Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

No officers directly charged with Breonna Taylor's death

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    How can you call anything you have your property if it can be taken from you?

    Just because something can be take from you doesn't mean it isn't yours.
    The comparison isn't valid. I'm not talking about rights conferred upon you by a government, that can be restored to you by a judicial process.

    I'm talking about so-called 'natural rights', like the right to life and freedom.

    America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
      The comparison isn't valid. I'm not talking about rights conferred upon you by a government, that can be restored to you by a judicial process.

      I'm talking about so-called 'natural rights', like the right to life and freedom.
      One of those rights would be the right to own property. I am not talking about land, but private possessions.

      Unalienable doesn't mean it can't be infringed upon from force, it merely means the right doesn't have to be conferred on you by anyone or any government. They are natural rights, as you say. You have them by the fact that you are a human being.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
        Next time try to post something coherent. Then people might "get that".
        Your lack of understanding does not make it incoherent, it just means you lack the capacity to understand what I wrote. I lack the time to dumb it down for you, so I'll quit replying now and you can continue being touchy about things you don't understand.
        "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          One of those rights would be the right to own property. I am not talking about land, but private possessions.

          Unalienable doesn't mean it can't be infringed upon from force, it merely means the right doesn't have to be conferred on you by anyone or any government. They are natural rights, as you say. You have them by the fact that you are a human being.
          You still haven't (won't?) addressed the question. Firstly, who says you have these "natural rights"? How can you (or anybody else) show that you have them? Secondly, what does it actually mean to say that you have them when they can be and are violated frequently?
          America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by myth View Post
            Your lack of understanding does not make it incoherent, it just means you lack the capacity to understand what I wrote.
            You havne't demonstrated (and can't demonstrate) any lack of understanding on my part.

            Originally posted by myth View Post
            I lack the time to dumb it down for you, so I'll quit replying now and you can continue being touchy about things you don't understand.
            That's okay. It's quite a typical reaction when you can't make your case to insult and attack the other person, trying to make out that your inability to explain your position is somehow his fault. Perhaps you can try again sometime when you've actually thought your position through.
            America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
              You havne't demonstrated (and can't demonstrate) any lack of understanding on my part.


              That's okay. It's quite a typical reaction when you can't make your case to insult and attack the other person, trying to make out that your inability to explain your position is somehow his fault. Perhaps you can try again sometime when you've actually thought your position through.
              I have a bachelor's degree in the subject matter. I've worked in the field, full time, for over 10 years. I have a boat load of professional certifications related to the issue at hand, literally thousands of hours of additional advanced professional training. I train other people how to do what I do, and I was a supervisor before I decided to lateral transfer in to my current position as a criminal investigator. I'd guess my opinions on the matter are significantly more considered than yours.

              I insulted you because you were rude, touchy, and persnickety. When you called my posts incoherent, I responded by pointing out that it's not necessarily incoherent just because you don't understand it. That wasn't an insult, I was just bluntly stating the truth. Perhaps I could have been nicer, but again. Rude and persnickety.

              If you'd like to have a civil debate and explore some of the relevant issues in depth, then lay out your opinion or ask questions of me in a civil and non-condescending manner. I'll be happy to respond civilly as well. But if you continue to be condescending and rude, I'll continue to be rude in return. I'm not a doormat for your arrogance or your ignorant ideology. I'll be happy to respect your opinions, as long as you're respectful of mine.

              I'm here because I enjoy actual debates that rely on facts, logic, and a well structured argument. I'm not particularly interested in being condescended to by someone who (in all likelihood) has less training, education, and experience in the subject matter at hand while they also fail to make a decent argument. It's like a schoolyard argument...or a presidential debate, maybe. Useless for testing ideas, with limited entertainment value as bystanders watch people fling insults and never really have a proper debate. Frankly I'm disappointed in these civil forums lately. It's the same pattern, over and over again. Someone makes a thread on police matters, I come in and make an argument, then the liberals fail to effectively counter my argument, are rude/arrogant/insulting, I'm rude back, and then I lose interest because I feel like I'm arguing with a small child. If you'd like to break the pattern, then please do.
              Last edited by myth; 10-10-2020, 10:53 AM.
              "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

              Comment


              • Originally posted by myth View Post
                I have a bachelor's degree in the subject matter.
                What a coincidence! I have a PhD in the subject matter!

                Originally posted by myth View Post
                I've worked in the field, full time, for over 10 years.
                I've worked in the field, full time, for over 20 years!

                Originally posted by myth View Post
                I have a boat load of professional certifications related to the issue at hand,
                I have two boat loads of professional certifications related to the issue at hand!

                Originally posted by myth View Post
                literally thousands of hours of additional advanced professional training.
                I have literally tens of thousands of hours of additional advanced professional training!

                Originally posted by myth View Post
                I train other people how to do what I do
                I train other people and animals how to do what I do!

                Originally posted by myth View Post
                and I was a supervisor
                I supervised even more people than you!

                Originally posted by myth View Post
                before I decided to lateral transfer in to my current position as a criminal investigator.
                I decided to a lateral transfer to my current position in charge of criminal investigators!

                All of the above is, of course, to show that claimed qualifications mean absolutely nothing.

                Originally posted by myth View Post
                I'd guess my opinions on the matter are significantly more considered than yours.
                Then you guess wrongly.

                Originally posted by myth View Post
                I insulted you because you were rude, touchy, and persnickety. When you called my posts incoherent, I responded by pointing out that it's not necessarily incoherent just because you don't understand it. That wasn't an insult, I was just bluntly stating the truth. Perhaps I could have been nicer, but again. Rude and persnickety..
                Nice excuses for your insults. Yawn. Do I need to point out that your claim that it was coherent is not necessarily accurate?

                Originally posted by myth View Post
                If you'd like to have a civil debate and explore some of the relevant issues in depth, then lay out your opinion or ask questions of me in a civil and non-condescending manner. I'll be happy to respond civilly as well. But if you continue to be condescending and rude, I'll continue to be rude in return. I'm not a doormat for your arrogance or your ignorant ideology. I'll be happy to respect your opinions, as long as you're respectful of mine.
                You have been nothing but condescending, rude, and arrogant. I am not in the least respectful of your opinion that your (claimed) degree and qualifications make your opinions of any more worth than mine.

                Originally posted by myth View Post
                I'm here because I enjoy actual debates that rely on facts, logic, and a well structured argument. I'm not particularly interested in being condescended to by someone who (in all likelihood) has less training, education, and experience in the subject matter at hand while they also fail to make a decent argument.
                No, you'd much rather be condescending, rude and arrogant to people about whose training, qualifications and experience you have absolutely no idea.

                Originally posted by myth View Post
                It's like a schoolyard argument...or a presidential debate, maybe. Useless for testing ideas, with limited entertainment value as bystanders watch people fling insults and never really have a proper debate. Frankly I'm disappointed in these civil forums lately. It's the same pattern, over and over again. Someone makes a thread on police matters, I come in and make an argument, then the liberals fail to effectively counter my argument, are rude/arrogant/insulting, I'm rude back, and then I lose interest because I feel like I'm arguing with a small child. If you'd like to break the pattern, then please do.
                More of the same along with a passing shot at liberals. Yawn. When you are ready to discuss/debate like an adult instead of a small child, let me know.
                America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                Comment


                • Interesting how you had to one-up basically everything I've said, even when you couldn't possibly know whether your "qualification" beats mine in the category (more on that later). I'm inclined to doubt what you're saying, but I will also not accuse you of lying. There's no point getting a proving personal details match because I won't be participating in that. The anonymity of the forums is what allows me to comment publicly on these matters. Too much trouble with work, otherwise.

                  Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                  What a coincidence! I have a PhD in the subject matter!
                  So what's your PhD in, specifically? My degree is in criminal justice, and the graduate degree I'm pursuing is in theology (not that it's relevant here).

                  I've worked in the field, full time, for over 20 years!
                  Nice!

                  I have two boat loads of professional certifications related to the issue at hand!
                  I'll note that apparently, you think there as an actual standard for what a "boatload" is, and automatically assume that my definition of boatload and your definition of boat load are the same, and thus you have more certifications than I. Get real. Boatload simply means a lot, there's no way to know if you have more than me unless we start counting them out.


                  I have literally tens of thousands of hours of additional advanced professional training!
                  Please help correct my ignorance. You have a PhD, but tens of thousands of additional professional training? What kind is that, exactly? A post-doc fellowship? In what? I'm woefully ignorant of what you high-and-mighty ivory tower types do. Well, aside from looking down your noses at people who don't have a PhD. So your behavior fits with that, I suppose I should assume you do have a PhD. Congratulations on proving you can do a lot of work.

                  I train other people and animals how to do what I do!
                  I'll assume this is a facetious dig on my profession, so the tone of this response will reflect your attitude. I literally invited you to be polite in an attempt to reset the tone of this weird argument. I'm trying so hard to be nice to you, but you're making it very difficult.

                  I supervised even more people than you!
                  How exactly do you know how many people I've supervised? I didn't give a number, a length of time as a supervisor, nor did I mention previous careers, or how old I am. But you just magically know that you've supervised more people than I? Flawless logic there, Professor Low Voltage.


                  I decided to a lateral transfer to my current position in charge of criminal investigators!
                  I know you're probably used to correcting other people's work because you are normally correct, but what I wrote was both factually correct and appropriately worded. Difficult to understand, I know, how someone with a PhD can be wrong about something in this field, huh?

                  All of the above is, of course, to show that claimed qualifications mean absolutely nothing.
                  If it's true for me, it's true for you. Guess they didn't teach much critical thinking when you were working on that PhD. You just presented an argument which negates the entire thrust of your own post. That's beautiful logic, truly.

                  And if this whole post is nothing but trolling, I'm a little sad you didn't come up with something better.


                  Then you guess wrongly.
                  Apparently. It just goes to show, even people with advanced degrees in the subject matter at hand can have basically no idea what they're talking about. Which is, actually, a bit surprising to me. I'd have expected more.


                  Nice excuses for your insults. Yawn. Do I need to point out that your claim that it was coherent is not necessarily accurate?
                  You've pointed it out before. I'm not sure why think it's some sort of wild card. Whether or not my post was coherent is largely subjective, so it'd be difficult to prove either way. To be perfectly honest, though, I don't even recall us arguing about something substantive a this point. I remember you made an asinine comment about something that wasn't directed to you, and then things spiraled downhill from there. Which comment of mine, exactly, did you not understand? Maybe I can clarify it.


                  You have been nothing but condescending, rude, and arrogant. I am not in the least respectful of your opinion that your (claimed) degree and qualifications make your opinions of any more worth than mine.
                  I have nowhere claimed that my opinion matters more than yours. So once again, work on your reading comprehension.

                  And you can doubt my claimed degree and qualifications if you'd like. I've been around these forums for years, and everyone who's been around a while knows my profession. Others with similar work experience can, at the very least, attest that my understanding of issues rings true as coming from a cop's perspective (like Cow Poke, for example).

                  I have claimed that I'm right and you're wrong. And I've implied that I've thought through my opinions more carefully than you have thought through yours. I still endorse those claims, since you've given me no reason to believe otherwise, yet.


                  No, you'd much rather be condescending, rude and arrogant to people about whose training, qualifications and experience you have absolutely no idea.
                  No really, I'm sorry for assuming you had no training, education or experience in the field. You've said so much ignorant stuff, I didn't think there was any possible way you could be educated about the subject matter at hand. It was an assumption on my part, and apparently I was wrong. But like I said earlier, you do you.

                  Seriously, you and I must work in different environments. You think I've been so rude, and what I've said here is a seriously polite version of the arguments I have with colleagues on a weekly basis. I do apologize if I started out too abrasive. I sometimes forget that people in regular office environments interact differently than I'm used to.

                  However, your animal comment above is not likely to convince me moderate my tone any time soon. I'm used to ivory tower academics, lawyers, and judges having no idea how things work outside of their comfortable cocoon. When I read court rulings from even federal appeals courts and realize the judges fundamentally misunderstood how something works, when I met with lawyers that have these crazy impressive reputations and realize they I have a firmer grasp on the issues than they do, it's just disappointing. I'm not saying this to be arrogant, I'm saying this to explain that I do get quite frustrated when someone who is basically on the same intelligence level as I am goes around looking down their nose at everyone who doesn't have a fancy JD/PhD or whatever their preferred status symbol.

                  Your animal comments above and your corrections of my statements display this very same arrogance. Equating an entire profession to a literal animal is the height of arrogance, and it serves no purpose other than to insult me and massage your own fragile ego. You called my statements incoherent first, and apparently it's the height of rudeness to suggest (well ok, directly say) that you just didn't understand it. You suggested I couldn't write and I suggested you couldn't read/comprehend. Tit for tat. If getting push-back sends you off the deep end, maybe you should stick to belittling people you have actual influence over.

                  My confidence does come across as arrogance, and that's probably something I should be aware of. I also don't normally coddle people when I think they're wrong, I just say what I'm thinking. Honestly I'm not sure why that upsets people so much.

                  More of the same along with a passing shot at liberals. Yawn. When you are ready to discuss/debate like an adult instead of a small child, let me know.
                  I'm not really anti-liberal, I've argued with Mountain Man plenty as well. But in these police-related threads, the pattern is definitely that of a liberal making a flawed argument and failing to defend it, while looking down their noses at everyone else, then turning it into a poop deck fiasco. I'm just frustrated that it always turns into personal attacks and we can never seem to get anywhere on the actual arguments.

                  I'll issue the invitation again. Start with explaining which post of mine you found to be incoherent. If your response is polite, then I promise my reply to it will be polite. And maybe we can have an actual discussion here. But I'll continue to give you what I see as proportional rudeness whenever I think you're being rude, because I don't believe in giving a pass to people who argue like that. I'm totally serious about this. Politely explain why my post was incoherent (and which one it was, please) and I will respond in a polite manner. Maybe we can stick to attacking each others' ideas, and not each other. Maybe.




                  Last edited by myth; 10-10-2020, 08:15 PM.
                  "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by myth View Post
                    Interesting how you had to one-up basically everything I've said, even when you couldn't possibly know whether your "qualification" beats mine in the category (more on that later). I'm inclined to doubt what you're saying, but I will also not accuse you of lying. There's no point getting a proving personal details match because I won't be participating in that. The anonymity of the forums is what allows me to comment publicly on these matters. Too much trouble with work, otherwise.

                    So what's your PhD in, specifically? My degree is in criminal justice, and the graduate degree I'm pursuing is in theology (not that it's relevant here).

                    Nice!

                    I'll note that apparently, you think there as an actual standard for what a "boatload" is, and automatically assume that my definition of boatload and your definition of boat load are the same, and thus you have more certifications than I. Get real. Boatload simply means a lot, there's no way to know if you have more than me unless we start counting them out.

                    Please help correct my ignorance. You have a PhD, but tens of thousands of additional professional training? What kind is that, exactly? A post-doc fellowship? In what? I'm woefully ignorant of what you high-and-mighty ivory tower types do. Well, aside from looking down your noses at people who don't have a PhD. So your behavior fits with that, I suppose I should assume you do have a PhD. Congratulations on proving you can do a lot of work. Some the most stupid I've ever met in my entire life had advanced degrees. And before you accuse me of being hypocritical, I mentioned my degree to articulate that I have made a study of related issues, not as a status symbol (because, you know, who would use a common 4-year degree as a status marker?).

                    I'll assume this is a facetious dig on my profession, so the tone of this response will reflect your attitude. I literally invited you to be polite in an attempt to reset the tone of this weird argument. I'm trying so hard to be nice to you, but you're making it very difficult.

                    How exactly do you know how many people I've supervised? I didn't give a number, a length of time as a supervisor, nor did I mention previous careers, or how old I am. But you just magically know that you've supervised more people than I? Flawless logic there, Professor Low Voltage.

                    I know you're probably used to correcting other people's work because you are normally correct, but what I wrote was both factually correct and appropriately worded. Difficult to understand, I know, how someone with a PhD can be wrong about something in this field, huh?
                    You have completely failed to grasp the point. I'll make it as plain as I can.

                    I do not care in the slightest about what qualifications or expertise you claim; they are completely worthless in this discussion and I am not in the slightest interested in them.

                    Originally posted by myth View Post
                    If it's true for me, it's true for you. Guess they didn't teach much critical thinking when you were working on that PhD. You just presented an argument which negates the entire thrust of your own post. That's beautiful logic, truly.
                    As I said, you completely failed to grasp the point.

                    Originally posted by myth View Post
                    And if this whole post is nothing but trolling, I'm a little sad you didn't come up with something better.

                    Apparently. It just goes to show, even people with advanced degrees in the subject matter at hand can have basically no idea what they're talking about. Which is, actually, a bit surprising to me. I'd have expected more.

                    You've pointed it out before. I'm not sure why think it's some sort of wild card. Whether or not my post was coherent is largely subjective, so it'd be difficult to prove either way. To be perfectly honest, though, I don't even recall us arguing about something substantive a this point. I remember you made an asinine comment about something that wasn't directed to you, and then things spiraled downhill from there. Which comment of mine, exactly, did you not understand? Maybe I can clarify it.

                    I have nowhere claimed that my opinion matters more than yours. So once again, work on your reading comprehension.

                    And you can doubt my claimed degree and qualifications if you'd like. I've been around these forums for years, and everyone who's been around a while knows my profession. Others with similar work experience can, at the very least, attest that my understanding of issues rings true as coming from a cop's perspective (like Cow Poke, for example).

                    I have claimed that I'm right and you're wrong. And I've implied that I've thought through my opinions more carefully than you have thought through yours. I still endorse those claims, since you've given me no reason to believe otherwise, yet.

                    No really, I'm sorry for assuming you had no training, education or experience in the field. You've said so much ignorant stuff, I didn't think there was any possible way you could be educated about the subject matter at hand. It was an assumption on my part, and apparently I was wrong. But like I said earlier, you do you.

                    Seriously, you and I must work in different environments. You think I've been so rude, and what I've said here is a seriously polite version of the arguments I have with colleagues on a weekly basis. I do apologize if I started out too abrasive. I sometimes forget that people in regular office environments interact differently than I'm used to.

                    However, your animal comment above is not likely to convince me moderate my tone any time soon. I'm used to ivory tower academics, lawyers, and judges having no idea how things work outside of their comfortable cocoon. When I read court rulings from even federal appeals courts and realize the judges fundamentally misunderstood how something works, when I met with lawyers that have these crazy impressive reputations and realize they I have a firmer grasp on the issues than they do, it's just disappointing. I'm not saying this to be arrogant, I'm saying this to explain that I do get quite frustrated when someone who is basically on the same intelligence level as I am goes around looking down their nose at everyone who doesn't have a fancy JD/PhD or whatever their preferred status symbol.

                    Your animal comments above and your corrections of my statements display this very same arrogance. Equating an entire profession to a literal animal is the height of arrogance, and it serves no purpose other than to insult me and massage your own fragile ego. You called my statements incoherent first, and apparently it's the height of rudeness to suggest (well ok, directly say) that you just didn't understand it. You suggested I couldn't write and I suggested you couldn't read/comprehend. Tit for tat. If getting push-back sends you off the deep end, maybe you should stick to belittling people you have actual influence over.

                    My confidence does come across as arrogance, and that's probably something I should be aware of. I also don't normally coddle people when I think they're wrong, I just say what I'm thinking. Honestly I'm not sure why that upsets people so much.



                    I'm not really anti-liberal, I've argued with Mountain Man plenty as well. But in these police-related threads, the pattern is definitely that of a liberal making a flawed argument and failing to defend it, while looking down their noses at everyone else, then turning it into a poop deck fiasco. I'm just frustrated that it always turns into personal attacks and we can never seem to get anywhere on the actual arguments.

                    I'll issue the invitation again. Start with explaining which post of mine you found to be incoherent. If your response is polite, then I promise my reply to it will be polite. And maybe we can have an actual discussion here. But I'll continue to give you what I see as proportional rudeness whenever I think you're being rude, because I don't believe in giving a pass to people who argue like that. I'm totally serious about this. Politely explain why my post was incoherent (and which one it was, please) and I will respond in a polite manner. Maybe we can stick to attacking each others' ideas, and not each other. Maybe.
                    Not really interested in all this. When you have something substantive you want to debate/discuss and are ready to do it in a civil, non-arrogant, non-condescending manner, let me know.

                    America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                    Comment


                    • Myth, it is not worth your time arguing with ES. He thinks he knows everything and just ignores anything that contradicts his view. His go to response is "nuh-uh!"


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Myth, it is not worth your time arguing with ES. He thinks he knows everything and just ignores anything that contradicts his view. His go to response is "nuh-uh!"
                        Yawn. Childish and false ad hominem.
                        America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 06:36 AM
                        1 response
                        16 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Started by seer, 01-22-2022, 06:17 AM
                        1 response
                        41 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Mountain Man  
                        Started by Bill the Cat, 01-21-2022, 02:21 PM
                        7 responses
                        87 views
                        4 likes
                        Last Post alaskazimm  
                        Started by Cow Poke, 01-20-2022, 01:20 PM
                        12 responses
                        76 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Cow Poke  
                        Started by rogue06, 01-20-2022, 09:16 AM
                        34 responses
                        215 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Working...
                        X