remove that fear via public policy, but ignoring or denying the consequences IMO.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
AshyLarrysDiaper
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 15,785
And1: 7,448
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Location: Oakland

Re: OT: Shooting near the Bean, Lightfoot enacting weekend curfew on Unaccompanied Teens 16 or younger 

Post#140 » by AshyLarrysDiaper » Wed May 18, 2022 3:51 pm

League Circles wrote:
AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:
League Circles wrote:Consider, though, that frequently there is no "bad situation" being left, but rather is a situation that was never really given a chance. Also consider that inherently, people need less assistance when they team up.


Incentivizing people to remain in marriages with the benefits they need to survive would literally get women killed. It’s an awful idea for a host of reasons, but that’s close to the top of the list.


Again, many or most single parent familes were never 2 parent families to begin with, and didn't fail to become 2 parent families due to violence.

It's the public policy removal of the fundamental need to pool resources and contributions that lets so many people believe that there is no necessity in raising a child together, and therefore choose to do so. Historically and biologically, that's anti-science IMO. Most people throughout history have lived in great fear of the natural world, which can gyide behavior in a virtuous way. We're trying to remove that fear via public policy, but ignoring or denying the consequences IMO.


“Historically and biologically, that’s anti-science.”

No.

There are plenty of other successful familial constructs throughout the world. There are plenty of other successful familial constructs right here in this country. Two-partner marriage is largely a Christian value that already has plenty of social and financial advantages in our culture. The one you’re proposing is cruel and relies on outdated assumptions about criminality.
Contribute to the "Fire GarPax" billboard here:
https://www.gofundme.com/3v7fc-let-our-voices-be-heard-firegarpax

Return to Chicago Bulls