Police Officers

[Stanlei]

?

[Bojangles]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is quite possibly the dumbest political argument I have ever heard.

Typical lack of intellectual depth. Please explain using logical arguments and examples, not just conclusory statements. Spouting slogans and opinions you read in a student paper might impress a few other brain dead liberals who already agree with you, but it makes you look both ignorant and intellectually incompetent when you face those who disagree with you, and you can't come up with real arguments for your point of view.

[purist]

Originally Posted by Bojangles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Typical lack of intellectual depth. Please explain using logical arguments and examples, not just conclusory statements. Spouting slogans and opinions you read in a student paper might impress a few other brain dead liberals who already agree with you, but it makes you look both ignorant and intellectually incompetent when you face those who disagree with you, and you can't come up with real arguments for your point of view.

tl;dr

[Estolcles]

No, the dumbest political conversation you could have is who's the best communist:

Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro.

Now someone get me a goddamn soda!

[Karrmer]

Originally Posted by Japan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My Remington 870 will be the first responder. Then I will notify the police that there is a dying animal in my house, and they can haul it off at their leisure.

Contrary to what you imply, no responsible man would rely on sticky-fingered fuckups to find his house and defend it in an emergency situation. It seems clear from this statement that you place yourself at the mercy of criminals and our broken justice system, though, and I pity you.

I work 9-1-1 dispatch for one of the largest agencies in the United States. I also am not a big fan of law enforcement, honestly, but I get paid well to primarily help people.

We get a surprisingly large number of calls for serious life threatening events - home invasion robberies, carjacking, rape, murder, etc. I then dispatch these to law enforcement who help these people. To genuinely believe that having no law enforcement presence would create a better society, particularly in the one we live in, is fucking insane. You're insane.

There are plenty of "bad cops" and douchebags, assholes, etc. But even the douchebags and assholes are there to help people when the shit goes down. I'd love to see how your life goes if we managed to make a fantasy world where one could create an exemption on your house so that there was no law and anyone could break in, murder you, rape you, and do anything they pleased in your personal property because law enforcement no longer had any jurisdiction over it. You'd be dead in days, mister "LOL I HAVE A PISTOL" idiotic hardass. Good luck on that when you have four dudes in ski masks and assault rifles pulling a classic home invasion, you fucking nerd.

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Bojangles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Typical lack of intellectual depth. Please explain using logical arguments and examples, not just conclusory statements. Spouting slogans and opinions you read in a student paper might impress a few other brain dead liberals who already agree with you,

Who said I was a liberal? Just because I don't agree with you? You don't know anything about my beliefs and affiliations.

Originally Posted by Bojangles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

but it makes you look both ignorant and intellectually incompetent when you face those who disagree with you, and you can't come up with real arguments for your point of view.

You mean like how you couldn't show me a 2 faction system on Earth where the one faction does not try to discredit the other faction?

That's right, you avoided my comment and instead touted some nonsense like this:

Originally Posted by Bojangles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem is that side #1 supports law and order. You know, the shit that keeps a society running. When side #2 opposes that merely because side #1 supports it, then side #2 is no longer a valid political group it is a revolt that needs to be exterminated.

Spouting slogans and opinions you say? You just described yourself to a T.

The only opinion I have given is that the previous quote from you is dumb. And I stand by that statement.

[Bojangles]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who said I was a liberal? Just because I don't agree with you? You don't know anything about my beliefs and affiliations.

Well, you are opinionated yet ignorant. Argumentative yet can't debate. Calling you a liberal is just a guess, but it is a guess based upon experience.

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You mean like how you couldn't show me a 2 faction system on Earth where the one faction does not try to discredit the other faction?

I'm sure if I did enough research I'd find a 2 faction system where the 2 groups worked together for a common goal from different directions, without the need to discredit each other. Perhaps the US during WW2? Some Indian tribe? Whether 1 exists or not isn't relevant to what we are arguing about, so I didn't bother to treat this question seriously.

The argument I am making isn't that 2 factions shouldn't try to discredit each other, on the contrary I think that such an adversarial system is better than one where both factions are in a conspiracy of silence. We can't rely on the news media to bring out the bad shit, but we can rely on their fellow politicians to do so since it is in their best interest. Hell, even politicians within the same party will turn on each other like rabid dogs during the primaries.

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's right, you avoided my comment and instead touted some nonsense like this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojangles
The problem is that side #1 supports law and order. You know, the shit that keeps a society running. When side #2 opposes that merely because side #1 supports it, then side #2 is no longer a valid political group it is a revolt that needs to be exterminated.

Spouting slogans and opinions you say? You just described yourself to a T.

I think this proves that you are a liberal. You blatantly state that you think it is merely an opinion that law and order is what keeps society running, and that opposing law and order is a perfectly viable stance for a mainstream political party. Are you fucking nuts? Oh wait, we already established that you are a liberal. Same thing.

What I was arguing, and what would have been obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense (i.e. non-liberals), is that although discrediting a faction by taking an opposite stance is an old and effective (even socially useful) tactic, it is not good when the stance is one that is against the good of society.

"X supports raising the retirement age to 70, but Y will keep it the same" is not the same fucking thing as "X supports the people who protect us from criminals, but Y would rather hinder those people and empower criminals."

In the past it has been a joke that all politicians are for education but against crime and poverty. Apparently you liberals are now so desperate, so devoid of common sense, that you are now pro-crime simply due to the police tending to be conservative. What is next, becoming pro poverty simply because the "enemy" is anti poverty?

[nalkin]

^ somebody don't like liberals

[Japan]

Originally Posted by Karrmer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You'd be dead in days, mister "LOL I HAVE A PISTOL" idiotic hardass. Good luck on that when you have four dudes in ski masks and assault rifles pulling a classic home invasion, you fucking nerd.

total fucking strawman; yes, if I were the most vulnerable target in the entire world I would be murdered almost instantly. If four dudes in ski masks with assault rifles decide to invade my home neither the police nor my shotgun are going to stop it, so I'd say your strawman is coupled happily to a nonsequitur.

As for a more realistic situation, which involves 1-3 cracked out black men (not a team of bodybuilding Spetznas-turned-gangster action heroes) clumsily crashing through my living room window, I'm far better off putting my modest skills as an operator up against the invaders than waiting 10 minutes at their mercy while Joe Donut and his crew of 70 overweight, overarmed, undertrained buffoons waddle their way over to my house planning to mow down every living thing in it with absurdly excessive uncontrolled force.

[Karrmer]

Originally Posted by Japan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

total fucking strawman; yes, if I were the most vulnerable target in the entire world I would be murdered almost instantly. If four dudes in ski masks with assault rifles decide to invade my home neither the police nor my shotgun are going to stop it, so I'd say your strawman is coupled happily to a nonsequitur.

As for a more realistic situation, which involves 1-3 cracked out black men (not a team of bodybuilding Spetznas-turned-gangster action heroes) clumsily crashing through my living room window, I'm far better off putting my modest skills as an operator up against the invaders than waiting 10 minutes at their mercy while Joe Donut and his crew of 70 overweight, overarmed, undertrained buffoons waddle their way over to my house planning to mow down every living thing in it with absurdly excessive uncontrolled force.

Except Police exist. Law exists. The risk vs reward isn't there for most citizens, whereas it is DEFINITELY there if there is no risk of life in jail / death penalty.

You're a fool. Anarchy isn't some better society, I'm guessing you're retarded Uni kid mooching off wealthy parents.