| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cheapsuprise
Liberated
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7288
Local time: 5:02 PM
Location: Next door.
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:27 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| FlatEarth1024 wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: | | FlatEarth1024 wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | And yet people still haven't figured out that the police are a bigger danger to citizens than gangs are. |
Yes, but if the choices are municipal police and roving bands of armed thugs...sorry, I choose the police. |
Since when are those two particular choices, the actual, and only choices?
Moreover what's the difference between them? IOW:
In scenario A you are murdered by a band of armed thugs.
In scenario B you are murdered by a band of police. (armed thugs in uniform)
The difference that I see, is that in scenario B you were murdered by accident,
because the police can not be trusted to even use "non-lethal" weapons properly, and probably no one will be held accountable for there fuck up, even AFTER all the facts surrounding your death become known. |
I was simply replying to the scenario someone else presented. Our police departments, as well as our judicial system and departments of corrections, are in definite need of some fixing. I don't think anyone will debate that point. |
Yes.
| Quote: | | But of the two choices, to say that replacing our law enforcement system with bands of vigilantes is somehow beneficial to the individual and society as a whole is ridiculous. |
Who suggested vigilantes? We don't need vigilantes any more than we need state enpowerd police.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 7:02 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
C'mon cheap: you've seen enough of the terrified statist line to know they immediately reach for a strawman when their beloved state-run agencies are called into question.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlatEarth1024
Forum Master
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 4275
Local time: 1:02 AM
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | Knob wrote: | | And yet people still haven't figured out that the police are a bigger danger to citizens than gangs are. |
| FlatEarth wrote: | | But of the two choices, to say that replacing our law enforcement system with bands of vigilantes is somehow beneficial to the individual and society as a whole is ridiculous. |
Who suggested vigilantes? We don't need vigilantes any more than we need state enpowerd police. |
I think you're missing my point. I don't think most people want vigilantes either. Once again, I was responding to the choice that Knob provided. And since if you stray one hair's breadth off of what Knob said (conveniently, however, he rarely is clear on his meaning) he immediately claims strawmen and dishonesty (see below), I did not see fit to provide an alternative. Read Knob's post and read my reply. He offered me cops and gangs. I chose cops.
| Knob wrote: | | C'mon cheap: you've seen enough of the terrified statist line to know they immediately reach for a strawman when their beloved state-run agencies are called into question. |
It is not a strawman if I repeat your exact quote back to you and answer within its parameters. You said "cops worse than gangs". I said no...gangs worse than cops. I'm sure there is a wonderful middle ground somewhere, but since you did not provide it, and since you get so very worked up and insulted when people stray outside the sentiment of your posts ("liar, read my post and try again", "where did I say that?", "who said anything about ***?") I did not explore any possibilities other than what you offered, police versus gangs.
So I repeat, there is no strawman if the other person addresses your EXACT point simply because you did not get the answer you desired.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
Liberated
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7288
Local time: 5:02 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FlatEarth1024 wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: |
Who suggested vigilantes? We don't need vigilantes any more than we need state enpowerd police. |
I think you're missing my point. I don't think most people want vigilantes either. Once again, I was responding to the choice that Knob provided. And since if you stray one hair's breadth off of what Knob said (conveniently, however, he rarely is clear on his meaning) he immediately claims strawmen and dishonesty (see below), |
He's often right about that though. At least when it comes to strawmen.
Sorry, but I've actualy wanted to point this out for a while. This isn't just a problem with Kob. It happens all the time. That's because people tend to over extend there counter arguments instead of simply cross examining there opponent. No one seams to notice this, but this is why threads with theists last 50 pages. It's not because the theist is to dumb to leave, it's because atheists don't know when to shut up. One simple question will work better than a fifty line paragraph speculating on why some one is wrong. What do you think the opponent is more likely to concentrate on? The big paragraph is actualy a soft target, because now they get to shift the focus away from themselves and question things that YOU have asserted, instead of defending there own assertions.
The irony is that when one runs into a person who resists that temptation, they are perceived as being rude. I'm not claiming that Kob isn't RUDE, but when is he less rude, or not rude at all?
| Quote: | | I did not see fit to provide an alternative. Read Knob's post and read my reply. He offered me cops and gangs. I chose cops. |
Well, this is what Kob actualy SAID:
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | And yet people still haven't figured out that the police are a bigger danger to citizens than gangs are. |
How is the above a proposition that you choose one over the other? It's a straight proposition, not a dilemma.
He could have said "The war on drugs kills more people than the drugs themselves." would that mean that he was asking you to choose mass drug addiction? He could have also said "Cribs are more dangarus to babies than house hold cleaners." would that mean he was asking you to choose that babies live with the danger of drinking house hold cleaners -- unprotected?
You answered what you thought was a choice between black and white, but HE didn't ask you to do that. More over, who do you think would be the last person to assert that the only alternative to the police would be dangerous gangs?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
Liberated
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7288
Local time: 5:02 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | C'mon cheap: you've seen enough of the terrified statist line to know they immediately reach for a strawman when their beloved state-run agencies are called into question. |
I don't think they do it intentionally though.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 7:02 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Intentional or not, it's what they do. The notion that the Government Is Only There To Protect You and How Dare You Even Question That has been drilled into them for years. So they resort to a strawman, whether consciously or knee-jerk, whenever someone dares to point out that maybe perhaps those in government have been corrupted by the coercive monopoly they are part of. Or were just nuts in the first place, and the coercive monopoly was a good outlet for their insanity.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
Liberated
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7288
Local time: 5:02 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Intentional or not, it's what they do. The notion that the Government Is Only There To Protect You and How Dare You Even Question That has been drilled into them for years. So they resort to a strawman, whether consciously or knee-jerk, whenever someone dares to point out that maybe perhaps those in government have been corrupted by the coercive monopoly they are part of. Or were just nuts in the first place, and the coercive monopoly was a good outlet for their insanity. |
At least they will usually go as far as to admit to the corruption, or to admit that they aren't happy with the way government usually operates. Getting them to realy consider a world without government. That's the problem. It's like religious apologetics. So much effort put into rationalizing something, that is impossible to rationalise, only because the total absence of this thing would feel worse to them, were it the case.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3980
Local time: 3:02 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | At least they will usually go as far as to admit to the corruption, or to admit that they aren't happy with the way government usually operates. Getting them to realy consider a world without government. That's the problem. It's like religious apologetics. So much effort put into rationalizing something, that is impossible to rationalise, only because the total absence of this thing would feel worse to them, were it the case. |
I've been playing around with the idea of applying what Dawkins says about to religion (that people seem to think it should be exempt from criticism) to how people treat the government.
At first glance it seems I'm plain wrong. As you mentioned people complain about how the government works all the time.
But at the same time it's obvious people hold the government to a completely different standard then any other organisation.
If the government fucks up, there are some cries of outrage and demands for a reform at the start, but it usually ends with the conclusion that a given government agency was underfunded.
Why did a bridge collapse? It was underfunded.
Why do public schools suck? They're underfunded.
Why does government provided dental care suck so badly that people prefer to pull out their teeth with a string attached to the door? It's underfunded.
I challange anyone to apply the same standard to any private organisation.
Oh yeah, I can see it now:
A Walmart building collapses killing hundreds of people.
It turns out that the cause were materials of very poor quality from which the buillding was made.
A Walmart employee comments on the whole thing:
"Yes it was an awful tragedy, and we'll do everything to help those injured, and the families of those who died.
However I wanted to say one of the causes of this tragedy was the fact that Walmart was simply unable to allocate enough funds for proper materials. We therefore urge our customers to shop at Walmart more often."
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
Liberated
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7288
Local time: 5:02 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: |
"Yes it was an awful tragedy, and we'll do everything to help those injured, and the families of those who died.
However I wanted to say one of the causes of this tragedy was the fact that Walmart was simply unable to allocate enough funds for proper materials. We therefore urge our customers to shop at Walmart more often." |
LOL... In the real world people would just be calling for stricter regulations, even though regulations can't stop negligence, incompetence, or fraud. A building collapsed?! The regulations must not have been strong enough, as if it was regulations rather than re-bar holding the building up.
I think your Richard Dawkins idea is plausible. Think about it, people criticize those who run religious institutions all the time. The religion it's self is "sacred" though, sort of like the *idea* of government -- in fact -- It's the SAME THING. It's only recently that religious politics, and civil politics have been pulled partially apart from that 69 they've had going on for centuries.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 7:02 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*notes that, for years, he's been saying that the emotional attachment to the idea that the state should exist is the same as the emotional attachment to the idea of god*
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
Liberated
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7288
Local time: 5:02 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No one ever listened though. If Ivan puts that on a gigantic spoon, and sprinkles it with Richard Dawkins frosting... NAH... They probably still won't listen.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terrordar
Forum Plebian
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 129
Local time: 8:02 PM
Location: Canada.... .... .... .... eh?
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I trust the police for the most part in my area. Hell, I've been helped out by them a few times even. As long as you don't break the law, there is nothing to be worried about.
Of course, perhaps I can't say the same about American cops.
But regardless, I'd rather have a one world government, than no government at all. Yes, I said it. I despise both ideas, but the latter to me is basically calling for anarchy. And now I'll get 'flamed' by the anarchists who are clearly in the thread.
I'm sorry though, its repugnantly stupid to think that A: Governments will just disappear. B: That standards of any kind could be kept in any area as soon as the government breaks down. C: That Corperations wouldn't just become governments upon themselves in their interest zones, and you'll have much less say in their doing. And currency anyone?
Yea, fuck off about there being 'no government, no police! they aren't your friend!" Of course they aren't your friend, your ANARCHISTS. But most people I don't think would consider them enemies.
_________________
Forces of Chaos... BOW to me... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3980
Local time: 3:02 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Terrordar wrote: | | I'm sorry though, its repugnantly stupid to think that A: Governments will just disappear. B: That standards of any kind could be kept in any area as soon as the government breaks down. C: That Corperations wouldn't just become governments upon themselves in their interest zones, and you'll have much less say in their doing. |
If those ideas are so repungantly stupid, do you actually have an argument against them? Are you prepared to debate any of these?
| Quote: | | And currency anyone? |
What about it? It was supplied privately for most of human history.
You probably don't even know of the problems monopolizing currency by government caused.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3980
Local time: 3:02 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | In the real world people would just be calling for stricter regulations, |
Exactly. It's another aspect of what I was talking about.
If a private company screws up, clearly this is a sign that we need more government control.
But when the government fucks up, does anyone says it's a sign that we need to abolosh the government?
Well yes, actually Knight does, and just look how people are eager to listen.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Uncertainty
Forum Master
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 3414
Local time: 8:02 PM
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Terrordar wrote: | | I trust the police for the most part in my area. Hell, I've been helped out by them a few times even. As long as you don't break the law, there is nothing to be worried about. |
It's more like, as long as they don't think you broke the law |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
