It's hard for a moderate Christian to accept that they're just as culpable for the murder, rape, and terrorism committed by fundamentalist Christians as every single Muslim they paint with their own culpability brush.
Nobody likes to look in the mirror and see the evil they hate; so they choose to delude themselves with justifications for their form of evil.
I think that's more of a cultural thing than religious. I assure you that fundies of all religions are quite murderous in the less civilized parts of the world.
Lebanese Christian militias terrorizing, murdering, and raping Islamic and Druze refugees and villages from the 70's to 90's?
Lord's Resistance Army?
Army of God?
Concerned Christians?
"Jesus was the first Klansman"?
National Socialist Council of Nagaland's conversion of the Naga to Christianity, by the sword?
Eric Robert Rudolph and the Centennial Olympic Park bombing?
Frankly, I'm less scared of my Muslim coworker than any devout Baptist that hails from south of the Mason-Dixon.
Shame on you.
The evidence also supports the hypothesis that the lesser problem escalated into violence because the cop was a shitbag.
Again, I assert, that anyone willing to cross the line into actually assaulting an officer (as opposed to Rodney King's violent assault on the officers that "detained" him) care little about a camera.
No reading comprehension problem at all. I'm taking issue with your assertion that the problem person has justified lethal force.
Frankly, unless the officer's life was in danger, if he employed lethal force, the problem is *always* the officer.
If his hard is too dangerous, hard, or scary, he can go dig ditches or flip burgers.
The quelling effect a camera has on the suspect is to prevent them from triggering an abusive officer's propensity to use excessive force. It doesn't stop the subject from physically assaulting the officer. Nobody willing to cross that line is giving a rat's ass about a camera.
I have read it. And as long as "escalation" can mean "abusive" behavior like mouthing off to a cop and "forcing" him to resort to physical violence, then ya. I concede. The study makes no attempt at deciding whether that particular path is a problem or not, and doesn't make any claims as to what the "escalation" is. People trying to claim it's stopping people from physically assaulting a cop out of nowhere are basing this claim on ludicrous apologist delusions, supported by exactly no evidence.
This is not insightful, this is stupid.
A camera is not going to deter someone from violence against a police officer. I'll tell you what it deters them from- it deters them from calling the cop an asshole.
What you refuse to accept, (or perhaps condone) is that mouthing off to an officer is casus belli for a police officer to kick the teeth in- i mean detain the citizen, i mean perp.
That is wrong and fucked up.
1. The camera's could have altered the behavior of the citizen such that use of force wasn't required.
The only case where I'll accept that it was necessary to be violent with a citizen of this country with free agency and civil rights, is where he presented a clear and present danger to someone else (and maybe, arguably, himself). If you're arguing that cameras lower the incidence of that occurring, you're a fucking moron.
If you're arguing that it lowers the incidence of people calling cops assholes and the resulting getting their teeth kicked in, I'll buy that. But that still leaves the original problem in place, the cop shouldn't be a cop.
2. The citizens who would normally falsely complain of being abused could have decided the camera would have shown the truth
Totally. Violent criminals usually think twice about attacking an officer because he's wearing a camera. That makes so much sense, I can't believe I didn't think about it.
Yes, those criminals who wanted to violently assault a police officer thought twice because they were being watched. By a camera. Cough.
I will buy that it reduced false reports, though.
"Sir", or "Ma'am" work if addressing directly. "The gentleman", or "The lady" if not?
I can think of a dozen different terms to use when referring to or addressing a non-LEO, that aren't pejoratives used by the military, which the police now seem to fancy themselves as. Police used to the civilians. Constabulary officers who kept peace and enforced laws. Not this crazy fucking gestapo trend where they increasingly consider themselves a branch of the government/armed forces.
You're dead-on. My military friends are fond of using "civilian" as a pejorative, and now several friends of mine who are police. Those friends are also former-military. I think that may be part of a trend, or at least it seems to be from my perspective. A lot of people are getting out of the military and going into law enforcement. I'm not sure those people have the right mind-set to be civil servants in a lot of cases. One of those friends recently made his first heroin user bust, and was bragging about ripping the guy out of his car and how hard the take-down was. This was just a dude shooting up in a car. Non-violent, breaking a law, sure- but did he deserve that?
My friend sounded like he was bragging about taking down a terrorist.
After an entire page of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you're a totalitarian apologist, and a shitbag. I truly hope some day that you don't "comply" enough for an officer and get your dignity, self respect, and maybe even a little of your physical integrity adjusted by one of these ego-driven assholes.
You understand only a small portion of evolution. You clearly don't understand what genetic drift is or genetic diversity. I assure you that only the most fittest surviving can have very major consequences a few generations down the road, as any animal breeder can tell you.
I think (though could be mistaken) from the general tone of his sentiment, was his objection with them being injected with things such as steroids to keep them essentially impervious to the degradation they would otherwise suffer in their little confined space. Though, I've seen chicken houses in the midwest. They don't bother with injections. The necessary ingredients for superchickens, with their 3 legs, stunted wings, and 6 month lifespan are all in the food. Plus they're packed far too tight for injections. There's no room for cages.
Obviously is offspring is less resilient, no special mechanism is necessarily needed. Just the mother being under stress herself (nutrition) may cause the less resilient to "not pull through" in the womb.
Correct
It is my opinion that the male is the less resilient of the two sexes in any case, illustrated by their lower life expectancy
While you could possible be correct, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether it's an inherent biological aspect, or simply the effect of more dangerous socio-environmental factors upon the statistical average. It's my opinion that the genders are about evenly resilient, biologically speaking- exceptions being given to things like increased vulnerability to certain cancers due to degradation of Y chromosome among smokers, etc.
It need not even be the brain. Could simply be some highly evolved hormone feedback loop among a myriad of tissues spread throughout her body. The body is full of them.
I'm not misunderstanding the nature of evolution. We're arguing over the methodology of it, and one of its drivers - Natural Selection, and whether not competition between organisms is a de facto driving force of it, or de jure. Absent all competition of any form, evolution will still occur. Genomes will change, mutation is a constant. It's certainly true that inter/intra-species competition helps direct Natural Selection toward a defined path, but the environment alone is enough, and still evolution will continue without it.
I can't fulfill your request from earlier, because you present an impossible scenario, and ask me to provide an example of said impossible scenario in order to disprove your hypothesis. That's a ridiculous request. Instead I'll simply provide you with the understanding of what evolution *is*. Simply a change in the inherited characteristics of populations over successive generations; and what Natural Selection is: Simply a change in heritable traits driven by the function of the organism's traits and their reproductive success vs. their environment. The fact that competition exists between organisms is just an aspect of our environment.
What competition led to blue eyes? Green? Red hair? Blonde?
Why does simple genetic drift require competition?
Why is that not evolution, by your definition?
Read that again and then comment please... you'll sound less stupid.
What is up with people being completely unable to read?
So you too have reading comprehension issues? Listen, idiots...
The instant you fuck with that... that is gone. You doubtless crypto communistic environmental policy will at best serve a communist agenda. But the environment will actually get trashed by your ideas. Look at the soviets. Communists don't give a shit about the environment... because it is a stupid economic model and they're always poor. And poor people don't care about the environment.
Twit.
You completely missed the point. Good work.
You fuck up the economy = no one gives a shit about the environment.
Do you logic?
Do you see, dude? You're a completely incorrigible shitbag. And just to top it off, you're not even that damn smart. You keep conflating people seeing you as stupid as an indictment against their literacy. I remember some of the less bright children in school playing that same card.
I mean, really? Communistic environmental policy? Are you truly so dense as to ascribe it to a socio-economic model? Can you truly not fire up the logic centers in that lump of decaying mass you call a brain to try to deduce a more accurate model for the effect you have noted? If you think you're the only one who can read, perhaps that says something about you.
Is the ability to read something you associate with having small genitals?
Not at all... Is that really what you think I was criticizing you for? I think I've found your problem, if so.
I'm beginning to wonder if you have in fact been reading your own posts or not. I'm starting to think you misjudge your own literacy.
The obvious counter-argument to the obvious argument to my claim, is that natural selection will statistically favor some random path towards increased heritability of the genome. Not the best, not the easiest, not the cheapest. It's random. Cooperative co-evolution exists all over the place. Multi-celled organisms are a perfect example of evolution choosing cooperation instead of competition between individuals. People who think otherwise may as well believe in Creationism.
It's important not to conflate a specific evolutionary direction suited for increased fitness in the face of insufficient resources with Natural Selection itself.
While selfishness and aggression may be an example of Natural Selection, they are not defining factors of it. I believe that will become apparent as our species continues to progress and resource shortages (hopefully) continue to become less.
Slashdot Mirror
It's hard for a moderate Christian to accept that they're just as culpable for the murder, rape, and terrorism committed by fundamentalist Christians as every single Muslim they paint with their own culpability brush.
Nobody likes to look in the mirror and see the evil they hate; so they choose to delude themselves with justifications for their form of evil.
I think that's more of a cultural thing than religious. I assure you that fundies of all religions are quite murderous in the less civilized parts of the world.
Lebanese Christian militias terrorizing, murdering, and raping Islamic and Druze refugees and villages from the 70's to 90's? Lord's Resistance Army?
Army of God?
Concerned Christians?
"Jesus was the first Klansman"?
National Socialist Council of Nagaland's conversion of the Naga to Christianity, by the sword?
Eric Robert Rudolph and the Centennial Olympic Park bombing?
Frankly, I'm less scared of my Muslim coworker than any devout Baptist that hails from south of the Mason-Dixon.
Shame on you.
The evidence also supports the hypothesis that the lesser problem escalated into violence because the cop was a shitbag.
Again, I assert, that anyone willing to cross the line into actually assaulting an officer (as opposed to Rodney King's violent assault on the officers that "detained" him) care little about a camera.
No reading comprehension problem at all. I'm taking issue with your assertion that the problem person has justified lethal force.
Frankly, unless the officer's life was in danger, if he employed lethal force, the problem is *always* the officer.
If his hard is too dangerous, hard, or scary, he can go dig ditches or flip burgers.
The quelling effect a camera has on the suspect is to prevent them from triggering an abusive officer's propensity to use excessive force. It doesn't stop the subject from physically assaulting the officer. Nobody willing to cross that line is giving a rat's ass about a camera.
I have read it. And as long as "escalation" can mean "abusive" behavior like mouthing off to a cop and "forcing" him to resort to physical violence, then ya. I concede. The study makes no attempt at deciding whether that particular path is a problem or not, and doesn't make any claims as to what the "escalation" is. People trying to claim it's stopping people from physically assaulting a cop out of nowhere are basing this claim on ludicrous apologist delusions, supported by exactly no evidence.
This is not insightful, this is stupid.
A camera is not going to deter someone from violence against a police officer. I'll tell you what it deters them from- it deters them from calling the cop an asshole.
What you refuse to accept, (or perhaps condone) is that mouthing off to an officer is casus belli for a police officer to kick the teeth in- i mean detain the citizen, i mean perp.
That is wrong and fucked up.
1. The camera's could have altered the behavior of the citizen such that use of force wasn't required.
The only case where I'll accept that it was necessary to be violent with a citizen of this country with free agency and civil rights, is where he presented a clear and present danger to someone else (and maybe, arguably, himself). If you're arguing that cameras lower the incidence of that occurring, you're a fucking moron.
If you're arguing that it lowers the incidence of people calling cops assholes and the resulting getting their teeth kicked in, I'll buy that. But that still leaves the original problem in place, the cop shouldn't be a cop.
2. The citizens who would normally falsely complain of being abused could have decided the camera would have shown the truth
This is legit.
Totally. Violent criminals usually think twice about attacking an officer because he's wearing a camera. That makes so much sense, I can't believe I didn't think about it.
Yes, those criminals who wanted to violently assault a police officer thought twice because they were being watched. By a camera. Cough.
I will buy that it reduced false reports, though.
"Sir", or "Ma'am" work if addressing directly. "The gentleman", or "The lady" if not? I can think of a dozen different terms to use when referring to or addressing a non-LEO, that aren't pejoratives used by the military, which the police now seem to fancy themselves as. Police used to the civilians. Constabulary officers who kept peace and enforced laws. Not this crazy fucking gestapo trend where they increasingly consider themselves a branch of the government/armed forces.
You're dead-on. My military friends are fond of using "civilian" as a pejorative, and now several friends of mine who are police. Those friends are also former-military. I think that may be part of a trend, or at least it seems to be from my perspective. A lot of people are getting out of the military and going into law enforcement. I'm not sure those people have the right mind-set to be civil servants in a lot of cases. One of those friends recently made his first heroin user bust, and was bragging about ripping the guy out of his car and how hard the take-down was. This was just a dude shooting up in a car. Non-violent, breaking a law, sure- but did he deserve that?
My friend sounded like he was bragging about taking down a terrorist.
After an entire page of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you're a totalitarian apologist, and a shitbag. I truly hope some day that you don't "comply" enough for an officer and get your dignity, self respect, and maybe even a little of your physical integrity adjusted by one of these ego-driven assholes.
Yes, anyone knows it's a bad idea to call a Stasi officer a cunt to their face.
That totally makes what they do A-OK.
You fucking rock, man.
You're obviously of the opinion that a minor transgression justifies overwhelming and potentially fatal force.
Seriously, fuck you with a hockey stick.
God dammit, my kingdom for mod points
You understand only a small portion of evolution. You clearly don't understand what genetic drift is or genetic diversity. I assure you that only the most fittest surviving can have very major consequences a few generations down the road, as any animal breeder can tell you.
I think (though could be mistaken) from the general tone of his sentiment, was his objection with them being injected with things such as steroids to keep them essentially impervious to the degradation they would otherwise suffer in their little confined space. Though, I've seen chicken houses in the midwest. They don't bother with injections. The necessary ingredients for superchickens, with their 3 legs, stunted wings, and 6 month lifespan are all in the food. Plus they're packed far too tight for injections. There's no room for cages.
You complete waste of skin. Turn off the computer and get off the internet. The moron quotient was met decades ago on the internet.
That you presume to judge my intelligence is frankly the most offensive thing you've said. You're garbage.
Log off and vanish.
The prosecution rests ;)
Maybe you're right though, the smartest people I know often resort to ad hominem attacks when they've got a good argument... cough.
Obviously is offspring is less resilient, no special mechanism is necessarily needed. Just the mother being under stress herself (nutrition) may cause the less resilient to "not pull through" in the womb.
Correct
It is my opinion that the male is the less resilient of the two sexes in any case, illustrated by their lower life expectancy
While you could possible be correct, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether it's an inherent biological aspect, or simply the effect of more dangerous socio-environmental factors upon the statistical average. It's my opinion that the genders are about evenly resilient, biologically speaking- exceptions being given to things like increased vulnerability to certain cancers due to degradation of Y chromosome among smokers, etc.
It need not even be the brain. Could simply be some highly evolved hormone feedback loop among a myriad of tissues spread throughout her body. The body is full of them.
I'm not misunderstanding the nature of evolution. We're arguing over the methodology of it, and one of its drivers - Natural Selection, and whether not competition between organisms is a de facto driving force of it, or de jure. Absent all competition of any form, evolution will still occur. Genomes will change, mutation is a constant. It's certainly true that inter/intra-species competition helps direct Natural Selection toward a defined path, but the environment alone is enough, and still evolution will continue without it.
I can't fulfill your request from earlier, because you present an impossible scenario, and ask me to provide an example of said impossible scenario in order to disprove your hypothesis. That's a ridiculous request. Instead I'll simply provide you with the understanding of what evolution *is*. Simply a change in the inherited characteristics of populations over successive generations; and what Natural Selection is: Simply a change in heritable traits driven by the function of the organism's traits and their reproductive success vs. their environment. The fact that competition exists between organisms is just an aspect of our environment.
What competition led to blue eyes? Green? Red hair? Blonde?
Why does simple genetic drift require competition?
Why is that not evolution, by your definition?
Read that again and then comment please... you'll sound less stupid.
What is up with people being completely unable to read?
So you too have reading comprehension issues? Listen, idiots...
The instant you fuck with that... that is gone. You doubtless crypto communistic environmental policy will at best serve a communist agenda. But the environment will actually get trashed by your ideas. Look at the soviets. Communists don't give a shit about the environment... because it is a stupid economic model and they're always poor. And poor people don't care about the environment.
Twit.
You completely missed the point. Good work.
You fuck up the economy = no one gives a shit about the environment.
Do you logic?
Do you see, dude? You're a completely incorrigible shitbag. And just to top it off, you're not even that damn smart. You keep conflating people seeing you as stupid as an indictment against their literacy. I remember some of the less bright children in school playing that same card.
I mean, really? Communistic environmental policy? Are you truly so dense as to ascribe it to a socio-economic model? Can you truly not fire up the logic centers in that lump of decaying mass you call a brain to try to deduce a more accurate model for the effect you have noted? If you think you're the only one who can read, perhaps that says something about you.
Is the ability to read something you associate with having small genitals?
Not at all... Is that really what you think I was criticizing you for? I think I've found your problem, if so.
I'm beginning to wonder if you have in fact been reading your own posts or not. I'm starting to think you misjudge your own literacy.
The obvious counter-argument to the obvious argument to my claim, is that natural selection will statistically favor some random path towards increased heritability of the genome. Not the best, not the easiest, not the cheapest. It's random. Cooperative co-evolution exists all over the place. Multi-celled organisms are a perfect example of evolution choosing cooperation instead of competition between individuals. People who think otherwise may as well believe in Creationism.
It's important not to conflate a specific evolutionary direction suited for increased fitness in the face of insufficient resources with Natural Selection itself. While selfishness and aggression may be an example of Natural Selection, they are not defining factors of it. I believe that will become apparent as our species continues to progress and resource shortages (hopefully) continue to become less.