Submitted on 2015/11/10 at 10:55 pm | In reply to Eightsouthman.
Eightsouthman from the libertarian point of view the only thing the cop should do in this case is run the other way. You are the ones who kiss the ass of thieves, robbers, drunk dirvers and rapists. The death rates are up in major cities now that all cops can do without losing their jobs is watch or go the other direction from the bad people. Eightsouthman I do not want to live in your world where the bad people take over. Do you want that?
Submitted on 2015/11/11 at 1:46 pm | In reply to BrentP.
Brent driving drunk and driving with drugs in your system and running when stopped. Explain to me why you call this an innocent victim?
Submitted on 2015/11/13 at 9:16 pm | In reply to eric.
I agree Eric. There should not need to have police. With that said, we need them. With your anything goes society we have drunks and drug addicts driving our streets. We have thugs just pushing anyone around they feel like. We have a free reign for robbers thieves and gangsters. We even have people just like you who feel they have the right to endanger others and pollute them until cancer hits. Yes Eric we should not need police but with your libertarian society where anything goes then we need them.
Bless My Heimat Forever – by cotton-topped Larry L
A man named Bill Lee actually sang this in the movie, not Christopher Plummer, says Larry L.
He really must have been so very proud of it, in its simple perfection.. He did all kinds of vocals in movies and cartoons (Google him).. Somehow, i suspect this song, from the greatest movie musical of all time, was his proudest
I know we agreed not to mention the bible
But I just now went on a site called “Pr0n Bible”
(For research purposes of course)
And it directed me to the Stile Project, which looks to be some kind of “curated” blog of adult content of some sort.
From there I see a category of Amateur. Which sadly, if I understand the internet, means some poor naked lady being filmed working the most important job in the world for freeeeeeee, as they say.
It’s shameful really. We’re a bad bad planet.
Here’s the untenable brutal truth of this cyber-socialist, sharing economy transaction, as best I can glean. Let me tweet the deets.
Title of Freeee Vid:
Kitty HATES being a$$ f*cked! P@inful @n@l!
Talk about clickbait, not much left to the imagination from the title.
More helpful marketing and tracking stats:
90.4% liked the video
length of video: 03:12
views of video: 1,634,830
added: 3 weeks ago
comment and share: on facebook twitter myspace reddit email bookmark blogger livejournal technorati stumbleupon live google delicious, just click the icon.
Is this some shady corporation, or a scumbag boyfriend, or is she somewhat aware of this, and quietly bearing down and submitting to the exciting opportunity of earning who knows how many strange men a living while she alone is on her back, the lone laborer, with little or no compensation or control over the fruits of her services and labor whatsoever.
Such a deal for everyone, nu? (Well except poor Kitty the value provider that does the work and takes the risks and gets little or nothing out of any of it.)
Turn your head to the left, and put out your hands, Dr Clover is here to cure you.
THE ETHICS OF DEBATING
HOW TO NOT BE A CHARLATAN
(revision of earlier discussion)
You can attack what a person *said* or what the person *meant*. The former is more sensational. The mark of a charlatan is to defend his position or attack a critic by focusing on *some* of his/her specific statement (“look at what he said”) rather than attacking his position (“look at what he means” or, more broadly, “look at what he stands for”), the latter of which requires a broader knowledge of the proposed idea.
Note that the same applies to the interpretation of religious texts.
Given that it is impossible for anyone to write a perfectly rationally argued document without a segment that, out of context, can be transformed by some dishonest copywriter to appear totally absurd and lend itself to sensationalization, politicians and charlatans hunt for these segments.
I take any violation by an intellectual as a disqualification, some type of disbarment –same as stealing is a disbarment in commercial life. It is actually a violation of journalistic ethics, but not enforced outside of main fact-checking newspapers.
Take for instance the great Karl Popper: he always started with an unerring representation of the opponents positions, often exhaustive, as if he were marketing them as his own ideas, before proceededing to systematically destroy them.
Or take Hayek’s diatribes “contra” Keynes and Cambridge: at no point is there a single line misrepresenting Keynes or an overt attempt at sensationalizing. I have to say that it helped that people were too intimidated by Keynes’ intellect to trigger his ire.
Read Aquinas, written 8 centuries ago, and you always see sections with
QUESTIO->PRAETERIA, OBJECTIONES, SED CONTRA, etc.
describing with a legalistic precision the positions being challenged and looking for a flaw in them and a compromise. That was the practice by intellectuals.
Twitter lends itself to these sensationalized framing: someone can extract the most likely to appear absurd and violating the principle of charity.
So we get a progressive debasing of intellectual life with the rise of the media, needing some sort of policing.
Note the associated reliance of *straw man* arguments by which one not only extracts a comment but *also* provides an interpretation, promoting misinterpretation. I consider *straw man* no different from theft.
Pedagogy Technegogy Epistemegogy. Do not they all have their place and time?
Monti’s Czardas by Clara and Thierry
Intonation: Which System to Use When
Systems for the twelve-note chromatic scale
They may take our lives…
A Shrieking College Clover at Yale
Yale University Students Protest Halloween Costume Email
Christakis: Other people have rights, too! Not just you.
Student in crowd: Walk away. Walk away. He doesn’t deserve to be listened to.
Student C: [Inaudible] create an unsafe space here for all
Christakis: I do not…
Student C: Be quiet! … For all Silliman students. Do you understand that? As your position as master, it is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students that live in Silliman.
Christakis: I hear you.
Student C: You have not done that. By sending out that email, that goes against your position as master. Do you understand that?
Christakis: No I don’t agree with that.
Student C: [Yelling.] Then why the fuck did you accept the position!
Christakis: Because I have a diff…
Student C: [Yelling.] Who the fuck hired you?
Christakis: I have a different vision than you.
Student C: [Yelling.] Then step down! If that is what you think about being a master, then you should step down. It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It’s about creating a home here! You are not doing that. You’re going against that.
Student in crowd: You’re supposed to be our advocate!
Student C: You should be at the event last night when you hear say that she didn’t know how to create a safe space for her freshman at Silliman! How do you explain that? Because freshman come here and they think this is what Yale is? You hear that? They’re gonna leave! They’re gonna transfer because you are a poor steward of the community.
Student in crowd: Retweet!
Student C: You should not sleep at night!
Students in crowd: We out. We out.
Student C: You are disgusting.
When I went to college the last thing I sought was “home” and “succor”. It was all new, exciting and debate was the greatest part of it.
This bunch needs their diapers changed, be spoon fed till their diddy’s are full and then put down. Or as Karl would say “some call it a slingblade, I call it a Kaiser blade”.
I wouldn’t make an animal, self-absorbed or otherwise suffer this way.
OTOH, send em all to the patch. We have plenty RV’s and lots of ROW to be “free” in during the day. Nothing like clean air between you and the earth and Sol to freshen your outlook. Or like yesterday, a bit of rolling sand, a strap to hold your hardhat on and the ability to strain and lean forward as you walk…..glad to have those safety glasses on. It builds character……and perspective. These babies are the old love it or leave it crowd……in reverse.
Clover can’t follow a chain of events. The cop chased down and killed a man for an inspection sticker violation. Why he ran was determined _after the fact_ by a blood test on his corpse. It is irrelevant to the point I made. It is simply a way of explaining why he ran. If he was sober and ran because he had a warrant from a previous inspection sticker violation fine that wasn’t paid or just ran because he scared or ran because there was a dead body in the trunk or anything other reason it would not have changed a thing.
A man is dead for insufficient obedience to authority and certain members of the public find reasons to justify it.
“In reply to BrentP.
Brent driving drunk and driving with drugs in your system and running when stopped. Explain to me why you call this an innocent victim?”
Well, if the person in question was driving erratically, and actually (rather than possibly, theoretically) endangering others, he was not innocent. But if the phero stopped him at random, then he is ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ and said phero should leave him alone.
PtB, everyone is innocent until proven guilty regardless of circumstances.
Back in the 60’s when drunk driving was rarely a cause for being stopped, I knew a high up boss, an engineer, who couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time. He was using the mobile phone in his car, just an elaborate phone receiver hooked to an even more elaborate pushbutton device attached to a Motorola FM two-way radio. You had to push a button while holding the receiver and then speak to an operator who would direct your call. He was stopped by a cop not far from HQ because he was all over the road, appearing to be alcohol impaired. After determining he wasn’t even drinking, the cop suggested he might want to stop on the side of the road to complete the call. No doubt he was probably violating “some” law but back then, cops were probably the last to know what that law might be. There were no laws against operating a phone while driving.
Last week I had been talking on the phone while driving using a headset and had stopped the call when I realized I was approaching a school zone(hard to keep that one in mind when you’re speaking on a headset)that’s notoriously replete with deputy sheriff vehicles when those lights are flashing.
There was a good song on so I’m singing away (damn you Eric Clapton….and it wasn’t I Shot the Sheriff)and see this deputy pickup headed at me. I immediately clamped my mouth shut and had a moment of paranoia about the phone law, hoping he hadn’t seen me singing which he would interpret as using a phone. I don’t really need the hassle of being stopped and possibly ticketed for not breaking the law but appearing to do so.
My point is, things are not always what they appear to be so innocent until “proven” guilty is a big thing for most of us.
Agreed. I just meant that, if someone is driving erratically then the phero has cause to stop him and investigate. Absent that, leave him alone.
colver, I don’t know what a dirver is. Perhaps you were texting while dirving drunk. In the good old days of simple abuse, cops would chase you down(on foot, hard to believe but true)and if they couldn’t catch a “preson” high on drugs and alcohol, they were kidded by their peers. Of course they could simply look the owners address up from the plate on the car and go to their house but it’s so much more fun to shoot people running away from you in the back, a very frowned upon practice till recently.
It’s amazing how you can juxtapose a victimless crime(out of date inspection sticker or whatever the very minor infraction was) with outright assaults, similar to what the cop did, just not necessarily lethal.