XPost: alt.computer.workshop, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: lostmyemail@quick.net   
      
   In article <692f070f$6$25$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,   
   brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...   
   >   
   > On Dec 2, 2025 at 7:29:50 AM MST, "chrisv" wrote   
   > :   
   >   
   > > Collectivists_Always_Fail wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> I have expressed (above) an opinion that poor people don't have more   
   > >> reasons to commit *violent* crime.   
   > >   
   > > Well, they do, actually.  "Property crimes" and violence often go   
   > > together.  Who is more likely to rob a liquor store at gunpoint?  Who   
   > > is more likely to "mug" someone?  Who is more likely to break into a   
   > > home, risking a confrontation?   
   >   
   > There's also the issue of what we choose to count as violent crime.   
      
      
   'A violent crime, violent felony, crime of violence or   
   crime of a violent nature is a crime in which an offender   
   or perpetrator uses or threatens to use harmful force upon   
   a victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent   
   act is the objective, such as murder, assault, rape and   
   assassination, as well as crimes in which violence is used   
   as a method of coercion or show of force, such as robbery,   
   extortion and terrorism. Violent crimes may, or may not,   
   be committed with weapons.'   
      
      
      
   > Wealthy   
   > corporations routinely make decisions that kill or injure people ?- cutting   
   > safety corners, ignoring warnings, or pushing out products they know are   
   > dangerous because it?s cheaper than fixing the problem. When poor people   
   cause   
   > physical harm, we call it violent crime. When rich people cause physical   
   harm,   
   > we call it a regulatory violation. And when they are held accountable, it's   
   > usually a fine that costs far less than what they made from the harm. The   
   > damage is still violent -- we just don?t classify it that way.   
      
   Why are you so obsessed with the wealthy?   
   You attempt to spin most discussions to the topic of the   
   wealthy.   
   Why is that?   
      
   If the poor spent less time worrying about the rich and   
   more time concentrating on using their God given skills to   
   build wealth they could be better off as well.   
   I'm not talking about silver spoon wealthy, like Trump,   
   Paris Hilton etc but people like Sheldon Adelson who   
   started with nothing and became a billionaire.   
   Even JD Vance, who I detest, worked hard and started with   
   nothing.   
      
   It doesn't work out that way for many but it is still   
   better than sitting on one's ass and whining about the   
   rich and wealthy.   
   A common reason why people remain poor.   
      
   I have more respect for some kid from the inner city who   
   has a natural gift for baseball or basketball and is out   
   on the court or field every day for hours practicing and   
   honing his/her skills than I do for some loser who gives   
   up, doesn't study in school and ends up on welfare.   
      
   The one criteria I suggest for the sports kid is to always   
   have a backup plan in case the sports angle doesn't work   
   out.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)