Law Enforcers Breaking The Law!

This post was shared via CopBlock.org‘s submit page.

Hello! My name is Brandillynn Deaville.

The other day, Sept. 29, I was driving down the 95 in Las Vegas, Nevada, almost to Russel Rd. when I happened to notice this Highway Patrol Officer going about 85-90 miles an hour. Need I remind you, the 95 speed limit is 65!

Anyway, I attempted to pull her over while on the phone with dispatch to get all information necessary in order to report her and take any actions necessary, seeing as how my tax dollars are going towards officers like her who believe they are above the law and can do as they please.

What followed was an absurd amount of unnecessary action! I’m a 110 pound 5’5 female and had several MUCH larger responding officers surround my vehicle, blocking traffic. I was in fear for my physical well-being when the first officer approached and immediately attempted to open my vehicle door! All in all, a simple attempt to recover a specific officer’s information to file a proper report turned into the usual police game of cat and mouse, where I was lied to and repeatedly denied information by both the officers and their dispatch.

Below is a video of the encounter:

-Brandillynn Deaville

EPN

CopBlock

When you see “CopBlock” as the author it means it was submitted via our submission tab – you can share your story too. If you enjoy this content and/or believe “Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights” get yourself some CopBlock Gear from our store or donate just $1/month to the CopBlock Network.

  • Jason Free 123

    Another fucking bullshit story. Why the fuck would you speed up and try pull her over? You are a fucking stupid cunt. All the while you are on your fucking cell phone you were racing to catch up to an officer and pull her over. You were never lied to. You acted like a dumb fucking cunt. Period. I doubt that is even your real name.

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • certain

    Ron Paul really says – Slappys a freaking nutcase who posts bestiality videos while fantasizing about peoples mothers.

    I heard him say it in a speech slaps. So as you like to say, accept it and move on.

    Even Ron Paul knows you’re a proven liar.

  • certain

    And lady, you really thought you were going to pull a cop over for speeding? REALLY???????

    I admire your bravery, but I’m not sure your ability to reason “cause and effect” is everything it might need to be. The cops surrounded you because they thought you were nuts.

    You’ll probably be the talk of that cop-shop for quite some time.

  • Ernster78

    It was a bold move to try that! I think you had all the right to do so!
    These other blogs are bashing you because they are most likely the pigs that pulled you over. Keep it up! They just don’t like being made to look like the assholes they are and they are going to mess with you! You would have to be a little nuts to pull this off! Good Luck and Be careful!

  • t

    So…..the officer was driving 95 mph. How fast were you driving trying to catch up? Dumbass.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    “Hello! My name is Brandillynn Deaville.”

    Hello! Brandillynn Deaville,

    YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Here is her facebook page.

    https://www.facebook.com/BrandillynnBaybee?fref=ts

    Violent little bitch.

  • Don Francisco

    Victimless crime.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    ^^^^^^^^^^LMAO.

  • Common Sense

    Wow, she’s touched in the head.

  • Public Offender

    While I see the woman’s point, you can’t “arrest” a police officer for speeding. Call him in and go about your business.

    I’ve seen officers driving without seat belts, speeding, rolling through STOP signs. Calling it in is futile. Besides, I don’t know the exact circumstances behind their violations. And frankly, I don’t care. The world is full of hypocrites and I benefit when the police speed, especially on the interstate or major highways.

    I prefer when troopers speed. Otherwise, there is a huge line of traffic nervously piling up behind them. Besides, most police officers know how to drive. I can tell a car is being operated by a police officer simply by the way the car is driven.

    Most officers (and all troopers) drive with a purpose; they actively drive. They scan the road, pay attention to traffic patterns, and are decisive drivers. I wish more drivers drove like the police.

    And about the hypocrisy: Everybody speeds on the interstate. Hell, on I-95 in VA, you get run over if you’re only doing 10 miles over the limit. So troopers don’t usually pull you over if you’re speeding with the flow of traffic. They usually won’t pull you over unless you’re pushing or exceeding reckless driving by speed. Or if you’re weaving around traffic while speeding.

    Yes, police officers are hypocrites, just like the rest of us.

  • Chris Mallory

    Since we live under a system of delegated rights, if a government employee has the authority to pull over a citizen for speeding, then all citizens have that right. You cannot delegate a power you do not have.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    I showed this to my buddy in Henderson Co. He laughed his head off.

  • Public Offender

    Chris, you raise a good point, but the premise is legally flawed. The state has the power to enact and enforce law. The state is delegating the power, not the people. Theoretically, the state derives its power from the people, but if you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Kansas for sale…

  • Public Offender

    She IS a brave woman, though… Good initiative, poor judgment…

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    PO,

    I already bought that gem of prime real estate.

  • Jason Free 123

    Annonypussy certain – Your mom told me you beat the shit out of her last week. Why? She says you do that quite a bit. What the fuck is wrong with you asshole? You get your rocks off when you beat your mom and your wife? Why don’t you explain the shiner she has on her left eye. I’m sure it’s because of your goat love festivals. You are a sick fuck. I hope she throws you in jail.

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • certain

    Slaps, I’m begging you dude, get help. Your fantasies are getting more and more bizarre, but even more troubling, they’re getting violent as well. I’m going to have to call for an intervention soon. I know the goat farmers will support the idea.

    Where the hell did you learn to connect bestiality videos with motherhood? That’s about the sickest freaking thing you’ve done so far. You are a fucked up individual, slaps.

  • John Q Public

    What a ditz.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Yes John Q,

    You’re looking at the future of America here.

    Sad indeed.

  • RadicalDude

    “Public Offender says:
    October 3, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    Chris, you raise a good point, but the premise is legally flawed. The state has the power to enact and enforce law. The state is delegating the power, not the people. Theoretically, the state derives its power from the people, but if you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Kansas for sale…”

    The state is a mental abstraction that only exists in your imagination.
    Your premise is logically flawed in that it contains a reification fallacy. Or do you believe the state is an actual physical “noun” that exists in reality? If so, what are its physical properties, weight, chemical composition, etc? Is it a solid, liquid or a gas? Or is it a plasma?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Drink your juice, Shelby.

  • RadicalDude

    “t says:
    October 3, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    So…..the officer was driving 95 mph. How fast were you driving trying to catch up? Dumbass.”

    How about when you or your cronies do the exact same thing, are you then also acting like “dumbass”es? You think the law applies differently to you? You are above the law?

  • t

    Dude: As is the usual for you…you “think” you know something that you have no idea about.

    Now….
    The next you are driving somewhere and you see the police stop someone, when you see the blue lights in traffic somewhere, or when the police / fire / EMS have their lights and siren on coming through traffic….take a good look around at the traffic around you. Watch the reactions of the “cattle”. Instead of pulling to the right as they are by law required to do…they will do all kinds of things. Some turn left in front of the police. Some will just slam on their brakes and sit there. The herd like behavior / panic is frightening. Then watch (in your anger) as an officer quickly weaves through traffic, passing people before pulling away. Compare the dangers presented to all and decide which was the safer, better choice.

    The idiot woman has no idea what’s going on. She is a typical “Cop Blocker” in that she is clueless. Then danger she placed herself and others in….speeding at well over 100 mph to try to catch the officer….who was hurrying to a situation unknown to her….is typical behavior we see exhibited on this site all the time. Instead of “recording to police” to hold them accountable…we instead again see people forcing confrontation with the police, forcing involment into situations that have nothing to do with them and then getting mad about the results.

    Driving at speeds like that for the officer does present risks for him as well. Should he have caused or been involved in a crash while driving that fast without his emergency equipment on he would have been completely liable for those actions / choices. But forcing confrontations / involvement in police actions is simply stupid. Stand back and record. File a complaint. But when you decide to involve yourself…..don’t get mad when you are held accountable for YOUR actions.

  • Shawn

    @T

    Hurrying to a situation my ass. Cops routinely speed simply because they can get away with it. Remember the miami cop? His ‘situation’ was an off duty job.

    @PO
    Cops are better drivers my ass. A miami cop got caught doing 120 to an off duty job, and other cops trashed the trooper who ended his one man race.
    The lack of consiquences for bad driving causes many to be come agressive and reckless. I watch for them, since their shit don’t stink. They do as they please. I see speeding, no signalling, etc.

    I’ve heard of numerous cops get into wrecks for no external reason, some were playing with their laptops while driving. A couple trashed two cars within months of their first wreck.

  • John Q Public

    Shawn, the Miami cop got fired. There’s your accountability. The bottom like is that the person filming this video was stupid.

  • Shawn

    @JQP

    After they couldn’t bury it. You think that he woke up one day and decided he could drive like that? No, he was taught by inaction to previous offenses that his badge made him special. Even the cop who stopped him said they do it all the time.

  • t

    Shawn: More lime DUMB your ass. The officer you refer was disciplined. Anything else there all unknowing one? The problem that YOU can never seem to get over is the millions of police actions each years….and what is, statistically, no corruption. Yes, here are examples were officers do things wrong. But they are so rare as to not even register, statisticaly speaking. You always pull out the same few examples, time after time. i understand why you do that….as there are so few example to pick from. The same of course goes to your search warrant examples. Thousands upon thousands…..you dwell on the very few where there was a problem. Same for SWAT, and checkpoints. The numbers just aren’t on your side. It’s like the ridiculous / fanciful notion of getting rid of the police. IF the government were dissolved today and every “cop shop” closed….within a year there would be a reforming of police groups. They have alway existed. Someone has always taken on the mantle of protector. The truth is, sadly for you and yours, that the public is screaming for more police, not less. Don’t believe me that you side is full of it? Did you see the video post of CENTURION? Getting punked out by some college kid and as soon as there was some contact…..CENTURION is crying for the police to act and protect him. When one of the bastions of the anti-cop “movement” immediately calls for police assistance….even in a pretty much non-incident, your cause is truly lost.

  • certain

    “But they are so rare as to not even register, statisticaly speaking. You always pull out the same few examples, time after time. i understand why you do that….as there are so few example to pick from.”

    Graphic proof that you’re either a liar or really, really stupid. Or possibly some combination of both.

  • Public Offender

    Chris: I agree with your premise but the reality we currently accept is the state is sacrosanct. Until the consensus changes, the state remains our ruler.

  • John Q Public

    certain, that Miami cop arrest occurred in 2011. That’s the most recent thing you can come up with? If his badge made him so special, it would’ve been swept under the rug. You need to come up with something better. Like copblock. The love to find years old stories and make them look recent.

  • Jason Free 123

    Typical fucking activists. YOu assholes claim you can do everything better then the police. Why don’t you fucking go prove it? Join the force. Try to make all of your bullshit lies work. Guess what fuckers, Badges do grant extra rights. The PD can arrest you. YOu cannot arrest them. To speed up and try to pull an officer over is the most stupid thing someone can do. But then again we are talking about activists.

    Annonypussy certain – Why are you beating on your mom? I recently spoke to her and she sent me some pics of her face, neck and arms. Her left eye is completely swelled shut with multiple scratches and bruisings around her neck and up and down her arms. She said you grabbed her and threw her up against the wall and then started wailing on her. What is your fucking problem? Obviuosly you don’t seem to be getting enough from the goats you rape so you beat on your mom. Guess what asshole, many PD, FBI, CIA monitor this page and now they see what a fucking woman beater you are. Not too mention the goats you rape. I hope they see this and go after you bigtime. You need to be sitting in jail.

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • certain

    Well slaps, I hope they are too. Because here’s whet they are seeing:

    Slaps posted bestiality videos..

    Once again, they’ll find that:

    Slaps has posted bestiality videos..

    All of the mom beating and whatnot is right out of the fucked up fantasy world you live in, I’m sure they’ll figure that out as well.

    Perverted weirdo.

  • certain

    Ah, I see, you always go back to violence no women because they don’t like you.

    Well slaps, I’d be willing to bet that the goats don’t care for you much either.

  • upyourarse

    In long beach mississippi two of the cities finest were driveing around with no lights on at night playing night maneuvers,and “T”boned a lady.They then tried to ticket her for the crash.Lucky for her the beauty shop across the street cought it all on tape.The two were fired,but it cost the city big,and the lady a lifetime of pain.That’s the type of dumb shit that cops do when left with cop watchers.

  • t

    Oh, ok smart guy. I’ve done the math here several times for you. But for disscussions sake: I’ve got 8 guys. 25 calls each per shift. 14 shifts per month. 12 months a year. Just that squad has 33,600 calls / actions per year. Figure an a stage of 4 people per call….134,400 people per year. (Now of course, infrequently don’t have all 8 guys, but this is just a discussion and those numbers are pretty much spot on). There would have to be almost 1400 “bad incident” per year…..from just 1 squad of guys, to show up as 1%. When you expand that out to a department of 750 sworn officers…..the numbers are huge against you. Statistically nonexistent. That’s not going into the search warrants and checkpoints. There are of course far fewer of those each year, but even those don’t amount to much

    Now I know that a super smart engineer like yourself knows all that.

  • upyourarse

    when left without cop watchers

  • Public Offender

    Crashes as a result of police neglicence happen but are rare occurrences. Most officers are superior drivers.

  • Shawn

    @t

    Your statistics mean nothing. It is just you trying to excuse bad cops. When a cop screws up, it is still a person on the end of it. Not a movie character, but a person.

    What does matter is incident after incident, and cops have zero interest in taking responsibility for their actions. There is always an excuse that you will buy to justify anything cops do. That is the part that matters. Screw ups left and right, and cops oppose any effort to hold those cops accountable for it.
    You even opposed the FL Trooper who stopped the Miami cop’s race. You wanted to let Miami handle it, when you know that they have no interest in dealing with it. The state trooper flat out stated “They do it all the time.”

    As long as cops fight to protect bad cops, then all cops are tainted by them. But you will never see that, because you can’t see past that Blue Line.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    I’m beginning to wonder if Shawn pays his taxes.

  • John Q Public

    Shawn, Miami did handle it. The cop was FIRED. It happened in 2011. Get over it already.

  • Jason Free 123

    Annonypussy certain – You continue to try and take the spot light off of yourself even though you were busted and caught in lie after lie. Is this what lead you to beat on your mom and your wife? I haven’t seen your wife lately I’m sure she is hanging with soemone else. I saw your mom and she has a big shiner over her left eye choke marks on her throat and bruises up and down her arms. You are a woman beater. Obviously the goats aren’t getting you off enough so you turn and start beating your mom and your near ex wife. You really have problems. You need to sit in jail for a very long time. Do you think you are being funny by doing that? How many goats do you have penned up in your basement? Is it any wonder why your wife wants to get away from you and your mom is terrified of you. You need some serious help.

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • t

    What that math adds up to is that there aren’t “incident after incident”. That’s the point that you always fail to grasp. The numbers simply aren’t on your side guy

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Give Shawn a break. He’s a security guard. We all know security guards are wanna be cops. (Just applying your logic Shawn)

    Lastly, his wife left him for a cop. That’s why he despises ALL of them.

  • gonegolfn07

    I think Jason Free is a cop. Oink Oink piggy.

  • Public Offender

    RD, wikipedia is not an authoritative source. When mental abstractions can deprive me of life, liberty, and property, I tend to believe they actually exist.

    Disprove the existence of the state, why don’t you? How things should be is not how things are. If you are going to state my premise is logically flawed, prove it.

    I understand the arguments for the state being a fictional construct. But the state can inflict tangible effects.

    So, again, disprove the existence of the state instead of simply linking to wikipedia.

  • John Q Public

    PO, RD doesn’t believe in borders either. The only thing he has to rely on is Wikipedia. He gets in his sovereign citizen mood and makes no sense. Come to think of it, he makes no sense most of the time anyways.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    John Q,

    He asked me to name a physical border. One that has weight, mass etc. I said the Mississippi River. He then advised that its only my opinion.

    He cracks me up though.

    “Argue the courts jurisdiction” hahahaha.

  • Ariel

    Shawn,

    I hate to give fuel to the cops here but cops are better trained drivers. The problem is confusing technical ability with judgment. Technical ability helps you out of accidents, poor judgment sets you up for accidents and injury. Unfortunately, highly trained drivers can confuse ability and judgment, like Volvo drivers confuse safety with judgment. An example of very basic poor judgment follows.

    Roughly 80% of non-cops wear seatbelts (they comply with their state laws), but only again roughly 60% of cops do. So in this one area of driving, judgment lacks. Wearing a seatbelt [including the shoulder harness] is the first indicator of good judgment in driving. Cops fail as a group.

    Speed may be another area where they fail. Relative speed is one way to judge safe driving.

  • Public Offender

    You’ve already lost when the court gets to decide whether it has jurisdiction or not…

    I see his point. But when his point is taken to its logical conclusion, all things are fictional constructs, including the language we use to argue about said fictional constructs…

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    I just want to expand on the point that Ariel raises. Some states have exceptions to their seat belt laws. In my state, operators of emergency vehicles are exempt from the law (347.48(2)(dm) of the Wisconsin statues). This law also exempts certain other drivers of non-emergency vehicles such as some delivery drivers).

    This does not mean that individual departments allow its officers to be unrestrained. My agency requires I wear a seat belt at all practical times.

  • Ariel

    Shawn & Certain,

    t.’s stats are meaningless because: 1.) they’re drawn from one PD, his, and by example Susan Brownmiller got her only 2% of rape claims are false from one precinct in NYC, and Kanin got his 41% from just one PD also, I can only assume t. got his 85% the same way; 2) he lives up to Mark Twain’s aphorism about statisticians, the only problem with the aphorism is that MT didn’t really distinguish between trained, untrained, liars, and fools.

    Public Offender,
    Please look up the fallacy of reification, RD is correct on the fallacy. It’s why the word is not the thing, nor the map what is mapped. People make concrete what is only abstract, then think it’s really concrete. If you know that it is an abstraction you make better decisions. The State is an abstraction, what people do isn’t. How we describe what they did is (think of the word choices)…Another way of putting it: it’s really hard to change an abstraction, the State will always exist, but changing what people do is less difficult.

    ERD,

    Could you give the exact weight (weight is just mass in a specific gravitational field, it has no separate existence, using weight and mass in the same sentence is redundant) and dimensions at any one time of the Mississippi River? If you can, boy could you make money. Yes, the Mississippi River has mass and dimensions, but you don’t know what they are at any one time. I’m not drawing on Heisenberg, a principle that only applies in quantum mechanics, just what words are and mean. The word, or phrase, is not the thing. They are abstractions.

    We only know reality as best we can, and each of us know it differently. I hate tribalism because it’s the shortcut to knowing.

  • Ariel

    31B,

    Thanks, especially for not calling me obtuse because I didn’t include some states exempt first responders from punishment if they don’t wear seat belts. I didn’t see it as germane; legal exclusions do not abrogate physics.

    Physics is a harsh mistress. If you don’t wear the straps you get to enjoy mass x velocity with KE as the square of that velocity. “Practical” is just a weasel word used to think that only Man’s punishment has meaning. Me, anyone ignoring the physics has very, very poor judgment. “Practical” won’t save you. But it will make you feel more righteous just before that crushing of bones…

    Really, there’s a reason race car drivers have been wearing 5-points for decades. It’s by Law, but not Legislation.

  • Ariel

    31B.

    If I seemed overly harsh on you, it was only for justifying by man-made law what is strictly physics. It is poor judgment not to be strapped, period. KE = 1/2 mv(squared) isn’t subject to man-made laws, rules or policies.

    I know you were not attacking me, but only adding to what I wrote.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Ariel,

    There was no need to go all ad hominem on you as it wasn’t an intentional misdirect of the point. I raised it because of the general mentality of the others on here who might jump to the conclusion that we’re above the laws that we enforce.

    The simple fact that many officers do not wear their belt is because most of the time we just can’t. It’s not practical to continually put it on, then remove it, put it back on, remove it… lather, rinse, repeat. We also forget to put it on or take it off because of our body armor. We just can’t feel it on us. People in normal civilian clothing feel the continuous pull of the belt. Not us.

    And if you think I’m full of it, done some Type III or Type III-A body armor and belt yourself in. You won’t feel the warm embrace of your car hugging you back.

    Another reason is because many of us can hardly lean over to reach our terminal – particularly if we have a large vehicle (I drive a Ford SUV. It’s huge) and since we have to multitask while we’re on the road, the seat belt prevents us from getting the data we need.

    And lastly, I didn’t think you were too harsh. I didn’t think you were harsh at all. Homina homina Coca-Cola to you too.

  • Ariel

    PO,

    “I see his point. But when his point is taken to its logical conclusion, all things are fictional constructs, including the language we use to argue about said fictional constructs…”

    No, not fictions but abstractions. Fictions are imaginary, though by that they often attempt to give us insight to a reality; abstractions are what we make of reality in an attempt to describe it. If you want solace your abstraction may be better than others…It’s why we argue.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    I should clarify the not being able to reach our terminals… Yes, some officers are… Rubenesque. But the armor is so bulky that our motions are restricted and we can’t effectively reach our MDT regardless of the portly proportions of particular police.

  • Ariel

    31B,

    Never got a sense of ad hominem from you whatsoever, nor was my response that.

    “The simple fact that many officers do not wear their belt is because most of the time we just can’t. It’s not practical to continually put it on, then remove it, put it back on, remove it… lather, rinse, repeat. We also forget to put it on or take it off because of our body armor. We just can’t feel it on us. People in normal civilian clothing feel the continuous pull of the belt. Not us.”

    But, 31B, those are just excuses. Physics doesn’t care. It’ll slam you no matter what into that windshield, or all over the vehicle, it doesn’t care about your discomfort or your lack of awareness. It’s a simple procedure: enter the vehicle, strap up, start the engine. Not start the engine, then enter the vehicle, then strap up or not. Or any permutation. Would you not give a ticket for not wearing a seat-belt by the excuse of “I forgot”?

    Really, you were doing a version of it will wrinkle my clothes, or I’m not responsible because I forgot. Yes, your armor doesn’t know you strapped, but you do.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    I wasn’t talking about physics. I explained my position several posts up.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    ERD,

    “Could you give the exact weight (weight is just mass in a specific gravitational field, it has no separate existence, using weight and mass in the same sentence is redundant) and dimensions at any one time of the Mississippi River? If you can, boy could you make money. Yes, the Mississippi River has mass and dimensions, but you don’t know what they are at any one time.”

    Yes, the redundant part, I just repeated what he said. No, I cannot provide you with the statistical data or dimensions. That was his job to do. He believes physical borders do not exhist. Well, I’d like to see him go from Iowa to Illinois without using a boat, bridge, airplane, hot air balloon, jet ski etc. no swimming. I’d like to see him walk across that “imaginary” border.

  • Ariel

    31B,

    “I wasn’t talking about physics. I explained my position several posts up.”

    However, I was writing about physics regarding poor judgment. Yet, you responded, and by this claim now, that you weren’t writing about physics. Your position earlier wasn’t what I was writing about whatsoever, in fact I ignored it for the physics and good judgment. So you responded why?

    Excuses are just that, excuses.

    BTW, and OT from your comment, this argument is poor at best, moreover considered lame on the internet: “I showed this to my buddy in Henderson Co. He laughed his head off.” We all have friends that laugh their heads or asses, whichever they think with, over comments we show them; hell, I have children that laugh their asses off over every comment I show them that disagrees with me. Moreover, I have people that don’t even know me that laugh their asses off over comments I show them that disagree with me. It’s just lame, don’t you think? If you don’t think so, I have this friend…

    ERD,

    Physical borders do exist, but not the imaginary lines drawn on a map. If you were alluding to the Mississipi as a physical border, you’re right, in the same way all rivers and mountain ranges are physical borders, as are vast plains with little available water (no abstraction there, just thirst). However, the words rivers, mountains, plains, etc. are abstractions.

    So I did this Control-F search on “weight” (not my first search) and guess what, he never claimed anything about a physical border but just failed to capitalize “state”. His post October 4, 2013 at 4:36 AM was about reification. I think you misunderstood.

    I live in Arizona, there is no physical border with Mexico but there is an artificial one. And “the state” is an abstraction best capitalized…

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Ariel… You’re way too literal and you take the fun out of a lively debate. If I had to describe you, I’d say you’re far too focused on semantics and you miss the story that’s between the lines.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    @ Ariel

    RadicalDude says:
    September 20, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    You get that “borders” are an abstraction, right? Or do you think they are actual physical objects? If they are real, what are they made of? What is their weight, mass, atomic state, etc?

    No, I did not misunderstand.

    I gotta agree with 31. You are way too literal. I’m starting to wonder if you and RD are one in the same.

  • Ariel

    31B,

    I can read between the lines with the best of them, and certainly the best of you. It’s what most of my arguments are about, the things not thought of but there between the lines, the implied not understood by the writer. On the other hand, dissecting the actual lines is even more fun.

    I’m only literal in that I hold you to your words; you can easily explain them as they are your words, and negate my “literalness”, without resorting to I misunderstood because your words aren’t to be taken literally. You meant them to be taken other than literal?

    It might help if you explain that your words are actually allegory or metaphor, otherwise literal is the only choice. Unless words are what you tell me they mean after you use them…

    Lively debate isn’t defined by what you or I consider fun. In fact I didn’t find your comment fun whatsoever, but very dismissive with no basis. I hold you to your words and I’m at fault? I missed the nuance you so meant, so I failed?

    Now the problem with your comment is I have no idea whether you were addressing “abstractions” or “physics”. Neither are semantics, as you mean the word, and calling the physics as semantics would just be fool’s territory.

    BTW, semantics means “the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning”, it doesn’t mean sophistry, it means meaning. Not that the meaning of words is actually important for fun in a lively debate because they so get in the way.

    Damn, guy I got this distinction in JHS but then I was in classes for the gifted (that was an ad hominem on at least two levels, but only if you don’t understand the distinction between IQ and all other factors regarding intelligence, like t., only one level if you do). If you can’t take words for what they mean, then debate is meaningless. It’s just talking to each other saying nothing.

  • Ariel

    ERD,

    Here’s the quote for you to ponder: “The map–territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that “the map is not the territory”, encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse models of reality with reality itself.” and it follows…

    S.I. Hayakawa wrote the same thing by Korcybski insight: “the word is not the thing” which I use for it’s pithy quality, but is actually “Citizens of a modern society need […] more than that ordinary “common sense” which was defined by Stuart Chase as that which tells you that the world is flat. They need to be systematically aware of the powers and limitations of symbols, especially words, if they are to guard against being driven into complete bewilderment by the complexity of their semantic environment. The first of the principles governing symbols is this: The symbol is NOT the thing symbolized; the word is NOT the thing; the map is NOT the territory it stands for.”

    If you don’t understand this very simple concept, let me give you a way: your “balls” are ellipsoids, not spheroids. If they are the latter, I’d see a doctor. If you think your “balls” are balls, I leave you to Hayakawa.

  • Ariel

    ERD,

    I cant be one in the same with RD, he wrote I was most like t. He didn’t mean that as a positive, but that we act in the same manner while opposed in ideas.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Ariel,

    I’m really not into philosophy. I have no idea what my “balls” have to do with the Mississippi River but, leave it to you to interject them into this conversation.

  • Ariel

    ERD,

    I did a search on this exact phrase on this post of ” You get that “borders” are an abstraction, right? Or do you think they are actual physical objects? If they are real, what are they made of? What is their weight, mass, atomic state, etc?” and got nada. No such thing here on this page. My browser may be broken, it’s Iceweasel after all, but I still couldn’t find that quote.

    I did however find RD writing this: “The state is a mental abstraction that only exists in your imagination. Your premise is logically flawed in that it contains a reification fallacy. Or do you believe the state is an actual physical “noun” that exists in reality? If so, what are its physical properties, weight, chemical composition, etc? Is it a solid, liquid or a gas? Or is it a plasma?”

    Were you quoting from another source? I did do searches on various snippets, due diligence if you will, of your quote of RD but still nada. I can only find the one I quoted, and it is so different from what you are writing. Can you please help? I just can’t find your quote of RD here.

  • EvilRadicalDude
  • Ariel

    ERD,

    What I wrote wasn’t philosophy, no Existentialism, no Empiricism, but about reality and our constructs to understand it. We don’t know reality inclusively and directly, we know it by our constructs. You would have better served yourself by writing “linguistics” or “psychology” or just what should be common sense. Do you really think you have the full sense of what is reality? Omniscience isn’t a human quality.

    As for your “balls” in particular, though I meant it generally [the problem with “you” in our language], are they spheroid or ellipsoid? if the latter, why do you call them “balls”? It wasn’t an interjection , it was a point about words by way of that pesky Hayakawa quote. I was trying to help you in terms of your understanding. Heaven knows that you missed it, as do I. If only because when I used “balls” there is nothing about the Mississippi, state or river. Read for comprehension for the sake of Christ.

  • Ariel

    ERD,

    Thanks for that. Quoting comments from other posts makes for confusion.

    However, he is still right. Borders are an abstraction, a construct. Rivers move for example, look up the Rio Grande and border arguments with Mexico. There is little physical reality to borders other than an agreement to a surveyors measure, which still leaves it a construct. If you and I could live 500 years, the meaning would be more clear.

    Having used the words “abstraction” and “construct”, they are what we use to make an ordered society. The problem is when we make that fallacy of reification, thinking they are concrete.

  • t

    I guess its like Clinton wanted to argue between blowjobs….it depends on what your definition is “is” is.

  • RadicalDude

    “Public Offender says:
    October 4, 2013 at 11:33 pm

    When mental abstractions can deprive me of life, liberty, and property, I tend to believe they actually exist.”

    When someone has to use violence/threats/coercion to scare you into believing in an abstraction for purposes of controlling you and getting you to conform to the group, there is a word for that: it’s called a cult. Further, why would the “state” deprive you of life, liberty and property? Isn’t the purpose of the “state” to protect your life, liberty and property? It has to threaten you to protect you? Or is the pretense of protecting you just a PR trick(I’m sure you are familiar w/ the court precedents that say the gvt has no general duty to protect anyone)? Kind of like a Whitey Bulger-style protection racket?

  • RadicalDude

    “Public Offender says:
    October 4, 2013 at 11:33 pm

    Disprove the existence of the state, why don’t you? How things should be is not how things are. If you are going to state my premise is logically flawed, prove it.

    I understand the arguments for the state being a fictional construct. But the state can inflict tangible effects.

    So, again, disprove the existence of the state instead of simply linking to wikipedia.”

    Can’t really prove a negative. Disprove the existence of elves or goblins. If the “state” as such exists outside of the mind, what is it made of? Stone? Air? Glass? Can you link a picture of the “state”? Have you ever seen it? What color is it? Is there any tangible evidence of its existence as anything other than a mental abstraction?

  • Ariel

    RD,

    The abstractions are what we use to describe reality. The actions people take using those abstractions, by your very argument of reification, is the problem.

  • RadicalDude

    The concept of government is wholly fallacious, like PO alluded to, people believe in it because of the threats involved(among other reasons). Like he said, the courts “decide” if they have “jurisdiction”. Jurisdiction is just another abstraction. But if you don’t believe in their “jurisdiction” concept, they are prepared to use violence to make you conform to the reification they dramatize. It is based on a fallacious appeal to consequence/ appeal to violence. “We have jurisdiction because we are able to hurt you” is basically it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

  • Public Offender

    While the concept of “the state” may be an abstraction, a courthouse is not, jails are not, guns are not. All three are tangible and used to enforce abstract laws enacted by an abstraction.

    Abstractions are useful to categorize, classify, and convey ideas and experiences. Language is abstract. Discussing reification is only possible by utlizing abstract language to relay an abstract concept.

    How, then, is asserting the state delegates power a logical fallacy? Most people are capable of understanding the abstract state is comprised of real people; in other words, they are capable of abstract thought.

    It’s much simpler to use one word (the state) than many words. The many words would also rely on abstractions such as group, police, legislators, laws, etc.

    :-)

  • Public Offender

    I can do this all day…

  • John Q Public

    RD just thinks nothing should apply to him. That’s what all his babble is about. He acted like an ass to border patrol agents and is bitter because he got “detained” until he could prove he was an American citizen. Now he’s trying his junk in pure sovereign citizen fashion with a frivolous lawsuit he learned about in the Wikipedia School of Law. Of course, the suit will take years and he won’t see a dime of money, but hey, fight the system. He is doing this in abstract courts of course.

  • Jason Free 123

    Annypussy RadicalDude – You continue to say the government is a fallacy and people only believe it because of the threats involved yet, you are counting on it for your disability check, You have cited how great it is when it was first put together 200 years ago. You also support the courts because they work for you and your supposed lawsuits. Those are your words. You are a hypocrite and a liar. You bullshit statements about the states are nothing but something that is conjured up by people who are capable of abstract thought. By what you are saying is you are calling everyone dumb because they have a thinking process. You are just too stupid to believe. Almost everything you say is taken from Wikipedia and your out of date garage sale law book.

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • Public Offender

    I’ve done a lot of research on the separate sovereign idea as I’ve had clients bring it up. The idea has merit but the application is flawed. My advice: become filthy rich and/or a politician.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Ariel,

    I have a quote for you to ponder.

    “Less is more”

    Think about it and how it could benefit you.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Ariel,

    Even the most intelligent people are complete idiots. And wow, you sure like to hear yourself talk. You remind me of Charles Carreon.

  • Public Offender

    I like Ariel’s posts and I can’t complain about verbosity without being a wee bit hypocritical… ;-)

  • EvilRadicalDude

    PO,

    Ariel is a talkaholic. Calling him verbose would be a compliment given his disorder.

  • RadicalDude

    If you look at the idea of “government” and you analyze it logically and objectively, every conceptualization of “government” contains some combination of these formal fallacies:

    1. Appeal to authority
    When you say such and so is the law because a “judge” said so, because a “legislator” said so, because a “president” said so.

    “You have to do what I say because I’m a cop/judge/politician.”

    2. Reification fallacy

    The idea that people are ruled by a make-believe state, that the imaginary “state” is the source of our rights, that we are obligated to another’s(an authority figure’s) conceptualization of a “state”.

    3. Appeal to numbers/appeal to democracy

    Not all governments use this fallacy, however it has gained increased use for several reasons. It is basically a form of soft-sell authoritarianism. The idea that if enough people agree on something, it becomes “law”, and thus, some individuals or groups gain a “right” to use violence on other individuals or groups of people regardless of whether the targets of the violence are in agreement or not, if the violence is done in concordance with the perceived established by consensus(which in reality may or may not be a true democratic consensus) “law”(which is really a legal opinion).

    4. Appeal to consequences/appeal to violence

    You have to believe in the governments and obey them, or else men with guns will use gang violence on you. All governmental power is rooted in violence/ threats/ coercion.

    5. Circular reasoning: Every “state” relies on circular reasoning in its formulation of “rules” or organizational structure. Some examples: a)The constitution is the law because the constitution says so. b)The law applies because the law says so. c)We must have a government because government is necessary. d)The authority is the authority because it is the authority. Sometimes this can be pretty subtle, and there are many variations, like “you have to do what I say because I’m a cop/judge/politician,etc.” or “We must obey the government because it is in charge”. There can be no justification for a state without circular reasoning. e)Judge’s opinions are the law because judges say so. Example: the concept of judicial immunity, which is a power judges invented out of thin air and gave to themselves. It is not in the U.S. constitution. f)The king’s word is law because the king said so.

    In addition there are several other fallacies that people use to rationalize “government” that really haven’t been categorized as formal fallacies, but when you look at them they are self contradictory:

    6. The government protects your life, liberty, and property by threatening your life liberty and property.

    7. War is peace

    Yes it’s from Orwell’s novel, and is used allegorically, but governments really do use this rhetoric. Like Palin pointed out on Obama’s policy on Syria, his proposal was to protect Syria from Syria by bombing Syria.
    Another example: the war(political violence) on terrorism(political violence).
    And another: “Peace officers” who are thought to hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of street violence/ street terrorism/ gang violence.

    8. Social contract

    A fallacious idea that tries to rationalize the idea of government. However, there is no social contract, never has been one in place under any government, and never can be a social contract under a government. A government is based on the authoritarian concept of someone in power, telling others what to do under threat of violence.
    Anything the government does is done by violence, threats, and coercion. No contract is binding if it is only ostensibly consented to under threat. Further, the elements of a contract just aren’t there:
    no meeting of the minds
    no freely given consent
    no full disclosure of terms
    no mutuality of obligation
    no consideration
    no offer or acceptance

    The constitution has no inherent legitimacy as a legal instrument, and is not a contract.

  • RadicalDude

    When you take away the fallacies used to rationalize government you are left with a whole lot of nothing. The “government” is a superstitious, fallacious, illogical idea.

  • RadicalDude

    “Public Offender says:
    October 5, 2013 at 9:46 am

    While the concept of “the state” may be an abstraction, a courthouse is not, jails are not, guns are not. All three are tangible and used to enforce abstract laws enacted by an abstraction.”

    Exactly, and if you take away this perceived “legitimacy” of the political violence, the emperor has no clothes. And the “legitimacy” has no evidence to support it, it is just taken as a matter of faith.
    To say the government is legit because it can hurt you is a fallacious
    appeal to consequences/ appeal to violence.

  • Jason Free 123

    Annyonypussy Radical Dude – You are the superstitious, fallacious, illogical idea. You don’t use your real name and you make all of these bullshit claims that you have sued someone and have won. You are a liar

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • John Q Public

    “The constitution has no inherent legitimacy as a legal instrument, and is not a contract.”

    But you use that same constitution to say your rights were violated, RD. If there is no real constitution as you say, then you have no rights to violate. If the whole system is “illegitimate” as you say, then there is no way you could’ve won a lawsuit. Can you hold, see, feel, taste, ect., a lawsuit? Nope. You can hold the paper its written on and nothing else. Then its not real by your own logic. Which means you have won nothing. Just more sovereign drivel with no substance.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    JQP

    I’ve told him many times he has to pick a side. He can’t have his cake and eat it too. RD likes to cherry pick the things that apply to him and the rest is superstitious or a notion of an idea.

  • RadicalDude

    “John Q Public says:
    October 5, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    If there is no real constitution as you say, then you have no rights to violate.”

    Are “rights” inalienable, or do they come from a piece of paper? How does a piece of paper confer upon you your rights(when you never expressly consented to such and you, I am sure, did not sign the constitution yourself)? Is it “magical” paper? If someone takes someone to their own private island outside of claimed gvt jurisdiction by agreement, and then when at the private island, tortures and kills them, have the victim’s rights been violated? Did the Holocaust violate anyone’s “rights”? Since the government at the time didn’t recognize the rights of the target populations(jews, etc), then would you say that the Holocaust didn’t violate their rights?

  • t

    Am I? Are you? Just “constructs” of an imagination. What a stinky pile.

  • RadicalDude

    “t says:
    October 5, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    Am I? Are you? Just “constructs” of an imagination. ”

    I don’t know, that is a question for the ages.

    But for instance, if I said the sky is blue, and you asked me for evidence, I could give you this:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=picture+of+the+sky&biw=1400&bih=737&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xLxQUpWkBKqdyQHZvYHgDg&ved=0CCwQsAQ
    Further, I can describe its physical properties, we can measure them w/ meteorology, etc. What can you show me to say that “jurisdiction”, political “borders”, the “state”, etc actually exist as physical objects, beyond “some guy said so”?

    I think the observable fact that we are posting on the internet gives at least a prima facie evidence suggesting we exist as real physical entities.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    CopBlock: Come for the crimes against humanity, stay for the existentialism.

  • RadicalDude

    Lol

  • Public Offender

    I’m only going to address a few points from your list of logical fallacies.

    1. Appeal to authority

    What are “rights?” Can you measure “rights?” What makes them inalienable? If they are endowed by our Creator, isn’t that an appeal to authority? If you are an atheist, then aren’t all things subjective?

    2. Reification fallacy

    Asserting something is a logical fallacy requires providing evidence and, in this case, refuting the abstraction. I did not ascribe personality, motive, or intentions to the state; I simply used the abstraction of the state regarding the delegation of authority.
    Address my use of the abstraction.

    I never asserted “the imaginary ‘state’ is the source of our rights, [or] that we are obligated to another’s (an authority figure’s) conceptualization of a ‘state’.” My comment about the state remaining our ruler was irony.

    3. Appeal to numbers/appeal to democracy

    I did post the following: “Chris: I agree with your premise but the reality we currently accept is the state is sacrosanct. Until the consensus changes, the state remains our ruler.”

    The above statement is an example of irony. I know, hard to discern a stranger’s use of irony in an on-line post… If you’ve read my other posts, you may realize I don’t actually believe the state is holy or immune from criticism or violation. Since its holiness relies on the acceptance of a reality I do not accept and remaining our ruler requires a consensus which can change, I am implying it is an illusion while apparently praising it….

    4. Appeal to consequences/appeal to violence

    Believing in the legitimacy of the state and adjusting your behavior so as not to lose life, liberty, or property are very different things. I don’t recall anyone asserting that the state actually exists or is legitimate because said state can use violence/ threats/coercion. I am simply recognizing a group of people with vastly greater resources than I (I’ll refer to them collectively as “the state”) have created processes and systems to control me and I make decisions and assume risk based on the processes and systems of control.

    7. War is peace

    I like and respect Sarah Palin but I wouldn’t use her to prove a point.

    The older I get, the more Libertarian I get; but not a crunchy, granola, “it’s all good” Libertarian. More of a “leave me the hell alone and stop meddling in my damn life” Libertarian.

  • John Q Public

    RD, have you met centurion? I think you two would get along nicely.

  • RadicalDude

    I don’t think I know him in real life. I used to think Centurion was just another character from the same troll that plays the Jason Free character.
    Apparently Centurion is real, though.

  • RadicalDude

    “Public Offender says:
    October 6, 2013 at 3:21 am

    What are “rights?” Can you measure “rights?” What makes them inalienable? If they are endowed by our Creator, isn’t that an appeal to authority? If you are an atheist, then aren’t all things subjective?”

    What are rights? I would say rights are the moral boundaries that people must observe in their interpersonal interactions in order to maintain just, equitable and moral relationships with one another. Take, for instance, slavery. That would be a good example of an unjust, non-equitable and immoral relationship. Compare a voluntary business model, where one person exchanges something of value for something else valuable in a mutually beneficial transaction to a criminal business model such as extortion in which one person benefits and the other is the victim. I think when we compare the two scenarios we can observe a MEASURABLE difference. We can actually mathematically quantify the equity in the relationships. So yes I would say rights can be measured. I do believe in God. I would say rights are inalienable as a function of logic. If someone violates the rights of another, one has created an inequitable situation. I believe that the lowest amount of interpersonal violence and fraud leads to the greatest productivity, happiness, and quality of life for society as a whole and for individuals generally.

  • RadicalDude

    “Public Offender says:
    October 6, 2013 at 3:21 am

    2. Reification fallacy

    Asserting something is a logical fallacy requires providing evidence and, in this case, refuting the abstraction. I did not ascribe personality, motive, or intentions to the state; I simply used the abstraction of the state regarding the delegation of authority.
    Address my use of the abstraction.

    I never asserted “the imaginary ‘state’ is the source of our rights, [or] that we are obligated to another’s (an authority figure’s) conceptualization of a ‘state’.” My comment about the state remaining our ruler was irony.”

    Actually I thought it was a troll impersonating you that said that. If the state delegates “authority” to the “people” then we are actually granting the state (an abstraction) a greater level of authority than ourselves. You said, “The state has the power to enact and enforce law.” Men and women who call themselves government write up legislation, and men and women who call themselves government enforce the legislation. To say the “state” wrote a “law” , wrote a speeding ticket or made an arrest is a very dangerous form of reification in my opinion. Why is it so dangerous? Because the reification takes the responsibility off the individual who is(factually speaking) the true actor and places the responsibility instead upon a mere idea which is then imagined to be the actor through reification. Thus individual actor is divested from a sense of personal responsibility.
    “We were just following orders.”

  • RadicalDude

    “I did post the following: “Chris: I agree with your premise but the reality we currently accept is the state is sacrosanct. Until the consensus changes, the state remains our ruler.””

    Correction: This is what I thought was maybe an impostor talking. I thought it was ironic and funny either way, though.

  • Public Offender

    Are you an insomniac, also? I argue all kinds of things I don’t actually believe, BTW… As I posted somewhere on the site, I’ll argue with a STOP sign… So I hope you don’t take anything I write personally. If you’d have argued for the state, I would have simply argued the opposite… And no, I’m not like this because I’m an attorney, I’m an attorney because I’m like this…

    The best practical application for your line of argument is Marc Stevens, in my opinion. His use of the Socratic method must infuriate!

  • RadicalDude

    “Public Offender says:
    October 6, 2013 at 5:53 am
    I hope you don’t take anything I write personally.”

    Same here, bro. Marc’s show is maybe my favorite radio show, it has opened my mind on this subject a lot. I haven’t read his new book yet, though. Ya probably am an insomniac.

  • RadicalDude

    Wow, just looked at NSP website and they have a new show. Did you catch the show w/ Kolby Granville? One of the most fascinating in my opinion.

  • t

    Dude: what is your address? I know that an address is just an abstract construct and all…but I’ve been looking for some new furniture and since you don’t believe in any foundation of law or better yet, you don’t believe in borders I’ll just come in and shop around for whatever I want inside you place.

  • RadicalDude

    Haha. I never said I don’t believe in “any foundation of law”. That is the thing with the constitutionalism, it promotes this magical thinking like this notion that we need a “government” or a “constitution” to have law and order. The government is in the taxation/tribute business. That is what its whole entire business model is based around, and always has been. In the old days of Ghengis Khan it was just naked violence. Over the years, gvts have gotten more “civilized” and have taken an increasingly soft-sell approach to their operations because the world has gotten “smaller” figuratively speaking. People are so used to the soft sell authoritarian propaganda at this point that they are literally brainwashed into thinking law and order come from a government and only CAN come from a government. Usually the reason I don’t go around commiting mayhem and murder is because I just don’t like those things, it’s not because I think the Gvt is so great.
    I would assume for 90% of the people it’s the same.

  • t

    So……who sets these laws, enforces these laws, and maintains order in your magical land?

  • RadicalDude

    Everyone

  • Jason Free 123

    RadicalDude – Here you are refusing to use your real name and are unable to back up anything you say about suing police officers. You have the fucking guts to insinuate That my name is not Jason Free? Are you fucking serious? You are the one who refuses to identify yourself yet make all of these lying claims about how you sued and one against police officers. You continue to argue your bullshit points even though you have been trumped over and over by JQP. Please continue to make an ass out of yourself. It makes me laugh everytime.

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • t

    Right. Everyone. Interesting.

    So…..
    Everyone decides on the laws. Sounds like democracy. Nice. So these people who decide on the laws….have to meet to decide on them? Everyone in one place? That’s pretty tough to handle and time consuming. So maybe they decide on some village leaders? Now those village leaders realize that there are dangers to those that they lead. So maybe they get some folks to protect them. Now because that is a fulltime activity….they have to hire these folks and pay them.

    Hold on….hold on..
    Now its starting to sound like you want government and police forces.

  • RadicalDude

    People can lead themselves and protect themselves/each other. For one thing, the job of the cops isn’t to protect anyone. That is the public relations(protect/serve). The reality is pretty far removed from that pretense. For another, it simply isn’t necessary to wear a badge and be part of a government to protect one’s neighbors. It can be done through voluntary means rather than a monopolistic corporate protection racket scheme.

  • t

    Wow. Double wow wow. So YOU prefer Pete’s idea of Warlords then? He who has the might can do whatever he wants?

    Setting that silliness aside…..
    How do the streets get paved in your fairytale? How does the bill for the traffic lights, and street lights get paid for? Sidewalks? Where are you going to file all of your frivolous lawsuits without a court system and laws? Do you think the power system will just work? Do you trust GM and Ford to just build safe vechilces without any oversight? How about the food supply. And pharmacies. Life in your fairytale world doesn’t sound so good to me. I’ll pass on you lawless warlord world.

  • Casual Observer

    Here’s even more proof provided by the mainstream media, that certain cops believe they have “special rights” that allow them to violate legal speed limits when NOT responding to an emergency.

    http://news.yahoo.com/video/police-caught-act-025620906.html

  • RadicalDude

    “t says:
    October 7, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Wow. Double wow wow. So YOU prefer Pete’s idea of Warlords then? He who has the might can do whatever he wants?”

    Warlords? No, what we have now is a Warlordism-based system. I’m talking about a society oriented towards peace rather than war like what we have now.
    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord
    “A warlord is a person with power who has both military and civil[1] control over a subnational area due to armed forces loyal to the warlord and not to a central authority. The term can also mean one who espouses the ideal that war is necessary, and has the means and authority to engage in war. ”

    Using the second definition when I say “warlord”. Obama’s probably the most violent and aggressive warlord yet in American politics.

    “How do the streets get paved in your fairytale? How does the bill for the traffic lights, and street lights get paid for? Sidewalks? Where are you going to file all of your frivolous lawsuits without a court system and laws? Do you think the power system will just work? Do you trust GM and Ford to just build safe vechilces without any oversight? How about the food supply. And pharmacies.”

    Up to the free market to decide on what works.

  • t

    Straight to Wiki. Excellent.

    Oh and way to dodge the question. But you can freely go to any one of a number of developing countries and set up your utopia. I’ll stick with my representative democracy, sidewalks and hot and cold running water. You go have fun now. Dont hurry back.

  • Ariel

    PO,

    Thanks for the compliment. I should probably make it briefer, use simpler words, and easier concepts, if only for the complaining audience. I was surprised that people here don’t understand the fallacy of reification. Some of the responses showed some real need for remedial education.

    It is understanding what is concrete, your examples, and what isn’t and why. That’s all. No need going into all the hyperventilation some have done…

    BTW, I like to argue, all day long. I like to hold people to what their words mean, not what they think they should mean. As should they hold me.

    31B,

    Wear your seat belt. IIRC, you have a greater chance of injury/dying by car accident on the job than by being shot. Don’t make excuses.

    “And wow, you sure like to hear yourself talk.” Nah. I’m just trying to cover the ground to head ’em off at the pass, or beat ’em into submission because they keep resisting.

    I must know: are you truly existing, or just living?

    ERD,

    And brevity is the soul of wit unless there is no wit in the brevity. Think about it and how it could benefit you.

  • Casual Observer

    @ “RadicalDude,”

    If you do bow out for a while, no doubt the same trolls will still be here when you return.

    @”t,”

    “I’ll stick with my representative democracy…” That’s a good one!

  • Ariel

    31B,

    Did you mean “even [some of] the most intelligent people are complete idiots” or “even the most intelligent people [can be] complete idiots” or “even the most intelligent people are complete idiots [on some subjects]”. Or did you really mean “Even the most intelligent people are complete idiots.”, in some profound egalitarian way?

    Your statement depends on charity, the charity of looking beyond the nonsense, and I’m just not in a charitable mood.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    I meant it exactly as it’s written.

  • Ariel

    31B,

    That is truly sad.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Ariel,

    I like this game. Here is another one for you to ponder.

    “It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.”

    This would really benefit you. Especially when you go through these manic episodes.

  • t

    ERD: :-)

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Cray cray gone cray.

  • Ariel

    ERD,

    Ever heard of the phrase “a double-edged sword”? This would really benefit you. Especially when you go through these episodes of not thinking of the obvious response. Knew it [it’s like a bromide now to avoid without real, exacting support], didn’t think you’d use it for the oh so very obvious reason.

    Guy, I made my money in corporate sales. I never “say” (like I’m actually talking here) anything without thinking of at least some of the responses. Yours is just bad, it doesn’t even pivot well off what I wrote.

    I never went into a sales call without a rehearsal. I don’t do it here either.

  • Ariel

    Hey, ERd,

    Can we get some Oscar Wilde in here too if we are going to play this game?

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Good God, Ariel, you sure like to run your mouth (fingers). I agree with Switzer… You should heed the advice.

  • Ariel

    31B,

    “Cray cray gone cray”. Glad you can acknowledge it, it’s the first step, but what concrete things will you put in play to bring you back?

  • Ariel

    31B,

    Yep, you make such good arguments. At least you aren’t spouting 85% of rape accusations are false because you “know” or a police state is determined by how many cops are on duty. But I have faith, you’ll get there. It’s only a matter of time.

    Still, what you wrote elsewhere was truly sad, if only because you essentially wrote your entire profession is composed of complete idiots too.

    I’m like a cop, I really don’t care what you say I only care if it makes sense.

  • Ariel

    31B,

    The phrase actually goes back to Proverbs 17:28 if you meant ““It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.”. . Did I know that off the bat, no, just that I know that variations of the phrase have been attributed to A. Lincoln and Twain, so I looked. Switzer is the current choice of that exact quote, so you are right in your complete idiocy [after all even intelligent people are complete idiots], ignoring that it’s a variation of Proverbs. Aren’t quotes so much fun?

    You can look up the Proverbs quote, KJV or NIV, or whatever. Makes me think that there is nothing new under the sun, but that’s Ecclisiastes.

    Damn, I’m beginning to believe you’re right, even intelligent people are complete idiots.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    And you’re only proving my point that you like to run your mouth.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Ariel,

    I’m not pivoting of what you wrote. Hence my earlier quote.

    You asked and you shall receive.

    “Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go.”

    The latter applies to you.

    Corporate sales huh?

    So you’re a professional bull shitter? Good for you. You must be proud of yourself. Speaks volumes about your character.

  • Ariel

    ERD,

    I deleted my long post for this: are you a fucking moron or what? You think you keep a Motorola plant using your chemistry for a decade by bullshitting to them? Or by bullshitting an electro-plater (have any idea how quick lying to them goes bad, think one cycle)? You think you have more integrity than a salesman keeping a plant for ten years? Are you that ignorant of how the fucking world actually works? It’s people trusting people, it’s keeping your word, it’s performance, you moron out of your element. You’re a fucking bigot, but you just don’t know it. You don’t have a fucking clue how this part of the world works, and to be honest, you’d likely lie your ass off from the start because you think it’s the job description. You’d sell your character and integrity before the first cold call.

    Was I brief enough? Succinct and concise? Covered the pussies that would sell their integrity at the first call?

  • Ariel

    ERD,

    I thought this should be separate. My response to your “happiness” quote is KJV Matthew 7:5. Enjoy.

  • Ariel

    31B,

    “And you’re only proving my point that you like to run your mouth.” And you’re only proving it’s easier to write what you did. I think we went over this with seat belts, it’s easier for you to excuse than address.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Ariel says:
    October 8, 2013 at 12:32 am
    ERD,

    “I deleted my long post for this: are you a fucking moron or what?”

    No.

    “You think you keep a Motorola plant using your chemistry for a decade by bullshitting to them? Or by bullshitting an electro-plater (have any idea how quick lying to them goes bad, think one cycle)?”

    Have no idea, but now you are flaunting your ego instead of your intelligence. Stuck on yourself? Just an observation of mine.

    “You think you have more integrity than a salesman keeping a plant for ten years?”

    I’d be willing to bet my house career and side business on it. You don’t know me and I don’t know you. If you want to bet on who has more integrity though, I will take that wager any day of the week.

    “Are you that ignorant of how the fucking world actually works? It’s people trusting people, it’s keeping your word, it’s performance, you moron out of your element.”

    I see I struck a cord once more. Seems you don’t like to be judged based on the stereotypical salesman. Perhaps that will give you some insight on how people judge “stereotypical cops”. Yourself included.

    “You’re a fucking bigot, but you just don’t know it.”

    I’m very open minded.

    “You don’t have a fucking clue how this part of the world works, and to be honest, you’d likely lie your ass off from the start because you think it’s the job description.”

    Actually, I wouldn’t. Nor would I jump on the band wagon with all the haters because it’s “the popular thing to do”. I guess that makes you a hypocrite when it comes to law enforcement. Interesting.

    “You’d sell your character and integrity before the first cold call.”

    No I wouldn’t, because I’d never “Cold call” anyone. It annoys the shit out of me so I wouldn’t do it to someone else.

    “Was I brief enough? Succinct and concise? Covered the pussies that would sell their integrity at the first call?”

    Yes, you described yourself to a tee.

    A few questions for you: Who’s best interest did you have in mind? Yours, the company your worked for or the customers? Surely you didn’t use any sales tactics. Find something in common with your client to “break the ice” “build a rapport” you know all the psychological things that police do to gain voluntary compliance. No you would never stoop to that level. Especially not as a salesman. I guess you’re the exception the stereotypical salesman. It’s only police who lack integrity and character right?

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Ariel says:
    October 8, 2013 at 12:51 am
    ERD,

    “I thought this should be separate. My response to your “happiness” quote is KJV Matthew 7:5. Enjoy.”

    Using bible verses to try and insult me won’t work my friend. That verse applies to you as much as it does me or anyone else. I hardly think this is the place to start quoting bible verses. I have more respect and love for our lord than that. As should you.

  • Public Offender

    Perhaps a separate forum should be created for discussions like the one dominating this post…

  • Public Offender

    @ Ariel: I understand the reification “fallacy” but:

    1. If it actually is a fallacy, it is the runt of the litter.

    2. The “fallacy” is misapplied most times by those seeking to discount an argument with it.

    3: All abstractions are not fallacies. We could not communicate ideas without the use of abstractions.

    4: Example:

    Dude 1: “The government passes laws.”

    Dude 2: “Well, you’ve just committed the logical fallacy of reification.”

    Dude 1: “No, it just seems that way to you because you are an idiot.”

  • RadicalDude

    Not all abstractions contain fallacies, the reification comes into play when one treats the abstraction as a physical object. We use abstractions in higher math, etc.
    “Hey, who moved the remote for the tv?”
    “I think some legislation did it.”

  • Ariel

    Erd,

    “Have no idea, but now you are flaunting your ego instead of your intelligence. Stuck on yourself? Just an observation of mine.” I wasn’t flaunting my ego, I was questioning yours. Because you made the blanket statement on a whole profession..

    “I’d be willing to bet my house career and side business on it. You don’t know me and I don’t know you. If you want to bet on who has more integrity though, I will take that wager any day of the week.” And I would win by your very early comment. You’re a bigot, look up the real meaning of the word. Your house career and side business makes you a paragon of virtue in your mind. I kept major firms as accounts for 10 years and more. Yeah, your integrity is so much better; Motorola, Microchip, Continental, Gilbert, and more, are so full of fools they couldn’t catch me at lies. And I of course built my rapport by lying to them. You need to stick to home and side, you aren’t made for more.

    “You don’t have a fucking clue how this part of the world works, and to be honest, you’d likely lie your ass off from the start because you think it’s the job description.[that’s me recognizing you}

    Actually, I wouldn’t. Nor would I jump on the band wagon with all the haters because it’s “the popular thing to do”. I guess that makes you a hypocrite when it comes to law enforcement. Interesting.”

    But it was all about your bigotry regarding sales people, it had nothing to do with popular, haters, or band wagons. It was all about you having no clue on sales. So why did you go there? Some ego play, when your ego couldn’t get what it needed without diversion?

    ‘I see I struck a cord once more. Seems you don’t like to be judged based on the stereotypical salesman. Perhaps that will give you some insight on how people judge “stereotypical cops”. Are there stereotypical home and side business people? I think there are cultures, but no one person is that culture. Bigots think everyone is that culture, and often don’t know the culture but think they do. The only chord you struck for me is oh, God, another bigot. Stereotypes are great when they are right, and pure buffoonery when they aren’t.
    There isn’t a stereotypical salesman because sales covers too many industries over too many venues, there may be a stereotypical cop because it’s one industry expressed over many venues. You may have made a category error. But, hey, I understand a lot of retail salesmen fucked you over, and you always lost on that car deal, but I’m not that guy. I could care less about you, but not much, I had to move tons daily…

    Okay, I’m changing tack because I’m tired of you [if only I could quit you]. I’ll put it simply: if you had an Apple computer in the 90’s, I was there; if you had a cheese burger at McDonalds in the 90s, I was there; if you had a Motorola phone, I was there; if you drank milk in Arizona, I was there; if you had cable TV or Cable internet in the US, I was there; if you had machines with embedded controllers, I was likely there [if Microchip was there] If you flew, well I was there too, but the 90s were iffy because of cleaners, FAA shops were worried (I had two major shops in the US). I did it all by bullshit and lies. Damn I wish I could have been pure by staying home…after all, home business people never lie. It’s only the other guy…

    I will now clean my boots to get your shit off them. I hope it doesn’t stain. So much more work,,

    Admit it, a car salesman took you and you’ve never gotten over it. Moreover, he so took you you can’t make distincions. Salespeople just fuck you all the time. Even salespeople that wouldn’t give you the time of day, because you aren’t worth the time of day, hurt you because you know you are worth so much more. How’s it working out for you?

  • Ariel

    PO,

    The reification fallacy is only mistaking the abstraction for the real. You can certainly understand “a ball” is not “the ball”, or you’d be left with confusion over a jai alai ball, a soft ball, a hard ball, or a golf ball. God forbid you think a football is actually a ball, it’s not even an oblate spheroid but an ellipsoid that jams fingers.

    What are police? Heroes, yep some are; sexual degenerates, yep some are ( about 3x the general populace); alcoholics, yep some (about 2x the general populace); cowards, some are; trans-gendered, Ill stop. What is the abstraction? What is the real? if you think all cops are heroes, and would fight anyone saying differently, or think all cops are cowards killing anyone that makes them fear for their safety and dinner, and fight anyone saying differently. Is it reification or just really bad stereotypes. I’m just asking a question hoping for a real answer.

  • Ariel

    PO,

    Just to ram it home, abstractions aren’t fallacies, The fallacy is thinking abstractions are concrete. It’s S I Hayakawa’s “the word is not the thing…” and Korzybski’s “the map is not the territory”. these should be simple concepts for all if only because I understand them. And if I understand them…Okay, let me do this another way. Why the fuck can’t the rest of you grasp this simple concept? [I think I’m going to be profane for awhile. Please forgive me if I hurt any of your sensitive feelings. That’s not directed at you, PO]

    I left RD out of this so as not to depreciate him.

  • Casual Observer

    “Just to ram it home,” this thread is NOT about Ariel! It’s actually about holding accountable those police officers who consider themselves to be above the law, and choose to speed in NON-emergency situations.

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/culture-police-speeding-20479222

  • Ariel

    ERD,
    Sorry, but I didn’t answer your questions.
    1. My account. If I kept their interests foremost, I served them and I made my company better. A problem solved at one account kept a problem from starting at another account.
    2. I did not use those bullshit closes, in fact I don’t know them, except the Ben Franklin and I only use that on my wife and children. My wife knows every close on the books and some that haven’t been published, so the BF is fun. She trained sales people in a really competitive, high-pressure environment. I did get training from Monsanto, but that was moving people from their fears, without ignoring them, to where they were analytical. Typical quadrant analysis. The problem with the standard closes is every PA knows them, as do most Buyers. Why would I insult them? My wife was proud of me for doing it solely on trust. Takes longer, but it’s better.
    3. Of course I found areas of common interest beyond just business, hell, I was known for talking about religion and politics, I built a rapport by breaking rules. I built that rapport over months even years. Rapport in minutes is a liar lying. I do not like, no like is wrong, I hate liars, I hate cheats, and I hate thieves. Trying to build a rapport in minutes is the work of a manipulative liar. a fucker that should be ostracized from society because they destroy, they don’t build. Building a rapport on honesty takes so much longer but is so much more satisfying.
    4. No, I’m not the exception. There are plenty like me, I’ve met them. I was even trained by one, though his training was about being humble when you win. I wiped out my competitor at a really major account, went in to his office to crow and the only fucking thing he said to me was “I know him, he has a family, what are you so happy about?”. A great moral lesson, but it really took the pleasure out of the day.
    5. Let me help you: “It’s only [some] police who lack integrity and character right?” My aunt’s an Assistant Police Chief. I have no doubts about her integrity if only by the pleasure of roughly 28 years of knowing her. I’m older than she is so the relationship has always been as equals. The cop intimidation, when she tries it, is just funny.

    Finally, “No you would never stoop to that level. Especially not as a salesman.” Let me give you a clue here: I trained as an engineer specifically chemical, before that I was in the Coast Guard during the period that SAR was the mission, before that I worked trades, before that I was one of the top students in my High School. Why in God’s name, or Satan’s, or Krishna’s or whatever twisted sister impacts you would you believe all sales people are the same? Or what I learned before just sloughed away by that magical word “salesman”? Corporate sales people are about as diverse a group as you could find. Get ten of them together and you have 12 arguments. I worked with one guy that had a chemistry degree and played for the NFL, Another was a sea captain.

    You’re a bigot. Get used to it. One thing though, you should understand that your bigotry about salesmen could be applied across every profession. You just think that only salesmen are deceptive, manipulative, lying sacks. I hate deceptive, manipulative, lying sacks too. I just know they may be you [your home business is what exatly?], or my Dentist (naw, he’s a good guy), or my Postman, or the Fireman, or the Cop, or the Surgeon. and so on.

    Have a good darkness.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Ariel says:
    October 8, 2013 at 6:32 am
    Erd,

    “Have no idea, but now you are flaunting your ego instead of your intelligence. Stuck on yourself? Just an observation of mine.” I wasn’t flaunting my ego, I was questioning yours. Because you made the blanket statement on a whole profession..

    – You don’t like blanket statements covering a whole profession? You’re a hypocrite then. I don’t know who uses blanket statements more you are Shawn.

    “I’d be willing to bet my house career and side business on it. You don’t know me and I don’t know you. If you want to bet on who has more integrity though, I will take that wager any day of the week.” And I would win by your very early comment. You’re a bigot, look up the real meaning of the word. Your house career and side business makes you a paragon of virtue in your mind.

    – Great job on completely missing the point.

    I kept major firms as accounts for 10 years and more. Yeah, your integrity is so much better; Motorola, Microchip, Continental, Gilbert, and more, are so full of fools they couldn’t catch me at lies. And I of course built my rapport by lying to them. You need to stick to home and side, you aren’t made for more.

    – This is really pissing you off isn’t it?

    “You don’t have a fucking clue how this part of the world works, and to be honest, you’d likely lie your ass off from the start because you think it’s the job description.[that’s me recognizing you}

    – And a piss poor job at doing so.

    Actually, I wouldn’t. Nor would I jump on the band wagon with all the haters because it’s “the popular thing to do”. I guess that makes you a hypocrite when it comes to law enforcement. Interesting.”

    But it was all about your bigotry regarding sales people, it had nothing to do with popular, haters, or band wagons. It was all about you having no clue on sales. So why did you go there? Some ego play, when your ego couldn’t get what it needed without diversion?

    – You mistake sarcasm for bigotry. But, call me what you will. Doesn’t bother me. Why did I go there? Because it is your profession and I knew it would piss you off. Again, you don’t like blanket statements? Quit using them.

    ‘I see I struck a cord once more. Seems you don’t like to be judged based on the stereotypical salesman. Perhaps that will give you some insight on how people judge “stereotypical cops”. Are there stereotypical home and side business people? I think there are cultures, but no one person is that culture. Bigots think everyone is that culture, and often don’t know the culture but think they do. The only chord you struck for me is oh, God, another bigot. Stereotypes are great when they are right, and pure buffoonery when they aren’t.
    There isn’t a stereotypical salesman because sales covers too many industries over too many venues, there may be a stereotypical cop because it’s one industry expressed over many venues. You may have made a category error. But, hey, I understand a lot of retail salesmen fucked you over, and you always lost on that car deal, but I’m not that guy. I could care less about you, but not much, I had to move tons daily…

    – That’s a nice speech, but pure bullshit. Again, I used sarcasm about your profession and look at you falling all over yourself trying to defend it. That’s not what I think at all, but I knew you fall for it hook line and sinker.

    Okay, I’m changing tack because I’m tired of you [if only I could quit you]. I’ll put it simply: if you had an Apple computer in the 90′s, I was there; if you had a cheese burger at McDonalds in the 90s, I was there; if you had a Motorola phone, I was there; if you drank milk in Arizona, I was there; if you had cable TV or Cable internet in the US, I was there; if you had machines with embedded controllers, I was likely there [if Microchip was there] If you flew, well I was there too, but the 90s were iffy because of cleaners, FAA shops were worried (I had two major shops in the US). I did it all by bullshit and lies. Damn I wish I could have been pure by staying home…after all, home business people never lie. It’s only the other guy…

    – You must be really insecure about what you did as a salesman if you feel the need to give me your resume. No need to justify yourself to me. I know what type of person you are.

    I will now clean my boots to get your shit off them. I hope it doesn’t stain. So much more work,,

    – You might want to bask it in it. Because, it smells better than the shit your spewing here.

    Admit it, a car salesman took you and you’ve never gotten over it. Moreover, he so took you you can’t make distincions. Salespeople just fuck you all the time. Even salespeople that wouldn’t give you the time of day, because you aren’t worth the time of day, hurt you because you know you are worth so much more. How’s it working out for you?

    – LMAO, no,no,no Ariel. That is you. I have never been “taken” by a salesman. And no I don’t get fucked by salesman “all the time” I politely tell them if I need their assistance I will come get them. If they want to annoy the shit out of me after that (Like you because you like hearing yourself talk so much) I leave and take my business else where. Face it. Your a professional bullshitter and I’m not buying the bullshit your selling here either.

  • Ariel

    ERD,

    Oh just shit. I’ve been up now for 30 hours so I didn’t waste one moment on your rebuttal. I assumed “childish alert” [I did skim just to serve my ego you so need to dwell upon. I’m not up on Freud, should I be?] and moved to the end.

    You have had no fucking experience with a corporate sales person whatsoever have you? You’ve never held a position where I or any other salesperson would give you the time of day, have you? You described the relationship of a walk-in with a retail salesperson. I spent 18 years selling to corporations and I’m arguing with someone whose whole experience of sales is at Wal-Mart or Fry’s. Just too damn funny on me.

    All I can say is damn your good at misrepresenting your knowledge. You really should have left off that your total experience of sales is at Wal-Mart or Fry’s.

    You’re a fake. Are you going to go into goat-fucking or talking about 43 years dead women you met yesterday? You’re a fake.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Ariel says:
    October 8, 2013 at 3:19 pm
    ERD,

    Oh just shit. I’ve been up now for 30 hours so I didn’t waste one moment on your rebuttal. I assumed “childish alert” [I did skim just to serve my ego you so need to dwell upon. I’m not up on Freud, should I be?] and moved to the end.

    – 30 Hours? Ariel, get some rest as this manic phase is coming to an end. Spend a couple days in bed buddy. You’ll be back on top of the world in no time. Don’t forget your meds.

    You have had no fucking experience with a corporate sales person whatsoever have you? You’ve never held a position where I or any other salesperson would give you the time of day, have you? You described the relationship of a walk-in with a retail salesperson. I spent 18 years selling to corporations and I’m arguing with someone whose whole experience of sales is at Wal-Mart or Fry’s. Just too damn funny on me.

    All I can say is damn your good at misrepresenting your knowledge. You really should have left off that your total experience of sales is at Wal-Mart or Fry’s.

    – I never claimed to have knowledge of corporate sales. You assumed I did. Funny on you indeed.

    You’re a fake. Are you going to go into goat-fucking or talking about 43 years dead women you met yesterday? You’re a fake.

    – Well, that was redundant. What am I faking? Goat-fucking and meeting dead people. Yes, please do take your medicine. We can continue our discussion during your next manic episode.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Ariel,

    On a side note, your posts are getting shorter. We are making headway. Building bridges my friend, building bridges.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    30 hours? That explains everything. Delusions of grandeur are a component of methamphetamine Psychosis.

    Officer Mackey here kids… Drugs are bad mmkay?

  • t

    :-)

  • Ariel

    ERD, t., et al, Sorry, but just more ignorance on all you cops. It’s called insomnia. You might look it up. And the delusions you are talking about take many more hours than just 30. I was required to do 24+ in the military when the need arose. I assume the branch you served in did it with meth? Or other “meds”? Drawing from experience?

    You give further understanding as to why cops beat and kill diabetics or the deaf. Just no knowledge beyond the very limited.

    Now, ERD, my point on sales [it was something you should have thought out] was that if you think as you do, you should recognize that others think like you do but just express other bigoted views you don’t hold. All cops are thugs, criminals; all lawyers shysters or blood-suckers; etc. My defense of my profession, one you admit you have no real knowledge of, doesn’t prove your argument, but challenges your argument. Otherwise, any argument here supporting the profession of LEO is de facto proof of the argument against.

    As for KJV Matthew 7:5: it’s about self-reflection, introspection. Your immediate response of tu quoque just shows you don’t know it. Of course I have logs in my eyes, I’m flawed, but this instance was about your log.

    Finally, turning an argument that you can’t keep an account for ten years by bullshitting into “my ego” is just an illustration of how far bigotry needs to go to maintain it’s irrational prejudice. The people I dealt with weren’t stupid.

  • Ariel

    CO,

    No it isn’t about me. It turned that way because I took umbrage at bigotry. A bigot holds an irrational prejudice they consider irrefutable. No matter how ignorant they actually are.

    It isn’t what you think it’s how you think. Bigots are all about the what and use all the fallacies and innuendos to maintain their beliefs. My mistake was thinking I could argue with that thinking.

  • t

    Areil: What the hell are talking about? So you are chemical salesman that sells to dedicated / established clients. Cool for you. That and 50 cents will leave you holding 50 cents. You’ve gone around the bend dude.

  • Ariel

    t.,

    The whole point is you don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about, but think you do. Man that whole thing with ERDs bigotry just whoosh over your head. The next time you wake up, read and then comment.

    What a maroon.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\

    : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

    Ariel… Not only are you a bigot yourself, you’re a hypocritical bigot. Good on ya, gifted student.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Ariel is now in denial. Your bigotry towards law enforcement prompted me to use “sarcasm” about your profession that you mistake as “bigotry”. In other words I was being a smart ass. The funny thing is you didn’t like it.

    Are all gifted individuals as hypocritical as you?

  • EvilRadicalDude
  • t

    Ariel: No guy….the whole point is that you don’t know what you are talking about.

  • Ariel

    ERD,

    I have what is called primary insomnia. It isn’t related to your silliness. I have had it since working three years of graveyard shift It comes and goes.

    I’d recommend not trying to make medical diagnoses.

    As for the bigotry, haarhaarrr. I don’t idolize them but I don’t hate them. Like all professions it has flawed people and flawed policies. Which also means it has great people and great policies. Just not all.

    One of the problems I see here is that infamous dichotomy of pro-cop/anti-cop, as if there isn’t a great span between the two.

    Hypocrisy, phhhtt.

  • Ariel

    t.,

    From the man of there is only one argument in the 2nd Amendment (Militia); who defines a police state by how many patrolmen are on duty (the Stazi love you); maintains the false rape accusation rate is 85% and speciously, nay, through sophistry, argues all are wrong or biased but him; and the latest that research scientists make up theories and test them, harharhar.

    Enough said.

  • t

    Guy. Prove I’m wrong.

    I’ve given you the chances. Asked all to to show how there is a ‘police state”. Asked for that daily government contact….over intrusion. No replies at all. Nothing. Nada. Zip. So put up or shut up.

    Same goes for your rape stats. I give you real world first hand info. You come up with a ridiculous study (only 1 suspiciously) that is based on “interviews” that where his supposed victims must just approach your beloved and whole honest researches instead of contacting the police. OK.

    As for the second. I didn’t write it guy. But I can read it. I can even read the Federalist Papers and so called “Anti-Federalist Papers” that talk about it. Hmm. All mention militia. Its not me dude. Learn to read. Learn to think. Don’t just believe what you have been told. But just think what you have been told to think. I know SCOTUS opinion / stance about it…personally I think they are / were playing politics with the decision. Its all good. I live with that as it is the way the document was written for it to be.

    And your understanding of science is…well very poor.

  • Ariel

    t.,

    1. I’ve never written the US is a police state and have written from the beginning that it isn’t. So I have nothing to put up or shut. What I have written, and you are congenitally incapable of understanding, is that you mathematical proof leading to not enough police on patrol, ergo not a police state is not the definition of a police state. I gave you the definition which you promptly ignored to continue on with your child’s definition, and not a bright one at that.

    2. I mentioned Brownmiller 2% and Kanin 41% (although Kanin may have given a lower number as strong and 41% as weak) as outliers, and that all other studies are in the 5% to 9% range. The False Rape Society (now Community of the Wrongly Accused) has long accepted the around 9%, but believes or advocates that it may be closer to Kanin’s 41%. Give him the proof of 85%. In fact network, and get all the Police Departments to supply that real world first hand info, with statistical methodology including methods to weed out bias, and give it to him. The straw man sarcasm doesn’t constitute proof.

    3. Do a Google search on “the arguments in the second amendment” hit the pdf (fifth link down) and you’ll get a better understanding of why the Amendment used “shall not be infringed”. All mention militia of course. This argument of right only by militia and right by self-defense, the collective and individual, have gone on from the beginning. Until now the courts have in general embraced the militia argument for good reason, embracing it as inherently individual with the militia as a secondary reason would shred most laws infringing on the right to bear arms. You might tell SCOTUS they forgot how the document was written to be on this matter.

    4. Hey, I didn’t write they come up with theory after theory then test them. Otherwise, in your usual fashion you just make an assertion. BTW, there are people who actually do things because they want to do them, and getting paid is secondary. The PhD that was my consular in college took about a $25k pay cut to move from industry to academia to do the research that he wanted to do. He wasn’t the only one of my professors that did the same.

  • Ariel

    And boy did I miss that misspelling of counselor.

  • t

    So…in your comment your not implying “police state” by the number s of police? I know I never said that. I’m looking for any government contact other than teachers. No takers. Hmm.

    Again, you miss out on where they are getting that data. And clearly you missed the names of the groups….and that maybe they have a definitive goal in the outcome of any analysis they do and present. Again, keep thinking that youre thinking. Keep buying everything you’ve been told.

    See. Unlike you guy, I read lots of things from lots of sources. Many of them don’t agree with my personal take on things. I read lots of things about the Constitution. Funny the part you still don’t get about that is…some many “experts”…..so many different opinions. You don’t get that part….that’s why you just quote folks and can’t form your own ideas. Your stupid belief about the “man stopper” pistols screams the proof.

    Keep trying though guy. Maybe the light will come on for you some day.

  • RadicalDude

    Just the other day I saw two cops hanging out right outside of Starbucks.
    Then the day before yesterday I saw someone getting pulled over.

  • Ariel

    t.,

    “So…in your comment your not implying “police state” by the number s of police? I know I never said that. I’m looking for any government contact other than teachers. No takers. Hmm.”

    No, only you used numbers to argue as to what was a police state. And you are still doing it with government contacts. Don’t you remember the 1/7000 (I’m pulling that from memory, if not the exact, it’s close) fraction of police on duty/population in your jurisdiction by your math? Ergo, not enough police on patrol to make it a police state.You made that “proof” before I ever commented. You argued numbers. You are still arguing numbers, only the tack has changed.

    I responded with two concepts: 1) the actual definition having to do with the arbitrary, secretive use of police powers; and 2) the Gestapo, total force around 26K, the apparatus for the Nazi police state. I also responded that there were 800,000 LEO in the US, so there are certainly enough if numbers define a police state, but again numbers don’t define a police state. The size of the Gestapo shows that.

    It’s qualitative, not quantitative. It’s how the Gestapo or the Stazi operated as granted by the State, not how many on the force. A police state uses it’s powers in an arbitrary and secretive way to terrorize. It rules by fear, constant fear.

    I consistently wrote the US isn’t a police state by the criterium. We both agree that the US isn’t a police state, but you arrived there without knowing what a police state is. You go there by luck.

  • RadicalDude

    How is the US not a police state if the criteria are secretive and arbitrary use of police powers? Have you been paying attention to all the snowden/fisa stuff?

  • Ariel

    RD,

    Because those two are just starting points. Qualitative didn’t mean those were the only qualities.

    Just because you have a fever and the chills, that doesn’t mean you have malaria.

    BTW, years ago I would have considered Snowden a traitor without hesitation. Now I’m not so sure he isn’t a patriot. It’s that transparency thingie in the most transparent administration in US history.