Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

I actually meant self-righteous, privileged children. I can tell by your tone that you already kneel at the altar of the state. So go ahead, say your prayers, drop your money in the donation box and let's get on with it.



Nothing is free especially "free healthcare". Everything within the medical system requires someone to put forth their labor to make it happen. The doctors who diagnose your illness, the surgeons who fix what's broken, the nurses who take care of you while your in the hospital, etc. All of this requires people be compensated for their time which if you disagree leads into an entirely different argument.

Socialists believe that the money required to pay these professionals should be taken by force from those who have money. Once the money has been extorted from one group, it should be given to others in various forms ranging from welfare to government services which include government healthcare and governments schools to indoctrinate the children with a robust love of the state.

Socialists prattle on with delightful talk of "if we all just cooperated, we could accomplish so much more" yet they ignore a key concept of cooperation which is the element of volunteerism. Socialism only works if everyone is participating in the system this is often enforced via taxes, penalties, fines and other "incentives" to force people into the system. To the uneducated this is perfectly fine because the ends justify the means. These individuals are so indoctrinated with the state dogma that they believe anyone who is opposed to be robbed for the benefit of others is just a compassion-less monster who wishes to see children and elderly dying in the gutter because they are simply greedy, vile, corrupt bastards won't let go of the money they rightfully earned.



tl;dr: Using force against one group to help another is just being a self-righteous bully and shows no actual compassion for others.



That is not capitalism, it's called corporatism. Learn the difference so people will at least think you stayed awake in class.

Ah socialism, the last refuge for privileged children to feel edgy and rebel against their parents.

Nice additions to my bookmarks. Thank you kindly.

This is interesting and all but, we've deviated quite far from the original topic.

So far, I've surmised that law enforcement has lost respect amongst the community for lack of enforcement against excessive force or corruption by it's members. Additionally I posted relative legal cases that have erected a legal barrier and reduced liability for law enforcement failing to perform the duties they are charged with which encourages the population to not trust law enforcement. Finally, I posted a study that dismissed the concept of "a few bad apples" are responsible for police brutality but, instead it's a matter of policy that has lead to a culture of police brutality.

According to the innocence project and the American Pyschological Association they are not reliable at all. Yet, our court systems seem to rely on this faulty method.




Doesn't quite say "90%, etc, etc" but, it's close enough.



The Daily Mail is well known within the U.K. to be an unreliable, unreputable tabloid.

I came across this and thought about your post. It elaborates on why there is a pay gap but, it dismisses that's it discrimination based upon gender but, a result of different choices.

You just love those broad generalizations don't you?



Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. This is just a way for you to say "I couldn't find any evidence whatsoever to back up my own side which means I'm right".



I reiterate, Anecdotal evidence is unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on.

You're first hand experiences are such a small sample size that it can't even be considered as reliable evidence. There is a reason why eye witness accounts hold little credibility in real life legal proceedings.


Edit:

I want to avoid sounding like I just want confrontation but I find the numbers dubious and I would like a study or government statistics to prove this. I seriously doubt that it's that simple of broken homes, single parents or abusive parents = crime. It ignores or grossly oversimplifies socio-economic, psychologic, geographic and the various other correlates of crime.



First, society (those who are aware) doesn't tolerate corrupt agencies but, the government has no liability for a law enforcement officers actions. They along with a corrupt legal system and apathetic citizenship have essentially walled themselves in so that the only way to successfully sue any public official is if they consent to being sued. It's a result from the combination of Republican worship of law enforcement and the Democrat worship of state. Now the balance of power between the people and the state is out of whack but, at the same time people don't want to tear down the government for it's corruption because it's still filling their troughs with feed.

The comparison falls apart of the Nazi's comparison. In the years leading up to WW2, he promised many groups what they wanted. He promised higher prices for produce to the farmers to make up for their losses during the depression, he promised to build public works to get the massive numbers of unemployed back to work, etc. He conveniently used scapegoats such as Jews and communists to gather people to the side of the national socialist party. So by shrewd politicking, good timing and being a charismatic orator he was able to win the elections fairly.

It's a good guess that the majority of what people know about WW2 and the years leading up to it is flat wrong as the government school systems of those involved attempted to bury the truth to make themselves the hero's. We all know, history is written by the winners and nobody is going to make themselves the bad guy.

Here are some things toenlighten you.

Not quite, more that simply because some succeed doesn't mean others will and that where others fail doesn't mean that others will do the same. Again, just because one government fails to accomplish something doesn't mean another one can't succeed in doing what the other failed to accomplish and so on so forth.



Not doing your job for you is not laziness. If anyone was lazy, it was you for thinking a Google search qualifies as evidence of anything besides your own incompetence. I shall reiterate once again, "semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" which translates into "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."



This doesn't even begin to qualify as a scholarly source. It merely promotes pages based upon a set criteria relating to the person who searched. Since you don't know what you're doing allow me to help you. When someone asks for proof or evidence to back up your position, you would search for news articles, studies or statistics from reputable scholarly sources to provide. Upon you providing this evidence, I would review it and post either my criticism or acknowledgement of the articles provided. If I am of a dissenting opinion of those articles I may provide ones of my own as a counter to yours.




I reiterate, Anecdotal evidence is unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on.



This is deviating from the discussion but, at least we somewhat agree here. Though we differ as you believe the population as a whole are at fault while I blame individuals. The reason I disagree here is, I did not vote for obama in 08 or in '12 as I voted for Ron Paul in both elections and I have pretty much opposed every action he's taken unless it was agreeable with my own morals and principles which are based upon libertarian ideology. An individual can not be held responsible for actions of others, actions which he is opposed and has actively tried to stop.

If I tried to stop someone from murdering another. Morally and legally speaking, I can't be held responsible for the persons death, as I did try to prevent it. This is of course, assuming I did more than just call the police and hide under my bed but, I digress.



ugh, I reiterate yet again, these individuals work for their respective governments. The evidence they would provide would in no way be anecdotal because the information would be published government statistics. In other words, I need the guy who speaks German to navigate a German website, to locate some studies that show statistics related to our discussion. Then on top of simply locating it, I would require his assistance in translating it and putting it into perspective for us foreigners. As for the other guy, he lives in Quebec and their website is in French which is another language I am not fluent in.

Having someone who can speak another language and navigate a government website in a language I am not fluent in is not comparable to your anecdotal evidence. Your inability to comprehend such basic concepts is growing quite tedious.

Your faith in the internet is quite adorable. The internet is not some magical panacea that can cure the woes of society simply by existing. It's merely a tool that can be used and manipulated by those with control over it's infrastructure. An entire country can vanish from the internet with the wave of a single hand. On January 26 2011 Mubarak effectively took Egypt off the internet which disrupted the fiber optic corridor between Asia and Europe. The Egyptians were only able to by-pass this blackout by use of proxy's and 3rd party applications. Libya was started by the American government to secure access to the resource rich country.

Related Link.

Of course it'd be difficult for someone to maintain control when NATO is mucking about in your business.

Those other dictators who were deposed during the Arab spring didn't have nearly the level of sophistication as China. Just because others fail doesn't mean others can't succeed. It honestly doesn't take much to control the flow of information when you control the mediums. Egypt, Syria and Iran were able to manipulate/shut down their internet and cell phone networks so it's obviously not that difficult. Though that is oversimplifying the issue as the civilians in those countries also had wide access to firearms and support from foreign nations to assist in rebellions.





You trying to make a point or just railing against the U.S?



You're the one making those claims, not me. I won't be doing your leg work for you. Since you've failed twice to provide ANY information to back up your position, I must assume you can't find any and are merely bloviating.




You're simply fishing around for something to work with since your argument is struggling. I would appreciate it of you took my words as I intend them (literal) rather than concocting your own ideas of what I was implying.

I'll reiterate what I was saying; we went from a society that respected law enforcement to one that distrusts the very people we once respected. So I'll go ahead and link you to this study that was done on police brutality. In addition to that, we have incidents such as this or this among thousands upon thousands of abuses and corruption by law enforcement. So please, explain how internal payoffs, kickbacks, frame ups and ticket fixing's are "society's fault". If anything, I expect if we examine the regulations regarding Law enforcement behavior between the countries you listed and the United States, you'd find more accountability in those countries for police misconduct.



Anecdotal evidence is unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. I live in a state with 40% gun ownership rate and yet, I've seen 3 guns in private ownership in my lifetime here. If I were to apply your logic here then it must be "guns are rare".



Those friends of mine actually work within their respective governments and would have access to the information that I wouldn't know how to locate.

Anyways, you've failed twice to provide information to back up your own claims. Need I remind you that burden of proof lies with those who make a claim rather than those who are skeptical or deny those claims? You made a claim about police brutality rates in several other countries being lower than the U.S based on anecdotal evidence from your own friends plus you only surmised that America's levels of police brutality are higher than those countries simply because we don't "respect" law enforcement.

That's two unsubstantiated claims on your end.

"semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit"

You're trying to simply a very large and complex issue and it's misleading and generally insulting to other users and myself to frame it in such a way. First, China controls it's media and obviously wouldn't let anything negative such as police brutality be aired. This conclusion can be derived from the reality that foreign tourists and journalists face harassment from the police for filming or simply being in areas they are not allowed to. It is not a stretch to believe the Chinese Government would take measures to prevent their state controlled media to say anything negative about their own government.



Second countries such as Japan the police show integrity by apologizing for their wrongdoings while in America the police are never liable for their wrongdoings.

I won't speak for Canada or Germany as my associates there are asleep at this point in time. They would be more likely to be aware of the local goings on more than I would.

As for France and England, I can not say but, at the same time I must point out that you merely stated the above countries do not have police brutality issues without providing any proof. You're attempts to shift the burden of proof onto me as disingenuous as best.



Nice straw man you got there. It looks used though, marvelous touch up they did to make it look new though. Also nice generalization of feminists there. Where'd you get you degree in logical fallacy?

Mocking aside, I never said nor implied my society is perfect but, that didn't stop you from running off with your own interpretations rather than the literal words I wrote.

So to recap, you made broad generalizations about countries you obviously don't live in while trying to displace the burden of proof. So, you can amend this by posting the proof of your claim that China, Japan, England, France, Canada and Germany and all their various parish, provinces, districts or other equivalent jurisdictions do not have issues with police brutality. Once you've done that, we can begin to compare and contrasts the various countries so we can figure out the root cause.

[quote="theotherjacob"You completely missed the irony of my statment. Why would you serve and protect those who treat you with utter disrespect. You don't. You also mentioned if police didn't want to be treated with hostility they would fix themselves, but why don't you look at that statment historically. The police departments weren't always like that. Least to mention, many of them should be protected against civilian accusation. Do you have any police officers in your family? Or perhaps your close friends are police officers or have parents who are police officers? From the sounds of it and the many responses I've heard already, you don't.[/quote]

The last time I counted, there were 5 and I myself attempted to become a law enforcement officer for the Atlanta Police Department. I decided against it after the orientation where the rhetoric from the officers within the police force was incredibly hostile towards civil rights and the population.



Never make assumptions about those you don't know. I come from a family whose life has meant service to others ranging from law enforcement to military careers. We've known or worked besides people of all levels of law enforcement from simple deputies upwards to command staff.



Public opinion is a result of police abusing their authority in ways that I mentioned above. Until they have the integrity to fix themselves properly, the public will disrespect or obstruct them at all points. Respect has to be earned and law enforcement agencies that show a lack of integrity will never gain that respect.

The bold text is complete and utter bullshit of the highest grade. Law enforcement does not exist to serve you, nor protect you. This is affirmed by the cases of Warren v. District of Columbia, Hartzler v. City of San Jose, Riss v. New York, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, South v. Maryland, Bowers v. Devito, Westbrooks v. State, Davidson v. City of Westminister, Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles and Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

To add insult to injury, many states have enacted tatutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

If law enforcement doesn't want to be treated with hostility, then maybe they should stop abusing their power, follow the laws they are charged with enforcing, cease covering up wrongdoings by fellow officers, assigning "desk duty" or equivalents to paid vacation for those whose violations are unable to be covered up and otherwise uphold the integrity we expect from those with authority.

I have been helped my law enforcement a couple times, been given a jump when my car battery was dead, had one pull over and ask if I was alright when I was sitting on the side of the road talking on my cell phone while a third officer gave me a lift when he found me walking in the median of a road in an area that should have resulted in a fine.

However, to put it into perspective, I've also been wronged by law enforcement including; being written bogus tickets (outside of the jurisdiction of that particular agency), I've had several lie under oath which resulted in fines when I fought the bogus tickets. Another instance resulted in 3 charges against me when an officer lied under oath. Luckily, my lawyer was well known enough to get 2 of the 3 dropped just because he asked nicely while the third charge resulted in a 5 year probation period. I've also had my vehicle illegally searched by an overzealous cop looking for what he probably thought was an easy score for drugs.

Depends on your definition of equality. One person's "equality" is equal rights and privileges while another believes that equality of outcome (equality of pay regardless of efforts). Another person believes equality is the removal of any privileges granted by society to one demographic or another.

To my knowledge and google-fu skills, there isn't a study on it. This might be because it's such an infinitesimal occurrence.

Personally, I believe it has a frequency of occurrence somewhere between never, and rarely. From my interactions with women who've had abortions or are fervent abortion rights supporters, the opinion of the male in regards to the potential child is irrelevant or even met with outright hostility because "it's her body". Even if she wanted support, she can simply use the legal system to extort it out of the male anyways. Which is why I pointed out earlier that men have no rights in regards to child custody or abortion practices. If you wanted that child and she doesn't, you better just suck it up.

No matter what you do, somebody somewhere is going to be offended by the most mundane thing you do. If you're offended by a tie which is a symbol of business professionalism then you're hypersensitive to being offended. It's instances like these where we can pick out the nut jobs from the sane people. If you're offended by a tie, then that's a personal problem that you need to fix.

Just call me FPoD or Super Kami Guru Penguin. Either one is fine.



Most political ideologies tend to fall apart because they expect person X to do something rather than encouraging people working together voluntarily. All these systems use force against people to "encourage" them to work together. The last time people were "encouraged" by threats of force/violence against them it was called slavery.

I had but, didn't comment as I completely agree with them and I couldn't add anything extra to their eloquent statements. Feminism, specifically the "Gender Feminist" ideology, has turned into a horribly twisted parody of what the movement was originally about.

A conventional war with North Korea would result in a very short, and a very high death toll on both dies.

North Korea has chemical weapons and a combined military of 1 million while South Korea has an army totally half that with 28,000 people while Japans SDF has a size of about 50,000.

Regardless who starts the war, North Korea would likely send ballistic missiles into South Korea armed with chemical warheads. Considering the capital of Seoul is less than 20 miles from the demilitarize zone we could see upwards to the entire city population being wiped out.

The North Korean artillery is also buried in the hillsides along the DMZ so they can open the doors, fire a few rounds then retreat back inside the bunkers for protection.

So a land invasion is out the question, which leaves the option of a seaborne one. Which North Korea employs about 50 submarines of various sizes from the Yono class to the Sang-O and the Type 33 Romeo class

While we may beat North Korea quickly, it'll be far bloodier than both Iraq wars and Afghanistan in terms of the loss of life. The worst case scenario with this is, we cause China to reverse it's recent policy of distancing itself from North Korea and cause China to enter the fray either by giving logistical support or being active in combat.



Actually, South Korea has very good intelligence on North Korea's military including the number of ships, the varying classes of said ships, common armaments, where their artillery bunkers are located. Rough estimates of their chemical weapon stockpiles, etc.

We're also the only species to grow beyond subsistence. However, the statment is false as our cousins the primates also buy things too.



We'd quickly run out of resources as there wouldn't be a throttle on demand. People could waste food and just expect someone to grow more for them. The system would fall apart because it's ripe for abuse. I wouldn't have to turn off any lights in my home or be cautious of how much I drive because, someone else is paying for it (essentially). Which would drive up waste of our fossil fuels. Then you might have to ration things out which would cause squabbles over person x "doing more" then person y and demanding he be compensated because his/her job is harder or more demanding than another.



How are the people who manufacture those goods and the industries supporting the manufacture of said goods going to be compensated for their labor? They are giving up their finite amount of time on this planet to build these items for everyone. Should someone who risks death daily to cut down trees be given an equal amount of stuff as a hair stylist? Should a doctor be compensated the same as a mechanic who is in turn compensated the same way as a fry cook?

*By "compensated" I mean receive an equal amount of material things (food, shelter, etc).

An intellectual would post facts, statistics, articles, studies, etc. You've just repeated the talking points of an inane philosophy that is almost lost to antiquity.




Easily the majority of women can "serve sufficiently" otherwise they wouldn't be accepted into the military in the first place. If you can't do the job, they don't keep you around.

They bring nothing extra to the military simply because they are women. Instead, as individuals we are gaining valuable personnel who can full the roles. If a woman is in "motor T" which is the group of jobs that deals with servicing and repairing the vehicles in the military and she can rebuild an engine block like anybody else. There isn't a reason to discriminate because of her gender BECAUSE she can do the job. Again, I'll reiterate, if a person can perform the job then there isn't a reason to not let them do it.

If you were skilled at a particular job you associate with women. Why should we ignore what you're skilled at because of some outdated gender role?




I'm not touching abortion with a 20ft pole. So if you want to talk about that, go make another thread or go join some pro-life forum. I've said my piece in the past and I've decided to leave it at that because nobody on either side will ever agree with my. If you want to talk equality between adults, then do it but, don't muddy the water by trying to drag abortion into this.





The L/libertarian view on war is irrelevant to the gender composition in the military. Libertarians and libertarians alike disdain war and appose wars of aggression.



Libertarians oppose any war of aggression against another nation. In simple terms, Libertarians do not like war. What this congress and many others before it as well as various presidents in the last century have done is irrelevant to the discussion on women in the military. Again you muddy the water of this conversation by dragging anything you can remotely tie to the conversation in your desperate hopes to bury me in a tidal wave of irrelevance.




What do we gain from women in the military? Why not phrase it, what do we gain from allowing blacks into the military, or Asians, or Hispanics. The way you phrase the question implies there is a difference. Rather than questioning their gender, we should ask if they can get the job done which is all that should matter. If you're a man and can't get the job done, then get out and do something else. If a woman can't get the job done, then get out and do something else.




You want women in figurative cages while I believe it's the right of every adult to determine their own destiny. You keep pressing for the status quo of gender roles. I'm stating that gender is irrelevant as I'm looking at the individual level of "can they do the job".




I'm going to go with C: and be amused at how obviously you skimmed a quick article or two on WW2 and how little you truly understand of the machinations that lead to WW2.



This coming from someone who oversimplified WW2. I'm choking on the irony.





See this quote? This is you pontificating. Stop it. You're going from one topic to a diatribe on how we as a species have failed to eliminate war.

I reiterate, we gain nothing from women because there isn't much of a difference between men and women. Yeah, yeah you can go on and on about how men are inclined to produce more muscle mass and women tend to be shorter than men but, that isn't enough to exclude women wholesale when individuals can perform their roles in the military as equal to or even better than some men.

There isn't a reason we should handicap ourselves by not using the best of our resources?





I'm not shocked that people disagree as it's quite common for people to disagree with me. Whitelion, Gibbous, flaser are some fine gentlemen and scholars who disagree with me quite often. However, what I am shocked about is how someone can actually believe the dreck that spews forth from your head and onto the internet. You actually make me concerned that there is a mentally ill person out there who isn't taking his medication.



Just be honest, you think women should just be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. When you have enough integrity to openly admit your little fantasy, we can put this to rest and I can go back to grinding out combo's in Street Fighter.




But, but the apocalypse will happen! Women might die! What possible good could come from letting our little songbirds out of their cages!!?!?!?!

Now, you've become a hypocrite. You opposed women in the military because "women might die" and "what possible good would come from it" to accepting women in an arguably more dangerous position because "they might be able to prosper".

I guess you're the Moses of our generation? Please, feel free to stand on your soapbox and condemn the world and nobody cares for your apocalyptic prattle.



If a woman wants to try her hand at joining the Marines she'll be expected to meet the same physical requirements for the infantry MOS as every man whose tried. Why should we allow this? Simply put, it's basic property rights taken to it's logical conclusion. If someone has exclusive property rights to their body, then they are free to do with their property (in this case their body) as they see fit. I don't expect you to understand with your protofacist dialogue of "an orderly society" and belief that women should stay home and "populate the fatherland"



Yeah, how dare those peasants rebel against the crown. Making decisions to rule their own lives for the sake of some concept of "liberty". We should return the United States back to England and return to being a territory of the British Empire!

If you're so fond of someone else telling you how to live your life I hear some of those Islamic States like Iran just love doing that. However, it's common for people who bow to the altar of the state to only see themselves as the ones in power and not the ones who are ruled over. You probably fantasize over the world being run by your strict interpretations of right and wrong.




Oh yeah, avoiding pre-emptive wars of aggression is completely insane alright. I mean, it totally makes sense to invade every nation that looks at us wrong.



There two aren't even connected or are we playing some twisted version of six degrees of kevin bacon where I have to work out the connections between women in the military and the legalization of drugs. If so, take that shit to IB, they love forum games.

Women want equality under the law. They want the same legal rights and privileges that men have traditionally had. I'm sorry if this rubs your 1920's sensibilities the wrong way but, women are people too. Again, I reiterate, they as sovereign individuals have the right to choose their own destiny.



Sieg Heil mein Führer! As I suspected, you see yourself as a benevolent ruler. By the grace of god you bestow upon us your kind wisdom, to bathe us in the water of enlightenment to cleanse the unwashed masses of their blasphemies of ignorance.



You really have no idea what the Taliban was do you? Allow me to enlighten you to the realities;

From the age of eight, females were not allowed an education, or to be in direct contact with men, other than a close blood relative, husband, or in-laws.They were not allowed to be in the streets without a blood relative and without wearing a Burqa. Women were forbidden to wear high heels, speak loudly in public, appear on the balconies of their apartments or houses. They were also banned from public gatherings, which means no protests, no t.v. or radio shows, etc. They were prevented from riding the same bus as men, not allowed to ride a bicycle or motorcycle. They were not allowed to even take a taxi without a blood relative present with them. The taliban also closed all beauty parlors, nail salons while banning the use of cosmetics such as nail varnish and make-up .

Yep, allowing women to serve in the military is absolutely like the Taliban. If a person can do the job, nothing should stop them from doing it.



It's actually quite accurate. You seem appalled by the idea of women existing outside of these figurative cages that you place them in. A woman wants to serve in the military, you proclaim Armageddon with fall upon us if we allow such things. Women wanting to do more than fulfill tired gender roles results in you screaming until your throat bleeds and your lungs collapse at how we're becoming a liberal culture of death.

In all honesty, I'm hoping that you're just trolling the ever-loving bejesus out of me with these unhinged statements.