POLL: bigger problem: poverty or violence?

[Corporate Thug]

plain and simple

 

[FoBoT]

neither one is a problem for me

do you mean in terms of "society" or something?

 

[illusion88]

I chose poverty.
I live near San Fran, and sometimes I work with the SFFD to work with the homeless. Doing CPR in the trenches is no fun, and to watch them die so often is hard to see.

 

[Ameesh]

both would be solved by education. but since republicans hate books and love guns its not gonna happen soon.

 

[Antoneo]

Has there been any studies that shows a co-relation between the two?

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
both would be solved by education. but since republicans hate books and love guns its not gonna happen soon.

People have to take the initiative to become educated themselves first. I refuse to believe that just because one attends an inner-city school, they automatically are sent off to a life of poverty and crime. I've seen too many successes from the inner-city to believe otherwise. It's not the governments job to force us to learn, we have to take the initiative. And I think poverty is more of a problem, as violence is normally a biproduct of poverty.

 

[JBT]

I think poverty creates violence for the most part.

 

[hdeck]

without poverty there would be much less violence

 

[Schadenfroh]

i like violence

 

[AdamDuritz99]

I think violence is the bigger problem. 90% of our outcome (poverty, happiness, etc) is due to our own choices we make. Innocent victims of violence don't get to make that choice, they just suffer the consequences. IMHO

peace
sean

 

[kalster]

poverty has some role to play in violence

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: AdamDuritz99
I think violence is the bigger problem. 90% of our outcome (poverty, happiness, etc) is due to our own choices we make. Innocent victims of violence don't get to make that choice, they just suffer the consequences. IMHO

peace
sean

"Innocent victims" of most violence are most often not innocent at all.

 

[AdamDuritz99]

well, that's why i said innocent victims. I was typing "Victims of violence don't..." Then i thought that well, a lot of victims are part cause of the violence, so i reworded it to "innocent victims".

peace
sean

 

[Ness]

That answer is double-edged.

Poverty: Unfortunately, for our society, there has to be someone on the lower end. Things would be great without it, but for things to stay as they are now, there have to be people who are on the opposite end of the spectrum as those who are lucrative. Personally, I would gladly trade all of this to equal everything out, but that could also de-value some aspects of our society.


Violence: Who am I to say that it's okay for other people to get hurt or die? On the same hand, in many (if not most) cases of violence, it's a violence-yeilds-violence situation, such as gang warfare or one loser beating up another loser at school. Violence seems to weed out some of the filth of the world, but at the expense of some of the "innocent".

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: hdeck
without poverty there would be much less violence

 

[BurnItDwn]

poverty is never good.
violence is sometimes good (in games, movies, and of course when getting revenge)

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Ameesh
both would be solved by education. but since republicans hate books and love guns its not gonna happen soon.

People have to take the initiative to become educated themselves first. I refuse to believe that just because one attends an inner-city school, they automatically are sent off to a life of poverty and crime. I've seen too many successes from the inner-city to believe otherwise. It's not the governments job to force us to learn, we have to take the initiative. And I think poverty is more of a problem, as violence is normally a biproduct of poverty.

Well said.

 

[DorkBoy]

V

 

[StageLeft]

In the US I think violence is. Almost nobody in the US is starving to death, although many live below the poverty line or close to it. Of these a significant percentage are there through their inaction. Not to say all are, but to deny that any are is ludicrous. Of course the poorest people generally become the violent criminals as well, from a numbers point of view, so both are tied in.

 

[screw3d]

Let's see if this makes sense - poverty may cause violence, but violence is unlikely to cause poverty?

Nah it doesn't

 

[J Heartless Slick]

The criminalization of drugs.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: screw3d
Let's see if this makes sense - poverty may cause violence, but violence is unlikely to cause poverty?

Nah it doesn't

poverty may be a seed of violence, whereas violent actions tend not to land the victim to poverty...right?

 

[dfi]

I pick poverty. Reason being, if you get rid of poverty, you reduce some of the reasons for violence. Probably results in less kids being lured into selling drugs. Less convenience store robberies too.

I don't see getting rid of violence as helping any with poverty. Well... maybe if there was a violent credit card fraud scammer running around...

dfi

 

[StageLeft]

People have to take the initiative to become educated themselves first. I refuse to believe that just because one attends an inner-city school, they automatically are sent off to a life of poverty and crime. I've seen too many successes from the inner-city to believe otherwise. It's not the governments job to force us to learn, we have to take the initiative. And I think poverty is more of a problem, as violence is normally a biproduct of poverty.

That's much easier to say than do. A person is a product of their environment. Although some rise out of their class most people tend to stay in their class. The low stay low, middle stay middle, and upper stay upper, with some swapping here and there. If you've grown up in a poor useless environment and the aspirations of those around you are to sell drugs and once you've gotten your highschool you're good to go, well it's difficult to nurture greater ambitions in such a culture.

 

[Red Dawn]

It's Paris Hilton's fault!