Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't give me that 'junior moderator' crap. I am perfectly at liberty to point out misuse such as pointless bumping and seeing as I am one of the oldest mods here- the oldest active mod other thn Raz, in fact- I think you will find I actually have some pull in these matters.
The problem being..you didn't point out misuse. However you did demonstrate "abuse." Abuse of power so to speak. If you actually did a little research, you would have found that another thread was opened up for this exact same topic after mine. You would have then used all of your "pull" on these forumns to redirect everyone to the initial thread opened on said topic, instead of making baseless allegations of me misusing forumn commands.
There are always organisations in western police forces whose job it is to 'Police the Police' and they work upon an independant basis of prmotion by results only- internal affairs workers who find nothing get nothing, hence they always work their ass off to find something.
If anything they are too ready to make false cases to get promotion- but they still have to pass reasonable standards of evidence.I don't see why I should have to have posted that, though, seeing as it is perfectly open informaton that such things exist; I may as well have blasted you for not defining your part of the problem- you make very broad statements with no backing evidence other than a single incident which could easily be an aberration, and even if it wasn't is not indicative of a failure of police-police.
And where did you get all of this information from? Let me guess..an internet website, or perhaps you have a degree in American Civics, or better yet your College Professor informed you?
Unfortunately, not every solution to a problem can be derived from what's written in a textbook or what you've learned from your University Civics Class. In fact..much knowledge that we gain in life is received from the experiences that we go through..I believe this type of knowledge is given the label "Practical."
Have you ever had several Cops stop you on the street for doing nothing other than walking home from the club or bar? Have you ever been tasered or beaten by a police officer for doing nothing other then running a simple traffic light/sign? These things happen on a daily basis in poor communities my friend. You don't need to do a search on google or pick up a textbook to discern this obvious truth.
And who is "internal affairs"..well generally, they're a bunch of cronies who are in some way connected to the individuals who commited said offense. Their purpose is generally to gather evidence regarding said offense, and attempt to deflect any legal liability away from the offenders as well as the Police Force. If you believe otherwise, then I truly pity your naivety.
The problem is not being trivialised- but you could easily exaggerate it.There ARE some places where control of the police is inadequate but huge efforts are always made to combat this. Not all will succeed, but again, the lack of total success does not represent some kind of systematic failure like you imply.
In fact, in all Western countires, police forces are generally considered to be cleaner now than they ever have been.
The problem is being trivialised- because you don't understand it. You lack the personal experience, the practical knowledge, and the common sense needed to discern that there is a problem. Reading books on Law and Justice will only get you so far my friend..as I've stated once before to you, I will state to you once again, try to think OUTSIDE of the box..just once...
"The problem being..you didn't point out misuse. However you did demonstrate "abuse." Abuse of power so to speak. If you actually did a little research, you would have found that another thread was opened up for this exact same topic after mine. You would have then used all of your "pull" on these forumns to redirect everyone to the initial thread opened on said topic, instead of making baseless allegations of me misusing forumn commands."
You didn't point that out at the time, you just said 'bump', which looked pretty pointless in of itself. If you don't make these things clear, expect to take flak for them. Besides which, it's still bad form to bump as you did.
"And where did you get all of this information from? Let me guess..an internet website, or perhaps you have a degree in American Civics, or better yet your College Professor informed you?"
WTF is this bullshit? I get my information that organisations like CIB and the IPCC in England (more recently re-organised into a single organisation) and other, similar organisations exist in the world simply because I keep my damn eyes and ears open and happen to k ow something about this world. The principles upon which they operate are public knowledge, as are some of their more spctacular takedowns. What are you doing, doubting their existence?
That whole thrust of yours is cripplingly dumb. If you are not making a constructive point or a reasonable refutation, then you are just wasting time. Your emotive example of cops doing wrong simply bounces off the points I already made- to say internal measures are failing because corrupt cops exist is like saying cops are failing because crime exists. It's a completely false link.
And based on the fact that you don't like my arguments you somehow get it into your head that I lack knowledge and am naive? Jesus, what an insufferably pompous position. Such muddle-headed idiocy. What the heck gived you the right to dictate that you can pronounce on the subject but I cannot?
Frankly, I find your analysis of the situation unintelligent, alarmist and juvenile. But if you want to step up to the plate... prove to me that police corruption is getting worse. And you'll have to do a whole lot better than pointing out a few isolated incidents. If you an prove it is worse than back in, say, the 20s, before regulations, and the people enforcing them, had any power, and when the media's exposure of such things was the tiniest fraction of what it was now, and when modern conceps of fairness and rights of such things were in their infancy, and when it was so much eaiser to conceal all such things you will have performed a miracle.
But you won't- because your point is bull.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
"The problem being..you didn't point out misuse. However you did demonstrate "abuse." Abuse of power so to speak. If you actually did a little research, you would have found that another thread was opened up for this exact same topic after mine. You would have then used all of your "pull" on these forumns to redirect everyone to the initial thread opened on said topic, instead of making baseless allegations of me misusing forumn commands."You didn't point that out at the time, you just said 'bump', which looked pretty pointless in of itself. If you don't make these things clear, expect to take flak for them. Besides which, it's still bad form to bump as you did.
"And where did you get all of this information from? Let me guess..an internet website, or perhaps you have a degree in American Civics, or better yet your College Professor informed you?"
WTF is this bullshit? I get my information that organisations like CIB and the IPCC in England (more recently re-organised into a single organisation) and other, similar organisations exist in the world simply because I keep my damn eyes and ears open and happen to k ow something about this world. The principles upon which they operate are public knowledge, as are some of their more spctacular takedowns. What are you doing, doubting their existence?
That whole thrust of yours is cripplingly dumb. If you are not making a constructive point or a reasonable refutation, then you are just wasting time. Your emotive example of cops doing wrong simply bounces off the points I already made- to say internal measures are failing because corrupt cops exist is like saying cops are failing because crime exists. It's a completely false link.
And based on the fact that you don't like my arguments you somehow get it into your head that I lack knowledge and am naive? Jesus, what an insufferably pompous position. Such muddle-headed idiocy. What the heck gived you the right to dictate that you can pronounce on the subject but I cannot?
Frankly, I find your analysis of the situation unintelligent, alarmist and juvenile. But if you want to step up to the plate... prove to me that police corruption is getting worse. And you'll have to do a whole lot better than pointing out a few isolated incidents. If you an prove it is worse than back in, say, the 20s, before regulations, and the people enforcing them, had any power, and when the media's exposure of such things was the tiniest fraction of what it was now, and when modern conceps of fairness and rights of such things were in their infancy, and when it was so much eaiser to conceal all such things you will have performed a miracle.
But you won't- because your point is bull.
Dayum!...
*SNAP
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You didn't point that out at the time, you just said 'bump', which looked pretty pointless in of itself. If you don't make these things clear, expect to take flak for them. Besides which, it's still bad form to bump as you did.
I don't have to point that out. My job on this forumn is not to inform others. I'm just here to debate and discuss topics. It's a moderator's job to research what topics have already been created in a forumn, and then redirect individuals to the appropriate thread to discuss them in. Case in point, you didn't do your job..
WTF is this bullshit? I get my information that organisations like CIB and the IPCC in England (more recently re-organised into a single organisation) and other, similar organisations exist in the world simply because I keep my damn eyes and ears open and happen to k ow something about this world. The principles upon which they operate are public knowledge, as are some of their more spctacular takedowns. What are you doing, doubting their existence?
So essentially what your stating is that if something exists, one should automatically come up with the assumption that this somehow justifies it's effectiveness when performing a particular function? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.
How objective can an organization be when scrutinizing itself? That's what "internal affairs" offices essentially do. They are organisations..within organisations, that investigate their own "illegal actions" Does that make sense to you Ush?
Most individuals I know, aren't very objective when evaluating themselves. That same rule usually applies to various government and corporate bodies. If you truly believe that they are objective during these type of investigations..then again..I truly pity your naivety....
That whole thrust of yours is cripplingly dumb. If you are not making a constructive point or a reasonable refutation, then you are just wasting time. Your emotive example of cops doing wrong simply bounces off the points I already made- to say internal measures are failing because corrupt cops exist is like saying cops are failing because crime exists. It's a completely false link.
Once again you demonstrate your inability to objectively discern anything other than what you yourself have experienced. Just because you see it as an "emotive" example, doesn't make it any less of an example, and it doesn't nullify the existence of the problem.
I take it you don't live in the inner city my friend, and I'm certain you have very little knowledge of the type of "Police Brutality" occurs there on a day to day basis. With that being the stated..how in the hell do you deem yourself qualified to even comment on the severity of said "problem."
Incidents involving Police Officers abusing their power happen on a day to day basis, unfortunately your knowledge is limited to your worldly experiences, as well as your general close mindedness towards anything that does not exist within the "box" that you live in.
And based on the fact that you don't like my arguments you somehow get it into your head that I lack knowledge and am naive? Jesus, what an insufferably pompous position. Such muddle-headed idiocy. What the heck gived you the right to dictate that you can pronounce on the subject but I cannot?
Answer: Experience, Objectivity, and the ability to apply common sense and use practical knowledge, regardless of what is dictated to me by a textbook, professor, or some other "authoritative" source. I don't believe you've given one example of what makes your opinion valid..other than the typical
"Well the IPCC in England says.."
or the
"The CIB states..."
Frankly, I find your analysis of the situation unintelligent, alarmist and juvenile. But if you want to step up to the plate... prove to me that police corruption is getting worse. And you'll have to do a whole lot better than pointing out a few isolated incidents. If you an prove it is worse than back in, say, the 20s, before regulations, and the people enforcing them, had any power, and when the media's exposure of such things was the tiniest fraction of what it was now, and when modern conceps of fairness and rights of such things were in their infancy, and when it was so much eaiser to conceal all such things you will have performed a miracle.But you won't- because your point is bull.
Spend a year or two in a lower income communities in South Central LA, Southeast DC, New Orleans, or any number of poor communities that exist within the United States. Perhaps then your opinion will be a bitt less naivete..and a bit more worldly...
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I don't have to point that out. My job on this forumn is not to inform others. I'm just here to debate and discuss topics. It's a moderator's job to research what topics have already been created in a forumn, and then redirect individuals to the appropriate thread to discuss them in. Case in point, [b] you didn't do your job..So essentially what your stating is that if something exists, one should automatically come up with the assumption that this somehow justifies it's effectiveness when performing a particular function? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.
How objective can an organization be when scrutinizing itself? That's what "internal affairs" offices essentially do. They are organisations..within organisations, that investigate their own "illegal actions" Does that make sense to you Ush?
Most individuals I know, aren't very objective when evaluating themselves. That same rule usually applies to various government and corporate bodies. If you truly believe that they are objective during these type of investigations..then again..I truly pity your naivety....
Once again you demonstrate your inability to objectively discern anything other than what you yourself have experienced. Just because you see it as an "emotive" example, doesn't make it any less of an example, and it doesn't nullify the existence of the problem.
I take it you don't live in the inner city my friend, and I'm certain you have very little knowledge of the type of "Police Brutality" occurs there on a day to day basis. With that being the stated..how in the hell do you deem yourself qualified to even comment on the severity of said "problem."
Incidents involving Police Officers abusing their power happen on a day to day basis, unfortunately your knowledge is limited to your worldly experiences, as well as your general close mindedness towards anything that does not exist within the "box" that live in.
Answer: Experience, Objectivity, and the ability to apply common sense and use practical knowledge, regardless of what is dictated to me by a textbook, professor, or som other "authoritative" source. I don't believe you've given one example of what makes your opinion valid..other than the typical
"Well the IPCC in England says.."
or the
"The CIB states..."
Spend a year or two in a lower income communities in South Central LA, Southeast DC, New Orleans, or any number of poor communities that exist within the United States. Perhaps then your opinion will be a bitt less naivete..and a bit more worldly... [/B]
Say What?!! OWNED!!!!.... 😆 😆 😆
You say this :
Once again you demonstrate your inability to objectively discern anything other than what you yourself have experienced.
Then you say this in response to what makes your opinion so valid:
Answer: Experience, Objectivity, and the ability to apply common sense and use practical knowledge, regardless of what is dictated to me by a textbook, professor, or som other "authoritative" source.
Seems you're doing the same thing you're criticizing Ush for doing, using your own experiences as the primary basis for your beliefs. Why is it okay for you to do it, but not him?
Also, it seems, according to you, only people who live or have lived in lower income communities have the right to judge the performance of the police force because they're the ones that are often being "abused" by the cops (often because they're the ones committing crimes)?
Is this what you're saying? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Originally posted by BackFire
Seems you're doing the same thing you're criticizing Ush for doing, using your own experiences as the primary basis for your beliefs. Why is it okay for you to do it, but not him?
Experience, Objectivity, and the ability to apply common sense and use practical knowledge, regardless of what is dictated to me by a textbook, professor, or some other "authoritative" source. I don't believe you've given one example of what makes your opinion valid..other than the typical"Well the IPCC in England says.."
or the
"The CIB states..."
All of the arguments Ush presented were based on crud he got off the net or a damb textbook. My point has been that a valid opinion can not be formed solely on such information.
Also, it seems, according to you, only people who live or have lived in lower income communities have the right to judge the performance of the police force because they're the ones that are often being "abused" by the cops (often because they're the ones committing crimes)?Is this what you're saying? Or am I misunderstanding something? [/B]
Refer to the above...
Originally posted by Lana
It was a big tourist city, yes, but most of the people who actually lived there were quite poor.And whob, I just gotta say, you're waaaaaay out of your league in trying to argue with Ush.....
What u talking bout? I consistantly own Ush in just about every debate we get into.
Here's one right here..
Whob owns Ush regarding Psychology
And the man get's owned on a consistent basis by many others..(ie Whirlyspatt, Alpha Centurai, etc..etc..)
Seriously..the man's been owned more times than black slaves in Mississippi.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
What u talking bout? I consistantly own Ush in just about every debate we get into.Here's one right here..
Whob owns Ush regarding Psychology
And the man get's owned on a consistent basis by many others..(ie Whirlyspatt, Alpha Centurai, etc..etc..)
Seriously..the man's been owned more times than black slaves in Mississippi.
I've never owned Ush because there's never been a debate in which we've had any time or reason to.
Thanks.
-AC
Originally posted by Lana
You've never owned a damn person in a debate on here; maybe in your mind, but reality's a bit different.
Yes the same reality that tells you that Buddhism isn't a relgion..and that psychology is not a "psuedoscience"..
Bwahahahaha.. 😆 😆 😆
Back on Topic...
Who will Police the Police?
All of the arguments Ush presented were based on crud he got off the net or a damb textbook.
The net? Oh, you mean like the Geocities references you were leaning on in that Creationism/science thread? Your hypocrisy is grand.
OMG LOL OWNED ROFL LOL111!!!11. -Does it look good to you when I do that? Because it sure doesn't when you do, but then again, acting like a child and patting yourself on the back during a debate because no one else will rarely does.
The fact that you use the word "owned" in relation to a debate you've had only reinforces the factuality of your poor debating skills, which have been on display, and pointed out numerous times, since you've joined this site.
Also, you haven't answered my question beyond the classic whob move of dodging it. But I'll try and simplify it the best I can for you, and you do your best to give me a valid, relevent, unflawed and, maybe, just maybe, a straight forward response, okay? Okay. Damn
Are you saying that for an opinion to be valid in this subject, someone must have had a negative police experience or lived in a shitty, crime ridden town?