At 6/24/08 11:45 AM, JoS wrote:
I would say there is a difference between the Holocaust and the job of a police officer?
I would say study the Nuremburg trials some more. Those arguments wheren't rejected on the grounds that "Hey, that's a good argument... but the Holocaust was still bad so we're going to execute you". The arguments where denied because "I didn't make the rules, I just supported them and expanded them" is a fundementally flawed way to claim "innocence".
Would you prefer we lived in a society with no laws, and therefore no one to enforce such laws? A place where you were free t do whatever you want, whenever you want? I certainly do not, because that would not be a pleasant place to live. Life in a state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. If someone doesn't like you, they can kill you because there are no repercussions. People can steal your shit whenever they want.
Lol. Also, if you don't think that Boxers should be arrested for "assaulting" their opponent in the ring, then you also automatically think boxers shouldn't be arrested for agrivating rape.
It's so fun to completely ignore the subject, and randomly pointing out some moronically improbable worst case scenario to avoid actually arguing, isn't it?
Drugs risk the lives of others. Drug labs are very dangerous places and can explode and kill innocent people.
Yes, because the Government prevents companies from making safe drug labs. That's like saying "Cars should be illegal, because when made out of scraps in some guys basement, they are likely to fall apart".
You can't state something should be illegal, because it's dangerous when it's illegal.
Oh, and by the way; it's possible to USE a substance without growing/making it.
There have been cases of people high on drugs getting into cars or other situations where they endanger the lives of others.
There have been cases of people without a lot of sleep getting in cars and endangering others. Should sleep be regulated by the government? Why not legalize drugs and make it illegal to drive under the influence of any narcotics that alter your ability to drive?
How do drug users pay for their habits? In some cities it is etimated that drugs are the reaosn behind 1/3 of all property crime (theft etc).
Rich people don't smoke crack. People living on the street, stealing to support their habit, are people that where poor to begain with and would be stealing anyway.
No, I would say most people obey the police because they respect their authority. People obey bouncers, yet they have no weapons.
Again, people obey bouncers because of force. If you do not obey a bouncer, they call the police on you. If police "asked" people to do something, as opposed to "Get on the floor or we taze you/take you down", there would be anarchy. Your idealistic to the point of idiocy to believe the police would be just as fine off and would get as much complience if they made requests instead of legal demands.
People obey lifeguards, yet they have no weapons.
The lifeguards kick you out of the pool, and call the police if you don't leave.
People obey Customs and Immigration and they have no guns (in Canada, only a few officers are armed at land borders, but none in the airport). Most people obey authority because it is what they are conditioned to do, its what society feels is correct.
Cops in Canada can still use force.
That is not what I said.
That's EXACTLY what you said. You said things that are SOCIALLY UNACCEPTED should be illegal.
Under the social contract society is governed by laws, and under a constitutional government society dictates the the norms, but when society is wrong the government steps in and changes the contract to adapt to the needs of all members of society.
More amazingly ignorent liberal rhetoric. "When the ignorant people in a country are wrong about what they want, it's the governments job to come in and tell them what they really want".
Get this; SOCIETY IS NEVER WRONG. The government IS society. Without the approval and support of that "wrong" society, there IS NO GOVERNMENT.
I do nto advocate a tyranny of the majority such as you would find under a democracy. Society is nto simply the majority, its all of society, so sometimes whats right is not what is popular.
Yes, it is. It's up to society to determine what THEY find right and to be in environments where they are surrounded by "whats right" to them. It's not up to the government to say (for example) "Gee... I know everyone wants to eat cake for dessert, but people are just confused, Pie is better. I'll give you pie."
Government SHOULD NOT get involved in legistating "social norms", it should be up to private civillians to deal with that.
When you look outside the sphere of individual rights, protection of the person, then societal norms take over in dictating behavior and laws. A comparison between racism and drug use is not comparing apples and apples. Besides, laws dictate actions, being a racist is not an action, lynching and tarring black people is outlawed. You can want to do drugs, you just can't actually do them. Its not socially acceptable to be racist, but its allowed legally. Its what you do with that racism that the law controls.
Actually, it's not illegal to be racist, period; including "actions" such as writing "N*ggers go home" on a webpage.
Some people think its okay for adults to have sexual relations with children, should we make it legal for them then?
If it's scientifically found that sex with children doesn't harm children at all, and that children have the mental ability to consent, sure, go ahead.
That was my point, you will always be biased against the police and pro-drugs, no matter the circumstances because you want drugs to be legal, that is your agenda. I am biased in favor of the police, but I am not blinded by my bias, and I have been critical of the police in some discussions, as I have been critical of criminals in others. While I do not believe that drugs should be legal, especially hard drugs, I believe in the law and will obey it regardless of my personal beliefs.
Socrates was arrested and faced execution for an unjust law. however since it was a law, when he was offered a chance to escape by his guards he refused to do so, and drank the hemlock to preform his own execution, the punishment he was given.
Yeah, Rosa Parks was a damned scumbag criminal.
The other officer involved in that incident was charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The LAPD Rampart Crash Division is an exceptional case of police corruption, however I would like to point out that 14 members of Rampart have been convicted and are serving time in jail from armed robbery to drug trafficking to murder.
14 convicted, out of dozens that where KNOWN to be corrupt. They punish the crimes society wouldn't allow them to let go of, but let the beatings, assaults, and perjuries go unpunished.
And not that this excuses the officers actions, but you failed to mention that the individual was a member of the 18th Street Gang, one of the most violent gangs in LA, and anywhere in the US.
And you fail to mention that CRASH is one of the REASONS they are so powerful.
How many beatings and killings are committed by gang members who do not end up in jail. Unfortunately, justice does not always prevail, on both sides of the line. Even when dealing with violent gang members, police should not stoop to dirty tactics and play by their own rules.
And D.A's should learn to prosecute cops.
Outside of the few cases of extreme police corruption this rarely occurs. Police are only to fire in protection of themselves or the public from death or grievous bodily harm. Are there accidents, yes, but there are accidentally shootings committed by civilians of other civilians too. Believe it or not, most cops are good people.
It doesn't matter. "MOST cops don't shoot innocent suspects" doesn't excuse the fact that some do, and they do not get put in prison for