Total posts: 14,582
-->
@Vader
I appreciate the mention but I will decline this generous offer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you have USA in brackets?
It's common practice to include brackets if a word is added to a quote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
They are specifically rejecting the idea that a family MUST have both a mother and a father in the home because such a high percentage of their men are incarcerated.
They are specifically advocating for building stronger ties with extended family members and neighbors. EXACTLY LIKE A LOCAL CHURCH.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
BLM isn't interested in reforming crony capitalism or making the USA more like Singapore or Hong Kong or New Zealand in terms of economic freedom.All of those countries have minimal state interaction on the economic level.
The red-herring you've presented still does nothing to support your claim that, "the [USA] economic system has lifted more people from poverty than any other."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
In exactly the same way members of a CHURCH help take care of each other's children and the sick and elderly and families in crisis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
From your link,
The group’s radical Marxist agenda would supplant the basic building block of society — the family — with the state...
This is a laughably cartoonish STRAWMAN. Nobody is even considering "supplanting" "the family" (brave new world style).
They've advocated for stronger social connections and cooperation with neighbors, this is a role that has traditionally been served by local CHURCHES.
Are you suggesting that CHURCHES are teh EVIL?
...and destroy the economic system that has lifted more people from poverty than any other.
The United States is ranked 27th in terms of social mobility, if you are born poor, you have a much better chance of "working your way to the top" in the other 26. [LINK]
And if you want to get technical, I mean, you know, raw numbers and not "percentages", then CHINA WINS BY A LANDSLIDE in the contest of "lifted more people from poverty than any other".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
From your link,
Another M4BL demand is “the retroactive decriminalization, immediate release and record expungement of all drug-related offenses and prostitution and reparations for the devastating impact of the ‘war on drugs’ and criminalization of prostitution.”
This sounds like a phenomenal idea.
Please explain why you might consider this an "anti-white" policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@zedvictor4
@Athias
Check this out,
Systemic Racism is Over,
Skip to 256 seconds,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What you promote as instinct I would regard as social expectation and materialism.
These apply to all mammals.
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
Even a squirrel will turn violent when cornered.
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
Bears, apes, wolves, rabbits will all fight to defend their young, but not always "to the death" (see rule one).
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
Lions, chipmunks, dogs and cats will all fight to defend their territory, but will usually abandon their territory to defend their young (see rule two), and will often (but not always) abandon their young to defend themselves (see rule one).
This is summarized (not countermanded) by your rule two "Survival at all cost". Individual survival is meaningless (from an evolutionary standpoint) if your children do not reach maturity. And survival is impossible without access to resources (property).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON MINORITIES.
"Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue for the Nixon White House that we couldn't resist it. - John Ehrlichman, policy advisor to Richard Nixon - [LINK]
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON PERSONAL PRIVACY.
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON PERSONAL PROPERTY.
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS WHY WE ARE NOW LIVING IN A POLICE STATE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Your house is on fire and you are trying to get people/the fire department to come and put it out. They respond "with well all houses matter, not just yours". Your house is the one on fire. pointing out the problem and trying to draw attention to it is not an attempt to tell people that their houses don't matter. But you are the one with the biggest, immediate problem.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Isn't Noumeon independent of the mind by definition? One can argue that one's mind, and the mind, are dependent on Noumenon, but is Noumenon dependent on one's mind, and the mind?
Every component is integral and necessary.
Without "your mind", NOUMENON could not "exist".
Particular aspects appear to wax and wane, but that is merely due to our practically infinitesimal perceptual scope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Please explain.Because tools like reason are of the mind. How can one "reason" that which is independent of the mind? Once one employs reason, the mind subjects that which is reasoned.
Only comprehensible concepts can be entertained.
The incomprehensible (NOUMENON) can only be "known" by logical deduction (as more of an abstract category).
Any "thing" truly "independent" of "The Mind" can never logically interact in any way with "The Mind" and as such can be considered indistinguishable from non-existent (THEREFORE, EPISTEMOLOGICAL MONISM IS NECESSARILY TRUE).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
And I believe it is critical to point out that humans are fully incapable of detecting "anything" purely OBJECTIVE.So then, does the "objective" exist?
Objective existence is logically necessary (an integral aspect of NOUMENON).
However, it is buried beneath an incomprehensible number of indistinguishable layers of subjective phenomena beyond our epistemological limits.
And by the very definition of "objectivity" it is fully inaccessible to humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"Your mind" (your faculty of logic) is not 100% conscious of itself.The problem with quantifying these relations especially with the employment of percentages is the presumed lack of understanding of 100%. If the mind is not 100% conscious of itself, then how would one know or experience a mind that is 100% conscious of itself? Much less quantify the relation between one's current state to this presumably intangible projected state?
Even at the level of the brain, we know there are chemical triggers and electrical signals that are constantly in motion that are integral to our thought process.
We can model most of these, but you cannot simultaneously function and know everything your brain and body are "doing" under your skin at every moment you are awake.
"Your conscious mind" has a very limited capacity to accumulate and store and retrieve data.
In order to be 100% conscious of your function, you would require the capacity to fully understand all of the inner workings of your own physiology and the inner workings of all systems that interact with you in any way. The very definitions of "human" and "sanity" preclude such understanding (at the very least it precludes communication of such understanding).
The "you" that is distinguishable from "everything else" is only a fractional part of many much larger and much more complex systems.
The "everything" is only "knowable" to the "you" through the function of "your mind", but that does not mean the window itself is the world.
In 6 minutes,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If the mind is being described as the "lens," then what is NOUMENON independent of said lens?
They are not "independent" (because if they were "independent" they would not be able to detect each other).
They are inter-dependent (both aspects of a single, monistic system). In the same way your eye is distinguishable from your brain.
They are distinguishable, but not "independent".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
"If for the sake of Communism it is necessary for us to destroy 9/10ths of the people, we must not hesitate." "We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negros. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause." Israel Cohen, A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century, 1912. Also in the Congressional Record, Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957"
1912, yipes!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, atrocity is a collective decision...
All humans have three primal moral instincts,
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
RESISTING ARREST IS NOT A CAPITAL OFFENSE.I mean, do you understand what DRUNK means?I never said it was. But him doing it lead to his death
Confiscating the man's vehicle and issuing a warrant would have been appropriate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why not give every citizen Qualified Immunity?Does every citizen risk their life everyday by going to work to protect their neighborhoods?
You mean like hospital staff?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Can we at least agree that CIVIL RIGHTS should give domestic citizens MORE protection than foreigners in an active WARZONE?Isn't this just "common sense"?I never disagreed with this lol. Rayshard Brooks got himself killed by resisting arrest, punching a cop, stealing a cop’s taser and shooting it at the cop. He would’ve been fine if he accepted arrest. There’s nothing more to it.
RESISTING ARREST IS NOT A CAPITAL OFFENSE.
I mean, do you understand what DRUNK means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
What the cops did was an act of self-defense.
Shooting someone who is running away from you is NOT self-defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
They should because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
Why not give every citizen Qualified Immunity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you happen to know anyone who did something stupid while intoxicated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Him actively firing the taser was the threat.
The gunshots were several seconds AFTER the taser fired it's ONLY cartridge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It was an escalation of force and an active attack on the cops. What the cops did was an act of self-defense.
They grabbed the taser after having it placed point-blank against their leg (I call that "self-defense").
THEN RAN AWAY.
The police had all of their information.
They could have easily issued a warrant.
They had they guy's vehicle.
The guy was drunk and belligerent.
Random drunk guy without a car is not an imminent threat to anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Him actively firing the taser was the threat. If the dude only had a single bullet in his gun he still would’ve been shot lol. The ammo is irrelevant to fact that Brooks shot a deadly weapon at a cop and injured the cops beforehand.
The District Attorney pressing charges against Atlanta Police Officer Garret Rolfe, who shot a suspect who tried to use a taser on him while attempting to escape, recently charged other officers with “aggravated assault” for using a Taser in another incident. [LINK]
Notice they were not charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" or "attempted murder".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Then the prosecutor is at fault for not even bringing the case forward. Just because it’s not popularized doesn’t mean a cop can’t be convicted.
Judges and juries almost always give police the benefit of the doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Still the cops didn’t shoot him until after he turned and shot the taser.
AT WHICH POINT THE TASER WAS JUST A USELESS LUMP OF PLASTIC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Thanks for proving my point. Under Georgia state law a taser is classified as a deadly weapon. The officer had every right to shoot after he fired that weapon because it’s a split second decision.
In a famous "fleeing felon case" of Tennessee v. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
This means, says Banzhaf, that even if someone who has committed a serious felony would forever escape if the police did not shot him as he fled, they may not use such deadly force unless it appears that he is likely to harm police officers or a member of the public if he is not stepped then and there.
So while the fact that a Taser may not be regarded as a "deadly weapon" in Georgia would certainly undercut any argument by the shooter that he had reason to fear serious bodily injury from its use, the same would probably be true if Brooks had a small knife but was far enough away that he did not pose a significant risk to the officer.
While it is possible for a Taser to cause serious injury or even death, such consequences are very rare. Indeed, says Banzhaf, some police departments require new officers to be shot with a Taser themselves so that they will know what it feels like, and the effect it is likely to have on a suspect. TV reporters have also demonstrated its effects by being short with it on air. [LINK]
NOT TO MENTION, the taser only had one cartridge, so after it was fired and missed, there was zero threat and therefore no longer a "deadly weapon" by any standard. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Are you switching between police and soldiers now?Rules of Engagement in a foreign nation are different depending on the nation. Domestically opinions of other nations don’t matter.
Can we at least agree that CIVIL RIGHTS should give domestic citizens MORE protection than foreigners in an active WARZONE?
Isn't this just "common sense"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Qualified Immunity allows police to shoot anyone they "suspect". Officers regularly testify that they genuinely "feared for their lives" in order to be exonerated.That’s defense isn’t going to work on George Floyd killer because it’s not absolute immunity.
We shouldn't have to rely in the press and community outrage in order to hold police responsible for their errors in judgement.
What you seem to be missing is that most cases are NOT broadcast on international news.
And in these cases, the police are overwhelmingly awarded Qualified Immunity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Being a cop is hard dude.
So is being a soldier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You just proved my point. Qualified immunity isn’t absolute immunity. If you want to bring a case you Can but it’s your job to convince the jury that you yourself wouldn’t have done what that cop did if you were the cop in the scenario.
JUSTICE =/= "I WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Law is codified mob rule.So you’re an anarchist? Makes sense lol
I'm stating a fact.
American law is based on a collection of British Common Laws which were created as regional community standards.
Laws change as community standards change.
That's why we no longer follow Jim Crow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
And it does.So what’s your point? Judges and the community can be swayed by anything if it’s persuadable.
Judges are not objective arbitrators.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Crime going up in NYC after police defunding
Perhaps you posted the wrong link.
From YOUR LINK,
Members of the NYPD’s anti-crime unit were reassigned to uniformed patrol duties on Monday — part of what Police Commissioner Dermot Shea called a “seismic” shift affecting some 600 cops.
SO, they were not "fired" or "defunded" they simply put on UNIFORMS.
By all accounts this INCREASED the number of UNIFORMED police officers by about 600.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Just because an officer thinks that someone might have a weapon, doesn't give them carte-blanche to kill them.I never said they could.
Qualified Immunity allows police to shoot anyone they "suspect". Officers regularly testify that they genuinely "feared for their lives" in order to be exonerated.
They can only shoot if the weapon moves if the perpetrator suddenly moves to grab it and point it at a soldier.
Are you switching between police and soldiers now?
Rayshard Brooks would’ve been fine if he never turned around aimed and fired the weapon.
Brooks scuffled with the officers, got hold of Brosnan's taser, punched Rolfe, and ran. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks half-turned and fired the taser toward Rolfe, who then shot Brooks twice from behind while a third shot struck an occupied car. Brooks died after surgery.
Footage of the incident, recorded from the officers' bodycams, a witness's phone and the restaurant's security system, was widely broadcast. Police chief Erika Shields resigned one day later; that same day, Rolfe was fired and Brosnan was placed on administrative duty.
Based on these videos and witness reports, prosecutors claimed that after Brooks was shot, Rolfe kicked Brooks and Brosnan stood on his shoulder. Rolfe was charged with felony murder and ten other offenses; Brosnan with aggravated assault and two counts of violation of oath. [LINK]
In the EOF handbook, it's called "proportional force". You can't kill someone (by shooting them in the back while they're fleeing) who fires a (non lethal) taser at you.
Community Outrage > Qualified Immunity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you realize that "qualified immunity" is literally "if the perpetrator (cop) thought they were doing the right thing at the time, then they are immune to legal consequences".Clearly not true because a lot of cops have been prosecuted and convicted in a court of law.
Clearly true because a lot of cops have had charges dropped by prosecutors who refuse to take cases against them or placed on "administrative leave" or received reduced or suspended sentences.
The precious few who are actually held accountable are only in "trouble" because of community outrage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I guess they're infallible, even if their conclusions are incoherent.It’s the law of the land whether you like it or not.
Law is codified mob rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It certainly increased court costs. And judges are often swayed by community outrage.This could be applied to any case lol.
And it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Laughable. There are already cops mass retiring because of the lack of proper funding.
It's called supply and demand.
Perhaps we should privatize them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
(In)determinism is logically incompatible with "freewill".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Where does it say anything about the back?
That specific detail is from a convoy security gunner deployed to Iraq,
The quoted portion of the handbook that I provided made it perfectly clear that you can't shoot someone simply because they're running and carrying an AK-47.
Carrying a loaded firearm is not illegal in the united states.
Just because an officer thinks that someone might have a weapon, doesn't give them carte-blanche to kill them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Domestic police can act with impunity because of a special law called "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY".How many cops do you think would be cops without this?
The correct number.
Soldiers don't get "qualified immunity" and we certainly employ quite a few of them.
Qualified immunity doesn’t stand in the way of clear cut cases like George Floyd does it?
It certainly increased court costs. And judges are often swayed by community outrage.
And anyways the Supreme Court has found it legal.
I guess they're infallible, even if their conclusions are incoherent.
In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), the Supreme Court held that federal government officials are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court reasoned that "the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority."
Do you realize that "qualified immunity" is literally "if the perpetrator (cop) thought they were doing the right thing at the time, then they are immune to legal consequences".
If that same standard were applied GENERALLY, nobody could ever be charged for a speeding ticket if "they didn't see the sign".
It rewards incompetence (specifically ignorance). If you didn't know it was illegal, then you can't be charged. Imagine what a utopia that would be.
I thought it was perfectly legal to shoot a woman through a locked living-room window, while she was sitting in her own home, playing video games with her family.
CIVIL RIGHTS YOU SAY??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That doesn’t answer my question. Crime has gone down but police funding has gone up. Crime is already up in cities because there are less police officers. And I mean violent crime.
Citation please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That makes no sense lol. Americans have more rights than enemy combatants.
no they do not.
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody [INDEFINITELY AND WITHOUT TRIAL OR CHARGES], and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Which page?
Scenario #9Your convoy is on the outskirts of a city and approaching an overpass. A crowd isgathering in the area just beneath the overpass. You see a man running in an alleytoward the overpass with an AK-47. What do you do?Possible reaction points and EOF considerations:• Increase the aggressiveness of your posture.• Use EOF to negate the potential threat.• Remember that locals may legally have small arms for the protection oftheir homes.• Attempt to identify the individual with the weapon.• Do not engage unless there are further indications of hostile intent or ahostile act. [LINK]
OPENING FIRE.a. You may open fire only if you, friendly forces or persons or property under yourprotection are threatened with deadly force. [LINK]
Created: