Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
15 comments displayed.
#5
-
sinery (10/30/2015) [-] Cops already don't go into black neighborhoods.
We call them no-go zones.
Ambulances and firefighters won't go to them without police escort and police don't go in there for anything less than a body.
We call them no-go zones.
Ambulances and firefighters won't go to them without police escort and police don't go in there for anything less than a body.
#83 to #6
-
JustintheWaysian ONLINE (10/31/2015) [-]
...that might be for the best actually. Don't spend so many resources on making an inhospitable area safe. Spend resources on maintaining the safety of already-hospitable areas.
#87 to #83
-
anon (10/31/2015) [-] Ya know... that's why the muslim immigrant infestation happened. As soon as there were zones so full of them, they were no longer safe, people kept backing away in their misunderstood "tolerance" and let these inhospitable areas become what they are now.
Backing out from any violence and risk usually only lets the violent and irresponsible win.
Sometimes it's about fighting fire with fire, man.
Backing out from any violence and risk usually only lets the violent and irresponsible win.
Sometimes it's about fighting fire with fire, man.
#90 to #87
-
JustintheWaysian ONLINE (10/31/2015) [-]
I get what you're saying.
However, I think it would be more effective if you isolate and contain the violence and risk, rather than let it mingle. I'm not saying to not fight it. Instead, I'm saying to fight it smarter; isolate it (give it a place to go outside of the peaceful communities), contain it, then protect peaceful communities from the violence.
However, I think it would be more effective if you isolate and contain the violence and risk, rather than let it mingle. I'm not saying to not fight it. Instead, I'm saying to fight it smarter; isolate it (give it a place to go outside of the peaceful communities), contain it, then protect peaceful communities from the violence.
#165 to #119
-
JustintheWaysian ONLINE (10/31/2015) [-]
No. If there is an area know to have extremely high crime rates, don't bother with it. Let it die. Let businesses and people move away from it, and don't police it. Give the criminals a place to do their thing, then invest resources to where the good people and businesses moved away to.
#89 to #85
-
JustintheWaysian ONLINE (10/31/2015) [-]
I actually do think that way about Africa, I know my opinion on this is very extreme too.
I don't think we should try to help the suffering peoples over there. I know there are African tribes who survive well and good over there, but then there are others who don't. I also understand that there is such a thing as oppression by powerful parties and individuals (one could say that it's ACTUAL social injustice, not the fake social injustice in America), but I'm not talking about those victims.
There's just too many resources being sent to people in Africa who aren't capable of surviving in particular, inhospitable environments. Imagine if a large group of people moved to Antarctica and formed a colony? How ridiculous would it be if someone came to you and said "there are people in Antarctica struggling to stay alive, would you give some money so we can send them food"? Would you say "sure! they could use the help" or "that isn't really a place for humans to live, why should we try to defy that"? I'd say the latter. I say the same thing for certain parts of Africa.
I don't think we should try to help the suffering peoples over there. I know there are African tribes who survive well and good over there, but then there are others who don't. I also understand that there is such a thing as oppression by powerful parties and individuals (one could say that it's ACTUAL social injustice, not the fake social injustice in America), but I'm not talking about those victims.
There's just too many resources being sent to people in Africa who aren't capable of surviving in particular, inhospitable environments. Imagine if a large group of people moved to Antarctica and formed a colony? How ridiculous would it be if someone came to you and said "there are people in Antarctica struggling to stay alive, would you give some money so we can send them food"? Would you say "sure! they could use the help" or "that isn't really a place for humans to live, why should we try to defy that"? I'd say the latter. I say the same thing for certain parts of Africa.
#154 to #89
-
humpydumpy (10/31/2015) [-]
Dude, I said the same exact thing after the Philipeans/Indonesian islands were blasted by yet another terrible tropical storm during monsoon flood season. I got thumbed down to hell too. My opinion is this, don't inhabit high risk areas and when **** hits the fan hit the rest of the world up for aid monies. Humans are supposed to be the smartest creatures on the planet, so why the **** do we continue to build "Pompei under Mount Vesuvius" type disasters. Those idiots deserve to die if they are stupid enough to live in those areas, Darwin's Law.
#166 to #154
-
JustintheWaysian ONLINE (10/31/2015) [-]
I think there's a certain element of pride in a lot of humanity that says " **** the high risk areas, I'll live where I want to". And it's stupid.
There's a huge difference between "this area is pretty hospitable but there are certain preventable factors keeping it from being livable" and "this area pretty much says ' **** off humans' and doesnt have the resources to sustain a population".
I think most parts of the world fit into the former category, and a few fit into the latter.
There's a huge difference between "this area is pretty hospitable but there are certain preventable factors keeping it from being livable" and "this area pretty much says ' **** off humans' and doesnt have the resources to sustain a population".
I think most parts of the world fit into the former category, and a few fit into the latter.
