|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 17 2018 03:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 03:25 Nebuchad wrote:On March 17 2018 03:23 Acrofales wrote:On March 17 2018 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 03:01 Acrofales wrote:On March 17 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 02:53 Acrofales wrote:
I always like GH's approach to government:
Democratic party sucks. Don't bother try fixing it, it's too broken. Trash it and build a new grass roots party, which I am sure will be better! Why? WHY ARE YOU ASKING WHY? CAN'T YOU SEE HOW FILTHY CORRUPT THE DNC IS?!
Police sucks. Don't bother try fixing it, it's too broken. Trash it and have this anarcho-capitalist substitute, which I am sure will work better! Why? WHY ARE YOU ASKING WHY? CAN'T YOU SEE HOW DISGUSTINGLY BROKEN THE POLICE IS?! lol I love when people fail so utterly at making a substantive argument (or can't be bothered to try to fake it) that they resort to clownish misrepresentations like this. It's indicative of just how horribly their argument (or lack there of) was constructed in the first place. Actually, it's not my argument. I haven't entered into it. I'm just flummoxed reading a 6-point summary on Rolling Stones (well known for their nuanced understanding of complex social issues) and then pages of worthless discussion in which you just repeat that people haven't read the article are bringing up (valid) criticism of it and repeating over and over that the current police force is broken. And this is you arguing with a bunch of people who I would consider quite left-wing and happy to agree with you that the police force as is, is a hopelessly corrupt, racist bunch of trash. Ah I see, so you don't actually have an argument, just wanted to comment that you didn't understand the one being had. No problem then. To recap: It's totally reasonable and expected to provide a comprehensive plan to fix the entire police system in post form It's totally unreasonable to expect the people saying their system is working and just needs reform to have any idea how they measure the efficacy of their preferred system or any reforms they won't get. this shit is a joke. As I just said, you're not arguing with danglars or xdaunt. You're arguing with hunts and wulffey. I really doubt they claim that the system is working. What they're saying is "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". You think hunts and Wulfey are "quite left"? Beat me to it. I'm sorry that anyone thinks hunts posts add much of anything but noise to any argument I've seen him drive by recently, let alone that they rank as 'quite left'. Here, I'll draw it for you: GH -- Nebu ---------------------------------- Most everybody else on this forum with left-wing ideas including Wulfey and Hunts ------------------------------ Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Danglars
lol it would appear your drawing skills match your argumentative skills.
You forgot IgnE XD... I can assure you most people here (frequent posters) are closer to the center than the left.
|
On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales
But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart.
|
On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart.
I don't understand how people can still say this without feeling foolish. If you think I want to disband the police and figure it out from there you didn't understand my argument. That almost all of you made the same mistake doesn't mean I did a poor job of explaining it (maybe to an audience of neoliberals) but that almost all of you were far more focused on disagreeing than understanding.
|
On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart.
I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike.
|
On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike.
One oneliner I barely even remember what it was in response to at this point and I immediately made the clarification you picked up on and the oneliner is all they have focused on for the entire argument without so much as acknowledging they can't even measure if the system they prefer is working or if they made changes that they were helping. Even going so far as to quote posts with the question posed and editing them out to focus exclusively on the argument I wasn't making.
Thank god someone I don't usually agree (I think we disagree quite a bit?) with picked it up
|
On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart.
He is advocating for a complete deconstruction and rebuilding of the law enforcement system and justice reform across the entire country through a system that involves prioritizing the poorest and most dysfunctional communities. The way this idea is being communicated is just bad, but some people would go for a clean sweep of their police departments. It is shooting the moon when it comes to justice reform. There are some police departments that are so far gone that they would need to fire officer and force them to reapply for their jobs, which has worked for some school districts.
|
On March 17 2018 04:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. He is advocating for a complete deconstruction and rebuilding of the law enforcement system and justice reform across the entire country through a system that involves prioritizing the poorest and most dysfunctional communities. The way this idea is being communicated is just bad, but some people would go for a clean sweep of their police departments. It is shooting the moon when it comes to justice reform. There are some police departments that are so far gone that they would need to fire officer and force them to reapply for their jobs, which has worked for some school districts.
No one knows what the other side of this is advocating other than 'this stuff will work out if you vote D"
Though now that we've come full circle with the person who understood my argument immediately coming back in to tell you guys you are in fact missing it, I'd imagine you guys are ready for a change of topic. The post that spawned this happened to have a question in it that went ignored. I'd love an answer 
On March 15 2018 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 07:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2018 07:48 IyMoon wrote:On March 15 2018 07:39 Danglars wrote:
Good on Trump, little late but better late than never I assume Danglars point is that this means Tillerson wasn't fired over condemning Russia. Personally I will wait for actions instead of words before congratulating Trump (or anyone else for that matter) on acting against a chemical weapon attack by Russia on a foreign nations soil. If this is a thing can someone please help me understand what this makes Democrats who support Trump's Russian puppet picks?As far as I can tell, helping to put Russian puppets in the cabinet is only a deal breaker if there is an R next to the name of someone who did it. EDIT: Anyone? Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 11:45 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:This seems like a law that needs updating. articles a good read about the topic A sheriff in Alabama took home as personal profit more than $750,000 that was budgeted to feed jail inmates — and then purchased a $740,000 beach house, a reporter at The Birmingham News found.
And it's perfectly legal in Alabama, according to state law and local officials.
Alabama has a Depression-era law that allows sheriffs to "keep and retain" unspent money from jail food-provision accounts. Sheriffs across the state take excess money as personal income — and, in the event of a shortfall, are personally liable for covering the gap.
Etowah County Sheriff Todd Entrekin told the News that he follows that practice of taking extra money from the fund, saying, "The law says it's a personal account and that's the way I've always done it."
Sheriffs across the state do the same thing and have for decades. In most cases, the public doesn't know how much money is involved because sheriffs do not need to report extra income of less than $250,000 a year.
But in Etowah County, that cap was exceeded, and the News found the paper trail.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/14/593204274/alabama-sheriff-legally-took-750-000-meant-to-feed-inmates-bought-beach-house Abolish the police
If Trump nominates someone with intentions of them being a Russian puppet, what does that make the Democrats that voted to put them in power?
Or were the pages of responses about the other statement in that post legitimate, but a question like that not worth discussion?
|
On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike.
See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support.
He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong.
|
On March 17 2018 04:13 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike. See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support. He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong.
I'll take this post seriously if you can tell me how you measure the efficacy of the US police system. Otherwise kindly keep your irrelevant commentary on an argument you clearly don't understand to yourself.
edit: oh it's impossible to tell if the police are effective but it's totally reasonable to assert they are...
So you couldn't tell me if my system was more effective than yours even if you understood it, but you're sure mines worse because you don't understand it. I thought I was supposed to be the one without an argument, yet I keep seeing one bad one after another fall by the wayside along with the people making them.
how is this not embarrassing to post?
|
On March 17 2018 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike. See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support. He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong. I'll take this post seriously if you can tell me how you measure the efficacy of the US police system. Otherwise kindly keep your irrelevant commentary on an argument you clearly don't understand to yourself.
How many times a week I feel the need to lock my home when I leave or my car when I go to the store. Its working at 100% efficiency so checkmate GH.
Edit: I love how you admit that you didn't read the post and then decided to read it after you already responded to it.
I can't tell you if a Mad max apocolypse would be a better system for social justice then law and order but you don't see anyone watching that movie and going "gee that looks like a great system to follow".
You have this problem with not knowing how much of a joke you are and how little people take what you say seriously. They compare Danglers favorably to you for christs sake.
|
On March 17 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike. See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support. He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong. I'll take this post seriously if you can tell me how you measure the efficacy of the US police system. Otherwise kindly keep your irrelevant commentary on an argument you clearly don't understand to yourself. How many times a week I feel the need to lock my home when I leave or my car when I go to the store. Its working at 100% efficiency so checkmate GH.
Well then, if your individual perception of your property's safety is how you think we should measure the efficacy of the nation's police force I think we discovered why your argument is so terrible.
Edit: I love how you admit that you didn't read the post and then decided to read it after you already responded to it.
I can't tell you if a Mad max apocolypse would be a better system for social justice then law and order but you don't see anyone watching that movie and going "gee that looks like a great system to follow".
You have this problem with not knowing how much of a joke you are and how little people take what you say seriously. They compare Danglers favorably to you for christs sake.
Well, as I suspected it was remarkably ignorant and foolish and hardly worthy of engagement. But I did notice something comically stupid in there so I decided to point it out, yes. Quite observant of you.
roflmao, you suggest I'm advocating a mad max apocalypse for a system and think I'm the joke? hahahahaHAHAHAHA!
|
On March 17 2018 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike. See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support. He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong. I'll take this post seriously if you can tell me how you measure the efficacy of the US police system. Otherwise kindly keep your irrelevant commentary on an argument you clearly don't understand to yourself. How many times a week I feel the need to lock my home when I leave or my car when I go to the store. Its working at 100% efficiency so checkmate GH. Well then, if your individual perception of your property's safety is how you think we should measure the efficacy of the nation's police force I think we discovered why your argument is so terrible.
You asked a nonsense question and got a nonsense answer for your nonsense Idea.
Do you have a metric for how efficient a police system is and how to dynamically qualify that statistic for each new situation a police department would find itself in?
Edit: you really didn't learn English well in school did you? I didn't say you advocated for a mad max world I was useing it as an example of why the argument of no one knowing how well a system would work isn't a good argument for changing to that system.
|
On March 17 2018 04:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike. See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support. He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong. I'll take this post seriously if you can tell me how you measure the efficacy of the US police system. Otherwise kindly keep your irrelevant commentary on an argument you clearly don't understand to yourself. How many times a week I feel the need to lock my home when I leave or my car when I go to the store. Its working at 100% efficiency so checkmate GH. Well then, if your individual perception of your property's safety is how you think we should measure the efficacy of the nation's police force I think we discovered why your argument is so terrible. You asked a nonsense question and got a nonsense answer for your nonsense Idea. Do you have a metric for how efficient a police system is and how to dynamically qualify that statistic for each new situation a police department would find itself in?
I've already said I would start with transparency, which wulfey so conveniently pointed out (on accident while undermining his own argument) police are against.
If your police can't even be honest with you about what they have done, they are failing.
thank you for again providing the opportunity to show just how ridiculous your position on this really is.
|
On March 17 2018 04:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 04:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike. See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support. He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong. I'll take this post seriously if you can tell me how you measure the efficacy of the US police system. Otherwise kindly keep your irrelevant commentary on an argument you clearly don't understand to yourself. How many times a week I feel the need to lock my home when I leave or my car when I go to the store. Its working at 100% efficiency so checkmate GH. Well then, if your individual perception of your property's safety is how you think we should measure the efficacy of the nation's police force I think we discovered why your argument is so terrible. You asked a nonsense question and got a nonsense answer for your nonsense Idea. Do you have a metric for how efficient a police system is and how to dynamically qualify that statistic for each new situation a police department would find itself in? I've already said I would start with transparency, which wulfey so conveniently pointed out (on accident while undermining his own argument) police are against. If your police can't even be honest with you about what they have done, they are failing. thank you for again providing the opportunity to show just how ridiculous your position on this really is.
Thats not a metric for efficiency so it doesn't answer the question. Its a sliding scale of information about the subject.
The lack of transparency doesn't qualify a lack of quality. No one knows how Stradivarius violins are made but they all agree they're the best ever made. See thats another example that I'm useing to support my argument.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37041 Posts
Sermokala, GH, your argument stops now. Stop derailing the thread. First and only warning.
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 17 2018 04:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 04:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:51 Slaughter wrote:On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote:On March 17 2018 03:36 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah. If you post any form of suggestion for change people always zoom in on that little thing they dislike, ignore everything else, and proclaim that "it is impossible". It's easy to shoot things down like that. Come up with your own better suggestions, or link to articles from what you think are more credible sources on the subject if that's your complaint.
Edit: stop drinking and posting Acrofales But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. I don't know. Seems like GH plan is more slow? I may be misunderstanding but he seems to be pushing for working slowly towards making police obsolete or at the least have a much greatly reduced roll. Pretty sure he never said abolish the police in one swift strike. See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support. He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong. I'll take this post seriously if you can tell me how you measure the efficacy of the US police system. Otherwise kindly keep your irrelevant commentary on an argument you clearly don't understand to yourself. How many times a week I feel the need to lock my home when I leave or my car when I go to the store. Its working at 100% efficiency so checkmate GH. Well then, if your individual perception of your property's safety is how you think we should measure the efficacy of the nation's police force I think we discovered why your argument is so terrible. You asked a nonsense question and got a nonsense answer for your nonsense Idea. Do you have a metric for how efficient a police system is and how to dynamically qualify that statistic for each new situation a police department would find itself in? I've already said I would start with transparency, which wulfey so conveniently pointed out (on accident while undermining his own argument) police are against. If your police can't even be honest with you about what they have done, they are failing. thank you for again providing the opportunity to show just how ridiculous your position on this really is. Thats not a metric for efficiency so it doesn't answer the question. Its a sliding scale of information about the subject. The lack of transparency doesn't qualify a lack of quality. No one knows how Stradivarius violins are made but they all agree they're the best ever made. See thats another example that I'm useing to support my argument.
+ Show Spoiler +lol I've been at this for a while and I'm only kinda paying attention to your posts. You caught me though. You were in fact making an asinine point instead of suggesting I was advocating a mad max society (that was several previous posters).
After transparency comes looking at the numbers we now have, finding out what other ones would be useful, and using them to measure the efficacy.
I would use things like recidivism rates, frequency and severity of criminal complaints from the neighborhoods, poverty levels, violent vs non-violent vs escalated to violence confrontations between intervention teams and citizens, and so on.
You would use nothing or your own personal feelings, because the system you prefer won't even let you track it's efficacy.
EDIT: this came after the warning was posted(but I started before), and for the record, I tried to change the subject before he jumped in and no one responded to it.
If Trump nominates someone with intentions of them being a Russian puppet, what does that make the Democrats that voted to put them in power?
Seems as though anything potentially related to Russia is a popular topic, save for Democrats voting to put alleged Russian puppets into power... strangely none of the people fixated on Russia want to talk about that. Surely it has nothing to do with their political parties... **looks down** isn't there a UK thread for that?
|
Another person related to Putin critics found dead in the UK.
British police launched a murder investigation Friday after an autopsy revealed that a Russian exile who was critical of Vladimir Putin was strangled in his home.
Nikolay Glushkov, whose body was found Monday, died as a result of “compression to the neck,” London's Metropolitan Police said in a statement.
Glushkov's death was a eerie echo of his friend Boris Berezovsky, an exiled Russian oligarch and an outspoken critic of Putin who was found in 2013 with a rope around his neck — and whose death was initially a suspected suicide. It was reclassified as unexplained.
"Boris was strangled," Glushkov said afterward in an interview with The Guardian newspaper. "Either he did it himself or with the help of someone. [But] I don't believe it was suicide."
So far, police said, there is no link between the death of Glushkov and "the attempted murders in Salisbury, nor any evidence that he was poisoned.”
Source
|
On March 17 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:Another person related to Putin critics found dead in the UK. Show nested quote +British police launched a murder investigation Friday after an autopsy revealed that a Russian exile who was critical of Vladimir Putin was strangled in his home.
Nikolay Glushkov, whose body was found Monday, died as a result of “compression to the neck,” London's Metropolitan Police said in a statement.
Glushkov's death was a eerie echo of his friend Boris Berezovsky, an exiled Russian oligarch and an outspoken critic of Putin who was found in 2013 with a rope around his neck — and whose death was initially a suspected suicide. It was reclassified as unexplained.
"Boris was strangled," Glushkov said afterward in an interview with The Guardian newspaper. "Either he did it himself or with the help of someone. [But] I don't believe it was suicide."
So far, police said, there is no link between the death of Glushkov and "the attempted murders in Salisbury, nor any evidence that he was poisoned.”
Source
I wonder at what point bodies of Russians loyal to Putin start getting found in russia
|
On March 17 2018 05:21 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:Another person related to Putin critics found dead in the UK. British police launched a murder investigation Friday after an autopsy revealed that a Russian exile who was critical of Vladimir Putin was strangled in his home.
Nikolay Glushkov, whose body was found Monday, died as a result of “compression to the neck,” London's Metropolitan Police said in a statement.
Glushkov's death was a eerie echo of his friend Boris Berezovsky, an exiled Russian oligarch and an outspoken critic of Putin who was found in 2013 with a rope around his neck — and whose death was initially a suspected suicide. It was reclassified as unexplained.
"Boris was strangled," Glushkov said afterward in an interview with The Guardian newspaper. "Either he did it himself or with the help of someone. [But] I don't believe it was suicide."
So far, police said, there is no link between the death of Glushkov and "the attempted murders in Salisbury, nor any evidence that he was poisoned.”
Source I wonder at what point bodies of Russians loyal to Putin start getting found in russia
Maybe he'll pull a Trump and they will find out they got strangled on twitter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
