Capitalism Rules, Socialism and Communism Suck Thread

[MadMojoMonkey]

Before I get banned, I really want MMM to respond to the logical cul-de-sac he's trapped himself in.

If our choices are A) find fault with the methods, or B) Begrudgingly accept their conclusions......... then what do you say to the fact that the current leaders of Border Patrol insist that a wall is necessary? The former leader of BP (an Obama appointee) says the same thing. These people know way more about securing a border than you ever will. They say "WALLS WORK"

Would you like to explain where you find fault with their methods, or would you like to begrudgingly accept their conclusions?

They want to be more effective at their jobs. That is a totally separate question as to whether the country needs them to be more effective at their jobs for the cost it involves.

Their job isn't to be aware of the greater implications to the national economy or to national security. If those greater issues say that we need to beef up border security, then taking their advice as to what would be the best way to do so is exactly the right call.

[TheSpoonald]

They want to be more effective at their jobs.

What do scientists want to do?

[MadMojoMonkey]

What do scientists want to do?

Predict the outcomes of measurements.

[TheSpoonald]

They want to be more effective at their jobs. That is a totally separate question as to whether the country needs them to be more effective at their jobs for the cost it involves.

Their job isn't to be aware of the greater implications to the national economy or to national security. If those greater issues say that we need to beef up border security, then taking their advice as to what would be the best way to do so is exactly the right call.

There's such giant gaping holes in this I don't know where to start. Ok...they want to be more effective at their jobs. Why? Do they make more money if they are? Is their workload easier if they catch more illegal crossers? Or fewer? Define "effective"? And what is their incentive for being effective?

If we presume that you're correct, then you also have to presume that BP wants to be more effective at their job because they don't want criminal aliens to enter the country illegally. But it's not just them. It's everyone. It's us. The taxpayer who funds their efforts. We do that because WE want them to be effective at their jobs. So you have already answered the question about whether or not making them more effective would serve national interests. It would.

And besides, you've MOVED THE FUCKING GOALPOAST!!

The question is....do you believe that walls work, or are you still hung up on this brilliant "ladder" idea that you and Oskar thought of? We're not talking about politics, or legislation, or economics, or spending or anything right now. We might be talking about those things later when you move the goalpost. But for now....let's keep the post where it is.

Now follow me here....

People who know how to build walls built some prototypes. Some people who know about getting over walls tried to get over them and couldn't. They had ladders. Do you find fault with that methodology? Or do you begrudgingly accept that walls work, and your silly ladder can't beat them.

[MadMojoMonkey]

they want to be more effective at their jobs. Why? Do they make more money if they are? Is their workload easier if they catch more illegal crossers? Or fewer? Define "effective"? And what is their incentive for being effective?

Most people take pride in a job well done. Good managers are constantly seeking ways to accomplish their goals more efficiently. What that efficiency looks like can take just about any form.

I mean... you may not care about doing 1 iota more than you need to avoid being fired. I've certainly worked with people like that.
That's not the kind of attitude that drives any successful endeavor, though.

If we presume that you're correct, then you also have to presume that BP wants to be more effective at their job because they don't want criminal aliens to enter the country illegally. But it's not just them. It's everyone. It's us. The taxpayer who funds their efforts. We do that because WE want them to be effective at their jobs. So you have already answered the question about whether or not making them more effective would serve national interests. It would.

No. We don't have to assume any of that. That's you projecting a narrative after the fact that suits your pre-conceived notions.

Your current argument is that no one has any idea how much criminal activity is happening due to illegal aliens. So if no one can know if it's a problem, then why should we take their analysis seriously about what to do about it?

It's not everyone. It's not all of us. It's not all taxpayers. "We" don't want BP to be endlessly better at their jobs, regardless of the cost. That' just you and some other mouth-frothers who think complicated national issues can be boiled down into sound bites.

And besides, you've MOVED THE FUCKING GOALPOAST!!

lol
OoooKaaaaaay.... this'll be good.

The question is....do you believe that walls work, or are you still hung up on this brilliant "ladder" idea that you and Oskar thought of? We're not talking about politics, or legislation, or economics, or spending or anything right now. We might be talking about those things later when you move the goalpost. But for now....let's keep the post where it is.

OK, before I laugh at your continued criticism over whether ladders are effective for climbing.... just whatever...

That wasn't the question, you absolute train wreck of a thought process.
"then what do you say to the fact that the current leaders of Border Patrol insist that a wall is necessary?" is what you asked.
and it's what I answered.

If you mean this:
"Would you like to explain where you find fault with their methods, or would you like to begrudgingly accept their conclusions?"
I explained why I find fault in their methods.

Note: if the goalpost was moved... it was not I who moved it.

Now. What do you think ladders are for? You ever seen one? Heard of Boy Scouts? They taught us how to make ladders using sticks and string. Very low tech. You know what you can do with a ladder? That's right! Climb! It's super useful for getting over stuff.

Now follow me here....

People who know how to build walls built some prototypes. Some people who know about getting over walls tried to get over them and couldn't. They had ladders. Do you find fault with that methodology? Or do you begrudgingly accept that walls work, and your silly ladder can't beat them.

BWAAAHAHAHAHA. You're still on that nonsense?
Those guys had someone throw a grapple to climb over. but it was "only 1 of them" so thank god they're on our side, right?
FFS.

I absolutely find fault with their methodology if they had a 20 ft. ladder and couldn't get over a 20 ft. wall.
Incompetent morons.
The fact that you don't obviously agree is just indicative of your mental block of bias.
Just c'mon. Get real.

Knock it off with talking total nonsense and pretending you should be taken seriously about it.

[Poopadoop]

Is there a reasoned estimate of the raw total number of crimes committed by illegal aliens in the US?

If yes, then doubling the number of illegals halves the crime rate per 100k.

If no, then doubling the number of illegals makes no difference to the crime rate per 100k.

End of story. Can we move on now?

[TheSpoonald]

Is there a reasoned estimate of the raw total number of crimes committed by illegal aliens in the US?

NO.

I am concluding that because of the known fact that it is illegal to collect such data. Either find fault with that methodology or begrudgingly accept my conclusion.

If no, then doubling the number of illegals makes no difference to the crime rate per 100k.

Thank you

[Poopadoop]

I should add that the media doesn't help the image of science when it draws strong conclusions and sexy sound bites from what is essentially preliminary research. This is why, for example, the cure for cancer is always 'right around the corner!' It's a much better headline than 'some promising findings in cancer research that provide an incremental step in our understanding'. Who the fuck wants to hear about that?