Police Officers Are Mostly Parasites

[Ken]

You are such a joke. You can only win an argument by misrepresenting what I've said.

I didn't misrepresent anything you said, you misunderstood my Dallas example, own it.

If you want to devate what I've actually said, I'm happy to.

We already did.

If you want to make shit up and then display how you're a better and holier person, go for it.

I didn't make anything up, I literally responded to your points individually.

You literally took a quote of mine and cut it in mid-sentence, then critiqued each half of my statement individually.

Indeed - you had multiple different points that I was responding to. Why is this hard to understand?

You are such a fucking dishonest debater.

Stay classy.

Where did I say "let's just kill 1000 people"?

"Let me be more specific, if 1000 officers were killed"

Why would anybody debate someone like you?

I ask myself that every time you post, there's no logic when arguing with you.

"Genius, genius I tell you" as a response to something I didn't fucking say!

You literally did say "if 1000 officers were killed". Why is this so hard?

[Ken]

"Yeah, all of those motherfuckers deserve to suffer pain and injury, since we know they are immune from career repercussions. If they die, thats a consequence of their choice to work for a corrupt organization." - TeenWolf


"Let me be more specific, if 1000 officers were killed, do you think it would lead to zero reform" - TeenWolf


"Where did I say "let's just kill 1000 people"?" - TeenWolf



LOL, okay.

[Teenwolf]

"Yeah, all of those motherfuckers deserve to suffer pain and injury, since we know they are immune from career repercussions. If they die, thats a consequence of their choice to work for a corrupt organization." - TeenWolf


"Let me be more specific, if 1000 officers were killed, do you think it would lead to zero reform" - TeenWolf


"Where did I say "let's just kill 1000 people"?" - TeenWolf



LOL, okay.

"Let us kill 1000 people""

"If 1000 officers were killed"

Do you not see a difference in the active vs passive voice?

Yeah, responding to two halves of a paragraph as if they're unrelated isn't misrepresenting what was said... okay...

Not worth my time.

[Teenwolf]

Its such an indictment of America that you can't even imagine your country taking the same actions to prevent massacres that other countries do. I understand your perspective after your country refused to respond to Sandy Hook and all the other massacres. Its just really sad.

Again, I'm not advocating for violence against police. What I'm saying is, if 5 Dallas cops getting shot resulted in Canadian coffee shops giving cops free cookies, what would the ripple effect be from 1000 cops being killed on the job? I cannot say for sure, and neither can you. Pretending you know exactly how that would play out, that seems ridiculous to me.

Police in Calgary voluntarily cut their own budgets to comply with the will of the people, and we didn't even have to kill any cops. I'm not dreaming anything, I'm watching changes happen in real time when enough public pressure is applied. It seems there is no amount of public pressure to force US cops to de-militarize and defund. But you haven't seen the pressure that results from 1000 dead cops, so don't pretend you know exactly how it would play out. Couldn't possibly be worse than the results of peaceful protest where the right wing rallies behind those who murder protestors. How could anything be worse than the status quo, where there exists an illusion of lawfulness being upheld and those abused by police are spat on by both the left and the right? Biden wants to expand police funding and calls protestors anarchists, so he fucking sucks on the issue. There is nothing to hold onto but the violence in the streets leading to change. If cops are killed without cause, thats bad, but if their deaths lead to police adopting alternative policies, thats good. Seems like simple math to me.

Relavant bit bolded for the reading impaired.

[Ken]

Relavant bit bolded for the reading impaired.

Good Lord you can’t be this stupid. The discussion point was whether violence was appropriate towards cops and you clearly took the side that it was. The backtracking now is pathetic. Take a side and own it.

I don’t read most of your posts frankly. The majority of them are mindless drivel. I didn’t read the one you quoted above so you can take the “reading impaired” bit and shove it up your ass.

[Teenwolf]

Re-allocating funds is a first step to reform that makes a material difference. I used to advocate for body cameras on all cops, but we've seen how they don't make much difference as officers simply interfere with their cameras.

I've talked about this a lot but not posted links until now. The following story is from the land of Narnia, or more commonly, Calgary, Alberta.

https://thepostmillennial.com/calgar...witches-stance

Police Chief Mark Neufeld said at a Calgary city council meeting that the call to defund police services was "a fair discussion to have."

"We commit to reallocating funds from our 2021 operating budget to design an alternative crisis response model that best services our community," he continued.

"We've heard members of the community when they said the police may not be the best first responders for types of calls involving mental health and addictions. We agree," said Neufeld.

Neufeld had previously been criticized for posting a link to a CNN article arguing that calls for defunding the police were "dangerous."

Now, this was accomplished through public pressure, protests, petitions, etc. You live in Mad Max world, where protest is stomped out, and public opinion has nearly zero influence on policy, so you don't have much of a real democracy. 60% of Americans right now don't trust the results of the upcoming election, so democracy is really hanging by a thread. Perhaps more drastic events will need to take place for serious reform that starts with re-allocation of funding. I won't root for those drastic events, but I'll certainly cheer when these inevitable tragedies lead to currently unfathomable reforms. I mean, I can see the reforms, as they're happening up here, but Americans may need a swifter kick to enact change.

[Teenwolf]

Good Lord you can’t be this stupid. The discussion point was whether violence was appropriate towards cops and you clearly took the side that it was. The backtracking now is pathetic. Take a side and own it.

I don’t read most of your posts frankly. The majority of them are mindless drivel. I didn’t read the one you quoted above so you can take the “reading impaired” bit and shove it up your ass.

Ken, I advocate for karma to do its bidding.

I don't advocate for violence against innocent people.

Fuck you for refusing to acknowledge the difference while playing the moral superiority game. We done.

[GwynnInTheHall]

[Gregg]

Ken, I advocate for karma to do its bidding.

I don't advocate for violence against innocent people.

Fuck you for refusing to acknowledge the difference while playing the moral superiority game. We done.

I am writing this in a quite polite tone. How is this different than when you rail on someone? In fact wouldn't you agree that Ken's comment might be considered tame compared to some of your more passionate ones?

I am not so much commenting on the actual words but the style.

[Teenwolf]

I am writing this in a quite polite tone. How is this different than when you rail on someone? In fact wouldn't you agree that Ken's comment might be considered tame compared to some of your more passionate ones?

I am not so much commenting on the actual words but the style.

This was in response to Ken saying he never reads what I post, didn't read the thing which directly refuted the bullshit he was smearing me as saying, then told me to "shove it up my ass".

[DMT]

Yep this looks like a group of people deserving of praise and legal protections to inflict violence at will.

https://twitter.com/BGOnTheScene/status/1310133576122466304?s=09

[GwynnInTheHall]

yep this looks like a group of people deserving of praise and legal protections to inflict violence at will.

https://twitter.com/bgonthescene/sta...122466304?s=09

comply!

[fuhrdog]

https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/s...641762817?s=20

[GwynnInTheHall]

https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/s...641762817?s=20

Shoot those fuckers too......

[GwynnInTheHall]

Ken, I wasn't going to respond well, because I asked to forgo this--you very seldom let anything go when you think you're right--you hold a guy down and batter him with non stop posts. I can always tell when you're going there and then you do this tear apart kind of response. But what the hell. Let's dance

Ah, that's where you got hung up - I didn't call YOU naive, I said your suggestion was naive. Arguing the viability of the subject matter is always in play, that's never out of bounds or no one would ever be able to disagree.

OK.



Except it's not over, not at all. Because the only way morality works is if you can apply it to others. If it's okay for you, then you have to say it's okay for others. So you kill me, my family kills you, your family kills someone else in my family, repeat ad naseam and we're all dead and accomplished nothing.

Who said anything about Morality? My morality, your morality everyone's morality isn't the same--I can find people all over who wouldn't do shit in response to a violent act committed Vs them or their family. I can also find the exact opposite--it's not a black n white situation and you can't cram your concept morality or how others might react into every given situation. You can only say whet YOU would do or maybe what those you consider close to you might do.



So if your brother gets killed, then that's fine, no loss? And if several of my friends, who I know who are good cops get killed that's fine? Just because they are cops. No, that's not okay, and it doesn't solve anything, just as those idiot racists who kill people just because of the color of their skin are NOT okay.

If my brother was killed I would be sad, but just as if he died serving in the military, I'd again, be sad--but he chose the job knowing there was a chance he might die--same for cops. Plus I don't grieve, I've mentioned it before, I'm odd--I get a bit sad and move on.



No, that doesn't really make sense, at all, sorry. Gaige Grosskreutz had a gun in fact.

Not an example--Kyle had no idea if GG was armed or not--He was shooting because he was being attacked--There has been NO violent behavior instigated toward armed BLM by LEOs or Militia. None.

And the excuse for many police shootings has been "because I thought he had a weapon".

False equivalency--not talking about one on one traffic stops and yeah--it's an excuse used after that fact--

No, ambushing cops doesn't decrease violence, that's a false equivalence.

I don't believe I said it would decrease violence--I said it might give some cops pause and it would give those aggrieved some comfort.


We've seen positive changes. Not nearly enough, but it's not time to give up and shoot each other, it's time to continue on.

Easy for us to say--we aren't being shot.


That's revenge, not justice. They are not equivalent.

JUSTICE? does NOT exist for some--it's a concept NOT a practice and very fungible depending on so many factors, wealth, power, fame, race. et al. Revenge is the only justice some can get.



No one was ever trying to change your mind, I'm pointing out the numerous flaws in your argument. You are obviously welcome to keep them despite the many flaws, but that doesn't make them right, as you know. They are very much misguided and frankly wrong. Which has some irony to it since the self-righteous behavior is in response to what you deem wrong. But no one here has ever tried to change you, we've simply pointed out that the self-righteous eye for an eye approach to this isn't going to lead anywhere positive, and in fact does more harm than good.

YOU can decide what is right and wrong in your life, what is flawed to you because YOU think I {or others} should ascribe to your logic etc. Sorry--Life doesn't work that way--I have tried an many occasions to explain to you MY logic and morality and you have not always {or often} agreed--it's why we are where we are personally.

Again, I support your cause overall obviously, but you're wrong on the response.

In your world, I may be--but walk into mine and I get to decide what is right and wrong--Thanks for the discussion--we won' t be agreeing and I hope you can let it go without feeling the need to continue this further. Thanks.