>>11790879>writes the inverse>calls it the contrapositivesad
>>11790710A little better, but there's still some issues:
>"Our onedimensional attention should be allocated as efficient as possible".You need to define "efficient" clearly.
Is "reducing crime" more efficient than "reforming the police"?
The former is a vague initiative, promised by every politician since at least the beginning of recorded history. The latter is a concrete, measurable step with a recognizable endpoint.
>the greatest causeThe issue here is these are not just causes. They are also effects.
I hinted at this before, but I think the time has come to be more explicit.
I argue that you have not actually shown a contradiction.
"Policing problems" is an effect with one dominant cause: police policy and organization, which is entirely determined by us. Given some set of enforcement needs, we can address them directly, and very quickly.
"Crime rate", on the other hand, is one effect with many disparate, complex causes. For starters: poverty, education, mental health, enforceability of the law, drug addiction, crime definitions, etc. In other words, "crime rate" is an aggregation of many causes, one of which is "policing problems."
Now, suppose B were to ascribe to fixing "crime rates", as opposed to addressing one particular cause of crime rates ("police problems") that it has deemed most important at the moment; then, B would have essentially ascribed to the idea that "all causes of crime matter," and THAT would have been a contradiction of its original position.
But B is actually consistent, and focuses on a single issue at a time, so B can actually get something done.
