but there's something really wrong with attacking the notion of policework itself
"the abusive powers we have given law enforcement"
we give them those powers only because there are guys out there who happily use those powers to do evil things. these people are not police at all. they are something far worse. do you understand that? you don't sound like you do. it seems like in your mind, the worst thing out there are the police themselves. which is kind of insane
its impossible to police this world without those powers you think police shouldn't have
read that again. make sure that simple obvious reality sinks in
policing is a human endeavour. meaning, police make mistakes. also meaning: evil assholes can wind up in the system and do evil things while wearing a uniform
and when that happens, you fix the mistakes, and you prosecute the abusive assholes
but you don't attack the notion of policework itself!
you have some sort of mental problem if you think attacking the idea of policing itself and the power they need to do their jobs has any value or meaning in a sane discussion about police
its obvious you don't like the police. that simply means you have an irrational bias and are slightly unhinged when it comes to your ability to understand and intelligently comment on reality
selectively prosecute the usa on the global stage without considering the actions of the other players
you say you can, because you can only affect the usa
but this is not a moral argument, this is an argument of convenience
the jaywalker, you will prosecute with high holy indignation... because he listens to you. but the murderer you will ignore, because he won't listen to you
no. this is not valid
you must base your porsecutions on the scale of the crimes, not whether or not the criminal decides to listen to you. in fact, the worst defiler of human rights will never listen to you. so the regimes that you have the least control over, that no one has any control over: such as myanmar, north korea, zimbabwe, are in fact the worst criminals on the planet. strictly because they believe they are above the law. not the law of the usa, or the law of the un, fuck the usa or the un. they think they are above the law of the input of their own citizens. this is the starting off point for the worst crimes on the planet
you must take the fight to the worst offenders. you cannot beat up the usual suspects and ignore the darkest evils. this approach of yours "i prosecute whoever listens to me" does not make you a moral or just person, it just makes you a blowhard
but you didn't tell me WHEN to stop trolling. you never were very good with the whole spatial temporal coordinates. its not my fault you adapt shorthand conversational notation and assume other people know which WHEN you are talking about. when you're dealing with timethreads you can't be as careless as you are, nevermind my carelessness. own up to your carelessness and i'll own up to mine
gravitons display a bias for polar rather than equatorial output. this was the basis for the graviton engine that first bought man...
oh shit, forgot what time line was in, you guys aren't supposed to discover this until 2039. dang it, screwed up again. i'll have to shut this time line down...
all i'm looking for is some intellectual honesty from you. i'm not defending the usa. fuck the usa. but i don't want to listen to you, who seems to care less about actual principles and morals and a human conscience, and seems to only care about prosecuting the usa. you're biased, and therefore a useless propaganda victim
the only intellectually and morally valid point of view on the subject matter you are commenting on is a global one
do human rights end at the rio grande? are humans worth less below the straights of bosporus? do you have less right to speak your mind south of the rock of gibraltar? of course not, of course not, of course not
but by your way of thinking, the governments north of those points you hold accountable and the governments south of those points you do not hold accountable. therefore, in your world, no real progress is made on the issues you care about. all you really have is a fancy blame game that doesn't actually solve the problems you see. do you honestly care about the problems you see? then apply your principles equally across the globe, or do not apply them at all. because selectively applying your principles only to the west is ethnocentric racism, frankly
if the usa went through the kind of trauma they did over nazism, i can see myself being convinced to give up my freedom of expression fundamentalism and make a special unique case for clamping down on nazi expression, with an expiration date in a generation or two when the spectre doesn't hang over europe and is instead more of a horror story from ancient history
meanwhile, in china and iran, the motivation to censor is purely power retention and ridiculous notions of fundamentalist morality
so i really don't see it as hypocrisy, because i see there are different motivations here, and different scale and scope of censorship going on
but germany should uncensor scientology. i think scientology is a bunch of fucking brainwashed fanatic morons, but there is no special need to censor them
so you will criticize the usa because the usa listens and has a conscience. but the guy who is unaccountable, and doing far worse, you won't criticize
amazing. this is morality?
so if a guy jaywalks, and feels bad about it, you will crucify him. but if another guy murders, and won't listen to you, you'll give him a free pass
of course, you are saying basically you have no voice in a nondemocracy that you are not a citizen of. ok, got that. then, by logical implication, you must refrain from criticizing the usa in any realm that is not strictly a domestic realm. for if you criticize the usa on the international realm, then you must also consider the other players in that realm equally. otherwise, you are not being intellectually or morally honest about the problems you are attempting to comment on
"My point is that the America of 2008 looks a lot more like China than the America of 1980. The fact that this doesn't alarm the supposed conservatives of this country is truly frightening."
this is called hysteria. i would say yes, america has moved down the road towards fascism... an inch. as compared to a mile for china. no, really. they machine gun their own protestors. please don't compare this to random cop abuses in the usa. if a cop shoots a bunch of people in the usa, he is condemned, maybe even fired, prosecuted and jailed. the machine gunning of protestors came on orders from the very top
you really haven't the slightest bit of scale or perspective if you compare the usa to china on any scale of freedoms
i would say most countries have worse freedoms and rights than the usa... for its citizens
and the usa DOES project its use of force...
against really vile regimes
what's the matter with that?
the top poster complains about a number of countries the usa picked on during the cold war. as if those crimes happened in a vacuum, without the ussr doing anything bad on the other side. not that that excuses the usa's cold war crimes, i just think it's intellectually dishonest to complain so vociferously about the usa, when there are and were other world players doing far worse, for much worse goals. why isn't the top poster screaming bloody murder about what china did/ does, and what the ussr/ russia did/ does?
plenty of those offenses are lame (marijuana should be legal of course), but i think chinese and russians would complain about too many criminals running around the streets due to corruption and laziness, not celebrating their vast freedoms as compared to the usa
now tell us how the track record of the usa on freedom in your mind compares to the track record on freedom of any other major power in the world at present and throughout history
no one expects the usa to be perfect, but it receives higher marks than most. well, i said no one expects the usa to be perfect, that's not true... there's you
we have cases of murder, and we have cases of manslaughter. both result in a dead body. but they are very different subject matter because of intent
intent is a large part of legal and moral opinion. it always matters. and it matters here in this case too, it really does. if you respond to me that it doesn't matter in your mind, then i only have to say that your mind is not functioning how most people's minds process the situation
i'm talking about the public perception of the high profile case if the leaker turns out to be ill-intentioned. a fake allegation of rape casts a cloud on 100 other valid charges of rape in the mind of the public. that's unfortunate, but real. likewise, if the leaker turns out to be a saboteur instead, 100 other whistleblower cases have a pall cast over them
what you are talking about is a totally different comparison i didn't even make. try to pay attention before responding next time please
actually, yes you can. the bank's efforts at defending itself are certainly vile, but this doesn't mean the leaker has virtuous motivations either. if you think it is impossible to leak and lie at the same time, you've never encountered a disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client before
it's sort of like some of the problems surrounding allegations of rape. most charges of rape are indeed cases about a real rape, that needs to be punished harshly. but a handful of charges of rape are made by women who's motivations are completely false. the horrible tragedy is that the real damage such women do is not to the man they want to hurt, but to the 100 other cases of genuine rape their false rape charges now put into doubt
so let us hope this wikileaks case does not involve a maliciously intended disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client. not that the bank's actions are defensible in any way, regardless of the leaker's motivations, but if the motivations of the leaker aren't squeeky clean, on such a high profile affair, then this entire wikileaks first amendment situation gets poisoned in a way it would be viewed on the street in a way no one who cares about the first amendment wants to see happen
1. you need a full spectrum of taxes. say you didn't have a sales tax. some people would generate all of their income and sales, and owe nothing. they freeload. or say there is no property taxes. some would simply acquire land and owe no taxes. its unfair to some guy who doesn't own land. it is in fact a nice way to start a landed gentry and a population of serfs. yeah, that's progress
2. land property is an abstract concept. money in fact is an abstract concept. land property, or money, has no meaning except in relation to your relationship with society. there is no way to think of property as some sort of natural right, something that you innately possess as your own, on your own, like intelligence or age. as such, thinking of your property as some sort of natural appendage of yours is philosophcally false
libertarianism starts out with some very noble beliefs, but it is incredibly naive about how society really works. all libertarian ideals result in, in the real world, is aristocracy, and an underclass of poor. that's not the stated goal of libertarianism of course, but that is in fact what libertarian ideas result in: an unnatural concentration of wealth in some hands, and the absence of it in others. sure, libertarianism is championed in the name of equality and the middle class, but the results of libertarianism is to destroy equality and the middle class. the idea of libertarianism is founded on a flawed understanding of how society really works. you need a balancing force, a central government to make sure nothing gets out of hand. you don't simply let independent players proceed as they want without oversight. run that simulation: a few years later you get robber barons and starving poor. wealth accumulates. you must therefore exert governmental pressure to make sure the playing field stays level
the people who stir up the nest are not responsible
better analogy: guy holds someone hostage. he says if the police try to rescue the hostage, he'll shoot the hostage. the police try to rescue the hostage, and screw it up. so the guy shoots the hostage
who is responsible for the dead hostage?
the guy who shot the hostage, 100%
if you believe the police in any way are responsible for the dead hostage, then you believe that governmental authority and rights are more important than individual responsibility and rights
Slashdot Mirror
but there's something really wrong with attacking the notion of policework itself
"the abusive powers we have given law enforcement"
we give them those powers only because there are guys out there who happily use those powers to do evil things. these people are not police at all. they are something far worse. do you understand that? you don't sound like you do. it seems like in your mind, the worst thing out there are the police themselves. which is kind of insane
its impossible to police this world without those powers you think police shouldn't have
read that again. make sure that simple obvious reality sinks in
policing is a human endeavour. meaning, police make mistakes. also meaning: evil assholes can wind up in the system and do evil things while wearing a uniform
and when that happens, you fix the mistakes, and you prosecute the abusive assholes
but you don't attack the notion of policework itself!
you have some sort of mental problem if you think attacking the idea of policing itself and the power they need to do their jobs has any value or meaning in a sane discussion about police
its obvious you don't like the police. that simply means you have an irrational bias and are slightly unhinged when it comes to your ability to understand and intelligently comment on reality
but would you like to join the war of 1812? get back to me in the next 5 minutes before this wormhole closes
if phreakers or hackers target the feds
but please don't target the local law enforcement guys. you're actively denying some poor shlub 911 resources who might need them in a real emergency
that makes you worse than anything you say you are opposing
selectively prosecute the usa on the global stage without considering the actions of the other players
you say you can, because you can only affect the usa
but this is not a moral argument, this is an argument of convenience
the jaywalker, you will prosecute with high holy indignation... because he listens to you. but the murderer you will ignore, because he won't listen to you
no. this is not valid
you must base your porsecutions on the scale of the crimes, not whether or not the criminal decides to listen to you. in fact, the worst defiler of human rights will never listen to you. so the regimes that you have the least control over, that no one has any control over: such as myanmar, north korea, zimbabwe, are in fact the worst criminals on the planet. strictly because they believe they are above the law. not the law of the usa, or the law of the un, fuck the usa or the un. they think they are above the law of the input of their own citizens. this is the starting off point for the worst crimes on the planet
you must take the fight to the worst offenders. you cannot beat up the usual suspects and ignore the darkest evils. this approach of yours "i prosecute whoever listens to me" does not make you a moral or just person, it just makes you a blowhard
this is what, the 3rd time line i will screw/ am screwing/ screwed up? i will apologize/ am apologizing/ apologized
please don't report this to the arbitrator, i don't need yet another resubstantiation this epoch
but you didn't tell me WHEN to stop trolling. you never were very good with the whole spatial temporal coordinates. its not my fault you adapt shorthand conversational notation and assume other people know which WHEN you are talking about. when you're dealing with timethreads you can't be as careless as you are, nevermind my carelessness. own up to your carelessness and i'll own up to mine
the neutrino piston yet? i can't remember which century i'm in. you need a PSI greater than the centers of stars to get the crystallization right
but i've said enough already, i've totally screwed up this whole timeline with my careless comments, i apologize
time to dispose of this timeline
hold for oblivion...
oh by the way, in 10 years time you do in fact finally achieve your deepest wish for...
BZZT
gravitons display a bias for polar rather than equatorial output. this was the basis for the graviton engine that first bought man...
oh shit, forgot what time line was in, you guys aren't supposed to discover this until 2039. dang it, screwed up again. i'll have to shut this time line down...
so did china
so did russia
so did france
etc.
some of them did a lot worse
and yet your venom is only directed at the usa
why is that?
all i'm looking for is some intellectual honesty from you. i'm not defending the usa. fuck the usa. but i don't want to listen to you, who seems to care less about actual principles and morals and a human conscience, and seems to only care about prosecuting the usa. you're biased, and therefore a useless propaganda victim
the only intellectually and morally valid point of view on the subject matter you are commenting on is a global one
do human rights end at the rio grande? are humans worth less below the straights of bosporus? do you have less right to speak your mind south of the rock of gibraltar? of course not, of course not, of course not
but by your way of thinking, the governments north of those points you hold accountable and the governments south of those points you do not hold accountable. therefore, in your world, no real progress is made on the issues you care about. all you really have is a fancy blame game that doesn't actually solve the problems you see. do you honestly care about the problems you see? then apply your principles equally across the globe, or do not apply them at all. because selectively applying your principles only to the west is ethnocentric racism, frankly
about censoring nazism, that is
if the usa went through the kind of trauma they did over nazism, i can see myself being convinced to give up my freedom of expression fundamentalism and make a special unique case for clamping down on nazi expression, with an expiration date in a generation or two when the spectre doesn't hang over europe and is instead more of a horror story from ancient history
meanwhile, in china and iran, the motivation to censor is purely power retention and ridiculous notions of fundamentalist morality
so i really don't see it as hypocrisy, because i see there are different motivations here, and different scale and scope of censorship going on
but germany should uncensor scientology. i think scientology is a bunch of fucking brainwashed fanatic morons, but there is no special need to censor them
so you will criticize the usa because the usa listens and has a conscience. but the guy who is unaccountable, and doing far worse, you won't criticize
amazing. this is morality?
so if a guy jaywalks, and feels bad about it, you will crucify him. but if another guy murders, and won't listen to you, you'll give him a free pass
of course, you are saying basically you have no voice in a nondemocracy that you are not a citizen of. ok, got that. then, by logical implication, you must refrain from criticizing the usa in any realm that is not strictly a domestic realm. for if you criticize the usa on the international realm, then you must also consider the other players in that realm equally. otherwise, you are not being intellectually or morally honest about the problems you are attempting to comment on
"My point is that the America of 2008 looks a lot more like China than the America of 1980. The fact that this doesn't alarm the supposed conservatives of this country is truly frightening."
this is called hysteria. i would say yes, america has moved down the road towards fascism... an inch. as compared to a mile for china. no, really. they machine gun their own protestors. please don't compare this to random cop abuses in the usa. if a cop shoots a bunch of people in the usa, he is condemned, maybe even fired, prosecuted and jailed. the machine gunning of protestors came on orders from the very top
you really haven't the slightest bit of scale or perspective if you compare the usa to china on any scale of freedoms
i would say most countries have worse freedoms and rights than the usa... for its citizens
and the usa DOES project its use of force...
against really vile regimes
what's the matter with that?
the top poster complains about a number of countries the usa picked on during the cold war. as if those crimes happened in a vacuum, without the ussr doing anything bad on the other side. not that that excuses the usa's cold war crimes, i just think it's intellectually dishonest to complain so vociferously about the usa, when there are and were other world players doing far worse, for much worse goals. why isn't the top poster screaming bloody murder about what china did/ does, and what the ussr/ russia did/ does?
plenty of those offenses are lame (marijuana should be legal of course), but i think chinese and russians would complain about too many criminals running around the streets due to corruption and laziness, not celebrating their vast freedoms as compared to the usa
now tell us how the track record of the usa on freedom in your mind compares to the track record on freedom of any other major power in the world at present and throughout history
no one expects the usa to be perfect, but it receives higher marks than most. well, i said no one expects the usa to be perfect, that's not true... there's you
it is an important issue
it always is
we have cases of murder, and we have cases of manslaughter. both result in a dead body. but they are very different subject matter because of intent
intent is a large part of legal and moral opinion. it always matters. and it matters here in this case too, it really does. if you respond to me that it doesn't matter in your mind, then i only have to say that your mind is not functioning how most people's minds process the situation
i'm talking about the public perception of the high profile case if the leaker turns out to be ill-intentioned. a fake allegation of rape casts a cloud on 100 other valid charges of rape in the mind of the public. that's unfortunate, but real. likewise, if the leaker turns out to be a saboteur instead, 100 other whistleblower cases have a pall cast over them
what you are talking about is a totally different comparison i didn't even make. try to pay attention before responding next time please
actually, yes you can. the bank's efforts at defending itself are certainly vile, but this doesn't mean the leaker has virtuous motivations either. if you think it is impossible to leak and lie at the same time, you've never encountered a disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client before
it's sort of like some of the problems surrounding allegations of rape. most charges of rape are indeed cases about a real rape, that needs to be punished harshly. but a handful of charges of rape are made by women who's motivations are completely false. the horrible tragedy is that the real damage such women do is not to the man they want to hurt, but to the 100 other cases of genuine rape their false rape charges now put into doubt
so let us hope this wikileaks case does not involve a maliciously intended disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client. not that the bank's actions are defensible in any way, regardless of the leaker's motivations, but if the motivations of the leaker aren't squeeky clean, on such a high profile affair, then this entire wikileaks first amendment situation gets poisoned in a way it would be viewed on the street in a way no one who cares about the first amendment wants to see happen
1. you need a full spectrum of taxes. say you didn't have a sales tax. some people would generate all of their income and sales, and owe nothing. they freeload. or say there is no property taxes. some would simply acquire land and owe no taxes. its unfair to some guy who doesn't own land. it is in fact a nice way to start a landed gentry and a population of serfs. yeah, that's progress
2. land property is an abstract concept. money in fact is an abstract concept. land property, or money, has no meaning except in relation to your relationship with society. there is no way to think of property as some sort of natural right, something that you innately possess as your own, on your own, like intelligence or age. as such, thinking of your property as some sort of natural appendage of yours is philosophcally false
libertarianism starts out with some very noble beliefs, but it is incredibly naive about how society really works. all libertarian ideals result in, in the real world, is aristocracy, and an underclass of poor. that's not the stated goal of libertarianism of course, but that is in fact what libertarian ideas result in: an unnatural concentration of wealth in some hands, and the absence of it in others. sure, libertarianism is championed in the name of equality and the middle class, but the results of libertarianism is to destroy equality and the middle class. the idea of libertarianism is founded on a flawed understanding of how society really works. you need a balancing force, a central government to make sure nothing gets out of hand. you don't simply let independent players proceed as they want without oversight. run that simulation: a few years later you get robber barons and starving poor. wealth accumulates. you must therefore exert governmental pressure to make sure the playing field stays level
du duuh du duuh
whooo are you? who who who who
ireallywannaknow
whooo are you? who who who who
has always been a turkey
it was bound to come to this point
but we're talking about the people who take what you say and go "therefore, there shall be no criticism of the muslim world"
the people who stir up the nest are not responsible
;-)
better analogy: guy holds someone hostage. he says if the police try to rescue the hostage, he'll shoot the hostage. the police try to rescue the hostage, and screw it up. so the guy shoots the hostage
who is responsible for the dead hostage?
the guy who shot the hostage, 100%
if you believe the police in any way are responsible for the dead hostage, then you believe that governmental authority and rights are more important than individual responsibility and rights
imagine that
people with a different opinion than yours are also the same people that are wrong ;-)