Australian Politics Forum - Please critique my logic here

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #45 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:38pm

iconoclast wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 11:38am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 5:33pm:

To be brutally honest .. I didn't think it was a high school essay question Equitist.

Actually .. having read through the OP again .. it sounds to me more like uni post grad related course work.

One of my close friends is presently completing a masters in Social Work .. and she's going through similar learning curve experiences. She's got a good Uni lecturer/supervisor though .. and that really helps.

Then again .. the OP may merely be debating a particular issue with someone .. I know I do that all the time these days with my significant "know it all/intellectual" other .. sighs lol

Interesting that one has to have a "purpose" to pose an issue. Doesn't anyone just think/debate any more or is everything utilitarian,
be suspicious, look for the angle.
Jeez

Ummm yes 'one' does have to have a purpose......even if that purpose is idle or intellectual curiousity...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

iconoclast

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #46 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 2:48pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:35pm:

Quote:

That a very large % of crime and social dysfunctionality is not a function of absolute level of of resource access (i.e. poverty).

My claim is that a considerable % of violent, deviant and dysfunctional behaviour is a result of an individual's pereceived RELATIVE position in society and not just a lack of resources.

"Relative position" in society is how 'poverty' is determined....

There is no real 'absolute' level of resource access....
Different countries, and societies have different levels of 'resource access' and different poverty levels....

Then under such a definition, Saudi arabia which provides generously
to its citizens from oil income, still has poverty.

Would a society with 100K median income still have poor people?

i.e. in your defintion poverty is unfairness in resource allocation and not a measure of an individual's absolute ability to survive based on the resources they are allocated.

Back to top

IP Logged

iconoclast

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #47 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 2:50pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:38pm:

iconoclast wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 11:38am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 5:33pm:

To be brutally honest .. I didn't think it was a high school essay question Equitist.

Actually .. having read through the OP again .. it sounds to me more like uni post grad related course work.

One of my close friends is presently completing a masters in Social Work .. and she's going through similar learning curve experiences. She's got a good Uni lecturer/supervisor though .. and that really helps.

Then again .. the OP may merely be debating a particular issue with someone .. I know I do that all the time these days with my significant "know it all/intellectual" other .. sighs lol

Interesting that one has to have a "purpose" to pose an issue. Doesn't anyone just think/debate any more or is everything utilitarian,
be suspicious, look for the angle.
Jeez

Ummm yes 'one' does have to have a purpose......even if that purpose is idle or intellectual curiousity...

And is that purpose of relevance to the debate.

The velocity of light in a vacuum is not observer dependent.

Back to top

IP Logged

iconoclast

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #48 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 2:59pm

Equitist wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 12:31pm:

Noted.

I don't think that it is helpful to assume subjective 'excuses' for crime - rather to objectively look into the range of psycho-socio-economic factors at play...

Crime by poor people has always had moral and financial elements - just as high level corruption and the accumulation of obscene wealth have always had moral and financial elements...

Surely, the issue with both violent and money and property-related crime, is the interaction of human nature with the broader socio-economic environment!?

Surely, the issue of any crime stems from one's self-esteem, sense of entitlement and capacity for respect and empathy - and one's socio-economic status (i.e. one's degree of integration within the broader socio-economic climate) - which impacts upon one's relationships/interactions with family members, friends, acquaintances, strangers, employers - and commercial, community and government organisations!?

Either way, middle class and rich people commit monetary and property crimes every day - and presumably they do so from an egocentric perspective of 'entitlement' to an even larger slice of prosperity - so, I don't get the the over-emphasis on 'poverty' or 'relative deprivation' as an 'excuse' for criminality...

BTW, we're yet to be provided with the possible solutions foreshadowed in the OP...

I fail to see your points. You seem to be justifying crime when there is unfairness in resource allocation. Presumably the poor have a right to
redress this misallocation if the rich are also pursuiing resource collection illegally but through different modes (i.e. white collar crime).

You are conflating 2 issues. White collar crime is equally reprehensible and has no excuse either in terms of a need to survive.

The point I'm trying to make and which has not been ackonwledged
is that the poverty stricken once had to rob to feed their children. This
is not the case in Oz.

I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. Common crime and white collar crime may be both reprehensible and both committed in the
misguided belief of correcting injustices/entitlements. So what.

The point is that NO-ONE in Oz can use the justification of survival in committing crimes anymore- rich or poor.

Is that so hard to grasp?

Back to top

IP Logged

jame-e

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 426
Darwin (currently)
Gender: male

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #49 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 6:47pm

iconoclast wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

[quote author=Thy_Equitist link=1297558659/30#43 date=1297650708]

The point is that NO-ONE in Oz can use the justification of survival in committing crimes anymore- rich or poor.

Is that so hard to grasp?

I did not know that there was ever an excuse for 'crime'.

Survival can mean many things. From stealing a loaf of bread to feed you're children to armed robbery to pay off potentially violent debtees.

What about drug addictions and/or psychological survival?

I'm sure that crime and the 'excuses' for it were just as varied back in victorian England as they are now.

Back to top

IP Logged

iconoclast

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #50 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 7:55pm

jame-e wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 6:47pm:

iconoclast wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

[quote author=Thy_Equitist link=1297558659/30#43 date=1297650708]

The point is that NO-ONE in Oz can use the justification of survival in committing crimes anymore- rich or poor.

Is that so hard to grasp?

I did not know that there was ever an excuse for 'crime'.

Survival can mean many things. From stealing a loaf of bread to feed you're children to armed robbery to pay off potentially violent debtees.

What about drug addictions and/or psychological survival?

I'm sure that crime and the 'excuses' for it were just as varied back in victorian England as they are now.

Good points.

Perhaps drug addiction has taken over as a motive from simple physical survival. i.e. as material survival has been solved then it may have been substantially substituted as a motive by crimes to feed chemical dependencies.

But this begs the question:

If we have essentially solved the question of physical survival
(food, clothing, shelter, health services, education) then what is it
we need to do to prevent crime?

For generations we have laid the causation for crime at the feet of a number of social factors- poverty, lack of education, ill health.

If this is solved (since access is nearly universal) then what is the continuing causal basis of crime.

Why can a Somali refugee thrive in a lower class school, take up jobs Australians will not, maintain their health and appearance and accumulate capital?

The inputs/experiences are the same, but the outcomes are vastly different.

This suggests it is not conditions that cause crime, but attitudes
toward it i.e perceived deprivation rather than in the case of the somalian, perceived abundance and opportunity.

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9632 NSW	Re: Please critique my logic here Reply #51 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:10pm There's some good rhetorical questions there - but I doubt you'll win over many right whingers with the use of Somalis in your example... The way that some on here write about that particular minority group, you might think that they were public enemy No. 2 in Oz (second of course to the generic "Muslim")...
Back to top	Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer! IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #52 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:23pm

iconoclast wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 10:57am:

I wish to make a simple assertion: That a very large % of crime and social dysfunctionality is not a function of absolute level of of resource access (i.e. poverty).

My claim is that a considerable % of violent, deviant and dysfunctional behaviour is a result of an individual's pereceived RELATIVE position in society and not just a lack of resources.

[...]

If this assertion is true then it is logical to conclude that no amount of resourcing will change it and a different kind of policy is required.

Leaving aside the critique of the logic about the problem for now, I'm curious to know what form that "different kind of policy" might take...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Axle

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 107

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #53 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:47pm

iconoclast wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 10:57am:

I wish to make a simple assertion: That a very large % of crime and social dysfunctionality is not a function of absolute level of of resource access (i.e. poverty).

My claim is that a considerable % of violent, deviant and dysfunctional behaviour is a result of an individual's pereceived RELATIVE position in society and not just a lack of resources.

I make this claim based on the following: Absolute level of resources available to all levels of Australian society have increased since WWII. Yet violent crime especially has been on the increase since 2000 (AIC figures).

In practical terms, anyone can fall down in the street. Most people have mobiles to call 000 and an ambulance will turn up. In hospital they will receive world class care, surgery, rehab and if unfit for work, a pension for life. It is not possible for any Australian to starve. Some may be temporarily homeless, but this is often a result of emotional and family issues. With low unemployment, plenty of menial jobs are available and will allow people to survive quite well. Certainly better than much of SE asia.

If relative position is the driving factor (I am on the bottom, and that
is unfair no matter how well I live) then crime will always be with us since we are primarily social primates with an acute sense of relative position.

If we didn't have migrants or some other group then we would find minor differences amongst ourselves to create a hierarchy. This is the point of Gulliver's Travels where how one opens an egg defines a group, their alien-ness and our fear of them.

If this assertion is correct then no amount of resourcing will assist in the prevention of crime or the creation of ghettos. All ghettos are a paradise compared to somalia, yet the fact that its inhabitants are on the bottom of society is not lost on them and breeds resentment and nonparticipation that is expressed in crime, addiction, poor education, teen birth rates etc.

If this assertion is true then it is logical to conclude that no amount of resourcing will change it and a different kind of policy is required.

1. You have just arbitrarily stuck your reason together with alleged increasing violent crime without establishing that connection. You might as well have said that greenhouse gases have been increasing and so has violent crime. I find the claim of rising violent crime spurious. You haven't gone past a vague reference to some statistics. I think crime, including violent crime fluctuates.

2. How does your idea fly with people in the situation you imagine who do not commit any crime- the vast majority? Crime only occurs at the hands of miniscule percentage of the population. If your scenario is a necessary cause, which hasn't been demonstrated, it's certainly not a sufficient cause.

3. You said "perceived relative position". Hell, after the richest man in oz we'd all be perceiving a relative lowly existence. We'd all be committing violent crime according to you. It doesn't happen.

Your thesis is empirically spurious and theoretically bankrupt.

Back to top

IP Logged

Life_goes_on

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 4772
400kms south of Yobsville, Qld
Gender: male

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #54 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:48pm

Quote:

So crime has dropped? Not if we look at gross indicators e.g.

Between 1995 and 2007 sexual assault went from 1000/month to about 1600/month. See here

http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/violent%20crime/sexual%20assault.aspx

Crimes involvlng violence went from 600/100,000 to over 800/100,000 in the same time span. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.aspx

Homicide stats have fallen very slightly however this may reflect gains in medical trauma management. See here

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

Drug offences look flat. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/drug/offences.aspx

While it is always possible to show whatever you want in stats by looking at subpopulations and regions, gross indicators are hard to explain away.

Actually, they're not that hard to "explain away". For both sexual assaults and violent crime, people are becoming more and more likely to report incidents that previously would have passed without police involvement. With sexual assaults, what actually constitutes an assault has been broadened and the social stigma of reporting such a crime has lessened.

Go back a couple of decades and pub fight was something you walked around on your way to the bar without a second thought. These days the police usually turn up.

The introduction of the mobile phone has contributed to the increase in reported crime.

Comparing crime stats is extremely difficult. Even for the same crime category you're rarely comparing apples with apples.

And in regards to your opening post, I think you're forgetting about what are probably the two biggest motivators for crime.

Greed and Anger.

Back to top

"You're just one lucky motherf-cker" - Someone, 5th February 2013

Num num num num.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47460
At my desk.

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #55 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 10:34pm

I think most violent crime is either caused by drug addiction or passion (eg hatred, love, jelousy etc - hence the term crime of passion), so it is fairly unrelated to either absolute or relative wealth.

You also have to be careful about statistics. The level of reporting can vary greatly. For example alcohol fueled violence used to be the norm, now it is the exception. This is not necessarily reflected in reported statistics or media attention.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #56 - Feb 14^th, 2011 at 10:39pm

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 10:34pm:

I think most violent crime is either caused by drug addiction or passion (eg hatred, love, jelousy etc - hence the term crime of passion), so it is fairly unrelated to either absolute or relative wealth.

In fact, she single most common factor in serious violent crime is gender - which is not a dominant factor in relative poverty (if anything, it is correlated in the opposite direction - i.e. overall, men earn significantly more money and accumulate more wealth than women)...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39522 Gender:	Re: Please critique my logic here Reply #57 - Feb 15^th, 2011 at 12:15am equit - you are wrong again. domestic violence is VERY equally spread, 50/50 accepting verbal violence, women are just a violent as men. course, very few women accept that. they are happy to verbally abuse any man they can .
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47460 At my desk.	Re: Please critique my logic here Reply #58 - Feb 15^th, 2011 at 6:57am Quote: accepting verbal violence Why accept a contradiction?
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Please critique my logic here
Reply #59 - Feb 15^th, 2011 at 8:22am

iconoclast wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 2:48pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:35pm:

Quote:

That a very large % of crime and social dysfunctionality is not a function of absolute level of of resource access (i.e. poverty).

My claim is that a considerable % of violent, deviant and dysfunctional behaviour is a result of an individual's pereceived RELATIVE position in society and not just a lack of resources.

"Relative position" in society is how 'poverty' is determined....

There is no real 'absolute' level of resource access....
Different countries, and societies have different levels of 'resource access' and different poverty levels....

Then under such a definition, Saudi arabia which provides generously
to its citizens from oil income, still has poverty.

Would a society with 100K median income still have poor people?
i.e. in your defintion poverty is unfairness in resource allocation and not a measure of an individual's absolute ability to survive based on the resources they are allocated.

Yes, a society with a 100k median income would still have poor people....

The cost of living is relative to the median income....the more the 'average' person earns, the more things cost...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Is this logic correct?
Yes No « Created by: iconoclast on: Feb 13^th, 2011 at 11:01am »