Policing Is Hard Work

[Consept]

6 minutes ago, Onemanwolfpac said:

How do you fix iq?

Stay on this point, by your logic if i have a higher iq than most, i should be quite successful in society right, at least as long as im hard working? Well what if someone who comes from a rich family, who has a much lower IQ but went to a private school and received a much better education but mainly got further because of the connections of both the father and who he interacted with at school. Explain to me how that is meritocracy and an even playing field that promotes the most talented? 

[Forestluv]

50 minutes ago, Onemanwolfpac said:

Your missing the forest for the trees. 

I understand all the points you made and I am not arguing against your points. I’m asking a simple question to clarify your statement. 

You’ve stated that family structure was better in the 1950s. I’m not arguing your points. I’m asking you if you think these three aspects of 1950s family structure is better than today: 1) Inter-racial marriage is illegal. 2) Same-sex marriage is illegal. 3) Children are segregated into different schools based on race. . . Would you support re-enstating these aspects of family structure?

[Bodigger]

17 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You’ve stated that family structure was better in the 1950s. I’m not arguing your points. I’m asking you if you think these three aspects of 1950s family structure is better than today: 1) Inter-racial marriage is illegal. 2) Same-sex marriage is illegal. 

LOL.....I think marriage should not be in the legal system at all.  It's a sacrament and has no reason for being in our laws.

Why does government give a crap?  Good intensions and Tax revenue I'm sure.  The point is, whenever government sticks there nose into family and values, it usually backfires on the people. 

 

[crab12]

5 hours ago, Consept said:

I see this point a lot that things were better for black people in the 50s, i think its come about from Trump and maga, but its a ridiculous statement, how could it be better for black people if there was segregation, redlining, no civil rights. You cant really have it both ways and assert that racism is better than before but then in the same breath say that we should go back to more racist times 

33 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

In the 1950s:

Inter-racial marriage was illegal.

Same-sex marriage was illegal.

Children were segregated into different schools based on race.

Do you think it’s a good idea to return to those aspects of the 1950s?

The reason we like 1950s is because of the nuclear family and social cohesion, not because of segregation or lack of civil rights for blacks. I have suffered a lot and others suffer a lot because of dysfunctional / non-existing families, this is not a race thing. If you want what's best for your community, why don't you advocate for families as well? There's no arguing that intact families reduce suffering and hostility in the world.

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

By that logic you would really love it in Saudi Arabia.

It's easy to maintain a strong nuclear family with force and oppression. When a woman cannot even get a credit card or passport without her husband's approval, yeah, she will stay in the nuclear family. She has no viable alternative.

No, we don't want Saudi tier oppression, just nuclear families. Anyway, working at a 9-5 office job blows and is a waste of life, and I think many women realize this.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Onemanwolfpac said:

And Government replacing the fatherless homes and promote "proud single mother" rhetoric is a better alternative?

Dude, the government is not that involved in people's lives. The government is not in control of when a mother decides to leave her husband for whatever reason because she has more freedom than ever in history. Same for the father. These are private decisions.

One of the consequences of greater democracy is greater freedom, which means that people do whatever they feel like, even if it's problematic. The government cannot force couples to stay together.

In the past, strong marriage was a survival necessity. That is no longer the case. And that will not change back, so you're fighting a war you cannot win.

[Forestluv]

39 minutes ago, crab12 said:

The reason we like 1950s is because of the nuclear family and social cohesion, not because of segregation or lack of civil rights for blacks. I have suffered a lot and others suffer a lot because of dysfunctional / non-existing families, this is not a race thing. If you want what's best for your community, why don't you advocate for families as well? There's no arguing that intact families reduce suffering and hostility in the world.

Great. So you are saying there are some aspects of 1950s family structure you think are positive and some aspects of 1950s family structure you think is negative. I agree. For example, wealth inequality was much lower in the 1950s than it is today. Today’s extreme wealth inequality is a negative for lower and middle class families. 

I’m all for cohesive families. I think it’s great to have families with two healthy, loving parents. I don’t care if they are straight, gay, same race or inter-racial. I would also advocate for having community resources for families such as pregnancy support, family counseling and assistance with things like alcoholism and drug addiction. 

I would much rather invest in families than invest in billionaires. I would rather use taxpayer money to create a community recreation center for families than use taxpayer money to buy a billionaire his third yacht that he won’t even use. 

44 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

The point is, whenever government sticks there nose into family and values, it usually backfires on the people. 

I disagree. For example, the government needed to create laws to give LGBTQ people equal rights and government is needed to enforce those laws. Hopefully, the conscious level of society will rise high enough that people will naturally live with inclusion and the government won’t be needed for enforcement. Yet in the meantime, we need government intervention in this area. 

3 hours ago, Onemanwolfpac said:

Winners focus on winning. 

You seem to value winners and winning. . . Would you support removing statues that honor confederate generals? (They were the losers). And replacing them with Union generals? (They were the winners). 

[Preety_India]

@Onemanwolfpac

By your logic disabled people need to be wiped off the face of the planet. Because they don't fit into your survival of the fittest principle. 

Now that's some real stage Blue and Stage Orange thinking. 

Life doesn't work like that. You can't start a concentration camp for the misfits. 

Also people have real issues. That cannot be invalidated and be called victimhood. It's an insult to victims.. 

First of all they face inequality, that causes them to not have the outcome as others in terms of success and when they try to protest, they should be labeled as victim players? What logic is that? 

The way your mind operates is this - a problem itself is a problem, so let's blame the problem for the problem and get rid of the problem. Typical Orange and Red mentality. 

This reminds me of Trump. As per Trump if you eliminated testing, there won't be anymore new Covid-19 cases so problem solved. 

Your logic is so faulty that it's beyond repair. 

[Epikur]

23 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

@Onemanwolfpac

By your logic disabled people need to be wiped off the face of the planet. Because they don't fit into your survival of the fittest principle. 

Now that's some real stage Blue and Stage Orange thinking. 

Life doesn't work like that. You can't start a concentration camp for the misfits. 

Also people have real issues. That cannot be invalidated and be called victimhood. It's an insult to victims.. 

First of all they face inequality, that causes them to not have the outcome as others in terms of success and when they try to protest, they should be labeled as victim players? What logic is that? 

The way your mind operates is this - a problem itself is a problem, so let's blame the problem for the problem and get rid of the problem. Typical Orange and Red mentality. 

This reminds me of Trump. As per Trump if you eliminated testing, there won't be anymore new Covid-19 cases so problem solved. 

Your logic is so faulty that it's beyond repair. 

So how much money should a lazy person get so he is not discriminated?

How high should a guy who is working 20 hours a day should get taxed so he is not discriminated?

How beautiful sexpartner should a deformed person get so he is not discriminated.

How much freedom should someone get when he murdered many people so he does not discriminated?


 

[Consept]

Very interesting and relevant vid -

 

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Epikur said:

So how much money should a lazy person get so he is not discriminated?

How high should a guy who is working 20 hours a day should get taxed so he is not discriminated?

How beautiful sexpartner should a deformed person get so he is not discriminated.

How much freedom should someone get when he murdered many people so he does not discriminated?
 

You are conflating discrimination, personal preference and consequences.

If a boss fires a lazy person that won’t show up for work, that is a consequence - not discrimination.

People are not taxed at a higher rate for working 20 hrs a day. Rich people are taxed at a higher tax rate to reduce wealth inequality. 

A person not wanting to date someone from a particular ethnic group is a personal preference. A manager who refuses to hire someone from a particular ethnic group is discrimination.

A murderer that is imprisoned is facing consequences for their actions. It is not discrimination. A black person that receives a longer prison sentence for the same crime as a white person is discrimination.

As well, money alone will not fix discrimination. There needs to be anti-discrimination laws, education and a rise in consciousness. However, moving toward a more just economic system is important to mitigate some of the impacts of discrimination. 

Within your framing, consider this: a man was wrongly convicted for murdering a woman. DNA evidence revealed he was innocent and the police made several mistakes in the investigation. He spent 15 years in prison. Should this man receive any financial compensation? Or is it ok for the police and judges to say “Oops, our bad. Sorry about that”. 

[Epikur]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You are conflating discrimination, personal preference and consequences.

If a boss fires a lazy person that won’t show up for work, that is a consequence - not discrimination.

People are not taxed at a higher rate for working 20 hrs a day. Rich people are taxed at a higher tax rate to reduce wealth inequality. 

A person not wanting to date someone from a particular ethnic group is a personal preference. A manager who refuses to hire someone from a particular ethnic group is discrimination.

A murderer that is imprisoned is facing consequences for their actions. It is not discrimination. A black person that receives a longer prison sentence for the same crime as a white person is discrimination.

I asked "how much of X constitutes discrimination". I did not ask what constitutes discrimination?


 

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, Epikur said:

I asked "how much of X constitutes discrimination". I did not ask what constitutes discrimination?

I may be interpreting your sentence structure incorrectly. Yet to me, you are making assumptions of “discrimination”. If your basis of discrimination is inaccurate, the question of how much of X constitutes discrimination no longer holds. If we ask “How much laughter constitutes a candle”, it doesn’t make sense.

The statement “How much freedom should someone get when he murdered many people so he does not discriminated?”. This is illogical because there is no discrimination in imprisoning a murderer. The murderer is subjected to a prison sentence as a consequence of his actions. It would be like asking “How much freedom should someone get when he murdered many people so he does not get scuba dived”. Scuba diving is irrelevant to the situation. 

We could rephrase the question and ask “What policies can we enact so someone convicted of a crime is not subjected to racial discrimination while being sentenced?”. Yet this is a different context. I don’t think this was the context of your original statement. Yet I could be interpreting it incorrectly.

For example, in the United States, black people are given longer sentences for drug possession than white people (on average). We could ask the question “How can we remove this racial discrimination so all races are subjected to the same jail sentence for the same crime?”. 

[EddieEddie1995]

Some of you guys don't know how its like to be in life/death situations, you didn't even had a fight. This things happens in split seconds, you don't think, you act ! And you don't even do it , your defensive mechanism does it for you . When someone is trying to hurt you, and if you can't run, you do what ever it takes. 

My opinion on this situation now  This guy was drunk. That is first sign of threat . He was lying(I assume xd) . Another threat . The police seemed too polite and sloppy, especially when arresting him .What happened afterwards was what happens when you have two egos fighting for survival . 

But have I actually said anything in this comment? Jesus... This is why I don't like commenting on such topics... Jesus, why em I wrting this... Oh well 

Ohhh I try to be smart, take a position that can't be opposed and struggle with different perspectives. I can't stay grounded In one.And i overthink . Also... I sense insecurity and fear of being wrong. But who is right or wrong here? One think I definitely know, I em confused individual Jesus Eddie, go to sleep -.-

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by EddieEddie1995

[Epikur]

34 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I may be interpreting your sentence structure incorrectly. Yet to me, you are making assumptions of “discrimination”. If your basis of discrimination is inaccurate, the question of how much of X constitutes discrimination no longer holds. If we ask “How much laughter constitutes a candle”, it doesn’t make sense.

The statement “How much freedom should someone get when he murdered many people so he does not discriminated?”. This is illogical because there is no discrimination in imprisoning a murderer. The murderer is subjected to a prison sentence as a consequence of his actions. It would be like asking “How much freedom should someone get when he murdered many people so he does not get scuba dived”. Scuba diving is irrelevant to the situation. 

We could rephrase the question and ask “What policies can we enact so someone convicted of a crime is not subjected to racial discrimination while being sentenced?”. Yet this is a different context. I don’t think this was the context of your original statement. Yet I could be interpreting it incorrectly.

For example, in the United States, black people are given longer sentences for drug possession than white people (on average). We could ask the question “How can we remove this racial discrimination so all races are subjected to the same jail sentence for the same crime?”. 

It makes sense for me.

If I put the murderer in prison for his whole life that could be too much. Let's say you have the opionion it's too much. So at least with this perspective you could say this guy is discriminated because he is a criminal. People discriminate criminals so they put them in prison TOO LONG. This is DISCRIMINATION. A fair treatment would be 15 years. 

You can have this perspective and it makes sense doesn't mean you can't have a different perspectiv to it.

So how long would be fair and would not constitute discrimination?






 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Epikur

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Epikur said:

It makes sense for me.

If I put the murderer in prison for his whole life that could be too much. Let's say you have the opionion it's too much. So at least with this perspective you could say this guy is discriminated because he is a criminal. People discriminate criminals so they put them in prison TOO LONG. This is DISCRIMINATION. A fair treatment would be 15 years. 

That is not how I would use the term “discrimination” and I don’t consider that to be the common usage of the term.

The common use of the term “discrimination” involves TWO different groups and one group is being treated differently relative to another group based on a particular characteristic. It makes no sense to say the murderers are being discriminated against relative to other murderers. There is no distinguishing characteristic to base the discrimination upon.If a society gives a murderer a 50 year prison sentence and then thinks it may be an excessive length of time, I don’t consider that “discrimination”. I consider this to be re-considering what is a fair consequence for a crime. An example of discrimination would be to be give black murderers 50 yr. prison sentences and white murderers 40 yr. prison sentences. Here there is a characteristic upon which to discriminate. There is no longer simply murderers. There are now two groups to base the discrimination: black murderers and white murderers. The discrimination isn’t the murderer part, since that is common between the two groups. The discrimination is based on skin color. There needs to be a differing characteristic on which to base the discrimination. 

As well, I think it’s counter-productive to use terms non-traditionally. It introduces ambiguity and confusion. 

1 hour ago, Epikur said:

You can have this perspective and it makes sense doesn't mean you can't have a different perspectiv to it.
 

I don’t consider disagreement on the definition of terms to be “different perspectives”. For example, if one person said a vegetable is something astronauts travel in and another person said a vegetable is something worn on the feet, I wouldn’t consider it “different perspectives”. I would consider it miscommunication due to poorly defined terms.

1 hour ago, Epikur said:

So how long would be fair and would not constitute discrimination?

Again, there is no distinguishing characteristic as the basis of discrimination. For discrimination, we need at least two groups with at least one different characteristic. For example, we could discriminate against male murderers relative to female murderers. 

In this context. I would use the term “fair”. I consider determining fair prison sentences to be highly complex and nuanced. There are many factors involved such as intention, prior convictions, rehabilitation etc. 

[Epikur]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

That is not how I would use the term “discrimination” and I don’t consider that to be the common usage of the term.

If a society gives a murderer a 50 year prison sentence and then thinks it may be an excessive length of time, I don’t consider that “discrimination”. I consider this to be re-considering what is a fair consequence for a crime. 

An example of discrimination would be to be give black murderers 50 yr. prison sentences and white murderers 40 yr. prison sentences.

As well, I think it’s counter-productive to use terms non-traditionally. It introduces ambiguity and confusion. 

I don’t consider disagreement on the definition of terms to be “different perspectives”. For example, if one person said a vegetable is something astronauts travel in and another person said a vegetable is something worn on the feet, I wouldn’t consider it “different perspectives”. I would consider it miscommunication due to poorly defined terms.

Again, I wouldn’t use the term “discrimination” in this context. I would use the term “fair”. I consider determining fair prison sentences to be highly complex and nuanced. There are many factors involved such as intention, prior convictions, rehabilitation etc. 

Ok then use the term "fair" 

What would be a fair treatment in my examples?


 

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, Epikur said:

Ok then use the term "fair" 

What would be a fair treatment in my examples?

Determining fairness is a complex and nuanced topic, imo.

For example, what is a fair sentence for a murder? There are all sorts of variables. Was the murder intentional? Was the murder in self defense? Was the person who got murdered also a murderer? Does the murderer have a previous criminal record? Is he mentally ill? What are the chances for rehabilitation? Should we factor in extra time to discourage other people from committing murder?

People in ethics literally spend their careers contemplating and debating these questions. 

The question of wether the sentences should be different for females, males, blacks, whites, gays, straights adds in new variables and I would consider this discrimination between different types of murderers.

Here is the standard definition of “discrimination” as per the dictionary:

”the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.”

[Epikur]

@Serotoninluv

I see. No answer.

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Epikur said:

@Serotoninluv

I see. No answer.

I gave an answer, it’s just not how you want it to be answered. 

My answer is that determining fairness for murder sentences has many variables and I gave examples.

It would be like asking “what’s the best way to get to New York City?”.

It depends on many variables. For example, someone in Paris asking that question will get a different answer than someone in Philadelphia asking that question.  

Similarly, a guy who planned out and killed his wife is very different than a drunk driver that killed someone in a crash. That’s why there are various degrees of murder and manslaughter. 

[Epikur]

11 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I gave an answer, it’s just not how you want it to be answered. 

My answer is that determining fairness for murder sentences has many variables and I gave examples.

It would be like asking “what’s the best way to get to New York City?”.

It depends on many variables. For example, someone in Paris asking that question will get a different answer than someone in Philadelphia asking that question.  

Similarly, a guy who planned out and killed his wife is very different than a drunk driver that killed someone in a crash. That’s why there are various degrees of murder and manslaughter. 

That is obvious but you can still give an answer. You can say if you are in Paris I would guess I would go over New York or Miami. I would not go over Los Angeles. 

You could say for a guy who planned and killed his wife I guess I would give 20 years. The drunk driver I would give 5 years.