Really, the guy runs the whole business by himself without any help at all? Will you next you will try and tell me how he wrote all the code for his site by himself? Wholly fuck, nothing like pandering to the celebs. Do you think you are going to get a great paying job by trying to convince the world about his miraculous ability to learn part of 1 language? I really and truly hope that you try to hold your breath until that happens.
Really, you have to come up with something better than that, because that is a horrible way of trying to measure a country. DPRK has not bombed anyone since the 1950s, but in your book they are okay right?
A guy worth many billions of dollars can pay for someone to teach them a language, and has time to learn the language. Who'da thunk it possible? What a grand and glorious day for all of the people of the world.. er wait a minute...
The proceeding message was brought to you by a cynical old guy who learned to read/write and speak 2 1/4th additional languages (German, Spanish *and currently working on Russian*) on his own time without billions of dollars to do so. All while raising a kid as a single parent and working full time. Sorry, he's nothing special in terms of intelligence and definitely lacking in morals. Being high on his ego does nothing for me.. Next!
What you claim happens is absolutely false. People are not simply claiming that women should be treated like people, they are claiming that:
* Women get treated worse than everyone else on the Internet
Therefor the solution is to censor the Internet.
Due to societal pressures there is no way to prove such a claim, and it's completely not relevant to the solution. Censoring the internet would not prevent shitty people from doing shitty things. If that was true, we would have no crime in any country where a person has a home address. Yet we have lots of crime, and it does not relate directly to anonymity.
The crusade has nothing to do with protecting women's rights. In fact I'll argue that it has nothing to do with catching people that are behaving badly toward women either. If you have doubts, answer why online predators and human trafficking are either the same or worse today (in scale) than say 20 years ago before all of the laws alleging to catch on-line predators.
Many of the laws claimed to protect children have had the exact opposite effect, of protecting criminals. Meanwhile innocent people with good intentions have been harmed by these same laws.
Since we can demonstrate that the laws won't change the situation, you should be asking who benefits if laws are passed.
Absolutely nonsense. The legal definition, for the 4th time, did not change the definition of a word at all. The ruling declared that the STATE can not be sued for entrapment unless other criteria (such as coercion) exists.
This does not redefine a word in any way, shape or form. If you have doubts, read the ruling. Nowhere do they claim that the definition is wrong, or out of date, or definition 2 was not particular enough for the STATE. What they said is that the STATE can not be guilty without additional crimes.
But it doesn't matter if "entrapment" WILL change meanings, you've already shown that it has multiple meanings, only one of which should be covered by a law against entrapment. I thought that would have been clear when I used your own list of definitions to show you that.
You are arguing everything except the point. (see next)
This is a completely different issue than what I replied to, which was your claim that the law should not define the words it uses,
The law is not redefining a word, clarifying a definition, or even using a different word. The ruling in 1992 stated that other criminal conditions must exist for a State agent to be guilty of entrapment. That is the point I was making from the beginning, because the "State" does not use the definition of entrapment when reviewing a claim that the "State" used entrapment.
Since I wasn't talking about this mythical "two forms of justice",
Mythical? So Bill Clinton, Clapper, and Lerner were all found guilty of perjury? Bank executives who used strong arm robbery to seize property they did not own faced criminal charges? Cops that murder people on the street have all faced fair trials and been incarcerated for their acts of murder?
There is no myth that two forms of justice currently exist in the US, in fact there is an uncountable amount of evidence supporting that there are two forms of justice. I'd fully admit that this is not new, but the extremes we have today for protecting cronies like Lois Lerner are surely new.
Surely Britain gets more from the Monarchy than Canada or Australia, but it's no bargain. Usually there is a comparison of _some_ expenses versus all of the revenue they can possibly attribute to the Monarchy. For example, The Monarchy makes a salary of what.. 50million pounds a year in the UK (I'm pretty sure that is the Queen alone with salary + estate charges)? She buys up land and releases it to the public and claims it's charity. But without the funding from the public there would be no funding to buy land and give it away, so in reality she is a middle agent making profit and claiming "for the greater good". People fall for it.
If you consider all of the expenses for sustaining a monarchy, it's enormous! The secret service, travel costs, estate costs all over the world (separate from UK embassies and not including the enormous land holdings in the UK), salaries, clothing, the "Royal Guard", media, various positions to manage all of the royal bank accounts, etc.. etc.. etc...
What does the average citizen in the UK get in return? A parade a couple times a year? Grounds that you can look into, but you sure as hell don't get to live there like they do? A long standing tradition of someone looking down on you because of their family tree?
In other words, the Brits are getting screwed over just like other people. It is easier to justify when the person flogging you for your money actually lives within your borders.
When you want a particular solution, you continue to claim a problem exists over and over and over again until people believe it and demand the solution you want to provide. Hegalian dialectic 101, and in this case they (the State and the cronies putting people into offices) want Internet Censorship.
In fact the Government owns their own Troll armies, provides them play books, and pays them YOUR money (collected in taxes) to Troll. If we know that the US and UK Governments are doing this, we should assume that other Governments are doing the same. We also know that large corporations have hired trolls, and paid them to troll as well. What is constantly overlooked in discussions of "Trolling" is whether or not a Government/Corporate paid troll campaign is involved. It's a fair question, but our state controlled media does not ask the question.
In no way is this an attempt to claim that shitty people don't exist. The issue is, that the shitty people are not the majority and a good number of shitty people happen to be in the Government. "SJW"s are often co-opted by the Government (see COINTELPRO/Mocking Bird), and the Dunning-Kruger effect means that many of these SJWs are unwittingly behaving as agent provocateurs.
Well, she is our titular head of state... but she has no actual power and gets no money from us,
This, and countless other sources say you are wrong.
Even the Canadian Government says you are wrong, but of course they attempt to justify it and package it so that it looks like it's not only "free" but money well spent. Think really really hard about that last statement.
I remember a debate with an Auzzie not too long ago regarding the same thing. "Oh, the Queen does not make money", but then again she does and the other monarchs do as well. "It generates tourism" is probably the most common reason for giving cash to these people, who really do believe you are beneath them.
This is not a newspaper with paid writers who report to an editor prior to publishing. This is a site that runs by user submissions where "editing" is in reality "moderating".
Why would the editor be able to tell you what the submitter did with linking articles? No seriously I want you to tell me WHY ?
Nobody can dispute the error, but to assume you know what a person's job entails is asinine. Unless of course you can demonstrate what their contract contains to ensure that their only responsibility is as an editor.
As a guess, all of the Slashdot editors are editors for a few minutes a day (at most) and not provided time to fully research topics and validate content.
I don't expect them to lay out their job responsibility list any time a mistake happens and instead propose that instead of attacking a person, attack the management. Dice management has not done a very good job with other things (*cough* BETA! *cough*) so why would you assume they are doing well managing employee responsibilities?
Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions, and in fact the court ruling did not determine that the definition was wrong. The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society. This is not a first, the same type ruling has happened over and over again in the last 30 years.
Entrapment is a very simple term without much room for negotiating intricate meanings.
This is so full of fallacy I won't even bother to pick it apart. Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions, and in fact the court ruling did not determine that the definition was wrong. The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society. This is not a first, the same type ruling has happened over and over again in the last 30 years.
If you can not comprehend why two forms of justice are not possible in a "Free" society shame on you. The work was done on that 2,600 years ago and all you would have to do is read and comprehend.
Resorting to ad hominem in your first statement is very telling, and yes we have had brief conversations previously where you demonstrate an adolescent level of dialogue. In other words, I don't expect any rational discussion from you. That said, if you have a real question or statement and can use a fallacy free mode of dialogue I'm happy to respond.
Check the age of the dictionary word Entrapment and how often it has been used in Judicial capacity in the last 300 years, and then notice the "legal definition" you provided and be amazed that the date of that definition is 1992 based on a court ruling. A ruling which of course was in favor of the law enforcement officer.
I'm not sure it was intentional, but you provide proof to my statement "You are providing the recent "bastardized by US judicial decisions" biased definition which allow for additional prosecutions."
This current "legal" definition does not match what was used in court cases for hundreds of previous years, which matches the Dictionary definition of the word.
We have a great reason, in fact I read it the other day and said "Wow, this is brilliant!". What is this reason? People are making too much money as developers so people are trying to drive the market price down. The same issues we talk about for women programmers are used for getting kids interested in programming, and the same reasons we are seeing all this hype to increase the H1B numbers for developers.
I know, I know.. it's really hard to believe that big businesses would collude for nefarious purposes because all of these businesses are purely altruistic and have never harmed society. It's probably harder to believe that the Government would be in on this collusion, because our Government has never harmed it's own people either. (if the sarcasm is not obvious I can't help you)
My point was really along the lines of "What happens when 50 developers all pull the full tree and try to commit it all back?" Usually lock contention, and people hammering all of their files into place. I agree that the problem is not SVN, but this is harder to fix without some draconian measures like Rational.
Of course. That's always been the case. Look at religion as the original patriarchal organization that has perpetuated inequality between the sexes, between "us" and "them". Others, whether in business or politics, just jumped on what was proven to work.
It has been done, but should it be done? Especially in a society that believes itself to be intellectually superior to previous societies? I don't accept it as something that should be normalized or "okay because people have been manipulated for thousands of years". I can't argue with what has been, I can only argue my opinion of what should be.
We climbed out of the trees a long time ago. Today (at least here) the 1 year of parental leave after birth can be divided among the two parents as they choose. In the case of someone who is already a stay-at-home mom, the father has the right to take the whole year.
Again, I'm asking why it would be abusive for society to encourage women to stay at home and a man to work, given we have biological limitations that a women does not have. As stated, the ability to carry a child from conception to birth is exclusively granted to women. The ability to breast feed is also exclusive to a woman. Both of those things are essential for reproduction and child development. Breast feeding has repeatedly been proven to be demonstrably healthier for all aspects of an infants development, and it is recommended that a child nurse until at least 2 years old. So 3 years of a child's life is dependent on a woman being available as a full time parent if you truly want the best development for an infant. Bottle feeding is close, but not the same even when using the mother's milk. Fathers need to be involved too, but this is something that propaganda has also rallied against (especially with minorities).
One has nothing to do with the other (gender identity vs. sexual identity). There are transsexuals who are straight, gay, lesbian, bi, whatever... same as the rest of the population. It's a common enough mistake because transsexuals are at the same point today in terms of public understanding and acceptance as gays and lesbians are decades ago, so no offence taken.
In my defense I did not say transsexual, I stated transgender. One of my best friends though high school was male who went through reassignment surgery. I never noticed any difference in his personality after the surgery, which to me anecdotally indicates that his brain developed more like a woman's as an infant/child even though he grew up male. That does raise some very interesting psychological questions in my opinion. That said, even though she is very happy she can not conceive a child nor can she breast feed.
Where I absolutely agree is that financially women are more often than not forced into a workplace to make ends meet, which a feminist would claim makes me sexist. That is the part which is propaganda, and hard to notice at first glance.
Anyway, thanks for the courteous dialogue so far. I honestly appreciate having my opinions challenged and you raise some good points to evaluate./p.
That they do have a different definition does not encompass whether or not they "should" have different definitions. Using the definition of Justice and it's purpose in a Republic as defined by Socrates there is supposed to be no separation. Where we have separate judicial rules and definitions depending on whether it's the State or Citizen is in other forms of Government (Oligarchy, Monarchy, Tyranny, Despotism, etc...).
Where it seems like we differ is what appears to be an attempt to normalize the separation. I don't accept it as normal, dictionaries and definitions exist for a reason.
That isn't what entrapment is. It is when you convince an entity to commit a crime they wouldn't normally commit, such as, telling a Nun if she didn't buy drugs from that guy over there on the street corner, her church probably will burn down due to an "unfortunate accident"
What you are describing is not entrapment, but coercion. I'm not claiming that a corrupt judicial branch has not required entrapment to include coercion for deciding when a law enforcement agent can be breaking the law, but this is a very new phenomenon (3-4 decades roughly). Not very long ago, police could not perform any illegal activities in order to get a prosecution and "entrapment" in legal proceedings used the dictionary definition. The "War on Drugs" started a trend towards our current dual justice system, where the "State" has a different form of justice than the citizens.
I provided the Websters and Oxford definition for "entrapment" in the thread, no need to be redundant. You can read them yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Minimum wage exists because we don't currently have a free market. I'm assuming that people are too lazy to read the books, but highly recommend them.
Really, the guy runs the whole business by himself without any help at all? Will you next you will try and tell me how he wrote all the code for his site by himself? Wholly fuck, nothing like pandering to the celebs. Do you think you are going to get a great paying job by trying to convince the world about his miraculous ability to learn part of 1 language? I really and truly hope that you try to hold your breath until that happens.
Really, you have to come up with something better than that, because that is a horrible way of trying to measure a country. DPRK has not bombed anyone since the 1950s, but in your book they are okay right?
A guy worth many billions of dollars can pay for someone to teach them a language, and has time to learn the language. Who'da thunk it possible? What a grand and glorious day for all of the people of the world.. er wait a minute...
The proceeding message was brought to you by a cynical old guy who learned to read/write and speak 2 1/4th additional languages (German, Spanish *and currently working on Russian*) on his own time without billions of dollars to do so. All while raising a kid as a single parent and working full time. Sorry, he's nothing special in terms of intelligence and definitely lacking in morals. Being high on his ego does nothing for me.. Next!
What you claim happens is absolutely false. People are not simply claiming that women should be treated like people, they are claiming that:
* Women get treated worse than everyone else on the Internet
Therefor the solution is to censor the Internet.
Due to societal pressures there is no way to prove such a claim, and it's completely not relevant to the solution. Censoring the internet would not prevent shitty people from doing shitty things. If that was true, we would have no crime in any country where a person has a home address. Yet we have lots of crime, and it does not relate directly to anonymity.
The crusade has nothing to do with protecting women's rights. In fact I'll argue that it has nothing to do with catching people that are behaving badly toward women either. If you have doubts, answer why online predators and human trafficking are either the same or worse today (in scale) than say 20 years ago before all of the laws alleging to catch on-line predators.
Many of the laws claimed to protect children have had the exact opposite effect, of protecting criminals. Meanwhile innocent people with good intentions have been harmed by these same laws.
Since we can demonstrate that the laws won't change the situation, you should be asking who benefits if laws are passed.
Absolutely nonsense. The legal definition, for the 4th time, did not change the definition of a word at all. The ruling declared that the STATE can not be sued for entrapment unless other criteria (such as coercion) exists.
This does not redefine a word in any way, shape or form. If you have doubts, read the ruling. Nowhere do they claim that the definition is wrong, or out of date, or definition 2 was not particular enough for the STATE. What they said is that the STATE can not be guilty without additional crimes.
But it doesn't matter if "entrapment" WILL change meanings, you've already shown that it has multiple meanings, only one of which should be covered by a law against entrapment. I thought that would have been clear when I used your own list of definitions to show you that.
You are arguing everything except the point. (see next)
This is a completely different issue than what I replied to, which was your claim that the law should not define the words it uses,
The law is not redefining a word, clarifying a definition, or even using a different word. The ruling in 1992 stated that other criminal conditions must exist for a State agent to be guilty of entrapment. That is the point I was making from the beginning, because the "State" does not use the definition of entrapment when reviewing a claim that the "State" used entrapment.
Since I wasn't talking about this mythical "two forms of justice",
Mythical? So Bill Clinton, Clapper, and Lerner were all found guilty of perjury? Bank executives who used strong arm robbery to seize property they did not own faced criminal charges? Cops that murder people on the street have all faced fair trials and been incarcerated for their acts of murder?
There is no myth that two forms of justice currently exist in the US, in fact there is an uncountable amount of evidence supporting that there are two forms of justice. I'd fully admit that this is not new, but the extremes we have today for protecting cronies like Lois Lerner are surely new.
Surely Britain gets more from the Monarchy than Canada or Australia, but it's no bargain. Usually there is a comparison of _some_ expenses versus all of the revenue they can possibly attribute to the Monarchy. For example, The Monarchy makes a salary of what.. 50million pounds a year in the UK (I'm pretty sure that is the Queen alone with salary + estate charges)? She buys up land and releases it to the public and claims it's charity. But without the funding from the public there would be no funding to buy land and give it away, so in reality she is a middle agent making profit and claiming "for the greater good". People fall for it.
If you consider all of the expenses for sustaining a monarchy, it's enormous! The secret service, travel costs, estate costs all over the world (separate from UK embassies and not including the enormous land holdings in the UK), salaries, clothing, the "Royal Guard", media, various positions to manage all of the royal bank accounts, etc.. etc.. etc...
What does the average citizen in the UK get in return? A parade a couple times a year? Grounds that you can look into, but you sure as hell don't get to live there like they do? A long standing tradition of someone looking down on you because of their family tree?
In other words, the Brits are getting screwed over just like other people. It is easier to justify when the person flogging you for your money actually lives within your borders.
When you want a particular solution, you continue to claim a problem exists over and over and over again until people believe it and demand the solution you want to provide. Hegalian dialectic 101, and in this case they (the State and the cronies putting people into offices) want Internet Censorship.
In fact the Government owns their own Troll armies, provides them play books, and pays them YOUR money (collected in taxes) to Troll. If we know that the US and UK Governments are doing this, we should assume that other Governments are doing the same. We also know that large corporations have hired trolls, and paid them to troll as well. What is constantly overlooked in discussions of "Trolling" is whether or not a Government/Corporate paid troll campaign is involved. It's a fair question, but our state controlled media does not ask the question.
In no way is this an attempt to claim that shitty people don't exist. The issue is, that the shitty people are not the majority and a good number of shitty people happen to be in the Government. "SJW"s are often co-opted by the Government (see COINTELPRO/Mocking Bird), and the Dunning-Kruger effect means that many of these SJWs are unwittingly behaving as agent provocateurs.
Well, she is our titular head of state ... but she has no actual power and gets no money from us,
This, and countless other sources say you are wrong.
Even the Canadian Government says you are wrong, but of course they attempt to justify it and package it so that it looks like it's not only "free" but money well spent. Think really really hard about that last statement.
I remember a debate with an Auzzie not too long ago regarding the same thing. "Oh, the Queen does not make money", but then again she does and the other monarchs do as well. "It generates tourism" is probably the most common reason for giving cash to these people, who really do believe you are beneath them.
This is not a newspaper with paid writers who report to an editor prior to publishing. This is a site that runs by user submissions where "editing" is in reality "moderating".
Why would the editor be able to tell you what the submitter did with linking articles? No seriously I want you to tell me WHY ?
Nobody can dispute the error, but to assume you know what a person's job entails is asinine. Unless of course you can demonstrate what their contract contains to ensure that their only responsibility is as an editor.
As a guess, all of the Slashdot editors are editors for a few minutes a day (at most) and not provided time to fully research topics and validate content.
I don't expect them to lay out their job responsibility list any time a mistake happens and instead propose that instead of attacking a person, attack the management. Dice management has not done a very good job with other things (*cough* BETA! *cough*) so why would you assume they are doing well managing employee responsibilities?
Looking at the moderation that's appearing in this thread, all dissenting opinions and questions are being censored.
Not new of course, but interesting to see this much censorship this early in a thread.
Was the bowl tipped over?
As stated to someone else above
Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions, and in fact the court ruling did not determine that the definition was wrong. The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society. This is not a first, the same type ruling has happened over and over again in the last 30 years.
Entrapment is a very simple term without much room for negotiating intricate meanings.
This is so full of fallacy I won't even bother to pick it apart. Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions, and in fact the court ruling did not determine that the definition was wrong. The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society. This is not a first, the same type ruling has happened over and over again in the last 30 years.
If you can not comprehend why two forms of justice are not possible in a "Free" society shame on you. The work was done on that 2,600 years ago and all you would have to do is read and comprehend.
Resorting to ad hominem in your first statement is very telling, and yes we have had brief conversations previously where you demonstrate an adolescent level of dialogue. In other words, I don't expect any rational discussion from you. That said, if you have a real question or statement and can use a fallacy free mode of dialogue I'm happy to respond.
Danke!
This is such an astounding level of delusion that I must consider you are using number 11 from your officially sponsored trolling handbook.
Check the age of the dictionary word Entrapment and how often it has been used in Judicial capacity in the last 300 years, and then notice the "legal definition" you provided and be amazed that the date of that definition is 1992 based on a court ruling. A ruling which of course was in favor of the law enforcement officer.
You're welcome."
I'm not sure it was intentional, but you provide proof to my statement "You are providing the recent "bastardized by US judicial decisions" biased definition which allow for additional prosecutions."
This current "legal" definition does not match what was used in court cases for hundreds of previous years, which matches the Dictionary definition of the word.
We have a great reason, in fact I read it the other day and said "Wow, this is brilliant!". What is this reason? People are making too much money as developers so people are trying to drive the market price down. The same issues we talk about for women programmers are used for getting kids interested in programming, and the same reasons we are seeing all this hype to increase the H1B numbers for developers.
I know, I know.. it's really hard to believe that big businesses would collude for nefarious purposes because all of these businesses are purely altruistic and have never harmed society. It's probably harder to believe that the Government would be in on this collusion, because our Government has never harmed it's own people either. (if the sarcasm is not obvious I can't help you)
My point was really along the lines of "What happens when 50 developers all pull the full tree and try to commit it all back?" Usually lock contention, and people hammering all of their files into place. I agree that the problem is not SVN, but this is harder to fix without some draconian measures like Rational.
Of course. That's always been the case. Look at religion as the original patriarchal organization that has perpetuated inequality between the sexes, between "us" and "them". Others, whether in business or politics, just jumped on what was proven to work.
It has been done, but should it be done? Especially in a society that believes itself to be intellectually superior to previous societies? I don't accept it as something that should be normalized or "okay because people have been manipulated for thousands of years". I can't argue with what has been, I can only argue my opinion of what should be.
We climbed out of the trees a long time ago. Today (at least here) the 1 year of parental leave after birth can be divided among the two parents as they choose. In the case of someone who is already a stay-at-home mom, the father has the right to take the whole year.
Again, I'm asking why it would be abusive for society to encourage women to stay at home and a man to work, given we have biological limitations that a women does not have. As stated, the ability to carry a child from conception to birth is exclusively granted to women. The ability to breast feed is also exclusive to a woman. Both of those things are essential for reproduction and child development. Breast feeding has repeatedly been proven to be demonstrably healthier for all aspects of an infants development, and it is recommended that a child nurse until at least 2 years old. So 3 years of a child's life is dependent on a woman being available as a full time parent if you truly want the best development for an infant. Bottle feeding is close, but not the same even when using the mother's milk. Fathers need to be involved too, but this is something that propaganda has also rallied against (especially with minorities).
One has nothing to do with the other (gender identity vs. sexual identity). There are transsexuals who are straight, gay, lesbian, bi, whatever ... same as the rest of the population. It's a common enough mistake because transsexuals are at the same point today in terms of public understanding and acceptance as gays and lesbians are decades ago, so no offence taken.
In my defense I did not say transsexual, I stated transgender. One of my best friends though high school was male who went through reassignment surgery. I never noticed any difference in his personality after the surgery, which to me anecdotally indicates that his brain developed more like a woman's as an infant/child even though he grew up male. That does raise some very interesting psychological questions in my opinion. That said, even though she is very happy she can not conceive a child nor can she breast feed.
Where I absolutely agree is that financially women are more often than not forced into a workplace to make ends meet, which a feminist would claim makes me sexist. That is the part which is propaganda, and hard to notice at first glance.
Anyway, thanks for the courteous dialogue so far. I honestly appreciate having my opinions challenged and you raise some good points to evaluate./p.
That they do have a different definition does not encompass whether or not they "should" have different definitions. Using the definition of Justice and it's purpose in a Republic as defined by Socrates there is supposed to be no separation. Where we have separate judicial rules and definitions depending on whether it's the State or Citizen is in other forms of Government (Oligarchy, Monarchy, Tyranny, Despotism, etc...).
Where it seems like we differ is what appears to be an attempt to normalize the separation. I don't accept it as normal, dictionaries and definitions exist for a reason.
That isn't what entrapment is. It is when you convince an entity to commit a crime they wouldn't normally commit, such as, telling a Nun if she didn't buy drugs from that guy over there on the street corner, her church probably will burn down due to an "unfortunate accident"
What you are describing is not entrapment, but coercion. I'm not claiming that a corrupt judicial branch has not required entrapment to include coercion for deciding when a law enforcement agent can be breaking the law, but this is a very new phenomenon (3-4 decades roughly). Not very long ago, police could not perform any illegal activities in order to get a prosecution and "entrapment" in legal proceedings used the dictionary definition. The "War on Drugs" started a trend towards our current dual justice system, where the "State" has a different form of justice than the citizens.
I provided the Websters and Oxford definition for "entrapment" in the thread, no need to be redundant. You can read them yourself.