Kate87
-
Posts
196 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Kate87
-
-
We delegate our use of defensive force to the police. I agree if its the heat of the moment, i.e. someone attacks you on the street, then you have to do it yourself.
But generally its smarter for the police to do it. And if they aren't doing it because they're overwhelmed, then you have insurance.Why defend a business that is located in a crappy area? Relocate the business with the insurance monies. Don't risk injuring yourself.
-
This isn't directed at anyone specific but I find it truly bizarre that one could see the clashes going on and side with the violent mob which is generally made up of people who subscribe to a completely bankrupt culture that idolizes ignorance and thuggery. Goes to show how deep the libertarian hatred of government runs in some folks.
Based on this, it appears to me that Wilson acted correctly. At the very least, rioting surely isn't justified. While the police were out there firing tear gas at reporters, businesses were left undefended. At least, the police didn't defend them. Kate will be excited to learn that businesses that took up arms on their own behalf did just fine without killing anyone.
Of course the rioting isn't justified. I've not heard anyone here say it is.
And those people defending their businesses with rifles? They are morons. The use of force is monopolised by the state in a free society. Those guys should buy insurance, sit it out at home, and plan the relocation of their business out of the area.
-
What exactly do you bring to this exchange, if you don't bother informing yourself before you post?
From my perspective, the exchange consists of a few of us posting facts about the case, you posting obvious falsehoods, and Kate making the same exact post she always makes: guns are bad.
There are two active threads on this topic, with a lot of facts and links to facts mostly in the other one (because this one was hijacked by Kate midway through).
That's not fair, I added the gun point because it was relevant, my main point is regarding police militarisation as per the thread title. Rereading some of my posts above I think I exaggerated on America being broken by the way. I don't in fact think its that bad yet.
-
The only danger I see is the widespread use of logical fallacies in public debate on the issue. I've already explained why defining riot gear you find excessive as "militarised" is begging the question. You should address the point that it's not really excessive, instead of endlessly repeating the same fallacy.
This feels like a language deconstruction exercise. Militarised is militarised. To give you a visual representation:
Here is a video of the kind of looting in the English riots that was going on where I lived: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14474393
They were 15 years olds mostly, and note that the police did not target journalists. Note also that their riot gear is somewhere between the two extremes shown in the photo above.
-
So you get your news an commentary from Putin's channel! What a joke. Look at the video again, objectively, and come to your own, non-KGB conclusions.
Bad source I agree, but the video footage stands on its own merits.
-
So the biggest tragedy, as far as you're concerned, is that some of the rioters got bruises from rubber bullets? Not the dozens of looted and burnt stores or injured cops?
You're grateful that the people who killed Haroon Jahan, Shahzad Ali and Abdul Musavir for trying to protect their stores, during the UK looting spree, were never exposed to rubber bullets or tear gas?
You're grateful that Police weren't aggressive enough to stop rioters from murdering 68 yo Richard Mannington Bowes for trying to put out a fire they set?
You're grateful that cops weren't allowed to use all means necessary to help this kid from being savagely assaulted:
You're grateful that 186 police officers were injured, because they never had the means to retaliate against armed assailants?
You're grateful that 48,000 businesses have suffered financial losses totaling hundreds of millions of pounds, but none of the looters were bruised by rubber bullets or brought to tears by noxious gases while they were causing that damage?
Out of curiosity, where were you during the riots? Have you gone about your life as normal, expecting the Police to protect you, or did you realize that they wouldn't be able to, so you should hide at home until the "youths" riot themselves out?
See that Youtube video you posted and murders you quote? Stuff like that happens at a greater rate in America than in the UK. The important thing is that the two thieves are behind bars - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17232636 That is how you do policing and justice. No guns needed by the police. Let alone military equipment.
During the London riots in 2011 I was angry. I even called for more to be done by the police. But you know what scares me more than rioters? Police with military equipment. The army on the streets should be a last resort. Normal riot gear combined with mass arrests and overnight court sessions were what stopped the London riots. No ridiculous military weapons needed.
How can you not see the danger presented by militarised civilian law enforcers?
-
Except for the fact that the UK had worse riots than this one a couple of years ago, and they handled them just as poorly. Same with Norway. Same with France, where riots like this are commonplace.And except for the fact that for the most part the protesters in Ferguson aren't using firearms, and, of course, neither is the Police.But, other than that, feel free to use every isolated event coming out of the US as evidence of your childish position for gun control. While you're at it, why don't you complete the circle of absurdity and explain how global warming is also to blame.
“While the [London riots] were at their worst, people were calling for rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons to be used against the rioters, Ferguson is a living example of why we should be immensely grateful that those tactics were never used during the U.K. riots."[115]
-
Witness the police deliberately firing tear gas at journalists:
America has broken down, if you don't think this is coming to a town near you soon then I have a poem for you:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-
Calling something "common sense" isn't the same as supporting an argument. Do you have reasons for these rules you've laid out?
As I say, if any of those points are violated you get a spiral of violence. Witness the events in Ferguson as evidence where both citizens and police can own military grade weapons. Witness the arms race between citizens and the police as evidence.
-
In a free society where the use of force is minimised:
- Citizens should be arrested for owning weapons like military grade guns and molotov cocktails.
- Citizens should have the right to peacefully protest without hassle from the police.
- Police should not carry guns in normal use.
- If citizens become violent, special police forces with weapons should be used sparingly and those weapons should not be military grade.
All of the above is common sense and if any of them is violated you get a spiral of violence. Witness the events in Ferguson as evidence where both citizens and police can own military grade weapons. Ferguson is for all purposes a mini police state; if there isn't radical reform and demilitarisation across the USA (of both police and citizens) then your US town will be next.
This leads into the debate on gun laws in the US. Police militarisation is a direct result of having an armed citizenry, where a literal arms race has occured.
-
... Peikoff is just too old to do this anymore, not lucid enough.
I agree. He speaks of enlisting them onto "electoral polls" which also doesn't make sense to my British ear. Surely this should be "electoral rolls"? In the same way he says the word "racists" but the way he slurs his speech he probably meant to say "races". The sentence doesn't make sense to enlist "racists from any country" but enlisting "races from any country" does make sense.
So it's not just racist/races it's polls/rolls. Peikoff is definitely too old for this stuff and doesn't speak clearly enough. They're minor errors but can have huge differences to meaning as is demonstrated in this thread.
Having listened to those few second again a few times, I conclude thus:
- If I pull out just that word and loop it, it is very tough to tell. There appears to be a slight "t" near the end, but it is hard to say
- Considered in context, "racists" makes sense, while "races" does not
So, I conclude he said "racists".
How does "racists from any country" make more sense than "races from any country"? Especially in the context of his stated views of the Democrats deliberately letting in foreigners that vote Democratic?
-
Is it immoral to make a fortune from bootlegging illegal alcohol? Surely the immorality lies with the government for making it illegal.
He definitely values the wrong thing, ie Daisy. That's the tragedy of the story. But it still affirms Gatsby as being a great man. As Nick says "You are worth 10 of them" (paraphrase)
-
There is a message in it. The message is that love, wealth and happiness are worthless, that nothing good ever lasts, that happiness is a shallow sort of illusion and that human life is ultimately futile.
The message, in a word, is suicide.
It may be a good movie; I haven't seen the new one for myself, but I wouldn't recommend it.
*spoilers below*
Not sure how you got that from the story! I took from it that Gatsby's ambition, vision, wealth, and love were basically wasted on the wretches surrounding him. The rest of the characters (apart from Nick) were leading careless lives having been born into wealth. Gatsby earned his wealth and so it can be seen as promoting the idea that people who earn their wealth are better than spoilt frivolous people with inherited wealth. The fact that Gatsby loses in the end, while the wretches walk off to more carelessness, is a sad ending but renders a powerful emotion at the injustice of it all. This serves to reinforce the worthlessness of everyone else and the worthiness of Gatsby.
One thing that may interest people here is the Art Deco style of the movie which I have noticed feature in a lot of Ayn Rand literature eg the covers of FH and AS etc. Also I loved that the party music was modern pop and rap interspersed with jazz which conveyed some of the "bling" culture of the 1920s to a modern audience.
-
I don't consider racists to be any worse than your typical Anarchist (Socialists). He just takes the same premises in an unpopular direction.
I think racism is worse than socialism. France could be said to be more socialist than capitalist in that government spending makes up over 56% of the economy. Yet would you rather live in a racist society than France?
France:
Racist society:
I do agree that France is like it is despite its socialism. Also that many other socialist societies don't look like France. However segregation and lynchings and such things happen in ALL racist societies.
Therefore since some socialist societies can still protect a majority of a person's rights (like France), socialism is better than racist societies which trample on most of a person's rights.
-
Because shock is not an argument.
I'm trying to parse this to see what you could have meant. Either you meant the U.S. is "unfree" because it has so many actual criminals. That would be a fallacy. So, perhaps you meant the U.S. is "unfree" because it imprisons people who ought not to be imprisoned. But... your shocking graphic does not tell us whether those people ought to be imprisoned. So, we're back to square one: the need to understand what the true stats are... but, then you say there's no point doing that?
Both. If the first (unfree because so many actual criminals) then this shows how much violence is happening in the US (violence is not conducive to freedom). If the second, then that shows how much state sponsored threats play a part in life in the USA (not conducive to freedom). The mixture of the two is why I am saying the US is not free when compared with other countries.
-
What's the point of debating these stats? Any measure will give you a shocking picture like this one:
Incarceration is a legal use of state force to protect people from criminals using force. America is one of the most unfree countries on the planet because it has the most illegal criminal and legal state use of force. America is the society where force and violence rules (both legal and illegal).
-
There are lots of great things about Japan but lots of negative things too:
- It's geriatric - it's the oldest population on the planet, which is growing older at the fastest rate. Apparently no one is having babies and the population is in freefall - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24638188
- This means most of your taxes as a young person are being spent on the elderly.
- It's heavily indebted - government debt is 200% of GDP compared to 70-100% for most western countries.
- It's inward looking - ie. immigration is severely curtailed.
- It has a high suicide rate, indicating that people may find it more difficult to be happy in their culture.
- There is a crazy work culture - the Japanese earn about the same level of money as Europeans but work many more hours to get the same income.
-
Seriously, while I understand the anti-Obamacare angst, i think the GOP did not prepare people for it. I think they'd be better served putting something else on the table: asking for some reductions to spending every time we hit the debt-ceiling.
I still don't see this as a rational strategy. The way to get spending cuts is for the Republicans to win people over to their argument about debt levels, thereby winning elections and to pass normal legislation that cuts spending.
If you are negotiating with someone who thinks spending shouldn't be cut, then offering not to shutdown or default in return for those spending cuts is offering nothing and will always lose.
-
A deal has been struck with the Republicans gaining no substantial concessions. Great job in pointless grandstanding Republicans. You offered nothing, you got nothing. Meanwhile the country suffered.
-
I don't think they are offering anything, nor do I think they should. That premise is flawed. What were the Democrats offering when this started? Please reply with that.
Edit: The reality here is that the Democrats know their healthcare law is so unpopular that they had one and only one chance to pass it, back when they controlled all branches of government. Because they know they'll never get another crack at something this hated, they refuse to negotiate. The Republicans knew this bill was hated, and despite that they flinched. They are now negotiating. I predict that once the spotlight is turned away from who "wins or loses" this negotiation, the Democrats will agree to a few very minor tweaks to the law to fix some things that are bad for everybody in exchange for tweaking it a little in favor of their political allies (see SoftwareNerd's above post). The Democrats will claim victory in having convinced abusive Republicans not to "blow up the world economy" (As if!) and the Republicans will claim victory in "repealing part of the healthcare law."
The Democrats offered nothing too! The difference is that they didn't tie nothing to a government shutdown and debt default. Duh. Here is what happened:
Dems: Offered nothing in exchange for nothing. (they already had their bill passed so of course they are going to offer nothing duh)
Reps: Rejected Dems offer and offered nothing in exchange for not shutting down the government.
Dems: Rejected Reps offer and offered nothing. Again a rational response.
Now which was the dumbest and most idiotic and irresponsible offer here? (Clue I have underlined it.) So why on Earth do you think that this underlined offer is rational? I really hope Obama continues to offer nothing because the Republicans really don't have anything to offer him as you guys have acknowledged.
-
-
This relies on the assumption that Republicans knew the Democrats wouldn't fund the rest of the government if there was no funding for the ACA. How many times will we navigate this circle?
Both sides appear willing to shut down the government over this. To lay the blame entirely on one side is sports-fan politics. How a given person feels about this issue seems to depend entirely on his or her view of the healthcare law. But have no fear; I think I've found a solution to these debt limit/government funding antics: Don't pass laws on slim majorities that are likely to be so hated that they will not be funded 2 years later.
If the Republicans didn't know this, whose fault is that? Its the most obvious thing in the world that the Dems are not going to give up the ACA in return for the Republicans not destroying the economy.
You'd have to be a moron to agree to that, and a double moron to think your opponent would agree to it. If you disagree with me, then tell me what the Republicans were offering in return for not funding the ACA? The fact is that they are offering to not destroy the economy. Which is the dumbest offer I ever heard.
Please reply with what you think the Republicans are offering.
-
For the third time... ... the GOP did not threaten to shut down the government any more than Obama and the Democrats did. The same with default.
Yes they did. As soon as they tied passing a budget to defunding of the ACA.
-
It's just negotiation, and to characterize it as anything more or less correct than what the Dems and the president are doing has no basis in reality.
Threatening to shutdown the government unless you get your concessions is just another form of negotiation? Just as a person who threatens with a pistol is identical to a person who threatens to blow up a nuke? That is what a debt default would be - its the nuclear option. There are no higher stakes. You mention that the Dems are just as much at fault because they can concede a couple of things and the whole thing would be over. Well if I threaten you with a nuke and you refuse to negotiate under such a threat then the possibility of nuclear annihilation is your fault for not conceding things to me?!
Is it just that you don't see a default as having disastrous consequences and therefore see it as a viable negotiating chip?
Interview with Jony Ive - Apple's head of design
in Aesthetics
Posted · Edited by Kate87
http://www.hulu.com/watch/563008
Thought this was worth posting. Jony Ive definitely shares the same aesthetic ideals as Objectivism. Its good to see that one of the biggest companies in the world has such a good design philosophy.
I'm just at the part where he's describing the design of the space shuttle window - how it's design is amazing and how the function dictates the form and the result is such a beautiful object. Love it.