On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 23:54:20 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:20:03 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:53:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 3/1/2022 7:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>> <frkr...@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
>> >>>>>> <frkr...@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.”
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 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?
>> Nice try. I state that Canadians are much more law abiding and you
>> travel all over the world to prove your point.
>>
>> But to answer your question, yes, Singapore has extremely strict laws,
>> but what is more to the point is that they enforce these laws.
>>
>> If you, for example, are caught with 30 grams of morphine, or more,
>> the penalty is death. And you can make an appeal to the President of
>> the country and he can pardon you but the numbers pardoned since
>> Singapore became a nation probably can be counted on one hand.
>>
>> For holding a hand phone in your hand for driving it is a $1000 fine
>> and/or 6 months in jail. for a second offense it is $2,000 and/or 12
>> months in jail.
>>
>> And no jury trials in Singapore, no lawyer jabbering away trying to
>> influence a jury. You go before the Judge, the police present their
>> evidence, you present your's if any, and the Judge rules.
>>
>> Then the sentence is carried out. No long drawn out appeals. Straight
>> into the hoosegow.
>>
>> Another point is that Singapore has mandatory national service for 2
>> years after high school. Which can be, the Military, the Police or
>> what they call Civil Defense which could be, I believe, the Fire
>> Department or Ambulance Service.
>
>US did that from WW2 up to the mid 1970s. Compulsory military service. Or go to college. I guess they added that clause so kids with enough money to pay for college did not have to waste their years in the military. Men only. Was the USA better and safer due to this mostly forced military service in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s? And if it was better in the good old days, can this be attributed to the forced military service compared to the miniscule military service today?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> As an aside Singapore has something like 170 police officers per
>> 100,000 population and the U.S, has 239, yet walking around in
>> Singapore you frequently see police officers while I can't remember
>> ever seeing a policeman on the streets in the U.S.
>
>I used Google to look up Singapore. I always thought it was at the tip of India. But no, its at the tip of Malaysia. Sri Lanka is at the tip of India. Singapore is 281 square miles. 5.7 million people. So using your numbers of 17 police per 100k, we get a total of 9,690 police in Singapore. That works out to 34.5 cops per square mile. So one cop standing on every single street corner. USA has about 330 million people. Using your numbers I get about 788,700 cops in the USA. Google says the contiguous USA is 3.1 million square miles of land. I am throwing out Alaska and Hawaii for this. We end up with about 1/4 cop per square mile in the USA. So in comparison, we have 34.5 to 0.25 cops per square mile. 138 times more cops per square mile in Singapore. Its not too surprising to see cops in Singapore and not in the USA.
>>
>> Do you believe that this would be acceptable in the U.S.?
>
>No and No. Compulsory military service will never be required in the USA again. Even the politicians who are so pro military know darn well they would be hung by the neck until dead if they even muttered this out loud. And no the USA is not going to pay the cost of having as many police as Singapore does.

I think you missed the point there regarding Singapore's National
Service. It can be either the Military, or the Police or, what they
call Civil Defense, which is the Fire Department or (I think) the
Ambulance Service.

It is mandatory for all male citizens or male children of legal
immigrants and while I believe that there are possible deferments it
seems rate.

One of the side effects, probably recognized by the government, is
that Police and Military aren't some strangers as they seem to be in
the U.S. Many of them are your classmates, your kids, the neighbor
kids, etc. When you "call the Cops" your kid or the kid next door show
up.

And, I believe that National Service predates Singapore becoming an
independent country (1965) so it isn't something that is new or
different, it's always been there.
--
Cheers,

John B.