On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:05:26 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/1/2022 6:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 7:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes says
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was the one who
>>>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the topic
>>>>>>>>>>> of Rape, per se.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite
>>>>>>>>>> where someone other than you
>>>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must
>>>>>>>>>> have missed that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per
>>>>>>>>> se" - " a Latin
>>>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.â€?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a
>>>>>>>>> deliberate attempt to
>>>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less
>>>>>>>>> violent crime then
>>>>>>>>> the U.S.?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the
>>>>>>>> topic of rape at the
>>>>>>>> same time you used other words?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in
>>>>>>> some manner
>>>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your
>>>>>>> ego requires
>>>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to accept.
>>>>>>> If you can't
>>>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own
>>>>>>> dementia. After all
>>>>>>> that's what Tom does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your
>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the U.S.
>>>>>> is worse than
>>>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've
>>>>>> never posited a
>>>>>> reason for the differences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that
>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why
>>>>>> would that be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
>>>>>
>>>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law
>>>>> abiding then the
>>>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far
>>>>> fewer gun crimes
>>>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law abiding.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic
>>>>> to argue "why
>>>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
>>>>>
>>>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited
>>>>> Canada as evidence
>>>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will
>>>>> reduce gun
>>>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the
>>>>> Canadians are
>>>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip
>>>>> sliding away and
>>>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more
>>>>> law abiding.
>>>>>
>>>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap
>>>>> yourself on the
>>>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again,
>>>>> overcome the
>>>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It
>>>>> makes no
>>>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and
>>>>> turn and post
>>>>> suppositions.
>>>>
>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>> inherently?
>>>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll
>>>> have a point.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>> French, Swedes
>>>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun
>>>> deaths than the U.S.
>>>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to
>>>> look up their
>>>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
>>>>
>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going to
>>>> assume that
>>>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with
>>>> their national
>>>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>> difference in how
>>>> people behave.
>>>>
>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>> don't change the
>>>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
>>>
>>> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject,
>>> we will
>>> continue.
>>>
>>> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make a
>>> big
>>> difference in how people behave."
>>>
>>> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
>>>
>>> Which really means what? That you have a vivid
>>> imagination? Or that
>>> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of
>>> inhabitants of
>>> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree
>>> why they act
>>> as they do?
>>>
>>> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples
>>> of a vivid
>>> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
>>>
>>> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime
>>> rates the
>>> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
>>>
>>> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just
>>> facts.
>>
>> OK, John, let's return to some "facts" you've repeatedly
>> reported.
>>
>> On many occasions, you've discussed with apparent approval
>> the extremely strict laws of Singapore, everything from
>> spitting on sidewalks to dealing drugs. Each time you've
>> done that, you ended with statements like "And in Singapore,
>> people don't do those things."
>>
>> Your implication was NOT that Singaporeans are genetically
>> prone to be well behaved people. Your implication was that
>> properly enforced laws DO cause people to change their
>> behavior.
>>
>> But you work just as hard to imply that the differences
>> between American crime data and that of Canada, Britain,
>> Ireland etc. are _not_ the legal policies and other
>> government and social policies. And when I ask for details,
>> YOU change the subject.
>>
>> Care to tell me why what works for Singapore, Canada,
>> France, Germany and more would not work in the U.S.? Is it
>> American genetics? Really?
>>
>
>No, not genetics; USA culture. We are the most genetically
>diverse nation in all of history. Period. Heck, I'm part
>Neandertal and also part Denisovan!
>
>We cannot adopt Singapore laws and policies. Here, the dope
>dealers have rights, unlike taxpayers, and the outcry
>against a sentence of hanging would bring blood in the
>streets. Even the rare death sentence here usually takes
>longer than natural life to process. Ain't gonna happen.

Another point is that in Singapore, and even here to some extent, the
excuse "Oh! I dn't see 'im" doesn't work as the Judge will tell you
that as you were in command of the car it is your duty to see. In fact
in Singapore it might result in additional charge of Irresponsible
Driving being made (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.