This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Alternative Facts
Pages: 1 ... 231232233 234235 ... 306
6961
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:56:17 PM »
Anybody who chooses to rescue the child is simply being irrational. Especially when you could just leave the city.
I don't agree with this. Sure - life would be shit for people, but that doesn't mean that the group of people cannot begin anew and start a civilization once more.
6962
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:54:17 PM »
Fairly certain I had a dream about this once...
Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left.
May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.
Like Psy said though. It's never going to be a utopia, if one person suffers.
One person suffering while everybody else leads perfect lives? It's simple mathematics.
Again - it's not a utopia in that case.
Technically, no.
But it's pretty damn close and that's good enough for me. Imagine. One person suffering and that's it. It'd be paradise.
But how long would the suffering remain only for the kid? Even in the utopia.
6963
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:51:30 PM »
So I would instead make thousands of people miserable to make one life less miserable? No thanks. Yeah, it's wrong but the entire city is more important than one person
Considering your political views and stances, I cannot be the only one who will find this ironic.
6964
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:50:51 PM »
Fairly certain I had a dream about this once...
Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left.
May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.
Like Psy said though. It's never going to be a utopia, if one person suffers.
One person suffering while everybody else leads perfect lives? It's simple mathematics.
Again - it's not a utopia in that case.
6965
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:47:55 PM »
Fairly certain I had a dream about this once...
Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left.
May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.
Like Psy said though. It's never going to be a utopia, if one person suffers.
6966
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:44:28 PM »
If you're asking why the child is maintaining this utopia, you're completely missing the point.
I'm just presuming they have superpowers that could destroy the entire thing if not contained, therefore meaning if released many people would die. Or a disease like being patient 0 of a zombie virus.
... Not even close.
6967
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:41:00 PM »
If you're asking why the child is maintaining this utopia, you're completely missing the point.
Indeed. Anyway, the communist in me agrees with Kiyo. The rational part of me agrees with Kiyo. Fuck the city
6968
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:30:51 PM »
Why is that?
The erosion of civil liberties is directly beneficial to those who work at the top of government. Why remove a source of power?
Eh, I suppose.
6969
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:29:04 PM »
Yes.
No.
No.
Although, if I were in government, I wouldn't reverse the trend.
Why is that?
6970
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:28:26 PM »
10, 15 years ago you saw police with a lack of college education and actual training. Today you see police trained in a professional manner, and not acting like a group of southern good ole boys who just gave badges out to each other. I see police all the time out interacting with the community and getting involved Come now Kinder. There is a huge difference between police not being trained well, and police who was friendly with the community, interacted with the children, knew people by name. That's not unprofessional - that's not being a stuck up dick. Sure, it'll happen in the little communities, but that has totally been erased in nearly every city/urban area across the country. Police being equipped with the right equipment helps them to protect the community and deal with any possible threats to the community.  I'm sorry, but remind me again when a police force is going to need this? A tank is something very illogical, especially in an urban setting. Police are not fighting a foreign invasion force, they're dealing with criminals and incertain situations, terrorists who work on small-scale operations using tactics and guerilla fighting
Italicized part - very, very, very few cases, So, basically, we have police who are being given military-grade equipment to deal with, most of the time, basic criminals.
6971
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:10:54 PM »
No
No
No
Again, you want to explain at all? I know you did a paragraph below about domestic terror and all that shit (Hint: There's the military and national guard in nearly every state for that), but that doesn't answer these questions.
Doesn't require a lot of explaining
If police are to protect people in a situation like the OK bombing, Boston Marathon, 9/11, etc then they can't operate just wearing a shirt and pair of pants, they need to been prepared for aftermath attacks and any possible individuals waiting to attacking people
Military, being under federal regulations, simply can't come charging in and the Governor has to call in the N.G first before they can come in. The police are already in the city, town, county, etc of where the situation is happening so they will be responding first. Wait a few hours for the Guard to show up then people will be complaining about police not being out trying to keep the situation under control and helping them
Doesn't at all answer the questions. Does the militarization of police further separate the community, which is meant to be protected and follow the law, to the people "protecting" them? - Police have tanks, citizens have a pistol. You don't think this isn't going to cause problems? 10, 15 years ago, you'd see police officers on the street, knew members of the community by name. The hell did that go? Does the militarization of police further ingrain the thought that they are above the law? - Again, the division of police to the community. Is it a good idea to provide money for police to buy "tank-like vehicles", as the Syracuse Police Chief here in New York would like to do? - You say no to this, but then go to the argument of "Militarization is good because it helps stop domestic terror attacks and their aftermaths", which seemingly contradicts your no to tanks.
6972
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:01:42 PM »
No
No
No
Again, you want to explain at all? I know you did a paragraph below about domestic terror and all that shit (Hint: There's the military and national guard in nearly every state for that), but that doesn't answer these questions.
6973
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:00:41 PM »
1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4. there is no limit. You want to explain your answers more? I fail to see how giving police officers tanks and other military-grade equipment doesn't "further separate them from the community" We have the most militarized public in the world. So its common sense that the police should be a step above the public with their equipment.
Hey, you want the right to bear any arms you wish. Not my problem when the citizens are better armed than the cops.
6974
« on: December 05, 2014, 11:01:53 AM »
6.5/10
Had me going for a second til I saw the url for the link.
6975
« on: December 05, 2014, 11:00:46 AM »
Really, his alt is pretty obvious.
Cheat even said it to his face.
6976
« on: December 05, 2014, 11:00:03 AM »
Your thoughts on the topic? To help, I'll provide some basic questions - don't feel required to answer if you have other thoughts. - Does the militarization of police further separate the community, which is meant to be protected and follow the law, to the people "protecting" them?
- Does the militarization of police further ingrain the thought that they are above the law?
- Is it a good idea to provide money for police to buy "tank-like vehicles", as the Syracuse Police Chief here in New York would like to do?
- Where is the limit?
6977
« on: December 04, 2014, 07:20:20 PM »
Either that's a phone, or an insanely large, curved dick in his pocket.
50/50, either way.
6978
« on: December 04, 2014, 05:29:41 PM »
This thread needs more men.
6979
« on: December 04, 2014, 03:24:52 PM »
Zumba
Tea
Music
6980
« on: December 04, 2014, 03:11:18 PM »
Is Ranch the superior dipping sauce for wings?
6981
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:57:47 AM »
The fact that there is a semi-argument in a thread about chicken wings is astounding ._.
Thank the resident edgelord for spewing intolerant nonsense
Let's not start.
6982
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:54:14 AM »
The fact that there is a semi-argument in a thread about chicken wings is astounding ._. "Astounding"? Really? I think it's par for the course.
Not quite. Anyways, back to the topic folks.
6983
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:52:03 AM »
The fact that there is a semi-argument in a thread about chicken wings is astounding ._.
6984
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:33:06 AM »
Have you fucking scene Ferguson? I would sure as well want to be armored up; the FBI arrested two individuals trying to detonate bombs over there
Police shouldn't have to be armored up. If the situation is as such, there's a reason the national guard exists. Let them deal with it.
Posse Comitatus
..pardon me?
Law passed after Reconstruction that prevents the military from enforcing civilian law
Which is a stupid law.
People talk big about the police state, yet having a non-civilian agency enforce civilian laws is what a police state is.
And when the group that is supposed to enforce the laws IS the problem, then what?
6985
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:23:00 AM »
Have you fucking scene Ferguson? I would sure as well want to be armored up; the FBI arrested two individuals trying to detonate bombs over there
Police shouldn't have to be armored up. If the situation is as such, there's a reason the national guard exists. Let them deal with it.
Posse Comitatus
..pardon me?
Law passed after Reconstruction that prevents the military from enforcing civilian law
Which is a stupid law.
6986
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:16:36 AM »
You know, on a better day, I'd likely make some sarcastic comment about "Religion of the Peace" or some shit.
But nah, this guy's just a fucking idiot who takes Biblical beliefs to the extremes.
I don't know if I'd consider it extreme when god recommends it.
"God recommends it"
Mk, let me know when we have definitive proof of that.
Well that would be the bible silly. The bible is the word of god and is infallible.
Zero contradictions in this infallible text.
6987
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:15:47 AM »
Have you fucking scene Ferguson? I would sure as well want to be armored up; the FBI arrested two individuals trying to detonate bombs over there
Police shouldn't have to be armored up. If the situation is as such, there's a reason the national guard exists. Let them deal with it.
Posse Comitatus
..pardon me?
It's a federal law, passed after Reconstruction and last updated in 1981, limiting federal military usage in enforcing state laws.
..which doesn't include city-wide riots and destruction?
Beats me. I only know of it from discussion in class.
6988
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:14:51 AM »
You know, on a better day, I'd likely make some sarcastic comment about "Religion of the Peace" or some shit.
But nah, this guy's just a fucking idiot who takes Biblical beliefs to the extremes.
I don't know if I'd consider it extreme when god recommends it.
"God recommends it" Mk, let me know when we have definitive proof of that.
6989
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:10:30 AM »
Have you fucking scene Ferguson? I would sure as well want to be armored up; the FBI arrested two individuals trying to detonate bombs over there
Police shouldn't have to be armored up. If the situation is as such, there's a reason the national guard exists. Let them deal with it.
Posse Comitatus
..pardon me?
It's a federal law, passed after Reconstruction and last updated in 1981, limiting federal military usage in enforcing state laws.
6990
« on: December 04, 2014, 10:22:05 AM »
You know, on a better day, I'd likely make some sarcastic comment about "Religion of the Peace" or some shit.
But nah, this guy's just a fucking idiot who takes Biblical beliefs to the extremes.
Pages: 1 ... 231232233 234235 ... 306
|
Show Posts