|
On November 18 2011 09:07 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 09:04 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:58 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:49 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:46 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:42 Pertinacious wrote:
As far as I am aware, states which allow open carry also stipulate that the guns must not be loaded. This is true, and Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. this is true, but it is NOT true that Tea Party protesters were broadly harassed by police for open carrying. Your combination of those statements is disingenuous. I only presented that information to refute the idea that the tea party protesters went unmolested because they carried guns. They were left alone because they did not flagrantly disregard the law, as "occupy" protests have been doing of late. If that's the case, then what was your reasoning for posting that Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. ? This seems quite intellectually dishonest. I don't understand what you mean. The assertion was that the tea party protesters were left alone in part because some of them carried guns. The point I was attempting to make is that individuals carrying firearms are typically hassled more by law enforcement, not less. Yeah, I agree that individuals carrying openly are typically hassled more by law enforcement. But that didn't happen during Tea Party protests. So I don't see your point as being relevant to the Tea Party, although it's certainly true on its own merits.
Then keep the fact that they were armed out of your arguments.
|
On November 18 2011 09:11 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 09:07 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 09:04 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:58 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:49 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:46 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:42 Pertinacious wrote:
As far as I am aware, states which allow open carry also stipulate that the guns must not be loaded. This is true, and Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. this is true, but it is NOT true that Tea Party protesters were broadly harassed by police for open carrying. Your combination of those statements is disingenuous. I only presented that information to refute the idea that the tea party protesters went unmolested because they carried guns. They were left alone because they did not flagrantly disregard the law, as "occupy" protests have been doing of late. If that's the case, then what was your reasoning for posting that Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. ? This seems quite intellectually dishonest. I don't understand what you mean. The assertion was that the tea party protesters were left alone in part because some of them carried guns. The point I was attempting to make is that individuals carrying firearms are typically hassled more by law enforcement, not less. Yeah, I agree that individuals carrying openly are typically hassled more by law enforcement. But that didn't happen during Tea Party protests. So I don't see your point as being relevant to the Tea Party, although it's certainly true on its own merits. Then keep the fact that they were armed out of your arguments.
No, see:
I pointed out that Tea Party protesters were armed as a possible reason they weren't harassed.
You say that people who are armed are usually harassed more.
I point out that Tea Party protesters were not harassed more.
Ergo, the fact that Tea Party protesters were armed remains plausible as a reason that they were not harassed.
You have not constructed a significant counter-argument.
|
Wow... This is a lot of people in the streets...
|
On November 18 2011 09:12 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 09:11 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 09:07 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 09:04 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:58 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:49 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:46 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:42 Pertinacious wrote:
As far as I am aware, states which allow open carry also stipulate that the guns must not be loaded. This is true, and Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. this is true, but it is NOT true that Tea Party protesters were broadly harassed by police for open carrying. Your combination of those statements is disingenuous. I only presented that information to refute the idea that the tea party protesters went unmolested because they carried guns. They were left alone because they did not flagrantly disregard the law, as "occupy" protests have been doing of late. If that's the case, then what was your reasoning for posting that Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. ? This seems quite intellectually dishonest. I don't understand what you mean. The assertion was that the tea party protesters were left alone in part because some of them carried guns. The point I was attempting to make is that individuals carrying firearms are typically hassled more by law enforcement, not less. Yeah, I agree that individuals carrying openly are typically hassled more by law enforcement. But that didn't happen during Tea Party protests. So I don't see your point as being relevant to the Tea Party, although it's certainly true on its own merits. Then keep the fact that they were armed out of your arguments. No, see: I pointed out that Tea Party protesters were armed as a possible reason they weren't harassed. You say that people who are armed are usually harassed more. I point out that Tea Party protesters were not harassed more. Ergo, the fact that Tea Party protesters were armed remains plausible as a reason that they were not harassed. You have not constructed a significant counter-argument.
"More" than what? More than individuals blatantly breaking the law? That is certainly the case. Gun-wielding TP members were harassed less than unarmed OWS members.
The argument supported by the information that even you agree with is that the tea party would have had even fewer issues with police had they gone unarmed, not more.
Do you propose that OWS protesters engaging in the same illegal acts that are attributed to them now, but carrying guns, would have fewer incidents with the police?
|
On November 18 2011 09:27 Pertinacious wrote:
"More" than what? More than individuals blatantly breaking the law? That is certainly the case. Gun-wielding TP members were harassed less than unarmed OWS members.
Unless you didn't mean what you just wrote, this statement is as follows: individuals not breaking any laws but carrying weapons openly are harassed more than unarmed individuals openly breaking the law. I don't think you intend what you're saying here.
The argument supported by the information that even you agree with would indicate that the tea party would have had even fewer issues with police had they gone unarmed, not more.
Yes, because Tea Party protesters were already engaging in low-impact protests. It's not like they were rioting openly and their guns kept the police from stopping them. It's that the presence of weapons changes the response of law enforcement.
Do you propose that OWS protesters engaging in the same illegal acts that are attributed to them now, but carrying guns, would have fewer incidents with the police?
Yes.
EDIT: By this I mean that I suspect there would be a substantially less confrontational attitude on the part of law enforcement. Firing tear gas into a crowd that is openly carrying weapons would never fly. Things could still escalate and become violent, but it would be via different means.
|
On November 18 2011 09:27 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 09:12 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 09:11 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 09:07 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 09:04 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:58 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:49 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:46 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:42 Pertinacious wrote:
As far as I am aware, states which allow open carry also stipulate that the guns must not be loaded. This is true, and Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. this is true, but it is NOT true that Tea Party protesters were broadly harassed by police for open carrying. Your combination of those statements is disingenuous. I only presented that information to refute the idea that the tea party protesters went unmolested because they carried guns. They were left alone because they did not flagrantly disregard the law, as "occupy" protests have been doing of late. If that's the case, then what was your reasoning for posting that Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. ? This seems quite intellectually dishonest. I don't understand what you mean. The assertion was that the tea party protesters were left alone in part because some of them carried guns. The point I was attempting to make is that individuals carrying firearms are typically hassled more by law enforcement, not less. Yeah, I agree that individuals carrying openly are typically hassled more by law enforcement. But that didn't happen during Tea Party protests. So I don't see your point as being relevant to the Tea Party, although it's certainly true on its own merits. Then keep the fact that they were armed out of your arguments. No, see: I pointed out that Tea Party protesters were armed as a possible reason they weren't harassed. You say that people who are armed are usually harassed more. I point out that Tea Party protesters were not harassed more. Ergo, the fact that Tea Party protesters were armed remains plausible as a reason that they were not harassed. You have not constructed a significant counter-argument. "More" than what? More than individuals blatantly breaking the law? That is certainly the case. Gun-wielding TP members were harassed less than unarmed OWS members. The argument supported by the information that even you agree with is that the tea party would have had even fewer issues with police had they gone unarmed, not more. Do you propose that OWS protesters engaging in the same illegal acts that are attributed to them now, but carrying guns, would have fewer incidents with the police? If so we can agree to disagree, I suppose.
I think you should ask two question first, are criminals more likely to be harassed, and/or the law abiding. Then are armed people persons harassed more and/or the same as unarmed? You could create a spreadsheet for the possibilities, and I think that you would find that being armed reduces how much you are harassed, and the law abiding and criminals are harassed more.
---------------Law Abiding---------Criminal
---------------
Unarmed-----Will be----------------Will be
---------------
Armed------Won't be-------------Won't be
---------------
This is NYC so fire arms as far as I know are mostly outlawed, compared to tea party events that took place in all parts of the country. So all we have is the criminal vs law abiding element, and the armed vs unarmed. Also consider as far as I know there wasn't a single tea party arrest vs the OWS. The tea party is considered more conservative and they like firearms and other weapons, while the OWS is considered more liberal and they don't like personal weapons. The tea party seems to fall under the law abiding armed box and the OWS falls under the criminal unarmed.
It seems the reason why the two of you are arguing is because you want to place the groups into different boxes or you think the the groups will be harassed differently.
Now is there any evidence that they were armed outside one or two photos of openly carried fire arms, or was it the perception that conservatives love guns so they will be carrying. Compare that with hundreds of arrests and hundreds(?) of reported criminal activities of the OWS. To me it seems like comparing apples and oranges.
|
On November 18 2011 09:30 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 09:27 Pertinacious wrote:
"More" than what? More than individuals blatantly breaking the law? That is certainly the case. Gun-wielding TP members were harassed less than unarmed OWS members. Unless you didn't mean what you just wrote, this statement is as follows: individuals not breaking any laws but carrying weapons openly are harassed more than unarmed individuals openly breaking the law. I don't think you intend what you're saying here.
I was responding to your claim that tea party protesters were not harassed "more." I guessed at what you meant by that, and agreed with the assessment.
My statement should be read as: Armed, law abiding citizens are more likely to be harassed than their unarmed counterparts. However, unarmed, law-breaking citizens are more likely to be harassed than their armed but law-abiding compatriots.
On November 18 2011 09:30 Expurgate wrote:
EDIT: By this I mean that I suspect there would be a substantially less confrontational attitude on the part of law enforcement. Firing tear gas into a crowd that is openly carrying weapons would never fly. Things could still escalate and become violent, but it would be via different means.
More abrupt and violent means. Tear gas would certainly be used, but if gunplay was introduced the police would certainly respond in-kind, rather than by using batons or rubber bullets. Once you are breaking the law, the police are going to use force against you (right or wrong). Adding guns on the part of the law-breaker does nothing but escalate.
EDIT - From least to most likely to be involved in a confrontation with police, disregarding factors like race, location, etc.
Law-Abiding, Unarmed
Law-Abiding, Armed
Law-Breaking, Unarmed
Law-Breaking, Armed
As I'm reading your posts, your list seems to be more like this:
Law-Abiding, Armed (Tea Party only)
Law-Abiding, Unarmed
Law-Abiding, Armed (non-Tea Party)
Law-Breaking, Armed
Law-Breaking, Unarmed
If you could post some simple sliding scale I think that would help us.
|
Police scanners estimate the crowd at 32,650 people. Reported by @jstetser
Damn, that's a shit ton of people
|
On November 18 2011 09:43 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 09:30 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 09:27 Pertinacious wrote:
"More" than what? More than individuals blatantly breaking the law? That is certainly the case. Gun-wielding TP members were harassed less than unarmed OWS members. Unless you didn't mean what you just wrote, this statement is as follows: individuals not breaking any laws but carrying weapons openly are harassed more than unarmed individuals openly breaking the law. I don't think you intend what you're saying here. I was responding to your claim that tea party protesters were not harassed "more." I guessed at what you meant by that, and agreed with the assessment. My statement should be read as: Armed, law abiding citizens are more likely to be harassed than their unarmed counterparts. However, unarmed, law-breaking citizens are more likely to be harassed than their armed but law-abiding compatriots. Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 09:30 Expurgate wrote:
EDIT: By this I mean that I suspect there would be a substantially less confrontational attitude on the part of law enforcement. Firing tear gas into a crowd that is openly carrying weapons would never fly. Things could still escalate and become violent, but it would be via different means. More abrupt and violent means. Tear gas would certainly be used, but if gunplay was introduced the police would certainly respond in-kind, rather than by using batons or rubber bullets. Once you are breaking the law, the police are going to use force against you (right or wrong). Adding guns on the part of the law-breaker does nothing but escalate. EDIT - From least to most likely to be involved in a confrontation with police, disregarding factors like race, location, etc. Law-Abiding, Unarmed Law-Abiding, Armed Law-Breaking, Unarmed Law-Breaking, Armed As I'm reading your posts, your list seems to be more like this: Law-Abiding, Armed (Tea Party only) Law-Abiding, Unarmed Law-Abiding, Armed (non-Tea Party) Law-Breaking, Armed Law-Breaking, Unarmed
Sorry, I'm not being clear enough apparently: the NYPD has used fairly confrontational and aggressive tactics to stop people from walking in the streets.
Take, for example, the widespread deployment of riot police. What I am suggesting is that armed citizens who are breaking minor laws are less likely to be challenged on that point. Imagine, for a moment, that every single protesting citizen in NYC was carrying a handgun, and might be carrying ammunition. Do you think that NYPD would be a) more likely, or b) less likely to use riot police against people who are committing the crime of obstructing public thoroughfares?
For minor lawbreaking in large groups, the presence of weapons is a deterrent to aggressive law enforcement.
To clarify what exactly my list looks like, from least likely to most likely:
Law-Abiding, Unarmed
Law-Abiding, Armed
Law-Breaking (minor offenses), Armed
Law-Breaking (minor offenses), Unarmed
Law-Breaking (major offenses), Unarmed
Law-Breaking (major offenses), Armed
|
On November 18 2011 09:58 Expurgate wrote:
Sorry, I'm not being clear enough apparently: the NYPD has used fairly confrontational and aggressive tactics to stop people from walking in the streets.
Take, for example, the widespread deployment of riot police. What I am suggesting is that armed citizens who are breaking minor laws are less likely to be challenged on that point. Imagine, for a moment, that every single protesting citizen in NYC was carrying a handgun, and might be carrying ammunition. Do you think that NYPD would be a) more likely, or b) less likely to use riot police against people who are committing the crime of obstructing public thoroughfares?
For minor lawbreaking in large groups, the presence of weapons is a deterrent to aggressive law enforcement.
To clarify what exactly my list looks like, from least likely to most likely:
Law-Abiding, Unarmed
Law-Abiding, Armed
Law-Breaking (minor offenses), Armed
Law-Breaking (minor offenses), Unarmed
Law-Breaking (major offenses), Unarmed
Law-Breaking (major offenses), Armed
Alright, I see what you're saying. I think that the inclusion of guns automatically escalates to a major offense, at least in the eyes of the police. For example, if you were to call 911 with:
"There's a bunch of people in the road, they've all got guns and they're stopping motorists"
That would be a really big deal.
|
On November 18 2011 10:04 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 09:58 Expurgate wrote:
Sorry, I'm not being clear enough apparently: the NYPD has used fairly confrontational and aggressive tactics to stop people from walking in the streets.
Take, for example, the widespread deployment of riot police. What I am suggesting is that armed citizens who are breaking minor laws are less likely to be challenged on that point. Imagine, for a moment, that every single protesting citizen in NYC was carrying a handgun, and might be carrying ammunition. Do you think that NYPD would be a) more likely, or b) less likely to use riot police against people who are committing the crime of obstructing public thoroughfares?
For minor lawbreaking in large groups, the presence of weapons is a deterrent to aggressive law enforcement.
To clarify what exactly my list looks like, from least likely to most likely:
Law-Abiding, Unarmed
Law-Abiding, Armed
Law-Breaking (minor offenses), Armed
Law-Breaking (minor offenses), Unarmed
Law-Breaking (major offenses), Unarmed
Law-Breaking (major offenses), Armed Alright, I see what you're saying. I think that the inclusion of guns automatically escalates to a major offense, at least in the eyes of the police. For example, if you were to call 911 with: "There's a bunch of people in the road, they've all got guns and they're stopping motorists" That would be a really big deal.
Well, of course. If you called 911 like that, you would have every cop in the force out in minutes, plus SWAT, etc. But if you call 911 with "There's a bunch of people walking in the road carrying signs, they've got holstered guns but are not threatening anyone," you'd get a much more cautious response.
Calling 911 is not really super relevant to a police presence at a known, ongoing nonviolent protest. They produce extremely different behaviors. Emergency response units are inherently going to assume worst-case scenarios.
|
This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious.
|
On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote:
This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious.
If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you.
Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas.
|
On November 18 2011 10:22 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote:
This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious. If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you. Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas.
I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc.
Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business?
|
On November 18 2011 10:25 Lucidx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 10:22 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote:
This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious. If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you. Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas. I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc. Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business?
Because income inequality reduces social mobility. The correlation is fairly well established. That is, very unequal distributions of wealth (some inequality does not seem to be problematic, based on the data) make it harder for other people to improve their own situation.
|
On November 18 2011 09:58 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 09:43 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 09:30 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 09:27 Pertinacious wrote:
"More" than what? More than individuals blatantly breaking the law? That is certainly the case. Gun-wielding TP members were harassed less than unarmed OWS members. Unless you didn't mean what you just wrote, this statement is as follows: individuals not breaking any laws but carrying weapons openly are harassed more than unarmed individuals openly breaking the law. I don't think you intend what you're saying here. I was responding to your claim that tea party protesters were not harassed "more." I guessed at what you meant by that, and agreed with the assessment. My statement should be read as: Armed, law abiding citizens are more likely to be harassed than their unarmed counterparts. However, unarmed, law-breaking citizens are more likely to be harassed than their armed but law-abiding compatriots. On November 18 2011 09:30 Expurgate wrote:
EDIT: By this I mean that I suspect there would be a substantially less confrontational attitude on the part of law enforcement. Firing tear gas into a crowd that is openly carrying weapons would never fly. Things could still escalate and become violent, but it would be via different means. More abrupt and violent means. Tear gas would certainly be used, but if gunplay was introduced the police would certainly respond in-kind, rather than by using batons or rubber bullets. Once you are breaking the law, the police are going to use force against you (right or wrong). Adding guns on the part of the law-breaker does nothing but escalate. EDIT - From least to most likely to be involved in a confrontation with police, disregarding factors like race, location, etc. Law-Abiding, Unarmed Law-Abiding, Armed Law-Breaking, Unarmed Law-Breaking, Armed As I'm reading your posts, your list seems to be more like this: Law-Abiding, Armed (Tea Party only) Law-Abiding, Unarmed Law-Abiding, Armed (non-Tea Party) Law-Breaking, Armed Law-Breaking, Unarmed Sorry, I'm not being clear enough apparently: the NYPD has used fairly confrontational and aggressive tactics to stop people from walking in the streets. Take, for example, the widespread deployment of riot police. What I am suggesting is that armed citizens who are breaking minor laws are less likely to be challenged on that point. Imagine, for a moment, that every single protesting citizen in NYC was carrying a handgun, and might be carrying ammunition. Do you think that NYPD would be a) more likely, or b) less likely to use riot police against people who are committing the crime of obstructing public thoroughfares? For minor lawbreaking in large groups, the presence of weapons is a deterrent to aggressive law enforcement. To clarify what exactly my list looks like, from least likely to most likely: Law-Abiding, Unarmed Law-Abiding, Armed Law-Breaking (minor offenses), Armed Law-Breaking (minor offenses), Unarmed Law-Breaking (major offenses), Unarmed Law-Breaking (major offenses), Armed
There might be a point in considering the numbers:
If a demonstration has a lot of people, it gets very problematic, very fast to control the crowd if something is pissing them off. As far as I have heard the TEA-party protests were in the thousands at the most, while OWS is in the tens of thousands. There is a huge difference in how you need to approach those situations to keep it calm. A few thousands can be controlled on the rim with barricades and such, while it would be impossible for so large protests.
The way the police has to act towards OWS is by having several people among the protesters and they need to treat it as a society in the society. Setting up barricades and arresting liberally is just never gonna cut it: It gives a huge amount of clerical work, fills the detentions and worst of all It back-fires in the media among those sympathysing with the protesters íf anything violent happens. They arrest 200? 2000 more will be angry at the police and want to keep the movement going. Arresting should not happen as often in confrontations, it is not a good way to preserve law and order.
|
On November 18 2011 10:31 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 10:25 Lucidx wrote:On November 18 2011 10:22 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote:
This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious. If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you. Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas. I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc. Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business? Because income inequality reduces social mobility. The correlation is fairly well established. That is, very unequal distributions of wealth (some inequality does not seem to be problematic, based on the data) make it harder for other people to improve their own situation.
So the solution is to increase the tax on the people who already support the whole country? I agree that a wealth gab is detrimental but I think that this is a foolish way to go about it. With increased taxes on the rich, that means higher cost on products made by the companies to compensate for the losses. This, in turn, points to an increased shift in consumption to foreign (mainly, Chinese) products, which further weakens American business.
|
This whole thing is rofl funny....My one question to these people camping out in a park for days on end. Who is supporting you? I would also also like to know what these people are even protesting. If you ask any one person there they will give you a different answer from the next person.
I guess the TL:DR version is this. These people at the end of the day are anti-capitalist which is the bases of what our nation is founded. If you like socialism go to Canada we don't want you.
|
On November 18 2011 10:25 Lucidx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 10:22 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote:
This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious. If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you. Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas. I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc. Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business?
Your anecdote doesn't really illustrate the problem. It's basically a middle class example of a small successful business.
But even so, let's review your anecdote - your father took a big risk, quit his job, and pursued his dream. And it all worked out well and you can now use it as an argument in a debate. But what if it didn't work out?
Moreover, you need to understand that not everyone has the desire to work 15 hours a day for 10 years. This is actually what bugs me the most. You shouldn't HAVE to work 15 hours a day to avoid a shitty job and a shittier wage. Working 15 hours a day is extremely unhealthy, in every sense of the word. You can't fault people who don't want to live like that and expect a fair wage and living conditions for the standard 8 hours a day of work, and you can't measure everyone against a 15 hour per day standard, because that's a horrible standard.
There's nothing unfair about someone being wealthy and able to provide for himself a reasonable amount of luxury. But the problem is on the other end - there is plenty that's unfair about having people living in poverty or on the brink of poverty. It is wrong both because these people are actually suffering, and more importantly because it means that they are inferior and dependent in every way on people at the high end of the income curve, which is a dangerous situation to have because you have people controlling other peoples' lives and fates.
Welfare and accessible education isn't there just to help people out, it's also there to preserve the principles of equality and democracy. If your whole life depends on the whim of your current employer or you aren't being treated or paid fairly, then you are quite simply not free and you can not vote freely or act freely.
|
On November 18 2011 10:49 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 10:25 Lucidx wrote:On November 18 2011 10:22 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote:
This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious. If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you. Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas. I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc. Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business? Your anecdote doesn't really illustrate the problem. It's basically a middle class example of a small successful business. But even so, let's review your anecdote - your father took a big risk, quit his job, and pursued his dream. And it all worked out well and you can now use it as an argument in a debate. But what if it didn't work out? Moreover, you need to understand that not everyone has the desire to work 15 hours a day for 10 years. This is actually what bugs me the most. You shouldn't HAVE to work 15 hours a day to avoid a shitty job and a shittier wage. Working 15 hours a day is extremely unhealthy, in every sense of the word. You can't fault people who don't want to live like that and expect a fair wage and living conditions for the standard 8 hours a day of work, and you can't measure everyone against a 15 hour per day standard, because that's a horrible standard. There's nothing unfair about someone being wealthy and able to provide for himself a reasonable amount of luxury. But the problem is on the other end - there is plenty that's unfair about having people living in poverty or on the brink of poverty. It is wrong both because these people are actually suffering, and more importantly because it means that they are inferior and dependent in every way to people on people at the high end of the income curve, which is a dangerous situation to have because you have people controlling other peoples' lives and fates. Welfare and education isn't there just to help people out, it's also there to preserve the principles of equality and democracy.
Very, very well put.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
