Jump to content

Cops will stop busting turnstile jumpers


Via Garibaldi 8

Recommended Posts

This may be the mayor's prerogative, but the governor shouldn't tolerate it.  Now that all of MTA Bridges and Tunnels collects tolls via open-road toll is where the displaced TBTA officers could go, likely undercover. They could be supplemented with state troopers based out of the Troop NYC barracks on Wards' Island to monitor the turnstiles as well as Select Bus Service. The presence of state troopers on a regular basis in NYC is relatively new, but use them to protect state revenue. (MTA railroad police can remain patrolling the railroads and SIR.) As it is, Cuomo has deployed state troopers out of Troop NYC with zero tolerance, and each officer is averaging about 96 summonses a year.

 

Also, the MTA needs to modify the fine for farebeating to fix it at a percentage...instead of $100, make it 60 times the local bus fare in effect at the the time (which would make the offense a $165 offense).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 2/2/2018 at 1:55 PM, CenSin said:

Expect more crime in the subways now that unsavory people will get in without any resistance. 

 

That was Giuliani's goal when he merged the Transit Police into NYPD...

 

-  The mayor controls both the police and the streets, so police belong on the streets.

-  The mayor doesn't control crime or the subways, so crime belongs in the subways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

That was Giuliani's goal when he merged the Transit Police into NYPD...

 

-  The mayor controls both the police and the streets, so police belong on the streets.

-  The mayor doesn't control crime or the subways, so crime belongs in the subways.

BS. That's why so many undercover NYPD officers ride on the subways... <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2018 at 2:02 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yep. You can't afford to pay or don't want to pay? No worries.  Just jump the turnstiles. <_< This is some administration we have. On the other hand, this same idiotic mayor wants to subsidize these peoples' rides when they don't even  pay to begin with, so you're okay with starving the (MTA) of funding, but yet you don't think that the City should contribute more.  

I don't wholesale support subsidized fares, and I think fare beating should still be enforced. That said: 

Your position that poor people, (those who would benefit from theoretical subsidized rides) automatically equal criminals is wholly regrettable. That's not really news tho - is it <_<

Also, fare beating will still be enforced. 

Anyway, this article is mostly the post being the post. I think we all agree that there should be enforcement of fare-paying. Lets review: 

On 2/2/2018 at 12:31 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

But now, the office has told the NYPD that it will not be prosecuting fare beaters at all. Instead, prosecutors will “DTP,” or decline to prosecute, almost every case brought to arraignment.

A close reading of this reveals that the District Attorney will decline to prosecute these cases. Why is the DA involved at all? Failure to pay the fare is a Civil Infraction handled by the Transit Adjudication Bureau - not the court system. Well, if you'll remember earlier discussion, you'll note that sometimes, rather than writing a summons, cops will place people under arrest for Theft of Service. I don't have a source handy, so I'll keep this as speculation, but I surmise that this escalation to misdemeanor happens stunningly disproportionately to minorities. The change in policy makes fare beating the civil infraction that it already is, and disincentivizes cops from escalating it to a MisD for no real reason. 

On 2/2/2018 at 12:31 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Given that, transit cops are expected to not even bother stopping turnstile jumpers, one police source said, predicting a “free for all.”

“Why would a person stop for the cop in the first place?” the source said.

“Cops will be hesitant to stop fare beaters just to give them a ticket when they can’t effectively arrest and prosecute a person who refuses to cooperate. At that point, why the hell would anyone pay to get on the subway?”

So, based on "One Police Source" cops just aren't going to enforce this? Meh. 

Why would a person stop for the cop in the first place? Well, if the person doesn't, that would be resisting arrest. If you run a stop sign, you aren't going to be taken to jail - but if you run a stop sign and refuse to stop for police, you're absolutely going to jail. Same is true here. This policy isn't gonna stop that. 

As for the notion that cops will be hesitant to stop fare beaters to issue tickets - what even? Tell that to the traffic tickets I got in my youth for non-arrestable offenses. The cops were all too happy to write some summonses. Cops will still  write summonses for this, but they won't pad their arrest numbers by locking people up for an infraction. 

 

(for what it's worth, I beat 4 out of 5 in court by myself, but that's privilege for you.) 

 

Personally? I think that subway offenses should be punishable by community service that benefits the subway. "Showtime" on the train? - okay upping the fine maybe that disproportionately affects the poor, how about 20 hours scraping gum from the floor. That'll learn 'em. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

I don't wholesale support subsidized fares, and I think fare beating should still be enforced. That said: 

Your position that poor people, (those who would benefit from theoretical subsidized rides) automatically equal criminals is wholly regrettable. That's not really news tho - is it <_<

I clarified my position quite well in the SBS thread where an individual who would be classified as "poor" fought with the Eagle Team because he refused to pay $2.75 or didn't have a ticket. The guy is really just a thug.  These individuals are mixed in as "poor" people and they should not be because they are criminals.  As I said in that SBS thread, the true poor people aren't the ones skipping out on the fares.  It's the people that won't pay regardless of what the fare is.

People like you are either naive or just don't step out into the real world to see the BS that goes on on the buses and subways on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I clarified my position quite well in the SBS thread where an individual who would be classified as "poor" fought with the Eagle Team because he refused to pay $2.75 or didn't have a ticket. The guy is really just a thug.  These individuals are mixed in as "poor" people and they should not be because they are criminals.  As I said in that SBS thread, the true poor people aren't the ones skipping out on the fares.  It's the people that won't pay regardless of what the fare is.

People like you are either naive or just don't step out into the real world to see the BS that goes on on the buses and subways on a daily basis.

What part of my point are you even responding to? What part of this do you find naive? I'll speak simply, as one would to a child. 

You said "this same idiotic mayor wants to subsidize these peoples' rides when they don't even pay to begin with", which reads as though the people who would receive the subsidies are at present, all fare-beaters.  

I called that sentiment regrettable.

I stand by that statement. 

Yep, there are fare beaters out there; and worse criminals; and if you bothered to or were capable of entertaining content that diverges from your own personal plutocratic myopia, you'd note that I clearly stated that I was in favor of enforcing payment of fares. 

 

I'm out in the real world each and every day, and I see the "BS", and unlike you, I'm not afraid to get involved if there's a situation of exigent circumstances. When somethings actually getting violent I've kicked people off the train, I've called the cops, because here in the real world sometimes you've got to walk away, and sometimes you can't. 

I get it - lord fauntleroy from riverdale thinks the situation in the subway is "simply dreadful", who rebuts well thought out points with cherry picked information and total changes of the subject because he doesn't have what it takes to engage in actual discourse. I get that your malignant narcissism renders you incapable of admitting that your interpretation of any given situation is not the most correct version in existence.  

As per everything I wrote, I know you aren't going to read it, I know it isn't gonna sink in, but sometimes, I've just got to call em like I see em. FOH 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

What part of my point are you even responding to? What part of this do you find naive? I'll speak simply, as one would to a child. 

You said "this same idiotic mayor wants to subsidize these peoples' rides when they don't even pay to begin with", which reads as though the people who would receive the subsidies are at present, all fare-beaters.  

I called that sentiment regrettable.

I stand by that statement. 

I bolded the part.  If you took the time to read instead of attacking me for things that are irrelevant to this discussion, you would do better.  I'll repeat myself again since I know some people have very low IQs. I said that the truly poor people aren't the ones farebeating.  You are free to continue with your BS accusations because quite frankly that's all you do...  Interpret things the way that suits you to make idiotic personal attacks to make yourself feel superior because your political differences.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I clarified my position quite well in the SBS thread where an individual who would be classified as "poor" fought with the Eagle Team because he refused to pay $2.75 or didn't have a ticket. The guy is really just a thug.  These individuals are mixed in as "poor" people and they should not be because they are criminals.  As I said in that SBS thread, the true poor people aren't the ones skipping out on the fares.  It's the people that won't pay regardless of what the fare is.

People like you are either naive or just don't step out into the real world to see the BS that goes on on the buses and subways on a daily basis.

Care to reassert your position for this thread? Do you have any evidence to support the notion that this guy was a thug (a regular criminal) or is this just confirmation bias. Also, what classifies a "true poor person" in your eyes, also if you have any evidence to show that these "true poor people" are not the ones jumping I'd like to see it. Right now you are just making absurd and ignorant claims about the poor without providing any evidence to support your position.

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

People like you are either naive or just don't step out into the real world to see the BS that goes on on the buses and subways on a daily basis.

Are you on crack mate I've actually worked with impoverished school districts in Harlem/South Bronx and I've seen firsthand these what these people go to an a day-to-day basis. Based on the comments you've made in this thread it sounds like you literally have no idea what being on poverty is like. You are in absolutely ZERO position to be telling people to "step out into the real world."

 

1 hour ago, itmaybeokay said:

Theft of Service. I don't have a source handy, so I'll keep this as speculation, but I surmise that this escalation to misdemeanor happens stunningly disproportionately to minorities. The change in policy makes fare beating the civil infraction that it already is, and disincentivizes cops from escalating it to a MisD for no real reason. 

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170621/times-square-theater-district/nypd-police-precinct-arrest-turnstile-fair-fares-mta-subway-poverty - 83% of all people arrested for jumping are black and/or hispanic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

1. Care to reassert your position for this thread? Do you have any evidence to support the notion that this guy was a thug (a regular criminal) or is this just confirmation bias. Also, what classifies a "true poor person" in your eyes, also if you have any evidence to show that these "true poor people" are not the ones jumping I'd like to see it. Right now you are just making absurd and ignorant claims about the poor without providing any evidence to support your position.

2. Are you on crack mate I've actually worked with impoverished school districts in Harlem/South Bronx and I've seen firsthand these what these people go to an a day-to-day basis. Based on the comments you've made in this thread it sounds like you literally have no idea what being on poverty is like. You are in absolutely ZERO position to be telling people to "step out into the real world."

1. Let's see... He repeatedly fought the Eagle Team, had to be held down, cuffed and then even after that, he continued to fight.  If it's really just over $2.75, no one fights like that.  I'd be willing to bet that the guy had a rap sheet.

2. Oh give yourself a medal. I've worked with plenty of poor kids myself in the South Bronx and Harlem, so I think I know a thing or two about who is really poor and who is just scamming the system.  I happen to believe that a good portion of poor people have morals and are decent.  The problem is they are lumped in with the thugs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Let's see... He repeatedly fought the Eagle Team had to be held down, cuffed and then even after that he continued to fight.  If it's really just over $2.75, no one fights like that.  I'd be willing to bet that the guy had a wrap sheet.

Exactly, you are prejudiced. You don't know for certain if he has a RAP sheet (not a wrap sheet lol, if you worked in poor school districts you should know that term), but you're "willing to bet." Thats textbook confirmation bias. You saw a someone get arrested for fare dodging and you're making a completely biased and unfounded assumption about his criminal history. 

9 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

2. Oh give yourself a medal. I've worked with plenty of poor kids myself in the South Bronx and Harlem, so I think I know a thing or two about who is really poor and who is just scamming the system.  

Yeah, I'd believe that. You have the the same attitude as a lot of janitors, kitchen staff, and maintenance workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Exactly, you are prejudiced. You don't know for certain if he has a RAP sheet (not a wrap sheet lol, if you worked in poor school districts you should know that term), but you're "willing to bet." Thats textbook confirmation bias. You saw a someone get arrested for fare dodging and you're making a completely biased and unfounded assumption about his criminal history. 

Yeah, I'd believe that. You have the the same attitude as a lot of janitors, kitchen staff, and maintenance workers.

Yeah so says the guy in SoHo... You liberals crack me up with your holier-than-thou BS.  Autocorrect was on and was corrected, so I wrote RAP well before you quoted the post.  No, I saw someone resist arrest over $2.75 and continued to do so.  Let's stop leaving out factual information to suit your agenda.

You're the one talking about how you've worked with impoverished kids in the South Bronx and Harlem like that's such a big deal.  I've been doing so for years, and yet you live in SoHo... Far away from the ghetto.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yeah so says the guy in SoHo... You liberals crack me up with your holier-than-thou BS.  Autocorrect was on and was corrected, so I wrote RAP well before you quoted the post.  No, I saw someone resist arrest over $2.75 and continued to do so.  Let's stop leaving out factual information to suit your agenda.

You're the one talking about how you've worked with impoverished kids in the South Bronx and Harlem like that's such a big deal.  I've been doing so for years, and yet you live in SoHo... Far away from the ghetto.  

You're grasping at straws my man. You saw a guy get arrested for fare dodging, and then you assumed, because of the way he was acting , and in addition to your biases, that he had a prior criminal record. I'm not leaving out any facts. whether or not he was resisting arrest is not relevant to my point, you still made an assumption based on your biases. You have no idea whether or not he had criminal history.

Later on in the post you went on to assume that he was just "mixed in" as a poor person, which is totally ridiculous. You also stated that "true poor people aren't the ones skipping," yet you never clarified as to what defines a "true poor person." 

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

These individuals are mixed in as "poor" people and they should not be because they are criminals.  As I said in that SBS thread, the true poor people aren't the ones skipping out on the fares.  It's the people that won't pay regardless of what the fare is.

 

Also, can't you see how hypocritical it is when you accuse @itmaybeokay of quote: "attacking me for things that are irrelevant to this discussion" when you just came at me for living in a rich neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VG8 you always seem to know how to work the crowd Buddy.  I keep telling you to someone your the charity case...🧐   Humble pie it's pretty tasty.  And it's levels to all of this. Leave comfort your zone every once and awhile. 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kosciusko said:

1. You're grasping at straws my man. You saw a guy get arrested for fare dodging, and then you assumed, because of the way he was acting , and in addition to your biases, that he had a prior criminal record. I'm not leaving out any facts. whether or not he was resisting arrest is not relevant to my point, you still made an assumption based on your biases. You have no idea whether or not he had criminal history.

Later on in the post you went on to assume that he was just "mixed in" as a poor person, which is totally ridiculous. You also stated that "true poor people aren't the ones skipping," yet you never clarified as to what defines a "true poor person." 

 

2. Also, can't you see how hypocritical it is when you accuse @itmaybeokay of quote: "attacking me for things that are irrelevant to this discussion" when you just came at me for living in a rich neighborhood.

1. You're damn right I did.  You know what that's called? Coming to a logical conclusion.  As I said before, there is no reason to go ape $hit over not paying $2.75.  None.  To clarify, there are thugs that happen to be poor, and poor people.  Naturally this guy will be lumped in with other poor people and he'll be treated as if he should be given a pass for his behavior. I think it's BS.  In other words, there's this belief out here that a lot of poor people are farebeating and the like because they don't have a choice.  I'm of the belief that this isn't the case and some are using that as a crutch, and it's a slap in the face to poor people who don't use their economic background as an excuse to not pay.

2.  No, it's not because he takes pleasure out of mentioning my residence and then trying to talk down to me like he's in the know when he's sitting if freaking Astoria.  Lots of poverty there... <_< 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

1. You're damn right I did.  You know what that's called? Coming to a logical conclusion.  As I said before, there is no reason to go ape $hit over not paying $2.75.  None.  To clarify, there are thugs that happen to be poor, and poor people.  Naturally this guy will be lumped in with other poor people and he'll be treated as if he should be given a pass for his behavior. I think it's BS.  In other words, there's this belief out here that a lot of poor people are farebeating and the like because they don't have a choice.  I'm of the belief that this isn't the case and some are using that as a crutch, and it's a slap in the face to poor people who don't use their economic background as an excuse to not pay.

 

You're practically admitting to having a confirmation bias here.

Quote

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses

At the end of the paragraph you say that "there's this belief out here that a lot of poor people are farebeating and the like because they don't have a choice.  I'm of the belief that this isn't the case and some are using that as a crutch," which is why you are more inclined to make assumptions like "I'd be willing to bet that the guy had a rap sheet." 

In your mind it may seem like a logical conclusion, but thats only because you believe that people who fairdodge are using poverty as a crutch in order to gain sympathy for not paying. You are biased to confirm your existing belief that there is a large amount of people who are only using poverty as an excuse for not paying the fare. The reality is that you have know way of knowing whether or not the guy you saw being arrested had any prior criminal history, and there is little to no evidence to support the hypothesis that a large amount of people are using poverty as a crutch to avoid paying subway fares.

46 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

2.  No, it's not because he takes pleasure out of mentioning my residence and then trying to talk down to me like he's in the know when he's sitting if freaking Astoria.  Lots of poverty there... <_< 

meanwhile...

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You're the one talking about how you've worked with impoverished kids in the South Bronx and Harlem like that's such a big deal.  I've been doing so for years, and yet you live in SoHo... Far away from the ghetto.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

You're practically admitting to having a confirmation bias here.

At the end of the paragraph you say that "there's this belief out here that a lot of poor people are farebeating and the like because they don't have a choice.  I'm of the belief that this isn't the case and some are using that as a crutch," which is why you are more inclined to make assumptions like "I'd be willing to bet that the guy had a rap sheet." 

In your mind it may seem like a logical conclusion, but thats only because you believe that people who fairdodge are using poverty as a crutch in order to gain sympathy for not paying. You are biased to confirm your existing belief that there is a large amount of people who are only using poverty as an excuse for not paying the fare. The reality is that you have know way of knowing whether or not the guy you saw being arrested had any prior criminal history, and there is little to no evidence to support the hypothesis that a large amount of people are using poverty as a crutch to avoid paying subway fares.

meanwhile...

 

No, it's because there have been plenty of farebeaters that have been caught with rap sheets. The wonderful Nicole Malliotakis (who should be our mayor) noted the following:  

Quote

I wrote the following op-ed to highlight that the murderers of Police Officer Miosotis Familia, FDNY EMT Yadira Arroyo & Staten Islander Jacinto Suarez all had turnstile jumping on their rap sheets. Last week, cops stopped a turnstile jumper and discovered that he was wanted for murder. Enforcement is necessary.

As I said before, I find it hard to believe that someone would fight the Eagle Team the way that "fine young man" did all over $2.75, but you're in SoHo in liberal land, so you probably believe that BS.  When you're done with your "field trip" to the South Bronx learning about poverty, then you can tell me something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

No, it's because there have been plenty of farebeaters that have been caught with rap sheets.  The wonderful Nicole Malliotakis (who should be our mayor) noted the following:  I wrote the following op-ed to highlight that the murderers of Police Officer Miosotis Familia, FDNY EMT Yadira Arroyo & Staten Islander Jacinto Suarez all had turnstile jumping on their rap sheets. Last week, cops stopped a turnstile jumper and discovered that he was wanted for murder. Enforcement is necessary.

This is anecdotal evidence, just because someone who is a murderer has farebeaten before doesn't mean that people who farebeat are more likely to commit crimes. You cannot prove a causal link between farebeating and more serious offenses.

Also the guy who was stopped for farebeating was already wanted for murder. If I was wanted for murder and I was being written a ticket, any cop worth their salt would recognize me as being wanted and take me in. Farebeating is not becoming  unenforced, rather the DA offices is just going to decline to prosecute. Cops will still be able to write tickets, serve summonses, and even take people in if they really want to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

This is anecdotal evidence, just because someone who is a murderer has farebeaten before doesn't mean that people who farebeat are more likely to commit crimes. You cannot prove a causal link between farebeating and more serious offenses.

Also the guy who was stopped for farebeating was already wanted for murder. If I was wanted for murder and I was being written a ticket, any cop worth their salt would recognize me as being wanted and take me in. Farebeating is not becoming  unenforced, rather the DA offices is just going to decline to prosecute. Cops will still be able to write tickets, serve summonses, and even take people in if they really want to. 

This isn't about proving a "casual link".  This is about common sense and keeping thugs off of the streets!  The broken windows policy was successful for a reason, which you greatly benefit from there in tony SoHo.  Your neighborhood wasn't always so nice.  It was cleaned up by using common sense policies, but yes, keep yelling about casual links.

I always ask myself if liberals like yourself would leave their comfortable confines to fight for "justice" pertaining to poverty and the like.  There's a few others on here like yourself... Always talking about how they're social justice warriors, but they do so from the comfort of their neighborhood, with the occasional outing into the hood.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

This isn't about proving a "casual link".  This is about common sense and keeping thugs off of the streets!

"I can't prove that people who jump the turnstile are more likely to commit serious crimes, but we should be arresting them anyway because its common sense!"

Epic argument. Go lick some more boots.

14 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The broken windows policy was successful for a reason, which you greatly benefit from there in tony SoHo.  Your neighborhood wasn't always so nice.  It was cleaned up by using common sense policies, but yes, keep yelling about casual links.

In SoHo's case, it was wealthy artists moving in and bringing money into the neighborhood more then it was the police. You have to remember SoHo was largely uninhabited before the artists moved in during the 70's and 80's. Crime was never huge here, and the NYPD generally focused on black/hispanic neighborhoods anyway, which is one of the reason that SoHo was such a huge cocaine spot during that time as well. Broken windows didn't really start until the mid 90's and by that time SoHo was already foredoomed to become the tourist shopping center it is today. The galleries would only last so long, and everyone knew it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

1.  "I can't prove that people who jump the turnstile are more likely to commit serious crimes, but we should be arresting them anyway because its common sense!"

Epic argument. Go lick some more boots.

2. In SoHo's case, it was wealthy artists moving in and bringing money into the neighborhood more then it was the police. You have to remember SoHo was largely uninhabited before the artists moved in during the 70's and 80's. Crime was never huge here, and the NYPD generally focused on black/hispanic neighborhoods anyway, which is one of the reason that SoHo was such a huge cocaine spot during that time as well. Broken windows didn't really start until the mid 90's and by that time SoHo was already foredoomed to become the tourist shopping center it is today. The galleries would only last so long, and everyone knew it.

1. You've already been provided with concrete examples that your liberal mind can't process. Not my problem.

2.  That's funny.  SoHo was a basically a dump with squatters and the like living there and crime was a problem throughout Manhattan, especially when the subways fell apart in the 70s and 80s, so I'm not sure who told you that lie.  Must be a transplant... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Via Garibaldi 8: I’ve followed the back-and-forth on this thread, and as far as I can tell, while your arguments have an emotional appeal (mostly fear), it’s entirely illogical. Obvious among the list of logical fallacies:

  • black-or-white: somebody either favors your arguments or is a liberal
  • ad hominem: …
  • tu quoque: instead of addressing criticism logically, returning your own criticism

Of course, just because you’ve committed logical fallacies does not necessarily mean that the point you are arguing for is wrong as such an assumption would be a fallacy fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CenSin said:

@Via Garibaldi 8: I’ve followed the back-and-forth on this thread, and as far as I can tell, while your arguments have an emotional appeal (mostly fear), it’s entirely illogical. Obvious among the list of logical fallacies:

  • black-or-white: somebody either favors your arguments or is a liberal
  • ad hominem: …
  • tu quoque: instead of addressing criticism logically, returning your own criticism

Of course, just because you’ve committed logical fallacies does not necessarily mean that the point you are arguing for is wrong as such an assumption would be a fallacy fallacy.

Let's be real here.  Most of the people that are so in favor of giving reduced fares for the poor and who claim that many of them are jumping the turnstiles because of it usually live in hoity-toity neighborhoods far away from the ghetto (a bit hypocritical no?), and they have no idea what real poverty is like aside from the few interactions they may have with people in poor neighborhoods.  It's just something I've noticed.  The people that yell the most about injustices just so happen to not to have to deal with them personally.  You have to see the irony in that because I do, and it's funny as hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.