View Single Post
Old 12-06-2012, 02:30 AM
Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless View Post
I agree the whole system is a farce. Look at democracy, if we are wise enough to pick our "leaders" since feel we have a fundamental understanding of the issues, and thus who should best represent our chosen direction concerning theses issues, what-the-hell-do-we-need-a-government-for?

Notice when you point this out to people(they freak out with the 'persnickety knee-jerky' dance[just preceding the hokey-pokey]), the entire idea of the wise populace, let alone "wise voter" goes right out the window. We are all of the sudden cannibalistic zombies. To further this contradiction, if we are all cannibalistic zombies in the end; how can we possibly be responsible enough to vote for our leaders? And notice you never hear this side of the issue.
I kind of see it as being, and obviously you see it this way too, that it is our duty as citizens to help our fellow citizens understand the system and so forth. For instance, if someone tells me that >51% is a majority in congress, I feel it's my duty to say that, no, it's more like >66%. If someone says middle class just means the people who make the median income, it's my duty to point out that there's more to it than that, and conceded I'm not able to fully understand the math behind the statement but that middle class is different from mean earners. I'm just pulling random examples that I've run into, so don't get caught up if you disagree with those and just do what my grandfather-inlaw does and say "I think you're wrong."

I think we, perhaps under the guidance of corrupt politicians, payed-for media, and other things, are acting corruptly by spreading false information and misinforming other voters. I may have unwittingly done so at times and I think everyone is guilty of this in some form or another.

I'm not sure where I was going with that but I think it had something to do with feeling it's not the system that's the farce but more like the players within the system who can appeal farcical in nature. And there's a lot of them, but I don't think it's the standard, just that it overlaps with people running the system and vocal citizens living within the citizen.

Only metaphorically(lest you want to get in a time machine). That's besides the point anyway. The father doesn't have the legal carte blanche that the state has.
Well, I was really only scratching the surface of the metaphor. To be more similar to what you are saying...

My daughter brings home a creep and I lost my cool, because he didn't wipe his feet off and stained my rug that I got from a fellow named Lebowski; So I end up shooting him in my own home. My family does a coverup and we say he was attacking my daughter. Is my actions, acting immorally, an indictment against laws regarding protecting your own home? (i know this doesn't pertain in some states, but for the benefit let's say I'm in one of the states where it does.)

A cop pulls over a guy and loses his cool because the guy started making oink-sounds, shoots the guy and... you know where I'm going with this.

Again, I'm back to what I was saying earlier where corrupt individuals aren't an indictment against the system they are functioning within, unless that system is actively advocating for such things. That's my take on it.

I agree. It used to be US(non-violent civilians & cops)-vs.-Them(violent criminals). And cops used to be peacekeepers as opposed to today's thugs who pray on non-violent civilians more often than not. But this "Koochie-Koochie-Koo" period of citizens & state is pretty well over, lest you have the influence and/or $.
Then where do we go from there? Dismantle the police force?

It doesn't matter. What is the inevitable outcome of too many laws? You get, a nation of outlaws; and ultimately a society without rules. Why? Because no one knows anymore what the heck the rules are(we're already gearing that way- the average person commits 3 felonies[or maybe its misdemeanors] a day without knowing it).
As an aside, THAT is what gives the word 'anarchy' a bad name right there and that is the kind of 'anarchy' that we all fear(and rightly so). But anarchy in its truest sense is not being subject to violent RULERS; and we all cherish(and would never compromise, let alone sell out) anarchy in our PERSONAL lives. But that can be an interesting subject of talk for a later time.
I agree that too many laws is not a good thing, but only because "too many" is not a good thing. Instead, I would say that bad laws are not a good thing, not that any new law, adding to the number of laws, is immediately bad. When we say "too many" laws we are really saying "too many" laws we don't agree with. If there were the same amount of laws, and we agreed with all of them, we wouldn't have a problem with them. "Too many" is just arbitrary based on subjectivity.

Either that or stop bringing police to cheerily talk statist jazz to children in classrooms thereby perpetuating that greatest of lies: "cops are your friends."
I was telling someone recently about during the start of "Just Say No" how the police came to our school and told us to turn our parents in if they did drugs. I'm not sure if it was like that outside my town but it was still fucked up.

Sorry, I just don't see this anymore and if I do if is frankly manipulative on their(the cops) part.
Not totally. Recently there was something on the news about a cop shooting a mentally ill guy. I think had the cop been familiar with the guy, no one would have gotten shot. Even outside of cops, I've seen this happen - where they get called for disturbances and end up like, "Oh it's crazy joe! Hey joe, did you take your pill tonight." (paraphrasing) I think it's a good thing. I've never agreed with the concept of familiarity breeding contempt as being a universal truth.

Well that would be too much work for them, I think. They'd have to take down all of their myriad quota tick charts off of the wall and this would lead to too much disorganization(and probably of their betting pools as well). As I told a police officer once after getting him to briefly slip up and concede that they used quotas: The first rule of Police Quotas is We DO NOT TALK ABOUT QUOTAS!!!
Yeah, the quota system is bullshit because it encourages the police to not use on the spot judgement. It trains them to judge on the side of us-vs-them instead of protecting and serving.

[quote]But since you said you agree with the article; wouldn't you agree that the laws are setup for revenue and control and really have little-to-nothing to do with safety? So wouldn't they be stupid from that premise? That 55 disaster scenario is a good illustration of that inherent stupidity don't you think. Sammy Hagar really did tell a cop(well actually it was his girl while he was pulled over) when he was stopped, "I can't drive 55. Oh wait a minute, gimme a pen."[quote]

We're kind of belaboring the speeding thing. I agree that some traffic laws, and many other laws, are unnecessarily, just not every new law. This is all in the context of McDonald's raising their wages. I don't think that happening will be raise the cost of living like others have said it would. I think McDonald's bottom line is well enough that we aren't going to go into a deeper recession over how ever much they decided to raise the price on cheeseburgers in response.

Just to show I'm not coming from some far spectrum here, I will say that raising wage demands on some businesses would be a bad thing. This is separate from my feelings on why we need decent minimum wage. For starters, I think the way the feds decide what qualifies as small businesses is slightly more than whacked out. As far as I know, it's based only on number of employees - at least in terms of civil right laws, so I would assume tax codes treat it the same way. I'm not 100% on this, but even if we are just looking at rights, it really shouldn't be based on the number of employees but a number of factors including revenue, interstate-trading and other stuff I'd only know more about if I cared more to fight it.

This to me is all moot because, well, did you know that according to the U.S. Supreme Court, cops are actually obligated NOT to serve and protect individuals from violent crime??? They are only obligated to protect and serve the state as well as themselves. Hard to believe?

Just so we cover this impartially, I'm going to present two sources which are on opposite sides of the spectrum to give you an idea that no, a cop is NOT your friend(let alone rescuer).
I only read the headline of the first article because I know what you are talking about. It doesn't really change my point because a cop would have to be an asshole to not help someone, even if they did fear legal retaliation. A fireman can also choose to not rescue someone from a building. An EMT can choose to not treat someone. It goes on and on. There are all sorts of ways for people to be assholes.

(and if I'm being an asshole for not diving into the articles and therefore missing the point there, I apologize - doesn't mean this conversation is shouldn't be happening - just set me straight)

But then how do you respond to your arresting officers?
Okay let's just put this hypothetical scenario to an end...

If the police came to my door to serve me for not paying a fine and, let's say, missing a court date. Here's how I'd respond: I'd put on really loud industrial metal music, answer the door butt-ass naked, my body in warpaint, while brandishing a shotgun and screaming a mix of "Get off my property!" and "Jfor Waco!"

Hopefully the police will have been to my house before and remember that I'm just upset because of the split season of Breaking Bad.

Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I think just treating authority figures with respect would cover this area nicely and it is the job of parents not teachers. Serves me well in life.
Well, I was saying that in context of "dealing" with the police in terms of knowing your rights. I agree that the respecting others thing would be better left at home, (while adding) or at least in kindergarten, maybe at the most through example in school rules. I don't think there should be a focus on how to be nice to police.
Reply With Quote