Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Kellhound]

If you can't trust the police, why would you ever do what they say? You just killed your entire reasoning about doing what police tells you too.

-

The difference is using violence against authoritarian thugs who supports an oppressive order of one kind or another, or the state repressing the population to keep a clique in power.

There is nothing contractional about not trusting those in authority while following their lawful orders.

Only in perception.

- - - Updated - - -

Kellhound would have fit perfectly in East Germany. He seems to actually want to live in a police state. I was only a child back then but I didn't fucking like it at all. It's all fine and dandy as long as you fit in and do everything the state wants you to, but the moment you have a thought of your own you're fucked. Kellhound isn't at the stage of having a thought yet.

Ah yes, support the idea that one should follow the lawful orders of the police and one obviously must want a police state....

- - - Updated - - -

No sense even talking to Kellhound. He said earlier in the thread he just wants to watch Portland burn.



- - - Updated - - -



Most people view violence as a last resort.

Cops start with violence and work up from there.

Yes, because I want the anarchist to see what comes from anarchy.

As I said, it is a matter of perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they don't. In what kind of neighborhood are you living where you'd come to that conclusion?

History shows I am correct.

[Twdft]

Ah yes, support the idea that one should follow the lawful orders of the police and one obviously must want a police state....

Every order by police is lawful in your eyes, there is nothing police could do for you not to defend them anymore. You are a bootlicker.

[Mayhem]

History shows I am correct.

Well, then you should easily be able to provide an example.

[Kellhound]

Every order by police is lawful in your eyes, there is nothing police could do for you not to defend them anymore. You are a bootlicker.

Hardly. I have refused to obey unlawful orders from the police. I have taken the police to court over their actions, and won.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, then you should easily be able to provide an example.

Every war in human history....

[Themius]

Hardly. I have refused to obey unlawful orders from the police. I have taken the police to court over their actions, and won.

I assume I am to take this with a Himalayan mountain size of salt?

[Kellhound]

I assume I am to take this with a Himalayan mountain size of salt?

Nope. I just got a check from my city after they lost in court over an officer's actions against me.

[Mayhem]

Every war in human history....

Ahahaha what?

You think every war in human history was supported by most people?

I mean, even if we're only counting the wars where most of the people actually owned shit and weren't subservient to others, not even then you'd be right.

[PhaelixWW]

Every war in human history....

Do you, like, not realize how freaking vast human history really is? People have spent, seriously, orders of magnitude more time spent not at war than at war (or committing random assaults). And more often than not, most of the people actually fighting in those wars were forced into it by the smaller number of leaders/rulers who fit your description.

You have a really twisted view of the world.

[Kellhound]

Ahahaha what?

You think every war in human history was supported by most people?

I mean, even if we're only counting the wars where most of the people actually owned shit and weren't subservient to others, not even then you'd be right.

When the populace objects to a war, they tend turn to violence to end it.

[Draco-Onis]

When the populace objects to a war, they tend turn to violence to end it.

The United States has spent most of its existence at war, we are currently at war with several countries but the majority of the public doesn't support or even know about these wars so that flies in the face of that statement. You can easily get away with this with PR we don't call wars that name anymore they are engagements or strikes. The only time the populace revolts against war is countries where everyone has to serve because for better or worse we only look out for our own.

[Mayhem]

When the populace objects to a war, they tend turn to violence to end it.

Ok, what alternate reality history books are you reading?

[Kellhound]

Do you, like, not realize how freaking vast human history really is? People have spent, seriously, orders of magnitude more time spent not at war than at war (or committing random assaults). And more often than not, most of the people actually fighting in those wars were forced into it by the smaller number of leaders/rulers who fit your description.

You have a really twisted view of the world.

The vastness of human history depends on when you consider humans to have begun to exist. Further, I never said humans were always at war. When the masses no longer feel that supporting a war is in their best interest, they tend to rebel.

[Mayhem]

The vastness of human history depends on when you consider humans to have begun to exist. Further, I never said humans were always at war. When the masses no longer feel that supporting a war is in their best interest, they tend to rebel.

Not even soldiers are supporting wars most of the time. People have to be coerced one way or another to fight other people. If your idea of how the world works was true, crime would be the standard and people would be arrested for not committing crimes.

[Kellhound]

The United States has spent most of its existence at war, we are currently at war with several countries but the majority of the public doesn't support or even know about these wars so that flies in the face of that statement. You can easily get away with this with PR we don't call wars that name anymore they are engagements or strikes. The only time the populace revolts against war is countries where everyone has to serve because for better or worse we only look out for our own.

Most US voters tacitly approve of most wars (especially in the beginning), which is why they vote for the people they do.

[Draco-Onis]

Most US voters tacitly approve of most wars (especially in the beginning), which is why they vote for the people they do.

No, we've just effectively made wars limited to a small number of the population. There's no coverage of deaths and everything is worded nicely so the public isn't aware, all you have to do is look at presidential debates wars don't even make the topics. Even public wars like Afghanistan no one really cares because they aren't duty bound to fight, it's also the reason we sadly treat our veterans like shit when they come home.

[Kellhound]

Not even soldiers are supporting wars most of the time. People have to be coerced one way or another to fight other people. If your idea of how the world works was true, crime would be the standard and people would be arrested for not committing crimes.

People are easy to incite into violence, especially in groups. The willingness to support violence when it is in one's interest to do so does not mean one supports lawlessness.

- - - Updated - - -

No, we've just effectively made wars limited to a small number of the population. There's no coverage of deaths and everything is worded nicely so the public isn't aware, all you have to do is look at presidential debates wars don't even make the topics. Even public wars like Afghanistan no one really cares because they aren't duty bound to fight, it's also the reason we sadly treat our veterans like shit when they come home.

You just agreed with what I said....

No coverage of deaths? Man, you have vastly different media in your area than around here.

[PhaelixWW]

The vastness of human history depends on when you consider humans to have begun to exist.

No, it really doesn't. When people say "human history" they almost inevitably mean "recorded history".

Human history, or recorded history, is the narrative of humanity's past.

This means roughly 5000 years of civilization.

Further, I never said humans were always at war. When the masses no longer feel that supporting a war is in their best interest, they tend to rebel.

Lulz. It's not "humans are not always at war", it's "humans are rarely ever at war". And we're not talking about there being a "declared" state of war for 100 years, we're talking about actual conflict.

We tend to say "humans are always at war", but that's hyperbole, simply because we'd rather there be less war even than there is. It's like saying "I'm always spilling soup on my tie." It's not that it happens most of the time, it's that it happens fare more regularly than we're okay with.

This whole line of defense of yours is just ridiculous. Has been from the start, really.

[Mayhem]

People are easy to incite into violence, especially in groups. The willingness to support violence when it is in one's interest to do so does not mean one supports lawlessness.

Either you didn't understand my post or your own point.

[Blur4stuff]

Hard to argue "most americans" with nearly anything given how representation is lopsided in favor of the minority party.

[Egomaniac]

I'll repeat that there is no sense talking to Kellhound. Dude is a fucking psycho that wants to watch Cities burn down.