The hero warrior cop is ready to get roided up, rape, and drink and drive
10-07-2014, 10:20 PM
#3181
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
I asked whether or not you were asserting that they did. You didn't answer.
First off, it's America, with a capital A.
Second, I don't have to suggest it, it's pretty well established in both the modern criminal and civil law systems. And this goes not just here, but in most "western" nations with systems of government and ideals of civil liberty comparable to (and often more effectively implemented and protected than) our own.
I'd go one step further and suggest that those who refuse to contribute to their society ought to be purged from it, but this is the "let's bash the police" thread, not the "let's discuss the pros and cons of eugenics" thread.
I realize that we've never actually met in person, but based on my last name, what color might you guess my hair and eyes are?
I am pointing out the fairly obvious fact that if you habitually and persistently engage in criminal and antisocial behavior, you forfeit certain protections and liberties.
People who are in prison, for instance, are by definition deprived of liberty. (Look up the definition of "liberty" in the dictionary. It pretty much means the opposite of being locked up.)
Or are you saying that it's completely wrong to put people in prison?
I find that it is often a most effective means of communicating an idea to posit a question rather than to make a statement.
Second, I don't have to suggest it, it's pretty well established in both the modern criminal and civil law systems. And this goes not just here, but in most "western" nations with systems of government and ideals of civil liberty comparable to (and often more effectively implemented and protected than) our own.
I'd go one step further and suggest that those who refuse to contribute to their society ought to be purged from it, but this is the "let's bash the police" thread, not the "let's discuss the pros and cons of eugenics" thread.
People who are in prison, for instance, are by definition deprived of liberty. (Look up the definition of "liberty" in the dictionary. It pretty much means the opposite of being locked up.)
Or are you saying that it's completely wrong to put people in prison?
I find that it is often a most effective means of communicating an idea to posit a question rather than to make a statement.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2014, 05:59 AM
#3183
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
While there are some jurisdictions within the US which criminalize the act of homelessness, this is entirely tangential, and to fixate upon it is to miss the larger point; If a person is serially and habitually unproductive and a drain upon society's resources, then that person has not earned the same privileges and protections as a citizen.
If you want to sleep under a bridge and panhandle all day, then that's fine and I won't try to stop you. But don't expect the same treatment otherwise as everyone else who is making a contribution to the society in which they live. This is entirely consistent with the Marxist-Anarchist philosophy which Scott et. al., espouse in the matter.
If you want to sleep under a bridge and panhandle all day, then that's fine and I won't try to stop you. But don't expect the same treatment otherwise as everyone else who is making a contribution to the society in which they live. This is entirely consistent with the Marxist-Anarchist philosophy which Scott et. al., espouse in the matter.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2014, 12:12 PM
#3184
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 283
Total Cats: 0
While there are some jurisdictions within the US which criminalize the act of homelessness, this is entirely tangential, and to fixate upon it is to miss the larger point; If a person is serially and habitually unproductive and a drain upon society's resources, then that person has not earned the same privileges and protections as a citizen.
If you want to sleep under a bridge and panhandle all day, then that's fine and I won't try to stop you. But don't expect the same treatment otherwise as everyone else who is making a contribution to the society in which they live. This is entirely consistent with the Marxist-Anarchist philosophy which Scott et. al., espouse in the matter.
If you want to sleep under a bridge and panhandle all day, then that's fine and I won't try to stop you. But don't expect the same treatment otherwise as everyone else who is making a contribution to the society in which they live. This is entirely consistent with the Marxist-Anarchist philosophy which Scott et. al., espouse in the matter.
Fixate?
I don't want to sleep under a bridge and do not know that the people who sleep where they can find actually want that lifestyle.
Since you seem to be one of the folks who figure that the homeless have no right to be anywhere, what do you propose to be done with them? Maybe they could be punished until the become smarter and sane and well adjusted?
Do you judge criminals as one and all pretty much the same and as undeserving?
LOL - I have pointed out to the Christians that Jesus was homeless and advocated that his followers could be as well. They just get mad at me.
Christians have a strange doublethink on the issue though.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2014, 01:06 PM
#3185
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
If you want to sleep under a bridge and panhandle all day, then that's fine and I won't try to stop you. But don't expect the same treatment otherwise as everyone else who is making a contribution to the society in which they live. This is entirely consistent with the Marxist-Anarchist philosophy which Scott et. al., espouse in the matter.
While there are some jurisdictions within the US which criminalize the act of homelessness, this is entirely tangential, and to fixate upon it is to miss the larger point; If a person is serially and habitually unproductive and a drain upon society's resources, then that person has not earned the same privileges and protections as a citizen.
Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2014 at 01:25 PM.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2014, 02:41 PM
#3186
Elite Member
iTrader: (37)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Very NorCal
Posts: 10,441
Total Cats: 1,899
In fact, when people ask me if I'm registered to vote or if I can sign their petition, I tell them no. When they ask why, I tell them convicted felon. Then I give them the crazy eye.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2014, 09:54 PM
#3188
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
Well, there are two ways to look at that question.
One would be to say that of course the undesirables can still have due process, trial by jury, etc., prior to their exclusion.
Another would be to point out that at the time that the US Bill of Rights was written (1789-1791), its provisions were understood by the authors to apply only to citizens, which was mostly read as consisting of free white adult males. All other persons (women, slaves, children) were exempt from its protections.
So in that regard, all we really need to do is return to a more traditionalist interpretation, in which those individuals unfit to function as citizens are relieved of the burden of citizenship. Think Starship Troopers (yes, the movie was awful. But they managed to keep that bit of social commentary mostly intact.)
There are certainly valid objections to such an interpretation (Civil Rights Act of 1866, 13th, 14th & 19th Amendments, etc), however that's what SCOTUS is for.
No, centuries of attempted rehabilitation have proven the futility of attempting to correct the behavior of those persons genuinely unfit to function as member of society, whether by punitive measures or by "rehabilitation."
This idea, that broken people can and should be fixed, is a fairly modern concept. Throughout most of human history, various forums of what can best be described as social Darwanism have dictated that those unfit to participate in society be removed from it. In the earliest of days, they might have been slaughtered outright, or left to die of starvation. Later, in the 1600s, "Transportation" arose as a more "humane" method of dealing with undesireables, wherein they were simply shipped somewhere else. (American colonies, Australia, Ceti Alpha V, etc.)
Of course, today pretty much everywhere that we can reasonably stick people is either full or protected by international convention. So, realistically speaking, what can you do with someone who habitually refuses to work, obey the laws, etc? You can feed 'em a never-ending stream of social services, but that doesn't accomplish much. You pretty much just have to kill 'em.
No.
Do you judge all cars as one and pretty much the same?
For the purpose of this discussion, there are two basic classes of criminal; those who habitually and remorselessly offend, and those who do not. The latter can continue to enjoy the criminal justice system as it exists today, the former must be dealt with more efficiently. This philosophy worked well enough to get us from apes, through nomadic hunter-gatherer society, into and out of agrarianism, and finally to modern civilization as we know it today. It's only been within the past couple of hundred years that we, as a group, have decided that it's better to deliberately weaken our society by cultivating failed and detrimental members of it rather than allowing them to fall by the wayside as the strong and productive pass on their traits to the next generation.
One would be to say that of course the undesirables can still have due process, trial by jury, etc., prior to their exclusion.
Another would be to point out that at the time that the US Bill of Rights was written (1789-1791), its provisions were understood by the authors to apply only to citizens, which was mostly read as consisting of free white adult males. All other persons (women, slaves, children) were exempt from its protections.
So in that regard, all we really need to do is return to a more traditionalist interpretation, in which those individuals unfit to function as citizens are relieved of the burden of citizenship. Think Starship Troopers (yes, the movie was awful. But they managed to keep that bit of social commentary mostly intact.)
There are certainly valid objections to such an interpretation (Civil Rights Act of 1866, 13th, 14th & 19th Amendments, etc), however that's what SCOTUS is for.
This idea, that broken people can and should be fixed, is a fairly modern concept. Throughout most of human history, various forums of what can best be described as social Darwanism have dictated that those unfit to participate in society be removed from it. In the earliest of days, they might have been slaughtered outright, or left to die of starvation. Later, in the 1600s, "Transportation" arose as a more "humane" method of dealing with undesireables, wherein they were simply shipped somewhere else. (American colonies, Australia, Ceti Alpha V, etc.)
Of course, today pretty much everywhere that we can reasonably stick people is either full or protected by international convention. So, realistically speaking, what can you do with someone who habitually refuses to work, obey the laws, etc? You can feed 'em a never-ending stream of social services, but that doesn't accomplish much. You pretty much just have to kill 'em.
Do you judge all cars as one and pretty much the same?
For the purpose of this discussion, there are two basic classes of criminal; those who habitually and remorselessly offend, and those who do not. The latter can continue to enjoy the criminal justice system as it exists today, the former must be dealt with more efficiently. This philosophy worked well enough to get us from apes, through nomadic hunter-gatherer society, into and out of agrarianism, and finally to modern civilization as we know it today. It's only been within the past couple of hundred years that we, as a group, have decided that it's better to deliberately weaken our society by cultivating failed and detrimental members of it rather than allowing them to fall by the wayside as the strong and productive pass on their traits to the next generation.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2014, 02:22 AM
#3189
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 283
Total Cats: 0
Just to be more pedantic, this is true at the STATE level depending on the STATE. For California, Felony conviction = no guns, no voting.
In fact, when people ask me if I'm registered to vote or if I can sign their petition, I tell them no. When they ask why, I tell them convicted felon. Then I give them the crazy eye.
In fact, when people ask me if I'm registered to vote or if I can sign their petition, I tell them no. When they ask why, I tell them convicted felon. Then I give them the crazy eye.
https://www.aclunc.org/vote
Keeps me out of jury duty though.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2014, 02:33 AM
#3190
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 283
Total Cats: 0
Well, there are two ways to look at that question.
One would be to say that of course the undesirables can still have due process, trial by jury, etc., prior to their exclusion.
Another would be to point out that at the time that the US Bill of Rights was written (1789-1791), its provisions were understood by the authors to apply only to citizens, which was mostly read as consisting of free white adult males. All other persons (women, slaves, children) were exempt from its protections.
So in that regard, all we really need to do is return to a more traditionalist interpretation, in which those individuals unfit to function as citizens are relieved of the burden of citizenship. Think Starship Troopers (yes, the movie was awful. But they managed to keep that bit of social commentary mostly intact.)
There are certainly valid objections to such an interpretation (Civil Rights Act of 1866, 13th, 14th & 19th Amendments, etc), however that's what SCOTUS is for.
No, centuries of attempted rehabilitation have proven the futility of attempting to correct the behavior of those persons genuinely unfit to function as member of society, whether by punitive measures or by "rehabilitation."
This idea, that broken people can and should be fixed, is a fairly modern concept. Throughout most of human history, various forums of what can best be described as social Darwanism have dictated that those unfit to participate in society be removed from it. In the earliest of days, they might have been slaughtered outright, or left to die of starvation. Later, in the 1600s, "Transportation" arose as a more "humane" method of dealing with undesireables, wherein they were simply shipped somewhere else. (American colonies, Australia, Ceti Alpha V, etc.)
Of course, today pretty much everywhere that we can reasonably stick people is either full or protected by international convention. So, realistically speaking, what can you do with someone who habitually refuses to work, obey the laws, etc? You can feed 'em a never-ending stream of social services, but that doesn't accomplish much. You pretty much just have to kill 'em.
No.
Do you judge all cars as one and pretty much the same?
For the purpose of this discussion, there are two basic classes of criminal; those who habitually and remorselessly offend, and those who do not. The latter can continue to enjoy the criminal justice system as it exists today, the former must be dealt with more efficiently. This philosophy worked well enough to get us from apes, through nomadic hunter-gatherer society, into and out of agrarianism, and finally to modern civilization as we know it today. It's only been within the past couple of hundred years that we, as a group, have decided that it's better to deliberately weaken our society by cultivating failed and detrimental members of it rather than allowing them to fall by the wayside as the strong and productive pass on their traits to the next generation.
One would be to say that of course the undesirables can still have due process, trial by jury, etc., prior to their exclusion.
Another would be to point out that at the time that the US Bill of Rights was written (1789-1791), its provisions were understood by the authors to apply only to citizens, which was mostly read as consisting of free white adult males. All other persons (women, slaves, children) were exempt from its protections.
So in that regard, all we really need to do is return to a more traditionalist interpretation, in which those individuals unfit to function as citizens are relieved of the burden of citizenship. Think Starship Troopers (yes, the movie was awful. But they managed to keep that bit of social commentary mostly intact.)
There are certainly valid objections to such an interpretation (Civil Rights Act of 1866, 13th, 14th & 19th Amendments, etc), however that's what SCOTUS is for.
No, centuries of attempted rehabilitation have proven the futility of attempting to correct the behavior of those persons genuinely unfit to function as member of society, whether by punitive measures or by "rehabilitation."
This idea, that broken people can and should be fixed, is a fairly modern concept. Throughout most of human history, various forums of what can best be described as social Darwanism have dictated that those unfit to participate in society be removed from it. In the earliest of days, they might have been slaughtered outright, or left to die of starvation. Later, in the 1600s, "Transportation" arose as a more "humane" method of dealing with undesireables, wherein they were simply shipped somewhere else. (American colonies, Australia, Ceti Alpha V, etc.)
Of course, today pretty much everywhere that we can reasonably stick people is either full or protected by international convention. So, realistically speaking, what can you do with someone who habitually refuses to work, obey the laws, etc? You can feed 'em a never-ending stream of social services, but that doesn't accomplish much. You pretty much just have to kill 'em.
No.
Do you judge all cars as one and pretty much the same?
For the purpose of this discussion, there are two basic classes of criminal; those who habitually and remorselessly offend, and those who do not. The latter can continue to enjoy the criminal justice system as it exists today, the former must be dealt with more efficiently. This philosophy worked well enough to get us from apes, through nomadic hunter-gatherer society, into and out of agrarianism, and finally to modern civilization as we know it today. It's only been within the past couple of hundred years that we, as a group, have decided that it's better to deliberately weaken our society by cultivating failed and detrimental members of it rather than allowing them to fall by the wayside as the strong and productive pass on their traits to the next generation.
Killing witches was part of advancement that brought us to where we are today, too.
You people make me tired.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2014, 08:24 AM
#3191
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Maryville TN
Posts: 878
Total Cats: 79
Well, there are two ways to look at that question.
One would be to say that of course the undesirables can still have due process, trial by jury, etc., prior to their exclusion.
Another would be to point out that at the time that the US Bill of Rights was written (1789-1791), its provisions were understood by the authors to apply only to citizens, which was mostly read as consisting of free white adult males. All other persons (women, slaves, children) were exempt from its protections.
So in that regard, all we really need to do is return to a more traditionalist interpretation, in which those individuals unfit to function as citizens are relieved of the burden of citizenship. Think Starship Troopers (yes, the movie was awful. But they managed to keep that bit of social commentary mostly intact.)
One would be to say that of course the undesirables can still have due process, trial by jury, etc., prior to their exclusion.
Another would be to point out that at the time that the US Bill of Rights was written (1789-1791), its provisions were understood by the authors to apply only to citizens, which was mostly read as consisting of free white adult males. All other persons (women, slaves, children) were exempt from its protections.
So in that regard, all we really need to do is return to a more traditionalist interpretation, in which those individuals unfit to function as citizens are relieved of the burden of citizenship. Think Starship Troopers (yes, the movie was awful. But they managed to keep that bit of social commentary mostly intact.)
i didnt read all of you guys comments, or the rest of the post, BUT
in the context you speak of, citizens were also the taxpayers in most cases (land owners). IE they 'had a dog in that hunt' when it came to federal budget. While I dont suggest we go back to blacks and wimmen not being able to vote....we do need a system where everyone pays taxes that is not the income tax. I think it would be the beginning to solving lots of problems in our country.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2014, 08:31 AM
#3192
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
i didnt read all of you guys comments, or the rest of the post, BUT
in the context you speak of, citizens were also the taxpayers in most cases (land owners). IE they 'had a dog in that hunt' when it came to federal budget. While I dont suggest we go back to blacks and wimmen not being able to vote....we do need a system where everyone pays taxes that is not the income tax. I think it would be the beginning to solving lots of problems in our country.
in the context you speak of, citizens were also the taxpayers in most cases (land owners). IE they 'had a dog in that hunt' when it came to federal budget. While I dont suggest we go back to blacks and wimmen not being able to vote....we do need a system where everyone pays taxes that is not the income tax. I think it would be the beginning to solving lots of problems in our country.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2014, 09:54 AM
#3193
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
i didnt read all of you guys comments, or the rest of the post, BUT
in the context you speak of, citizens were also the taxpayers in most cases (land owners). IE they 'had a dog in that hunt' when it came to federal budget. While I dont suggest we go back to blacks and wimmen not being able to vote....we do need a system where everyone pays taxes that is not the income tax. I think it would be the beginning to solving lots of problems in our country.
in the context you speak of, citizens were also the taxpayers in most cases (land owners). IE they 'had a dog in that hunt' when it came to federal budget. While I dont suggest we go back to blacks and wimmen not being able to vote....we do need a system where everyone pays taxes that is not the income tax. I think it would be the beginning to solving lots of problems in our country.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2014, 02:13 PM
#3198
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
back on topic:
BBC News - White woman defends black man from US police
I find it interesting that taking people's money is a way to buy freedoms and also a punishment for a crime.
BBC News - White woman defends black man from US police
Two Washington Metro Police officers - both black - were responding to a household burglary alarm in a posh District of Columbia neighbourhood and encountered a 64-year-old black man carrying two bags. When they questioned him, they say he became "loud and boisterous". They ordered him to the ground.
At that point, a local resident - a middle-aged white woman named Jody Westby - came out from her house and confronted the police.
She instructed her housekeeper to record the events. She said she knew the man - a local worker - and that the police had no right to detain him. She told the officers that she was a lawyer and, upon learning the address of the burglary report, that they weren't even on the right street.
She grabbed the detained man's hand and said she was leaving, telling the police to "please leave our neighbourhood".
The officer reluctantly let Ms Westby and the man go.
As she walked away, Ms Westby said: "Just because he's black doesn't mean he's here to rob a house. He works for us. He's been in this neighbourhood for 30 years."
Yates writes that the situation likely would have been much different if the incident had occurred in a less affluent neighbourhood or Ms Westby hadn't been white.
At that point, a local resident - a middle-aged white woman named Jody Westby - came out from her house and confronted the police.
She instructed her housekeeper to record the events. She said she knew the man - a local worker - and that the police had no right to detain him. She told the officers that she was a lawyer and, upon learning the address of the burglary report, that they weren't even on the right street.
She grabbed the detained man's hand and said she was leaving, telling the police to "please leave our neighbourhood".
The officer reluctantly let Ms Westby and the man go.
As she walked away, Ms Westby said: "Just because he's black doesn't mean he's here to rob a house. He works for us. He's been in this neighbourhood for 30 years."
Yates writes that the situation likely would have been much different if the incident had occurred in a less affluent neighbourhood or Ms Westby hadn't been white.
I find it interesting that taking people's money is a way to buy freedoms and also a punishment for a crime.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2014, 02:14 PM
#3199
I nailed a deer in my Miata last night, doesn't sound too nuts, but I hit it smack dab in the middle of the city.
Up against the rail in the right lane, snuck up on me and I had nowhere to go so I punted the poor thing. He made it to the left turn lane, some nice people blocked the road so he wouldn't get creamed again. Those are KU dorms on the hill there, part of campus to the right.
The cops came, drug him to the side of the road, and "dispatched" him. He was unarmed, and couldn't even really move to fight back
When will the riots start? I need to steal a new fender.
Up against the rail in the right lane, snuck up on me and I had nowhere to go so I punted the poor thing. He made it to the left turn lane, some nice people blocked the road so he wouldn't get creamed again. Those are KU dorms on the hill there, part of campus to the right.
The cops came, drug him to the side of the road, and "dispatched" him. He was unarmed, and couldn't even really move to fight back
When will the riots start? I need to steal a new fender.
Reply
0
0
10-09-2014, 09:16 PM
#3200
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
Every time I see those arguments of return to some glorious past it does not sound so much like original notions of the founding father but as some approach to a form of fascism.
Killing witches was part of advancement that brought us to where we are today, too.
You people make me tired.
Killing witches was part of advancement that brought us to where we are today, too.
You people make me tired.
Don't complain when someone gives you a straight, on-topic answer.
Reply
0
0
