If you are referring to the inmate to GED ratio argument, I didn't say it was false. I said it looks suspiciously like a post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you can substantiate why you believe there is a causal relationship between the two rather than a casual or coincidental one, then I suspect you'll receive more support and less resistance to your proposal.


No mam, I don't believe I have. Your post #4 was an unambiguous attempt to persuade. For example, "now...follow me here...since the structure, nuance and nature of these budget cuts end up hurting city districts most (read: high per capita crime), there will be less money for after school programs. less productive stuff to do equals more crime. more crime needs more money in the budget to fight and punish." You are clearly advancing - "now...follow me here..." - the proposition that the budget cuts you oppose will result higher future costs - "less productive stuff to do equals more crime". That is an argument. A reasonable one, but one which is not, to my knowledge, supported by data.


That you do not care to persuade anyone is up to you, but in the absence of persuasion by you and others like-minded, do not expect the funding cuts to fall elsewhere. Persuasion through argument is how civilized people get others to do what they want without violence.

__________________
Eudaimonia