Interesting. You went from "assuming income inequality is actually a problem here" to the "link between crime and poverty" in subsequent sentences, almost as if you were discussing the same phenomenon. They aren't. They are, in fact, two very different discussions based on very different assumptions.
Which makes your following fallacious declaration, "There's no reason why a link between income inequality and crime should exist" even more interesting. Why is that fallacious? You declare that there is no reason without providing a shred of evidence to support the declaration. (Yes, if you were wallowing in assumptions that cannot be challenged, then the answer is, well, such assumption wallowing doesn't allow one to challenge the evidence provided.)
Ah, but could it very well be that we simply don't understand the link? (Which seems to be the case.) That would be a more reasonable response.
For someone who declares himself atheistic, you also display quite a bit of faith in unfounded assumptions. ;-)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-03-25 03:17 am (UTC)Which makes your following fallacious declaration, "There's no reason why a link between income inequality and crime should exist" even more interesting. Why is that fallacious? You declare that there is no reason without providing a shred of evidence to support the declaration. (Yes, if you were wallowing in assumptions that cannot be challenged, then the answer is, well, such assumption wallowing doesn't allow one to challenge the evidence provided.)
Ah, but could it very well be that we simply don't understand the link? (Which seems to be the case.) That would be a more reasonable response.
For someone who declares himself atheistic, you also display quite a bit of faith in unfounded assumptions. ;-)