Search forums

Forums

Export thread

More Cops Being Douches

Nov 6, 2009#1

Le Quack

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ad_1251663926

People go in and how to ask how to file a complaint, and get harassed.

Nov 6, 2009#2

Heavan

Le Quack, your consistent postings of police officers being stupid had convinced me. We should get rid of all cops everywhere, except for the prison guards- they'll be needed to guard the police officers we'll be arresting, after all.

Without police officers, society should improve drastically. It'll be a Utopia. Criminals only exist to fight against the oppressive police officers, after all. Robber McGutstab will go back to his two wives and three kids and get a real job now that there's no one to struggle against.

Nov 6, 2009#3

Qonas

Get a new gimmick Quack. We get it. You hate cops and anybody who dares actually, you know, enforce rules and laws.

Grow up.

Nov 6, 2009#4

Chibibar

the films seem to be heavily edited (in terms just to get the "douche" part) personally I would like to see the whole clip of an event.

Nov 6, 2009#5

LittleSin

Sorry Quack, going to have to go with the guys on this one. This clip seems very unreliable and the website has an obvious bias.

As do you.

Sorry.

Nov 6, 2009#6

Le Quack

Alright, I won't stop posting these videos, but that's cool if you don't believe them. I'm not gonna antagonize about you. A serious overhaul is needed with our police department. More formally, an entire new branch unrelated to the police to in effect, police the police.

Nov 6, 2009#7

Adammon

But who watches the watchmen!?

Nov 6, 2009#8

Le Quack

Checks and Balances man; it works in the government. Why not for the police?

Nov 6, 2009#9

LittleSin

Adammon said:
But who watches the watchmen!?

Nov 6, 2009#10

Chippy

Le Quack said:
Checks and Balances man; it works in the government. Why not for the police?

Because douches like you will still find a flaw in that system and blow it out of proportion.

Nov 6, 2009#11

Adammon

LittleSin;293056][quote=Adammon said:
But who watches the watchmen!?

Nov 6, 2009#12

Soliloquy

LittleSin;293056][quote=Adammon said:
But who watches the watchmen!?

Nov 6, 2009#13

Le Quack

Alright, it's cool. Its totally a smart idea to give people almost unlimited power over civilians with no way to police men. Especially whenever said people are prone to corruption. The system totally works. Nothing is wrong with it, nothing should be done.

Nov 6, 2009#14

Chibibar

Le Quack said:
Alright, I won't stop posting these videos, but that's cool if you don't believe them. I'm not gonna antagonize about you. A serious overhaul is needed with our police department. More formally, an entire new branch unrelated to the police to in effect, police the police.

well, there are SOME officers that may need counseling and well, training. After all, they are human and human makes mistakes (even the best of them) consider the clip of how many events? (looks to be around 20-30 at least 10 for sure before 1/4 mark) now how many police related event in the U.S.? how about how many in a State, a county or even your city?

it is a pretty small number really. I saw one part of the video that a guy come in to report something but didn't want to show ID and trying to be a dick and said nevermind and try to leave.

Well, if you saw a crime and didn't report it, it is a crime (well that was establish on "by stander effect) ID is needed to ensure a record is kept and more than likely need to contact later if a witness needs to be called.

I'm sure part of those video left out the reporter (the person reporting the event) is being a dick which cause the police to react.

Nov 6, 2009#15

makare

I am looking forward to the point where the "I'm so drnk" and the "fuck da police" threads unite. That should be pretty interesting.

Some police are corrupt, some of any group are. I am glad we have the police to watch out for us. I know I have benefited personally from it.

Nov 6, 2009#16

Le Quack

Because you should have to be told if you can file a complaint or not.

Nov 6, 2009#17

LittleSin

Adammon;293058][quote=LittleSin;293056][quote=Adammon said:
But who watches the watchmen!?

You beat me to it.

Seriously, corruption will run into any department. There's no way to effectively to police the police because the guys you hire to watch the cops will needs someone watching them.

You'd need a paragon of absolute virtue and I don't believe that has EVER existed.[/QUOTE]

He did, but we killed him *Flex*[/QUOTE]

I said I don't believe such a person has ever existed.

Maybe Jesus was the only guy for the job...but I'm sure he'd probably have a better way of doing things anyways.

A divine way.

Nov 6, 2009#18

Adammon

Soliloquy;293059][quote=LittleSin;293056][quote=Adammon said:
But who watches the watchmen!?

Nov 6, 2009#19

Gared

Le Quack said:
Checks and Balances man; it works in the government.

Nov 6, 2009#20

Le Quack

Gared;293067][quote=Le Quack said:
Checks and Balances man; it works in the government.

Nov 6, 2009#21

Soliloquy

Le Quack said:
Alright, it's cool. Its totally a smart idea to give people almost unlimited power over civilians with no way to police men. Especially whenever said people are prone to corruption. The system totally works. Nothing is wrong with it, nothing should be done.

Nov 6, 2009#22

Adammon

LittleSin;293065][quote=Adammon;293058][quote=LittleSin;293056][quote=Adammon said:
But who watches the watchmen!?

Nov 6, 2009#23

Le Quack

Soliloquy;293069][quote=Le Quack said:
Alright, it's cool. Its totally a smart idea to give people almost unlimited power over civilians with no way to police men. Especially whenever said people are prone to corruption. The system totally works. Nothing is wrong with it, nothing should be done.

To be honest, LeQuack, I have a fundamental distrust for police officers myself. It's for the same reason that I don't trust people in shady neighborhoods: I'm sure the average one is okay, but you hear enough stories to always be wary.

The Las Vegas Police Department, at least, is an absolute joke from my experience. And I've heard unsubstantiated rumors involving the department turning a blind eye to human trafficking in the city.

The trouble is, you can never be sure which tales are true, which ones are completely made up, and which ones have a slim basis in reality.[/QUOTE]

I understand much can be unfounded. When we have video taps of obvious police abuse and nothing happens to them, how can we be assured of our safety? I won't be a sucker for anybody. I've got a degree that can help me get a job in law enforcement, and as soon as I can I'll try to get transferred into Internal Affairs.

Nov 6, 2009#24

Soliloquy

Le Quack;293071][quote=Soliloquy;293069][quote=Le Quack said:
Alright, it's cool. Its totally a smart idea to give people almost unlimited power over civilians with no way to police men. Especially whenever said people are prone to corruption. The system totally works. Nothing is wrong with it, nothing should be done.

Nov 6, 2009#25

Vytamindi

why not have your own thread dedicated to them?

Nov 6, 2009#26

Chibibar

Le Quack;293068][quote=Gared;293067][quote=Le Quack said:
Checks and Balances man; it works in the government.

That being said, I will agree that there is need for oversight. I will also agree that you occasionally do encounter police officers who are real dicks. I've met one. Of course, I've also met close to a hundred officers who weren't dicks, so 1/100 is a ratio that I'm ok with. Obviously, I wish that one guy hadn't been a dick, but a 1% error ratio is pretty damn good.

And yes, I really can honestly say that I've met close to a hundred police officers. As an Eagle Scout I spent a lot of time when I was younger working with local, county, and state police on Search and Rescue, Disaster Recovery, and Emergency Preparedness measures.[/QUOTE]

I know that there are good cops. I'm not focusing on the good cops. I'm focusing on the bad cops and "cop culture." Honestly, I am not satisfied with 1/100. It only takes one time for something to happen that will ruin an innocent person's life. This is unacceptable for people who are here to protect and serve us. Of course treat good cops with respect, there are so few of them. Its time to crack down on the bad cops.[/QUOTE]

heh.. if any human can be 100% virtuous and have that kind of authority, wow... I would love to meet that person.

The thing is that you can never have 100% since we are human, human make errors and sometimes poor judgment even the best of them (I remember some videos back in this forum)

does it make it ok? no, but if you have impossible rules, then no one will ever qualify.

Nov 6, 2009#27

CrimsonSoul

So guy goes in to make a complaint, they ask for I.D. which can be as simple as telling them his name (which is required by law if asked by an officer) a drivers license or I.D. card is not required. So they arrest him. I see no wrong there

edit: I didn't watch all of that video the part of the cop in the par and the one that got pulled over, wow.

Nov 6, 2009#28

AshburnerX

Vytamindi said:
why not have your own thread dedicated to them?

I suggested a "Fuck the Police" thread once before, but I'm not sure it'd have enough activity to justify it's existence.

Nov 6, 2009#29

SeraRelm

Man, I'm just putting you back on the ignore list. It's not worth seeing your trite issues concerning the police all the time.

Nov 7, 2009#30

Heavan

Chibibar;293083][quote=Le Quack;293068][quote=Gared;293067][quote=Le Quack said:
Checks and Balances man; it works in the government.

Nov 7, 2009#31

North_Ranger

Well, I'd fuck a policewoman if she was rarin' to go. And she let me handcuff her. Growl

Nov 7, 2009#32

sixpackshaker

OK, a guy walks into a station and acts like a total douche, and gets surprised when the cops asks questions?

Nov 7, 2009#33

ElJuski

ITT: notorious pothead gets upset at police. News at 11.

Nov 7, 2009#34

IronBrig4

Most of these videos are carefully edited so viewers don't get to see those goddamn hippies goading the police on. I'm an Eagle Scout and have had a lot of contact with the police. I know the cops have a stressful job so I treat them like I would want to be treated. They're human so they respond in kind. I have not had a single negative encounter with the police.

I made friends with the off-duty cops during my freshman year in the dorm. My roommate was a party animal and used drugs, so the cops usually had to come calling. They'd knock on the door, break the party up, do whatever else they needed to do, and then say to me, "Hey man, sorry to wake you up. We'll be out of your hair in a minute. You're not here as far as we're concerned."

Nov 7, 2009#35

Qonas

ElJuski said:
ITT: notorious pothead gets upset at police. News at 11.

:laugh:

Nov 7, 2009#36

Vytamindi

But....but.... it's the MAN!!!!

Nov 7, 2009#37

Chibibar

IronBrig4 said:
Most of these videos are carefully edited so viewers don't get to see those goddamn hippies goading the police on. I'm an Eagle Scout and have had a lot of contact with the police. I know the cops have a stressful job so I treat them like I would want to be treated. They're human so they respond in kind. I have not had a single negative encounter with the police.

I made friends with the off-duty cops during my freshman year in the dorm. My roommate was a party animal and used drugs, so the cops usually had to come calling. They'd knock on the door, break the party up, do whatever else they needed to do, and then say to me, "Hey man, sorry to wake you up. We'll be out of your hair in a minute. You're not here as far as we're concerned."

I think it all boils down to courtesy, the police have a job to ensure the peace. Depending where you are, it can be stressful at times.

Treat others as you want to be treated and generally it will go smoothly.

being confrontational, well, you are more than likely to get yourself into more trouble than it is worth.

Nov 7, 2009#38

phil

I think if you have a complaint with a police officer you should be able to answer simple questions like who you are and where it happened and what the complaint pertains to. These people are acting like being asked for their name and stuff is an invasion of their rights.

I'm sorry, I'm all for holding cops up to higher standards and everything but I don't see anything wrong here, except perhaps some of the officers were maybe a little rude. Maybe.

Nov 7, 2009#39

AshburnerX

To be fair, crooked cops are NOTORIOUS for being vindictive assholes... and straight cops are just as notorious for letting them get away with it. Giving them your name and address is basically giving them all the information they need to ruin your life. I can understand why some would be hesitant to give out info to them.

Nov 7, 2009#40

Twitch

AshburnerX said:
To be fair, crooked cops are NOTORIOUS for being vindictive assholes... and straight cops are just as notorious for letting them get away with it. Giving them your name and address is basically giving them all the information they need to ruin your life. I can understand why some would be hesitant to give out info to them.

Yeah, no. I can't even argue it because this is such an untrue statement.

Nov 7, 2009#41

ThatGrinningIdiot!

AshburnerX said:
To be fair, crooked cops are NOTORIOUS for being vindictive assholes... and straight cops are just as notorious for letting them get away with it. Giving them your name and address is basically giving them all the information they need to ruin your life. I can understand why some would be hesitant to give out info to them.

Bullshit.

If you aren't in that "world" then crooked cops are the last type of people who will drag innocent people into it.

Nov 7, 2009#42

phil

I don't see how they could really. It's not like they have a shit list of people who ever made a complaint of a cop and harass them at every turn.

At most I'd imagine that if that front desk cop saw my car, remembered my license plate from my file, remembered that I made a complaint, then he might pull me over for going 4 miles over the speed limit. And honestly that's all he could actually do to me. I keep my doors locked, so it's not like he could just barge into my home or anything and mess with me. Plus he probably has 100 other things to do that are more worth his time.

That's what this video looks like to me. Cops getting mad because these guys come in, acting as if they have a complaint and getting nothing but bullshit thrown back at them.

Nov 7, 2009#43

Krisken

Le Quack's favorite song? It might be!

Nov 7, 2009#44

IronBrig4

These are very simple rules, yet people with AUTHORITY ISSUES never seem to learn them.

Nov 7, 2009#45

Troll

Le Quack said:
I know that there are good cops. I'm not focusing on the good cops. I'm focusing on the bad cops and "cop culture." Honestly, I am not satisfied with 1/100. It only takes one time for something to happen that will ruin an innocent person's life. This is unacceptable for people who are here to protect and serve us. Of course treat good cops with respect, there are so few of them. Its time to crack down on the bad cops.

So the only thing that will satisfy you is perfection all the time? And anything less leads to this impotent crusade against authority?

I agree with everyone else. Grow up.

Nov 7, 2009#46

Hailey Knight

Looks shopped.

Nov 7, 2009#47

Chibibar

escushion said:
Looks shopped.

Win!!! (I was wondering who would do it)

You win one internet!

Nov 7, 2009#48

ElJuski

AS LONG AS I'M ALIVE IMA LIVE ILLEGAL

Nov 7, 2009#49

Rubicon

Le Quack said:
Alright, I won't stop posting these videos, but that's cool if you don't believe them. I'm not gonna antagonize about you. A serious overhaul is needed with our police department. More formally, an entire new branch unrelated to the police to in effect, police the police.

I agree. Around here, you break the law even if you don't break the law. When the end of every month rolls around, we know its time for cops to fill ticket quotas, cause going under the speed limit STILL gets you a speeding ticket and not all of us have the time or money to fight it

Quack is right about police, in my opinion.

Nov 7, 2009#50

Heavan

Mav;293396][quote=Le Quack said:
Alright, I won't stop posting these videos, but that's cool if you don't believe them. I'm not gonna antagonize about you. A serious overhaul is needed with our police department. More formally, an entire new branch unrelated to the police to in effect, police the police.

Nov 7, 2009#51

Krisken

C'mon back no, ya hear?

Nov 7, 2009#52

Rubicon

Heavan;293406][quote=Mav;293396][quote=Le Quack said:
Alright, I won't stop posting these videos, but that's cool if you don't believe them. I'm not gonna antagonize about you. A serious overhaul is needed with our police department. More formally, an entire new branch unrelated to the police to in effect, police the police.

Quack is right about police, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

And this has happened to your personally more than once at the end of the month? And you were for sure not speeding? Because otherwise this is just a standard case of one jerk cop out of a thousand, people who claim 'what a jerk I wasn't speeding at all (they were)', or both.[/QUOTE]

Its happened to myself once, and to other people I know. Police setting speed traps is common, sitting on some small side road out of sight to catch speeders is one thing, when I'm going obviously below the limit and still getting ticketed is another. For lower class folks, its just more feasible to pay the ticket rather than the court costs and fighting it.

But who can fight it? We can't fight traffic cameras, seat belt laws (im against it, if you want to risk your own life that should be your decision), etc.

Cops are supposed to serve and protect, not help their local city governments supplement their income with ticket fees and bullshit.

Nov 7, 2009#53

Troll

I have a very hard time believing your story. Either someone was speeding, or it didn't happen.

Nov 7, 2009#54

IronBrig4

A Troll said:
I have a very hard time believing your story. Either someone was speeding, or it didn't happen.

Seconded. If people don't want to get ticketed for speeding they probably shouldn't speed.

My family's apartment complex is on a hill. You take a right turn and there's a long, straight, wide road leading down to the main thoroughfare. The speed limit is 40 mph but for some reason people love to floor the gas pedal and streak down the hill at 60-70. There's usually a police cruiser at the corner (in full view, I might add) who can nab them. Those people don't have shit to complain about because they were speeding significantly over the limit. A three-year-old kid was almost run over a couple years ago when he was just crossing the street with his Dad. Whenever I come back to visit I can usually find the cop writing somebody up. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Nov 7, 2009#55

Gusto

Nov 7, 2009#56

Shawn

I don't even feel comfortable without having my seatbelt on.

In L.A it's hard to love cops. They take their time for anything unless there is a gun involved. But considering there is usually something very bad going down at any given moment in this city it's hard not to blame them.

Nov 7, 2009#57

IronBrig4

You people who don't wear seatbelts really should. That's one of the essential rules for surviving a zombie attack. Sheesh.

Nov 7, 2009#58

AshburnerX

Mav said:
But who can fight it? We can't fight traffic cameras, seat belt laws (im against it, if you want to risk your own life that should be your decision), etc.

Cops are supposed to serve and protect, not help their local city governments supplement their income with ticket fees and bullshit.

Actually, I've had a friend win a case against a traffic camera by asking to be able to confront his accuser (in this case, a traffic camera up a 50 foot pole). I guess the judge had a sense of humor that day or something, because he found in his favor and the ticket was voided.

Nov 7, 2009#59

Rubicon

Impure Vyxen said:
Being against seat belt laws boggles my mind, Mav.

I never understood the people who refuse to wear 'm.
It shouldn't even be a bother to do so.
I will not sit in a car with someone who doesn't wear one.
I don't want to see the bloody pulp as he or she hits the pavement in an accident.

Because its my option to use it? I'm not forcing anyone to ride in the car with me, nor am I forcing other drivers to use one if they don't want to. But the law says I have to wear one?

The laws to protect people are such double standards its not even funny. We recently passed a law for no smoking in doors in public places, anywhere (restaurants, clubs, etc). They raise taxes on cigarettes, make them available in less places, etc etc etc YET, where are the stricter laws for alcohol? Yes, second hand smokes can kill but so can that drunk driver who could afford that 6 pack that was $3 at the local grocery store who ends up killing a child in a hit & run while drunk.

The law is ass backwards in most cases, it truly is. We've given up more freedoms and abilities for the sake of safety and what the local governments deem good for people. If I choose to not wear a seat belt that should by MY choice not someone elses.

Nov 7, 2009#60

IronBrig4

Mav said:
The laws to protect people are such double standards its not even funny. We recently passed a law for no smoking in doors in public places, anywhere (restaurants, clubs, etc). They raise taxes on cigarettes, make them available in less places, etc etc etc YET, where are the stricter laws for alcohol? Yes, second hand smokes can kill but so can that drunk driver who could afford that 6 pack that was $3 at the local grocery store who ends up killing a child in a hit & run while drunk.

People have the right to enjoy being in a restaurant or club without choking on cigarette smoke. The bartenders and waitresses also have the right to work in a healthy environment. After a year in South Korea where EVERYBODY smokes nearly everywhere, I have grown to appreciate state laws against smoking in public areas.

As for drunk drivers, I think they deserve a much, MUCH harsher punishment. I see that as a crime of absolute irresponsibility and criminal negligence.

Nov 7, 2009#61

Bubble181

It's your choice to go and kill 5 people, too; or jump off a cliff. Still not very *good* choices.

Not wearing a seat belt will result in more physical damage to yourself in case of an accident. More healthcare costs. Possibly higher insurance costs. More medical personnel having to deal with you, being paid by the government or whoever, but probably not you, who could be doing better things with that time.

Not wearing a seatbelt is almsot as moronic as driving a motor cycle at high speed in short pants and a t-shirt.

Nov 7, 2009#62

Rubicon

Impure Vyxen said:
I have to agree that a lot of US laws make absolutely zero sense, including some of the liquor laws.

What is your reason for not wearing a seatbelt tho ? I almost get the (false, of course) notion that it's for the 'thrill'. "Living on the edge, baby! YEAH!!"

Really, what is it? Just uncomfortable wearing one? Would getting seatbelt v2.0beta fix that or don't you wear one out of principle simply because there is a law saying you have to.

I find them uncomfortable, I dislike having something restraining me, I've never liked objects around my neck really, at least nothing that was designed to be held in place. I'm not claustrophobic I just dislike being withheld by any type of device. Plus, yea I really don't think I should be required to wear one, it should be my choice.

Little things like this are just the baby steps to a democracy falling. How long before we are told what we are allowed to wear in public? What we are allowed to eat? As time goes by we lose less and less control over our choices. People forget, the government exists to serve us, not the other way around.

Nov 7, 2009#63

Krisken

Mav;293535][quote=Impure Vyxen said:
I have to agree that a lot of US laws make absolutely zero sense, including some of the liquor laws.

What is your reason for not wearing a seatbelt tho ? I almost get the (false, of course) notion that it's for the 'thrill'. "Living on the edge, baby! YEAH!!"

Really, what is it? Just uncomfortable wearing one? Would getting seatbelt v2.0beta fix that or don't you wear one out of principle simply because there is a law saying you have to.

Carry on.

Nov 7, 2009#64

Rubicon

"Impure Vyxen;293545][quote=Mav said:
Impure Vyxen said:

I have to agree that a lot of US laws make absolutely zero sense, including some of the liquor laws.

What is your reason for not wearing a seatbelt tho ? I almost get the (false, of course) notion that it's for the 'thrill'. "Living on the edge, baby! YEAH!!"

Really, what is it? Just uncomfortable wearing one? Would getting seatbelt v2.0beta fix that or don't you wear one out of principle simply because there is a law saying you have to.

Click to expand...

I find them uncomfortable, I dislike having something restraining me, I've never liked objects around my neck really, at least nothing that was designed to be held in place. I'm not claustrophobic I just dislike being withheld by any type of device. Plus, yea I really don't think I should be required to wear one, it should be my choice.

Never rode a rollercoaster then huh? You're missing out, man.

Mav said:
Little things like this are just the baby steps to a democracy falling. How long before we are told what we are allowed to wear in public? What we are allowed to eat? As time goes by we lose less and less control over our choices. People forget, the government exists to serve us, not the other way around.

I... I don't even know what to say to this.[/QUOTE]

Yea, I'm not a fan of roller coasters, never been on one. Not because of the things that hold you in place, I am just scared of heights and have a weak stomach too.

You have to admit, little by little Americans are losing our freedoms.

Nov 7, 2009#65

Kitty Sinatra

Smoking in public? It's an absolutely fucking selfish thing to do. I mean, you're spreading your cancer to everyone near you. I don't punch you in the face, don't blow smoke in mine.

Nov 7, 2009#66

Krisken

Impure Vyxen said:
What Americans see as freedom was never freedom, but it is such a young country that they still have much to learn.

I think the keywords here are "the greater good" ?

Gotta have rules, man.

Freaky rules, man. They be all over my vibe, cramping my scat, ya dig?

Nov 7, 2009#67

Rubicon

Gruebeard said:
Smoking in public? It's an absolutely fucking selfish thing to do. I mean, you're spreading your cancer to everyone near you. I don't punch you in the face, don't blow smoke in mine.

Nov 7, 2009#68

Armadillo

I have never ridden in a car without putting on a seat belt.
I have the best car seat for my daughter that money can buy.
I will teach her to wear her seat belt EVERY SINGLE TIME she gets into a car.

I am 100% against mandatory seat belt laws.

Freedom includes the freedom to be a complete idiot, as long as you don't infringe on others' rights.

As for restaurant smoking, there is no such thing as a "right" to dine or drink in an establishment without encountering smoke. You have the free will to not work in or patronize smoking establishments. Quit inventing "rights" out of whole cloth.

Nov 7, 2009#69

Kitty Sinatra

Mav;293557][quote=Gruebeard said:
Smoking in public? It's an absolutely fucking selfish thing to do. I mean, you're spreading your cancer to everyone near you. I don't punch you in the face, don't blow smoke in mine.

I agree, and I never smoke around people that do not want me too.

But does that mean alcohol drinkers perform the same courtesy? they don't. they (at least, some) still get drunk and harm others either in a car, with physical violence, etc, but there are no stricter laws on drinking.

Its a double standard, and I can tell you why, most of the politicians that are in place to push laws? They drink but don't smoke. I bet you dollars to donuts most of them have one of those fancy bottles of brandy or scotch in their office, but most aren't into cracking open a back of Marlboros and lighting up.[/QUOTE]
Dude. It's way simpler than you make it out to be. One can publicly drink alcohol responsibly and not affect anyone. Irresponsible drinkers should not ruin the party for everyone else.

There's no such thing as a responsible public smoker. They will affect everyone nearby.

There is no good comparison between the two sins.

Nov 7, 2009#70

Denbrought

Mav;293557][quote=Gruebeard said:
Smoking in public? It's an absolutely fucking selfish thing to do. I mean, you're spreading your cancer to everyone near you. I don't punch you in the face, don't blow smoke in mine.

I agree, and I never smoke around people that do not want me too.

But does that mean alcohol drinkers perform the same courtesy? they don't. they (at least, some) still get drunk and harm others either in a car, with physical violence, etc, but there are no stricter laws on drinking.

Its a double standard, and I can tell you why, most of the politicians that are in place to push laws? They drink but don't smoke. I bet you dollars to donuts most of them have one of those fancy bottles of brandy or scotch in their office, but most aren't into cracking open a back of Marlboros and lighting up.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because drunk and disorderly, DUI laws and taxation on alcohol do not exist at all.

Like, at all.

Nov 7, 2009#71

Heavan

Mav;293557][quote=Gruebeard said:
Smoking in public? It's an absolutely fucking selfish thing to do. I mean, you're spreading your cancer to everyone near you. I don't punch you in the face, don't blow smoke in mine.

I agree, and I never smoke around people that do not want me too.

But does that mean alcohol drinkers perform the same courtesy? they don't. they (at least, some) still get drunk and harm others either in a car, with physical violence, etc, but there are no stricter laws on drinking.

Its a double standard, and I can tell you why, most of the politicians that are in place to push laws? They drink but don't smoke. I bet you dollars to donuts most of them have one of those fancy bottles of brandy or scotch in their office, but most aren't into cracking open a back of Marlboros and lighting up.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that there are laws against drunk driving, right? And laws against being disorderly and a jerk in public? Meaning everything you're getting your RAGE on over is already being taken care of?

No?

Well, carry on then. I tried.

Nov 7, 2009#72

Rubicon

Gruebeard said:
There's no such thing as a responsible public smoker. They will affect everyone nearby.

I stopped reading when I read that.

So, if I smoke alone, outside, say at work when no one is near me, I'm affecting people?

There are designated areas we can smoke, if a non-smoker chooses to be in those areas they are acknowledging our smoking ability in that space. (for arguments sake we're talking standing outdoors with a large open area).

Smoking a cigarette has never caused someone to flip out and beat their wife, or drive badly to the point if ending a human life. At least, none to my knowledge.

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 PM ----------

Heavan said:
You do realize that there are laws against drunk driving, right? And laws against being disorderly and a jerk in public? Meaning everything you're getting your RAGE on over is already being taken care of?

No?

Well, carry on then. I tried.

*sigh* Why is it when we try to have a discussion, and someone has an opinion different from the majority, they are assumed to be raging mad over the subject? I'm simply discussing it with calm logic, but whatever.

There are laws yes, but they aren't strict enough. If smokers can't smoke in a restaurant, I shouldn't have to watch someone get drunk at that restaurants bar, sure most likely that person will harm no one, but there are those that will end up doing that.

Either way, lets just agree to disagree, you aren't going to change my mind, I'm not going to change yours and this is slowly going to degenerate into flames, I'd rather avoid infraction points.

Nov 7, 2009#73

Krisken

1 Demerit.

Nov 7, 2009#74

Heavan

Drinking beer has never caused someone to give cancer to some guy waiting for the bus a few meters away. And what do you mean that you shouldn't have to watch someone drink in at a restaurant? As long as they haven't gone overboard it's no different from someone drinking water, and if they do go overboard... well, I've never not seen someone get kicked out for causing a scene. There are laws against that, too. Smoke, on the other hand, doesn't stay in any restaurant-designated boundaries, and has guaranteed harmful effects if inhaled.

And I have to say, I find the straw-grasping to try and make a villain out of drinking when the comparisons between it and smoking are strawmen at best, well, I find it funny.

And how did we get on this topic, anyway? The topic is about police being jerks (they aren't).

Nov 7, 2009#75

North_Ranger

Armadillo said:
I have never ridden in a car without putting on a seat belt.
I have the best car seat for my daughter that money can buy.
I will teach her to wear her seat belt EVERY SINGLE TIME she gets into a car.

I am 100% against mandatory seat belt laws.

Freedom includes the freedom to be a complete idiot, as long as you don't infringe on others' rights.

As for restaurant smoking, there is no such thing as a "right" to dine or drink in an establishment without encountering smoke. You have the free will to not work in or patronize smoking establishments. Quit inventing "rights" out of whole cloth.

Nov 7, 2009#76

Espy

North_Ranger;293625][quote=Armadillo said:
I have never ridden in a car without putting on a seat belt.
I have the best car seat for my daughter that money can buy.
I will teach her to wear her seat belt EVERY SINGLE TIME she gets into a car.

I am 100% against mandatory seat belt laws.

Freedom includes the freedom to be a complete idiot, as long as you don't infringe on others' rights.

As for restaurant smoking, there is no such thing as a "right" to dine or drink in an establishment without encountering smoke. You have the free will to not work in or patronize smoking establishments. Quit inventing "rights" out of whole cloth.

The person in the front seat wears a seat belt. The person behind him, doesn't.

There's a crash.

The person in the front seat would be safe - save for the person behind him, now continuing at the driving car's speed, smashing into his back, causing him to crash against the steering wheel/whatever you call the front of 'shotgun'.

The person in the front seat dies of internal injuries. Therefore, the person behind him infringed on his right to stay alive.

Just sayin', man.[/QUOTE]

Sure but how far do we take that? That logic could be used for just about anything that can result in injury. I'd use an analogy but I'd be afraid of giving our greedy as shit politicians any other way to force us to do something or have to pay for a ticket.

Nov 7, 2009#77

North_Ranger

I would say the point is valid, since once you're in a car, it's not just your life that's involved, it's everyone's who's sitting in the car with ya.

Nov 7, 2009#78

Armadillo

North_Ranger said:
I would say the point is valid, since once you're in a car, it's not just your life that's involved, it's everyone's who's sitting in the car with ya.

And, as the operator of the car with your own free will, you can tell the person not wearing their seatbelt to get the f out. The overarching point is that there is no reason for the government to involve themselves in this sort of thing. If you're moron enough to not wear a seat belt or a helmet on a motorcycle and you die in a crash, there's not a government mandate on Earth that will save your stupid ass.

Nov 8, 2009#79

Chibibar

Mav: if you smoke alone, and no one else is there. The smoke DOES linger when someone else decides to step outside AFTER you are done.

I know this to be true cause our campus has a designated smoking area (technically you can't smoke within 50 feet of the building)

I have to walk by this area where people usually smoke to get to the cafeteria. Sure I can detour about 200 feet or more (depending on the wind) not to smell smoke.

Now, what about indoor? if you smoke in a place (designated area) and it is "open" even after you leave, the smell linger there.

As for seatbelts, I think originally it was design to protect lives. The government is trying to look out for its people. can someone give me non-seatbelt casualties before the law was in place? (like 50+ years ago) vs today? I'm sure there are such data.

Nov 8, 2009#80

ElJuski

Oh god we're talking about freedom of rights oh god oh god this is going to hell in a handbasket

Nov 8, 2009#81

Troll

ElJuski said:
Oh god we're talking about freedom of rights oh god oh god this is going to hell in a handbasket

Look what you've done, Le Quack. You made Juski cry.

Nov 8, 2009#82

IronBrig4

There is a compelling governmental interest to keep its citizens alive and well. Seatbelts help do that. Therefore, the government has a compelling reason to impose seatbelt laws on people who use public roads and highways. It's the same reason we have federal and/or state inspectors who examine the hygienic qualities of restaurants and meat-packing plants.

Nov 8, 2009#83

SeraRelm

HEY GUYS! WHAT'S GOIN' ON IN HERE?

Nov 8, 2009#84

North_Ranger

Armadillo;293637][quote=North_Ranger said:
I would say the point is valid, since once you're in a car, it's not just your life that's involved, it's everyone's who's sitting in the car with ya.

And, as the operator of the car with your own free will, you can tell the person not wearing their seatbelt to get the f out. The overarching point is that there is no reason for the government to involve themselves in this sort of thing. If you're moron enough to not wear a seat belt or a helmet on a motorcycle and you die in a crash, there's not a government mandate on Earth that will save your stupid ass.[/QUOTE]

You didn't read my example, did ya?

Nov 8, 2009#85

Shannow

Trolling - We have no problems with heated discussion, but require you keep it to the subject at hand. If you're making uncalled for personal attacks or simply posting to get a rise out of another member, you will get very little warnings before there will be repercussions.

Nov 8, 2009#86

Qonas

Once again, leave it to Shannow to be the wise man in the room. You have earned your alcohol, sensai.

Nov 8, 2009#87

Krisken

Shannow said:
Mav is once more proving he is an idiot, and quack is that idiot stoner we all see/saw in college parties who, like totally think there shouldn't be any cops, man.

We all knew this before, and there is no point in even having this discussion with them.

Nov 8, 2009#88

Twitch

Don't call Mav an idiot over this, I'm with you guys on smoking but the guys being pretty calm about stating his opinion.

Nov 8, 2009#89

Troll

Krisken;293796][quote=Shannow said:
Mav is once more proving he is an idiot, and quack is that idiot stoner we all see/saw in college parties who, like totally think there shouldn't be any cops, man.

We all knew this before, and there is no point in even having this discussion with them.

Except they didn't say that at all.

I think people are oversimplifying a little on this issue. There are a lot of good police men and women who do a very tough job. There are also a few police officers who garner a seriously negative reputation for police by corrupting evidence and general d-baggery. Definitely a minority. I don't think anyone is saying this isn't the minority of police officers (I think).[/QUOTE]

But the issue I have with Le Quack is that he's saying the entire profession should be condemned because of that minority.

Nov 8, 2009#90

Bowielee

Chibibar said:
Mav: if you smoke alone, and no one else is there. The smoke DOES linger when someone else decides to step outside AFTER you are done.

I know this to be true cause our campus has a designated smoking area (technically you can't smoke within 50 feet of the building)

I have to walk by this area where people usually smoke to get to the cafeteria. Sure I can detour about 200 feet or more (depending on the wind) not to smell smoke.

Now, what about indoor? if you smoke in a place (designated area) and it is "open" even after you leave, the smell linger there.

As for seatbelts, I think originally it was design to protect lives. The government is trying to look out for its people. can someone give me non-seatbelt casualties before the law was in place? (like 50+ years ago) vs today? I'm sure there are such data.

Wow, so it's the SMELL that causes cancer? Holy crap. /sarcasm

Nov 8, 2009#91

Shannow

Mav said:
There are laws yes, but they aren't strict enough. If smokers can't smoke in a restaurant, I shouldn't have to watch someone get drunk at that restaurants bar, sure most likely that person will harm no one, but there are those that will end up doing that.
.

That is just stupid. me sitting at the bar drinking does not compare to you sitting there smoking. My drinking effects you not at all, and if it does, then guess what, I am removed.

Smoking in an enclsoed space, by its very nature, effects those around it. You are completely wrong on this to compare the two, as that they are very different. and to state otherwise is foolish and stupid. Flat out. And yes, I am a smoker.

Nov 8, 2009#92

WolfOfOdin

LittleSin;293056][quote=Adammon said:
But who watches the watchmen!?

Nov 8, 2009#93

Norris

Mav said:
You have to admit, little by little Americans are losing our freedoms.

The freedom to inhale cancer causing chemicals before exhaling them onto other people and the freedom to do faceplants through windshields or get our faces rearranged by our dashboards. Truly, everything Orwell predicted has come to pass.

Nov 8, 2009#94

ElJuski

There is a direct correlation between someone smoking in a bar and blowing it into someone's face and someone having a drink at the bar.

Just because someone has the potential to do something hazardous to someone else's health is extremely different than someone activelydoing something hazardous to someone else's health.

That said, I still believe a bar should have the option to make their bar a smoking bar, where people actively understand the consequences of their actions and company. But more and more it's becoming inconsequential anyway, so it's not really high on my priority list.

And also, there will always be corrupt individuals in any field, especially when power comes into play. However, how much does it really fuck with you, personally? For me, hardly ever. I live my life without hardly any police harassment, and when they do get me, they've always had an understandable reason.

Now, if I were a minority in the inner city, that might be a different story...

But the thing is, we all end up playing games. It's whether or not we're the ones doing the illegal thing and not getting caught, or if they're doing the illegal thing and getting away with it. I doubt any of us here are the paradigm law-abiding moral citizen.

Nov 8, 2009#95

Kitty Sinatra

ElJuski said:
That said, I still believe a bar should have the option to make their bar a smoking bar

I suppose I wouldn't get much in the way of tips, but if I worked there I'd wear a gas mask and some cheap hazmat suit.

Nov 8, 2009#96

Adammon

Re: Seat belts.

No one ever complained after an accident that they wished they weren't wearing their seatbelt.

And I suppose no one ever complained after an accident that they wished they were wearing a seatbelt because guess what? They're dead!
http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

Nov 8, 2009#97

Espy

Adammon said:
Re: Seat belts.

No one ever complained after an accident that they wished they weren't wearing their seatbelt.

And I suppose no one ever complained after an accident that they wished they were wearing a seatbelt because guess what? They're dead!
http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

Nov 8, 2009#98

Adammon

Espy;293866][quote=Adammon said:
Re: Seat belts.

No one ever complained after an accident that they wished they weren't wearing their seatbelt.

And I suppose no one ever complained after an accident that they wished they were wearing a seatbelt because guess what? They're dead!
http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

Nov 8, 2009#99

Kitty Sinatra

That article is full of tragic irony, Adammon. But at least the kid apparently died doing what he loved. Or would that be not doing what he hated?

Nov 8, 2009#100

Le Quack

A Troll;293802][quote=Krisken;293796][quote=Shannow said:
Mav is once more proving he is an idiot, and quack is that idiot stoner we all see/saw in college parties who, like totally think there shouldn't be any cops, man.

We all knew this before, and there is no point in even having this discussion with them.

Nov 8, 2009#101

Espy

Adammon;293868][quote=Espy;293866][quote=Adammon said:
Re: Seat belts.

No one ever complained after an accident that they wished they weren't wearing their seatbelt.

And I suppose no one ever complained after an accident that they wished they were wearing a seatbelt because guess what? They're dead!
http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's a bad idea to wear a seat belt. Instead people are merely saying, there are lots of dangerous things we do every day, many that can impact others around us. We don't like the government trying to nanny us. If it's truly a detriment to others then argue for it. If you just like the idea of the government saying "Do this because we say so" then thats fine to if you can argue why thats all well and good.
I think the discussion is less about wearing a seatbelt and more about where does government control of our lives start and end?[/QUOTE]

I had hoped that my link would make the point a little more clear.

Arguing about theoreticals over government control is all fine and dandy, however those arguing against government mandating safety equipment are a dying breed, literally.[/QUOTE]

It didn't make your point clearer at all. It simply reinforced that he wanted to be able to make his own decisions about his life rather than the government forcing him to. He paid a price for HIS actions. That was HIS choice. I see no problem with that. It's fine if you have a differing ideology about government control but so far I don't see anything convince me to sway from my desire to see less government control in our personal lives.

Nov 8, 2009#102

Adammon

Gruebeard said:
That article is full of tragic irony, Adammon. But at least the kid apparently died doing what he loved. Or would that be not doing what he hated?

And his family loses a son and his friends lose a companion. I wear a seatbelt because I'd hate to leave my wife a widow.

The argument against government mandating seatbelts isn't simply anti-authoritarian in nature. If seatbelts weren't mandatory, there would still be people not wearing them.

The "freedom" to harm one's self is the exact reason why government mandates equipment such as this. Those rallying against this kind of legislation end up proving its necessity.

Stupidity may not be illegal, but suicide still is.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

Espy said:
It didn't make your point clearer at all. It simply reinforced that he wanted to be able to make his own decisions about his life rather than the government forcing him to. He paid a price for HIS actions. That was HIS choice. I see no problem with that. It's fine if you have a differing ideology about government control but so far I don't see anything convince me to sway from my desire to see less government control in our personal lives.

His family paid a price for HIS actions, his friends paid a price for HIS actions. Every man isn't an island. Having to live with myself because a friend of mine was killed in my car (and everyone else lived) because of his stubborn indictment of 'the man' is a heavy price for anyone to bear.

Nov 8, 2009#103

IronBrig4

Espy said:
It didn't make your point clearer at all. It simply reinforced that he wanted to be able to make his own decisions about his life rather than the government forcing him to. He paid a price for HIS actions. That was HIS choice. I see no problem with that. It's fine if you have a differing ideology about government control but so far I don't see anything convince me to sway from my desire to see less government control in our personal lives.

His family and friends lost a loved one. You can't say he was the only one affected.

Nov 8, 2009#104

Adammon

IronBrig4 said:
His family and friends lost a loved one. You can't say he was the only one affected.

Exactly. As much as this shatters our ego-centric view of the legal system, laws aren't put in place to protect "Adammon" or "Espy". They're put in place to protect society as a whole. A law against murder isn't put in place because we want to save Nicole Brown Simpson, it's there to ensure that on any given day there is no intrinsic pressure to commit a crime that deprives us holistically of an opportunity for life.

Often when arguing about these kind of safety requirements, the tact taken is "It's there to make YOU safe." Of course, there are those of us who aren't so concerned for our own personal safety or at least the potential downsides are outweighed by the benefits of ignorance. I would say that it should be argued from the standpoint of "It's there to let us (friends, family, coworkers, perfect strangers) know that you're safe".

Nov 8, 2009#105

Espy

Of course his family was affected but you guys act like the only thing we do that can potentially hurt our loved ones is not wear our seatbelts.
How about all those people that die in car accidents and do wear their seatbelts? What then? Do we outlaw cars?

I get your point and I AGREE. People should wear seat belts. No doubt. But all the over emotional arguments you throw out there won't change my views of what the role of the government is in our lives. The government has a responsibility to create safety rules, but how far do we go with it?
Do we outlaw cheese? More people die from heart disease than pretty much anything else.
Don't you care about the families of those whose husbands and fathers and mothers and wives die from heart attacks?
I could go on and on, but we both know it's silly. We all decide a point where we say, "I will allow *this* much government intrusion into my life". You simply are willing to allow more than I am.

Nov 8, 2009#106

Adammon

Of course, the whole seatbelt argument is moot as you can simply drive without your seatbelt on. It's like speeding - illegal but impossible to track.

And I'm not sure why you'd denigrate emotional arguments. Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument as "Think of the CHILDS!!"

Nov 8, 2009#107

Espy

Adammon said:
Of course, the whole seatbelt argument is moot as you can simply drive without your seatbelt on. It's like speeding - illegal but impossible to track.

And I'm not sure why you'd denigrate emotional arguments. Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument as "Think of the CHILDS!!"

Emotional arguments are manipulative. They aren't used to allow people to make good rational decisions they are used to make someone feel bad if they disagree with you.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument..." when clearly it isn't. Saying, "These are issues with the role of government in the lives of it's citizens" is in no way similar to "Bobby dies because of X and if you change that law you must not care who dies!".

I'm not saying you can't use emotional arguments, they will always be part of the discussion but I'm not going to be manipulated by sadness over someone's terrible loss into changing where I see the line in how the government interacts with it's citizens.

Nov 8, 2009#108

Adammon

Espy said:
Emotional arguments are manipulative. They aren't used to allow people to make good rational decisions they are used to make someone feel bad if they disagree with you.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument..." when clearly it isn't.

Do we outlaw cheese? More people die from heart disease than pretty much anything else.

It's a manipulation of the argument - an emotional attempt to tie a government that outlaws one thing may outlaw another.

Nov 8, 2009#109

Espy

Adammon;293902][quote=Espy said:
Emotional arguments are manipulative. They aren't used to allow people to make good rational decisions they are used to make someone feel bad if they disagree with you.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument..." when clearly it isn't.

It clearly is. The reason people are against government intrusion is because they fear overreach. Fear = emotional. The only arguments that aren't based on an emotional response are mathematics.[/QUOTE]

And if I said, "OMG, the government wants to control your entire life! BE AFRIAD! THIS IS BAD" then that would be a manipulative emotional argument. Instead I'm saying, clearly we must debate the role of government in our lives, not out of fear, but out of the reality that we MUST decide where we want to allow government intrusion into our lives.
If you can't see the difference in that, well, we are coming from two different places I guess. You keep rocking the way you rock and I'll keep rolling the way I roll.

Nov 8, 2009#110

@Li3n

Adammon;293902][quote=Espy said:
Emotional arguments are manipulative. They aren't used to allow people to make good rational decisions they are used to make someone feel bad if they disagree with you.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument..." when clearly it isn't.

Nov 8, 2009#111

Kitty Sinatra

This thread promised more cops acting like douches, but it's just devolved into forumites acting like douches.

What?

Oh right. j/k

Nov 8, 2009#112

Adammon

Espy said:
And if I said, "OMG, the government wants to control your entire life! BE AFRIAD! THIS IS BAD" then that would be a manipulative emotional argument. Instead I'm saying, clearly we must debate the role of government in our lives, not out of fear, but out of the reality that we MUST decide where we want to allow government intrusion into our lives.
If you can't see the difference in that, well, we are coming from two different places I guess. You keep rocking the way you rock and I'll keep rolling the way I roll.

@Li3n said:
Are you saying that there's no math for how many times government went too far?!

No?

Nov 8, 2009#113

Ross

Everyone's out to get you.

Including this guy:

Nov 8, 2009#114

@Li3n

Adammon said:
@Li3n said:

Are you saying that there's no math for how many times government went too far?!

Click to expand...

No?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McAeQiLmEYU&feature=related[/ame]

I'm willing to bet that statistically governments went too far way more times they they didn't...

Nov 8, 2009#115

Adammon

@Li3n;293914][quote=Adammon said:
@Li3n said:

Are you saying that there's no math for how many times government went too far?!

Click to expand...

No?

I'm willing to bet that statistically governments went too far way more times they they didn't...[/QUOTE]

Ok, let's play a game.

The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.

Right or wrong?

Nov 8, 2009#116

Kitty Sinatra

How exactly can one define "too far" mathematically?

Nov 8, 2009#117

Adammon

Gruebeard said:
How exactly can one define "too far" mathematically?

Well, my next point is that how can you measure 'not going too far'? Wouldn't they have gone infinitely not too far?

Nov 8, 2009#118

Espy

Adammon;293910][quote=Espy said:
And if I said, "OMG, the government wants to control your entire life! BE AFRIAD! THIS IS BAD" then that would be a manipulative emotional argument. Instead I'm saying, clearly we must debate the role of government in our lives, not out of fear, but out of the reality that we MUST decide where we want to allow government intrusion into our lives.
If you can't see the difference in that, well, we are coming from two different places I guess. You keep rocking the way you rock and I'll keep rolling the way I roll.

Hey, keep rocking the emotional language like "intrusion" and you're going to get emotive arguments. Debating the role government has is perfectly valid, but you can't pretend that there's not a large emotional component that colours our opinions.

I personally prefer a small, minimalist government that protects our basic rights.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how you understand "emotional argument", maybe thats our issue. Here's how I see it: Emotions clearly will be part of any discussion simply because we are human. However, there is a marked difference between using stories meant to emotionally manipulate instead of facts and talking about the reality of the situation. We say "government intrustion" because "intrusion", ie:1. The act of intruding or the condition of being intruded on. 2. An inappropriate or unwelcome addition. is what we are discussing, not fear mongering.
If I had said, like I previously posted, "The government wants to get you and thats why they are trying to control you through seat belts" then that would be a emotional argument meant to scare you.

Now, if you want to talk about a bad thing that happened to someone, like the kid who died in his car and say, there are this many more instances of this happening in our country, thats why we should do "X" because here is how many lives can be saved according to studies or whatever. Then thats appealing using a reasonable emotional argument I think. It's based out of rationality, not just throwing out bad things happening to people, which while sad and terrible, is not what I make decisions about my thoughts on the law on.
Does that make sense?

Nov 8, 2009#119

Adammon

Espy said:
I'm not sure how you understand "emotional argument", maybe thats our issue. Here's how I see it: Emotions clearly will be part of any discussion simply because we are human. However, there is a marked difference between using stories meant to emotionally manipulate instead of facts and talking about the reality of the situation. We say "government intrustion" because "intrusion", ie:1. The act of intruding or the condition of being intruded on. 2. An inappropriate or unwelcome addition. is what we are discussing, not fear mongering.
If I had said, like I previously posted, "The government wants to get you and thats why they are trying to control you through seat belts" then that would be a emotional argument meant to scare you.

Now, if you want to talk about a bad thing that happened to someone, like the kid who died in his car and say, there are this many more instances of this happening in our country, thats why we should do "X" because here is how many lives can be saved according to studies or whatever. Then thats appealing using a reasonable emotional argument I think. It's based out of rationality, not just throwing out bad things happening to people, which while sad and terrible, is not what I make decisions about my thoughts on the law on.
Does that make sense?

Both sides claim exclusivity on logical reasoning and yet every argument is just multiple layers of abstraction away from a core emotional response. The problem is that the liberal side (larger government role, more nanny-statism) capitalizes on a little less abstraction.

And that's easier for people to understand so it garners public support far quicker.

Nov 8, 2009#120

Espy

Adammon said:
Both sides claim exclusivity on logical reasoning and yet every argument is just multiple layers of abstraction away from a core emotional response. The problem is that the liberal side (larger government role, more nanny-statism) capitalizes on a little less abstraction.

And that's easier for people to understand so it garners public support far quicker.

I can't speak for any "side", just for how I view debates like this. If one side is using sob stories instead of actual reasons then I'm much less likely to be swayed.

I'm confused though, you said you were against big government I think right? But you support laws like the seat belt law? How do you reconcile the two?

Also: Thanks for the good discussion, always nice to have intense debate sans personal attacks

Nov 8, 2009#121

Adammon

Espy said:
I can't speak for any "side", just for how I view debates like this. If one side is using sob stories instead of actual reasons then I'm much less likely to be swayed.

I'm confused though, you said you were against big government I think right? But you support laws like the seat belt law? How do you reconcile the two?

Also: Thanks for the good discussion, always nice to have intense debate sans personal attacks

Who said anything about supporting the laws? I drive a vehicle that I can take the doors, windshield and seatbelts out of (semi-legally). Why would I want to have that taken away?

Just because I understand it, doesn't mean I support it

Nov 8, 2009#122

Espy

Sorry, I thought you had mentioned thinking it was a good law, must have been someone else.

Nov 8, 2009#123

Chippy

Ross said:
Everyone's out to get you.

Including this guy:

Yeah that's not going to be a thing.

Nov 8, 2009#124

ElJuski

*comes in with a clipboard*
*checks off "not"*
*heads off to thread discussing vomiting starbursts*

Nov 8, 2009#125

Adammon

Chippy;293992][quote=Ross said:
Everyone's out to get you.

Including this guy:

Yeah that's not going to be a thing.[/QUOTE]

Nov 8, 2009#126

Ross

and yet you all fail to realize I'm not trying to make it a meme... I'm just posting it for the sake of me posting it.

I love that crazy BK King.

Nov 8, 2009#127

Adammon

Ross said:
and yet you all fail to realize I'm not trying to make it a meme... I'm just posting it for the sake of me posting it.

I love that crazy BK King.

Nov 8, 2009#128

Ross

ummm... word?

Nov 8, 2009#129

Adammon

Ross said:
ummm... word?

You're forever associated with the Burger King in my mind now

Nov 8, 2009#130

makare

Yes the Burger King who enjoys weather a little TOO much.

Nov 9, 2009#131

drawn_inward

Cop hating thread turns into seat belt hating thread turns into a hate the Burger King meme. I like where this thread is headed.

Nov 9, 2009#132

@Li3n

Adammon;293916][quote=@Li3n;293914][quote=Adammon said:
@Li3n said:

Are you saying that there's no math for how many times government went too far?!

Click to expand...

No?

I'm willing to bet that statistically governments went too far way more times they they didn't...[/quote]

Ok, let's play a game.

The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.

Right or wrong?[/QUOTE]

Mathematically, at the time it probably ended in the right column... right now, i don't know, radiation poisoning and all that.

But you seem to misunderstand, just because something can have an emotional component to it does not make it unable to be justified mathematically...

Nov 9, 2009#133

Shannow

Fuck you, you little pussies. Grow a sack, jesus. And yes, I will get more fucking points for this. Fuck it.

Nov 9, 2009#134

Vytamindi

Shannow said:
Fuck you, you little pussies. Grow a sack, jesus. And yes, I will get more fucking points for this. Fuck it.

:noidea:

:hug:

Nov 9, 2009#135

@Li3n

Shannow said:
Fuck you, you little pussies. Grow a sack, jesus. And yes, I will get more fucking points for this. Fuck it.

Oh, did the big bad King of Burgers touch you in a bad place... :confused:

Nov 9, 2009#136

Vytamindi

Brings a whole new meaning to "special sauce."

Or is that a McD thing? Bah...

Nov 9, 2009#137

Dave

Shannow said:
Fuck you, you little pussies. Grow a sack, jesus. And yes, I will get more fucking points for this. Fuck it.

Nov 9, 2009#138

Krisken

Dave;294282][quote=Shannow said:
Fuck you, you little pussies. Grow a sack, jesus. And yes, I will get more fucking points for this. Fuck it.

Oh hi! What's going on in this thread?

Shannow, send me a PM. Let's talk. Because right now I'm lost. I think I missed out on something along the way. Of course, I haven't read this thread past the first few posts so maybe that has something to do with it...[/QUOTE]
He's got to be joking. He was the one saying on the Podcast that you shouldn't take the internet seriously and you can't get excited over what people say.

I'd like to join the :confused:

crowd.

Nov 9, 2009#139

Shannow

Well, that was exactly my point in the cast, and proven here. That a comment like that had to be removed and censored, and from there the cause of an infraction, was ridiculous and overzealous, in my opinion. I apoligize for the next one, though. Thats is just me swearing because I like to swear.

Nov 9, 2009#140

Krisken

Shannow said:
Well, that was exactly my point in the cast, and proven here. That a comment like that had to be removed and censored, and from there the cause of an infraction, was ridiculous and overzealous, in my opinion. I apoligize for the next one, though. Thats is just me swearing because I like to swear.

I'm still not sure how it proves everyone should just accept "The Internet D-Bag" as a part of the forum. I'm still :confused:

Nov 9, 2009#141

Shannow

Well, my reaction here was d-bag. But the censoring part previously seemed a bit overzealous to begin with, and not worthy of any sort of infraction. but that is my opinion on the matter, and I will be flamed for it justly, I am sure.

either way, it is now off topic to the thread\, so we may as well drop it now, for the sake of good discourse, which i am sure will continue on in this thread.

Nov 9, 2009#142

@Li3n

Damn, and i wanted to do more BK molestation jokes... maybe even some Ronald stuff.

Nov 9, 2009#143

Shannow

I politely disagree.

Nov 9, 2009#144

Shannow

That hurt my brain.

Nov 9, 2009#145

Dave

Nov 9, 2009#146

Piotyr

Nov 9, 2009#147

Gusto

A&W.

Nov 9, 2009#148

Bowielee

Aw, now I'm reminded that the Wendy's near my house is closed, and it makes me sad

Nov 9, 2009#149

AshburnerX

Gusto said:
A&W.

Never tried their burgers, but their Limeade is delicious.

Nov 9, 2009#150

Dave

Threads about food turns into a big fucking fight. Threads about fights turn into food discussion. This place is weird.

Nov 9, 2009#151

Gusto

Dave said:
Threads about food turns into a big fucking fight. Threads about fights turn into food discussion. This place is weird.

I don't even wanna THINK about what a thread about food fights would turn into.

Nov 9, 2009#152

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Dave said:
Threads about food turns into a big fucking fight. Threads about fights turn into food discussion. This place is weird.

Halforum, you are weird.

HYAW!

Nov 9, 2009#153

SeraRelm

Piotyr said:
>

>

Forums