The Glade 4.0

In other words, your entire claim is nothing more than appeal to motive. Got it. Khross, you are utterly unqualified to evaluate anyone's ability to post rationally on police matters. You are heavily emotionally invested in the topic due to some sort of personally traumatic incident involving police int he past and have an utterly unreasonable basic political philosophy.



I have engaged in no such fist dismissal. Vindicarre's position is either that "bleed over" occurs from tactics created to deal with drug raids to other sorts of warrant services and searches and that this is problematic, and has not explained where the line is or why it's problematic in which case I'm still waiting for him to define his position, or he has claimed they bleed over to utterly dissimilar situations where it is not even physically possible to employ such tactics, in which case calling it a fiat dismissal would be like calling it fiat dismissal to reject a claim that the sun is made of hamburger meat. Duh, of course.

More importantly - so what if I don't "tolerate disagreement?" No one here does, on any topic. The entire purpose of this forum is to not tolerate disagreement. This complaint is pure points-scoring attempt on your part. You don't tolerate disagreement on video games and you're complaining that I don't on matters that actually, well, matter? This makes my whole day; I appreciate the entertainment. Aside from stating the blindingly obvious, it's a clear admission that you simply have a double standard; it's perfectly ok to disagree, as long as it's not with Khross!


I abstract law enforcement from the personal every time we discuss such matters, Khross. The fact that I can draw on personal experience to understand that things like officer saety which are regularly dismissed here as unimportant, or which most posters here simply do not understand, is not a "failure to abstract.



Yes, whatever. This is what my teenager says when she knows Dad has pointed out something she can make no rational response to. You engaged in blatant trolling, poisoning the well, appeal to motive, and ad hom. It is yet another example of your utterly childish approach to disagreement that you take with practically everyone these days, even people whos positions are so untenable that it is hardly worth the effort.

The fact is that you came in here and made an inflammatory comment directed at me personally.



Actually, most people don't hold it against me. Rynar, for example, doesn't. We get along quite amicably elsewhere and he even plays in my D&D game. I don't hold it against him either. Vindicarre and I started off in agreement, and our area of disagreement at this point seems to be what exactly "bleed over" means to him and whether that's meaningful, and in fact I offered to take the discussion to PMs with him and Stathol, where the disagreement resulted from my misunderstanding of precisely what he was taking issue with and which is therefore resolved.

We have 4 problem posters on this issue:

1) Elmo, who is utterly irrational on practically any topic in this form
2) The second 2 will remain unnamed in the pursuit of not inflaming the discussion further.
3) You, who simply cannot stand having to actually address anything anymore, and just throw a temper tantrum at any disagreement anymore, aside from your occasional posting of that article from the Slovenian or Slovakian or whatever country he's from author and ***** that no one's read it yet.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Good luck.



So? This country contains over 300 million people and has a land area of 3.79 million square miles. In addition to the fact that this is a trivial number, who cares if they're "paramilitary", why is it so important to use predjudicial language like that, and who is doing the "estimating"?



Yes. The need to minimize casualties is the purpose of them. Sorry, but reducing polcie casualties is more important than conforming with your ideology.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's not an appeal to motive at all. You accept 0 criticism or dissent about matters of police and law enforcement. That's a simple, observable fact ...

I mean, seriously ...

40,000 is a trivial number? Really? That's 110 raids a day. That's 2.2 per state, per day. And I'm willing to bet that the number per state per day actually scales from near 0 in largely rural states to high enough to make me wonder in more populous states. As for prejudicial, it's not prejudicial to call them paramilitary raids: that's exactly what they are. That's like saying it's prejudicial language to point out that Barack Obama isn't white.

_________________

No, it is not at all "observable" anymore than Monty could "observe" the number of "biased" stories on FOX News. Your claim is no different; it is based entirely on your own subjective ideas.

What you really mean by "accept cricticism" is "simply agree with the cricticism". You simply do not want to hear anything different. The fact is that most of the cricticism that occurs on the Glade is positively outlandish.



I'm quite serious. The fact that you think that you can simply dismiss everything I say in this fashion does not speak well of your own rationality. It is alarmingly similar to the behavior my teenager employs.



Yes, it's a trivial number. I already stated why. This is not outlandish at all, given the requirements of the War on Drugs. If that political drive were gone you would see this number drop considerably. It is not due to police desire that we have this numebr.. and oh by the way that's an "estimate" from an unnamed source that may very well be full of ****.

It is predjudicial language to call them paramilitary because it creates the impression that it is somehow similar to actually having the military involved in law enforcement. Don't pretend you don't know what most people think "paramilitary" means. Technically, the Boy Scouts are "paramilitary" but you know perfectly well that most people think it means "an auxiliary to the actual military" or something similar.

In any case, the fact remains that you are guilty of inflammatory trolling, appeal to motive, ad hom, and poisoning the well. If you actually were in any position to discuss this issue rationally and had facts on your side you wouldn't need to bring up the utterly irrelevant sidebar of my ability or lack thereof to discuss this issue.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

"War on Drugs" ...

You realize that phrase defeats your argument, right? That by giving it meaning, legitimating the requirements (whether you agree with them or not immaterial, you're using their existence as justification), you're conceding the raids are paramilitary?

Oh, and, by the by, if you're going to accuse someone of Appealing to Motive, you probably shouldn't presume I care or even know what the average person thinks paramilitary means. I will, however, say this ...

There is some degree of increasing militarization in police forces around the country.

_________________

Hardly. We had a war on poverty as well, does that mean that food stamps are paramilitary?



Fiat declaration, and so utterly devoid of specific meaning as to be unworthy of addressing.



Thanks for just admitting your own massive emotional investment in the topic, however (granted , in the other thread but relevant.)

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's not an emotional bias. Law Enforcement in the United States is systemically flawed and produces bad results on multiple levels.

And no, that statement isn't a fiat declaration if none of yours are. I mean, seriously, I just posted like you have all thread. Seems to me you really don't understand my criticisms of your posts or law enforcement. In fact, I know you don't understand the latter because you're always too busy apologizing for whatever law enforcement agency or officer currently faces public ire to actually listen to our arguments.

I mean, **** ...

If I wanted to make this personal, I could; but I hated American law enforcement long before that idiot of a cop shot me.

_________________

According to you.




Except I'm not "apologizing" for law enforcement officers facing "public" ire, I'm defending law enforcement officers against the outrageous accusations levelled by certain gladers, in some cases over incidents years in the past and hardly matter of public ire. What inevitably happens then is that any questioning of the preconcieved ideas of a few posters here, (among whom you are prominent) then becomes "apologizing". In some cases there's public ire, but regardless, that is why courts decide these issues. The public consists of people largely unable to consider such matters with real detachment unless under the supervision of a court and advised of their solemn duty to do so. Otherwise, they just make an emotional judgement, and do not know or care the first thing about the officer's perspective or the risks he takes, and know they never will.

Hell, just that use of the word "apologizing" is a tacit admission that the question is being begged; all that's needed is an accusation and it's true in the minds of several people here (including you). Any problems pointed out are just dismissed out of hand. There have been countless threads like this.

As for "fiat declarations" here's a clue: I haven't made any.. and you didn't either. I've pointed out that a clearly absurd position (that you can apply raid tactics to police work that doesn't involve raids) is absurd, and I've pointed out that a term like "bleed over" has no meaning except a vaguely defined one in someone's mind that can't be proven or disproven.

You, on the other hand, are simply making value judgements. I'm sure law enforcement is "systematically flawed" and produces "bad results" according to you, but here's a clue: Your opinion is a fringe opinion. You decided to take up this banner of "customer service" and even if that absurd analogy were true, the available information indicates that the majority of a "customers" think highly of the service they are getting, and a sizable minority are at least basically satisfied.

By the way, since you're so into ***** about "fiat declarations" I'll point out that I'm the only one that has produced verifiable statistical evidence from a refutable source so far; other than that we have an unverified statistic from Rynar, some Anecdotes from Vindi, and.. that's it. I know you like calling things "fiat declarations" because it worked great against Monty, but them days are gone.





Well, guess what? I formed my attitudes about law enforcement long before I became a cop. Yet you insist on thinking that they're somehow a product of that.

If you hate American law enforcement, you're at best, in the significant minority in this country. There are 3 kinds of people who "hate" law enforcement:

1) criminals
2) People who hate law enforcement because it (along with the rest of society) refuses to adjust itself to their ideological ideas
3) People who had a bad experience with one cop and therefore hate them all in a form of bigotry that's still publicly acceptable.

You claim not to fall into 3 and obviously don't fall into 1, so clearly you fall into 2.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I dunno, maybe he deserved it. He is Dr. Doom.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Funny how your list precludes any possibility of a legitimate grievance for law enforcement in the United States, Diamondeye.

_________________

No, it does not. That's a list of reasons people hate law enforcement, which you admit to, not, "have legitimate grievances". Legitimate grievance does not mean "I just dislike almost everything about American law enforcement."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, it's a list of reasons you think people base their hatred of law enforcement on, because that's the only list of reasons that completely obviates the police officer or law enforcement agency of any wrongdoing.

American law enforcement is systemically flawed. It produces bad results. And, most importantly, it actively lobbies for executive expansions of police powers to avoid legislative regulation.

_________________

We gotta prepare for the War on the Citizens.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I'll be starting a new topic about a 30 year old law enforcement issue very soon, waiting for final resolutions which should come Monday.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.