|
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 July 12 2016 11:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 11:22 Nyxisto wrote:On July 12 2016 11:08 LegalLord wrote:
Unless human nature has changed in the past few years, people should still want a family at least in general. And families are a socially desirable arrangement, and so it makes sense to incentivize it.
the nuclear family is a cultural unit rather than a natural one given that it's a fairly recent development in human history that's largely tied to human's settling down and becoming farmers. There's nothing inherently valuable to it. Especially with the progress in women's rights etc.. it doesn't look like a super attractive arrangement anymore, at least not one you might want to actively push on society. And it's not specifically families that are socially desirable but stable communities of all sorts. There are plenty of arrangements that are mutually and socially beneficial, the traditional family being only one point in that space. What exactly are you arguing here? A committed mother and father raising kids as one unit, while having a loving relationship with each other is well studied and well known to really, really, really help child development. "non-standard" family arrangements may be great for the adults, but kids straight up need a stable family. There is no psychological substitute for a stable family.
They need a stable, non-single parent family.
That doesn't dictate that it must exclusively be a legally married male ("dad") and female ("mom").
|
United States43275 Posts
Dividing families into two groups, divorced and not divorced and concluding that divorced is worse is like dividing people into two groups, in hospitals and not in hospitals and concluding that hospitals are extremely unhealthy. Strong stable couples weren't getting divorced anyway, divorce only impacts the dysfunctional couples who cannot be fairly compared to anything but equally dysfunctional couples who are forced to stay together against their will.
Like seriously, it's no different from
1) The average person in hospital is far less healthy than their non hospitalized peers.
2) Ban hospitals.
We can all see the issue with that idea, the only people in hospitals are the ones already sick who can't be compared to the general population and yet somehow I need to explain that couples getting divorces are not the happy couples. In before DNC decides to add banning hospitals to their platform tho.
|
Two police officers fatally shot a knife-waving man Monday during a confrontation on a street in Sacramento, California, authorities said.
The shooting occurred after witnesses called police to report that a man was waving a knife over his head and showing "very threatening, erratic behavior," police spokesman Sgt. Bryce Heinlein said.
One witness told police the man had a gun in his waistband, Heinlein said.
The man threw an object at a police vehicle and was seen reaching for his waistband as if he was trying to retrieve a weapon, the Sacramento Police Department said in a statement.
It also said the man later raised a knife over his head while charging one officer who locked himself in his patrol car to escape injury.
Two more officers arrived and eventually shot the man when he turned toward them with the knife, Heinlein said. A news release said officers fired "multiple" shots.
Officers later found a folding knife but no gun, he said.
"He was non-compliant throughout the whole ordeal," refusing repeated commands to drop the weapon, Heinlein said. "I'm not sure if he came at the officers ... but he turned toward the officers in a threatening manner and at that point the officers fired."
The man was shot on a sidewalk while the two officers were close to him, said Officer Matthew McPhail, another police spokesman.
"It sounds like a couple of paces. I don't have an exact foot measurement," McPhail said.
The man was not immediately identified. Police described him as black and in his 50s or 60s.
The shooting came amid high tensions nationwide over recent police shootings of black men in Minnesota and Louisiana, and the slaying of five Dallas police officers during a Black Lives Matter rally last week.
Source
|
On July 12 2016 13:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote + Two police officers fatally shot a knife-waving man Monday during a confrontation on a street in Sacramento, California, authorities said.
The shooting occurred after witnesses called police to report that a man was waving a knife over his head and showing "very threatening, erratic behavior," police spokesman Sgt. Bryce Heinlein said.
One witness told police the man had a gun in his waistband, Heinlein said.
The man threw an object at a police vehicle and was seen reaching for his waistband as if he was trying to retrieve a weapon, the Sacramento Police Department said in a statement.
It also said the man later raised a knife over his head while charging one officer who locked himself in his patrol car to escape injury.
Two more officers arrived and eventually shot the man when he turned toward them with the knife, Heinlein said. A news release said officers fired "multiple" shots.
Officers later found a folding knife but no gun, he said.
"He was non-compliant throughout the whole ordeal," refusing repeated commands to drop the weapon, Heinlein said. "I'm not sure if he came at the officers ... but he turned toward the officers in a threatening manner and at that point the officers fired."
The man was shot on a sidewalk while the two officers were close to him, said Officer Matthew McPhail, another police spokesman.
"It sounds like a couple of paces. I don't have an exact foot measurement," McPhail said.
The man was not immediately identified. Police described him as black and in his 50s or 60s.
The shooting came amid high tensions nationwide over recent police shootings of black men in Minnesota and Louisiana, and the slaying of five Dallas police officers during a Black Lives Matter rally last week. Source
I don't understand why a elephant tranquilizer isn't an option. We have some really intense sedatives. If you can hide in your car, you can tranquilize. Am I missing something? I must be.
|
On July 12 2016 13:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 13:41 LegalLord wrote: Two police officers fatally shot a knife-waving man Monday during a confrontation on a street in Sacramento, California, authorities said.
The shooting occurred after witnesses called police to report that a man was waving a knife over his head and showing "very threatening, erratic behavior," police spokesman Sgt. Bryce Heinlein said.
One witness told police the man had a gun in his waistband, Heinlein said.
The man threw an object at a police vehicle and was seen reaching for his waistband as if he was trying to retrieve a weapon, the Sacramento Police Department said in a statement.
It also said the man later raised a knife over his head while charging one officer who locked himself in his patrol car to escape injury.
Two more officers arrived and eventually shot the man when he turned toward them with the knife, Heinlein said. A news release said officers fired "multiple" shots.
Officers later found a folding knife but no gun, he said.
"He was non-compliant throughout the whole ordeal," refusing repeated commands to drop the weapon, Heinlein said. "I'm not sure if he came at the officers ... but he turned toward the officers in a threatening manner and at that point the officers fired."
The man was shot on a sidewalk while the two officers were close to him, said Officer Matthew McPhail, another police spokesman.
"It sounds like a couple of paces. I don't have an exact foot measurement," McPhail said.
The man was not immediately identified. Police described him as black and in his 50s or 60s.
The shooting came amid high tensions nationwide over recent police shootings of black men in Minnesota and Louisiana, and the slaying of five Dallas police officers during a Black Lives Matter rally last week. Source I don't understand why a elephant tranquilizer isn't an option. We have some really intense sedatives. If you can hide in your car, you can tranquilize. Am I missing something? I must be.
There is nothing more reliable for neutralizing the threat than a lethal firearm. All of the stun weapons that are commonly in use suffer from a variety of issues that include unacceptably short range, unacceptably low accuracy, and unpredictable effects that vary between individuals. Pistols and rifles, if used to shoot to kill, are by far the most reliable way to get it done.
Same reason they shot the gorilla in the Cincinnati zoo. It was the only way to be assured of the proper result.
|
If you don't know the right body weight too you're going to have trouble.
|
Not to mention the possibility of the suspect being on drugs. What is a tranquilizer or tazer going to do against a guy on cocaine or meth.
|
On July 12 2016 13:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 13:46 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2016 13:41 LegalLord wrote: Two police officers fatally shot a knife-waving man Monday during a confrontation on a street in Sacramento, California, authorities said.
The shooting occurred after witnesses called police to report that a man was waving a knife over his head and showing "very threatening, erratic behavior," police spokesman Sgt. Bryce Heinlein said.
One witness told police the man had a gun in his waistband, Heinlein said.
The man threw an object at a police vehicle and was seen reaching for his waistband as if he was trying to retrieve a weapon, the Sacramento Police Department said in a statement.
It also said the man later raised a knife over his head while charging one officer who locked himself in his patrol car to escape injury.
Two more officers arrived and eventually shot the man when he turned toward them with the knife, Heinlein said. A news release said officers fired "multiple" shots.
Officers later found a folding knife but no gun, he said.
"He was non-compliant throughout the whole ordeal," refusing repeated commands to drop the weapon, Heinlein said. "I'm not sure if he came at the officers ... but he turned toward the officers in a threatening manner and at that point the officers fired."
The man was shot on a sidewalk while the two officers were close to him, said Officer Matthew McPhail, another police spokesman.
"It sounds like a couple of paces. I don't have an exact foot measurement," McPhail said.
The man was not immediately identified. Police described him as black and in his 50s or 60s.
The shooting came amid high tensions nationwide over recent police shootings of black men in Minnesota and Louisiana, and the slaying of five Dallas police officers during a Black Lives Matter rally last week. Source I don't understand why a elephant tranquilizer isn't an option. We have some really intense sedatives. If you can hide in your car, you can tranquilize. Am I missing something? I must be. There is nothing more reliable for neutralizing the threat than a lethal firearm. All of the stun weapons that are commonly in use suffer from a variety of issues that include unacceptably short range, unacceptably low accuracy, and unpredictable effects that vary between individuals. Pistols and rifles, if used to shoot to kill, are by far the most reliable way to get it done. Same reason they shot the gorilla in the Cincinnati zoo. It was the only way to be assured of the proper result.
I suppose I see it as situational. If cases like this, where some tweaker is running around being a complete madman, just kind of yelling about tootsie rolls and the CIA, it makes sense to just shoot a few rounds of elephant tranquilizer into him and wait for him to wake up in 3 days. If someone is running at you, pump them full of bullets. But when your neighborhood meth addict goes a little too far, maybe just tranquilize them really, really bad.
|
United States43275 Posts
On July 12 2016 13:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 13:46 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2016 13:41 LegalLord wrote: Two police officers fatally shot a knife-waving man Monday during a confrontation on a street in Sacramento, California, authorities said.
The shooting occurred after witnesses called police to report that a man was waving a knife over his head and showing "very threatening, erratic behavior," police spokesman Sgt. Bryce Heinlein said.
One witness told police the man had a gun in his waistband, Heinlein said.
The man threw an object at a police vehicle and was seen reaching for his waistband as if he was trying to retrieve a weapon, the Sacramento Police Department said in a statement.
It also said the man later raised a knife over his head while charging one officer who locked himself in his patrol car to escape injury.
Two more officers arrived and eventually shot the man when he turned toward them with the knife, Heinlein said. A news release said officers fired "multiple" shots.
Officers later found a folding knife but no gun, he said.
"He was non-compliant throughout the whole ordeal," refusing repeated commands to drop the weapon, Heinlein said. "I'm not sure if he came at the officers ... but he turned toward the officers in a threatening manner and at that point the officers fired."
The man was shot on a sidewalk while the two officers were close to him, said Officer Matthew McPhail, another police spokesman.
"It sounds like a couple of paces. I don't have an exact foot measurement," McPhail said.
The man was not immediately identified. Police described him as black and in his 50s or 60s.
The shooting came amid high tensions nationwide over recent police shootings of black men in Minnesota and Louisiana, and the slaying of five Dallas police officers during a Black Lives Matter rally last week. Source I don't understand why a elephant tranquilizer isn't an option. We have some really intense sedatives. If you can hide in your car, you can tranquilize. Am I missing something? I must be. There is nothing more reliable for neutralizing the threat than a lethal firearm. All of the stun weapons that are commonly in use suffer from a variety of issues that include unacceptably short range, unacceptably low accuracy, and unpredictable effects that vary between individuals. Pistols and rifles, if used to shoot to kill, are by far the most reliable way to get it done. Same reason they shot the gorilla in the Cincinnati zoo. It was the only way to be assured of the proper result.
I don't think anyone is suggesting tranquilizers for crazed armed people holding a toddler. But if there is no immediate threat then I don't see why not. That said in the rest of the world police seem to prefer just numbers, body armor and attacking from multiple angles to take down a someone with a knife. You can see it on YouTube if you're interested. The proper result for a gorilla holding a toddler and a black man not holding a toddler could vary.
|
On July 12 2016 13:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 13:50 LegalLord wrote:On July 12 2016 13:46 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2016 13:41 LegalLord wrote: Two police officers fatally shot a knife-waving man Monday during a confrontation on a street in Sacramento, California, authorities said.
The shooting occurred after witnesses called police to report that a man was waving a knife over his head and showing "very threatening, erratic behavior," police spokesman Sgt. Bryce Heinlein said.
One witness told police the man had a gun in his waistband, Heinlein said.
The man threw an object at a police vehicle and was seen reaching for his waistband as if he was trying to retrieve a weapon, the Sacramento Police Department said in a statement.
It also said the man later raised a knife over his head while charging one officer who locked himself in his patrol car to escape injury.
Two more officers arrived and eventually shot the man when he turned toward them with the knife, Heinlein said. A news release said officers fired "multiple" shots.
Officers later found a folding knife but no gun, he said.
"He was non-compliant throughout the whole ordeal," refusing repeated commands to drop the weapon, Heinlein said. "I'm not sure if he came at the officers ... but he turned toward the officers in a threatening manner and at that point the officers fired."
The man was shot on a sidewalk while the two officers were close to him, said Officer Matthew McPhail, another police spokesman.
"It sounds like a couple of paces. I don't have an exact foot measurement," McPhail said.
The man was not immediately identified. Police described him as black and in his 50s or 60s.
The shooting came amid high tensions nationwide over recent police shootings of black men in Minnesota and Louisiana, and the slaying of five Dallas police officers during a Black Lives Matter rally last week. Source I don't understand why a elephant tranquilizer isn't an option. We have some really intense sedatives. If you can hide in your car, you can tranquilize. Am I missing something? I must be. There is nothing more reliable for neutralizing the threat than a lethal firearm. All of the stun weapons that are commonly in use suffer from a variety of issues that include unacceptably short range, unacceptably low accuracy, and unpredictable effects that vary between individuals. Pistols and rifles, if used to shoot to kill, are by far the most reliable way to get it done. Same reason they shot the gorilla in the Cincinnati zoo. It was the only way to be assured of the proper result. I suppose I see it as situational. If cases like this, where some tweaker is running around being a complete madman, just kind of yelling about tootsie rolls and the CIA, it makes sense to just shoot a few rounds of elephant tranquilizer into him and wait for him to wake up in 3 days. If someone is running at you, pump them full of bullets. But when your neighborhood meth addict goes a little too far, maybe just tranquilize them really, really bad.
It is situational. If you read closely, the article notes that they shot when he charged the other two officers.
|
On July 12 2016 13:38 KwarK wrote:
Dividing families into two groups, divorced and not divorced and concluding that divorced is worse is like dividing people into two groups, in hospitals and not in hospitals and concluding that hospitals are extremely unhealthy. Strong stable couples weren't getting divorced anyway, divorce only impacts the dysfunctional couples who cannot be fairly compared to anything but equally dysfunctional couples who are forced to stay together against their will.
Like seriously, it's no different from
1) The average person in hospital is far less healthy than their non hospitalized peers.
2) Ban hospitals.
We can all see the issue with that idea, the only people in hospitals are the ones already sick who can't be compared to the general population and yet somehow I need to explain that couples getting divorces are not the happy couples. In before DNC decides to add banning hospitals to their platform tho.
Just assuming that all divorces occur because relationships are completely dysfunctional isn't really right either though. The question is why are people getting divorced. I don't think anyone would begrudge a person getting divorced if the relationship was emotionally or physically abusive but relationships don't always end in divorce for that reason.
My mum divorced my dad when I was 19. He wasn't abusive or unfaithful, but he was a challenging person to get along with and she had fallen out of love with him some time ago. She stayed with him to see me finish school before starting proceedings. I would never have begrudged her doing so earlier, but I have enormous respect for her choice. She put my interests before hers which is the cornerstone of the sacrifice parents endure while raising their children.
That said I wouldn't be in favour of governments forcing people to stay together. Way too much potential for abuse. I just think that divorce has generally negative impacts on children and should only be a last resort when things really aren't working.
|
On July 12 2016 14:05 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 13:38 KwarK wrote:
Dividing families into two groups, divorced and not divorced and concluding that divorced is worse is like dividing people into two groups, in hospitals and not in hospitals and concluding that hospitals are extremely unhealthy. Strong stable couples weren't getting divorced anyway, divorce only impacts the dysfunctional couples who cannot be fairly compared to anything but equally dysfunctional couples who are forced to stay together against their will.
Like seriously, it's no different from
1) The average person in hospital is far less healthy than their non hospitalized peers.
2) Ban hospitals.
We can all see the issue with that idea, the only people in hospitals are the ones already sick who can't be compared to the general population and yet somehow I need to explain that couples getting divorces are not the happy couples. In before DNC decides to add banning hospitals to their platform tho. Just assuming that all divorces occur because relationships are completely dysfunctional isn't really right either though. The question is why are people getting divorced. I don't think anyone would begrudge a person getting divorced if the relationship was emotionally or physically abusive but relationships don't always end in divorce for that reason. My mum divorced my dad when I was 19. He wasn't abusive or unfaithful, but he was a challenging person to get along with and she had fallen out of love with him some time ago. She stayed with him to see me finish school before starting proceedings. I would never have begrudged her doing so earlier, but I have enormous respect for her choice. She put my interests before hers which is the cornerstone of the sacrifice parents endure while raising their children. That said I wouldn't be in favour of governments forcing people to stay together. Way too much potential for abuse. I just think that divorce has generally negative impacts on children and should only be a last resort when things really aren't working.
Maybe kids should have a more stable family unit than one based on pair-bonded, conditional love between two (more or less immature) people, who both have full time jobs to make ends meet, and are often transplanted away from their own extended support networks in search of those jobs? Maybe kids should have wider, more stable support networks based on less fickle relationship ties than romantic love? She wasn't wrong when she said "it takes a village"; she just had a warped view of what a "village" is.
|
Did I miss out on the discussion on cohabitation? Because that has got to be the most hilariously out-of-touch shit I have ever read.
Just get more kindergärten and kita's. now both members of the family can work full-time, which incidentally is also what capitalism wants! win-win!
|
the 1% should start a new cultural trend where they sponsor parents to have offspring by proxy (if they're attached to their own genetics they can make test tube babies and then have the sponsored parents act as surrogates) and they basically give them their living expenses and resources to raise children full time, such that these children become the most privileged, taken-care of kids in the world
they can even do some variable-control experimentation such as giving the kids variable amounts of free time and variable amounts of freedom (on the flip side, variable amounts of conditioning/incentivization to do productive stuff through different methods of conditioning)
thats how u engineer the neo-aristocracy
i mean if u wanna try a fascist experiment might as well put up all the money urself
way more interesting than buying another 5 supercars imo
if the state can't figure out a way to make teaching (and daycare and otherwise raising kids well) a respected, well-paid profession, the private sector should glorify nannying to the point of being superior to all previous attempts at parentage
justify inequality by catalyzing inequality more directly and efficiently than ever before
respond to all the plebs asking u to redistribute money to enrich pleb life by saying "nah im gonna make my greatness even greater"
|
I'd just like to add that extended families are, in effect, multi-generational nuclear families.
This topic will end up not being PC enough for many but as Mohdo and BiologyMajor have already pointed out the benefits of having two caring parents are absolutely immense and the uncle & grandparents circle simply expands from there, at least in real life.
It probably makes pragmatic sense to defend "the family" as a societal value. The conservatives are doing it in a donkey way but they're the only ones doing it.
|
On July 12 2016 17:55 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd just like to add that extended families are, in effect, multi-generational nuclear families.
no, there can actually be distinctions made, though you have to be specific
some extended families live together as a household, some don't... that's the most basic distinction
and between ones that don't live together as households, they still have varying degrees of exposure between "extended" relatives
my nuclear family, being an immigrant family, has pretty tenuous ties to our extended family back in the motherland, though my dad's side has a pretty big extended family who all know each other well
anyway, another major distinction is that some extended families can have grandparents or aunts/uncles raising kids and being much more involved in the kids' lives, which makes it much less "nuclear"On July 12 2016 17:55 Kickboxer wrote:
It probably makes pragmatic sense to defend "the family" as a societal value. The conservatives are doing it in a donkey way but they're the only ones doing it.
i'm aware of the benefits of a nuclear family, but i'm skeptical as to the efficacy of the state trying to uphold it
i mean... conservatives starting the war on drugs and imprisoning a bunch of black fathers was not a good place to start
|
On July 12 2016 17:55 Kickboxer wrote:
This topic will end up not being PC enough for many but as Mohdo and BiologyMajor have already pointed out the benefits of having two caring parents are absolutely immense and the uncle & grandparents circle simply expands from there, at least in real life.
Not PC enough lol
All this "sorry for not being PC" crap is literally just vice signalling if we are going by/expanding your own nomenclature
|
On July 12 2016 18:21 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 17:55 Kickboxer wrote:
This topic will end up not being PC enough for many but as Mohdo and BiologyMajor have already pointed out the benefits of having two caring parents are absolutely immense and the uncle & grandparents circle simply expands from there, at least in real life.
Not PC enough lol All this "sorry for not being PC" crap is literally just vice signalling if we are going by/expanding your own nomenclature
"vice signalling"
hm interesting term; best one i've seen so far for the preemptive "this isn't pc enough" playing-the-victim crap
|
Remember, we're talking about a country where the government and intelligence agencies are willing to ignore and even censor every mention of [redacted] because it doesn't suit their narrative.
If you're not worried about PC, I'm worried about you.
|
what I find so hilarious about the screams of "PC! PC!" is that it shows, in essence, that almost everyone, on every side of the discourse, wishes to show himself to be a victim. Finding virtue in suffering - truly, we are all christians. The melodramatic mode rules us all.
maybe we need some nietzschean belief in tragedy again.
bardtown: I don't worry about "islamic" terrorism in the first place, so I'm not worried about the government calling it by whatever name, so I'm not worried about PC. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
