Support NeoGAF

[bwtw]

Right, so you see everything from the perspective of the one doing the arresting. And I'm sure they told you it was safer for the arrestee. That's always a good thing to reassure people who are inflicting pain on non-violent people so they don't feel as bad about themselves.

If someone is clearly more experienced in a certain area than you, why is your answer not 'ok, he's probably right here given his experience' or 'well here's some facts which disprove that' rather than 'nah you're wrong' without justification?

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

For the purposes of having a civil debate, I'm going to clarify my points because you seem to be missing all of them.



No. During the civil rights movement, fire hoses and dogs were used in lieu of lethal force. We as a society decided that these methods, although they were not usually lethal, were still not appropriate to use in dispersing a peaceful protest. What I'm saying in regards to pepper spray is that we as a society may decide that we don't want to see pepper spray used in this context. I never said that pepper spray and fire hoses were equivalent. What I'm talking about is the continued evolution of standards.



You seem to have an almost pressing desire to misinterpret everything I say. I'm saying when we as a society deem a specific tactic to be illegal, it is up to professionals to design newer, more ethical tactics.




Ad homonyms are always helpful.



I do understand that. What I'm saying is that the standards of the public evolve over time. What is considered minimal force today may be inappropriate tomorrow. It's incumbent on the people to demand that standards continue to progress in an ethical and humane way.

I assure you, I'm not the one not getting it. I stand by everything I've posted, especially directly to you. I've not misunderstood, twisted, or otherwise "spun" anything. You did what you did, and I've said what I've said directly in relation to it.

I'm not going to continue a circular conversation, and no one else wants to watch one.

 

[Dude Abides]

That man's experience outclasses you. You need to understand they you know dick compared to him in this area. Then again you've entered the Walmart pattern again.

Meh. I respect someone who can back up their arguments with more than "trust me I was an NCO." Appeals to personal anecdote don't impress me much.

 

[bwtw]

It's not exactly the same as a personal anecdote. If someone is specializing in a particular field and they explain to you what's going on in that field, how do you go about deciding that you must be the one who is right and not the one who is a specialist?

Him: 'Here's why you're wrong and I know this because I have been involved in this area [with obviously far more experience than you in it.]'
You: 'You are more experienced than me in this area, but you're wrong [with no facts to back it up].'

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Meh. I respect someone who can back up their arguments with more than "trust me I was an NCO." Appeals to personal anecdote don't impress me much.

Actually he did back he up by talking about his specialty in it. This is more due to your own political bias than anything else. At this point you're just being obstinate, as you tend to become, and don't want to concede a point to a person with actual knowledge of what is being discussed. It's okay for you to admit when you got your ass handed to you on a silver platter, like you just did a moment ago.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

It's not exactly the same as a personal anecdote. If someone is specializing in a particular field and they explain to you what's going on in that field, how do you go about deciding that you must be the one who is right and not the one who is a specialist?

I've not read his post, but it's best to just ignore him. His caliber of post is woefully poor and it's to the point that I believe that he may either be trolling, or he's beyond logical conversation. I've discussed why pepperspray/tasers are viable and used, and the reason for why they are effective and why they are "good."

Those who don't want to "see it" are going to find any way to discredit those tools and/or me. I don't care either way. I'm not here to win some grand debate, I simply came here to inform some people who may want to be informed about less than lethal tools, their use, and police tactics.

That's all.

 

[kame-sennin]

I assure you, I'm not the one not getting it. I stand by everything I've posted, especially directly to you. I've not misunderstood, twisted, or otherwise "spun" anything. You did what you did, and I've said what I've said directly in relation to it.

The point of contention for me is this exchange:

I don't think this is for anyone in this thread to answer. What needs to happen right now is for the public to express outrage over the tactics that Mayors and other officials are ordering the police to perform. It's up to people with knowledge and training who have studied the issue to come up with new, more humane tactics. During the civil rights movement, they used fire hoses and attack dogs. There was a public outcry and the tactics changed. That's what needs to happen again.

To which you replied:

You're equating pepper spray to fire hoses which can literally skin someone alive, break bones, and kill?

The plain fact of the matter is that I was not equating pepper spray to fire hoses. What I'm trying to say is that standards for society change over time. Yes, pepper spray is considered minimal force. Yes, it may be safer than using physical force during arrest. However, the public may decide that however safe pepper spray may be, it's not good enough anymore. The public opinion can shift in that way, just like it shifted away from other tactics in the past.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

The plain fact of the matter is that I was not equating pepper spray to fire hoses. What I'm trying to say is that standards for society change over time. Yes, pepper spray is considered minimal force. Yes, it may be safer than using physical force during arrest. However, the public may decide that however safe pepper spray may be, it's not good enough anymore. The public opinion can shift in that way, just like it shifted away from other tactics in the past.

Last reply to you, simply as a courtesy.

This is your original post.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32812544&postcount=8892

I still stand by what I said.

You have quite altered your position on this page as opposed to the previous page though.

Don't expect another reply on this subject, I will not take part in a ever repeating cycle of tedium.

 

[Dude Abides]

If someone is clearly more experienced in a certain area than you, why is your answer not 'ok, he's probably right here given his experience' or 'well here's some facts which disprove that' rather than 'nah you're wrong' without justification?

Because "it is because I say so" is a terrible argument? Nobody disputes it makes it safer for cops to semi-incapacitate people they're dealing with, but generally in the United States we think punishment should be levied out after judicial process, not because it will make somebody's job easier.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Because "it is because I say so" is a terrible argument?

Because he posses knowledge and skills in the area that you woefully lack. That is generally why you don't see a lawyer for an ear infection, but an ENT specialist.

but generally in the United States we think punishment should be levied out after judicial process, not because it will make somebody's job easier.

What are you talking about it was a use of force to facilitate an arrest. This is the type of nonsense I'd expect out of the National Lawyers Guild.

 

[bwtw]

Because "it is because I say so" is a terrible argument? Nobody disputes it makes it safer for cops to semi-incapacitate people they're dealing with, but generally in the United States we think punishment should be levied out after judicial process, not because it will make somebody's job easier.

So...you agree that it's safer for all involved to use pepper stray, or whatever the method may be, but you don't think it should be used because?

 

[AniHawk]

You have quite altered your position on this page as opposed to the previous page though.

sounds more like an elaboration to me. i can see where you drew your conclusion, but if he says he meant something other than one interpretation, i'll have to take him at his word. i don't have the psychic powers to understand what he originally meant if he meant something different originally.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

sounds more like an elaboration to me. i can see where you drew your conclusion, but if he says he meant something other than one interpretation, i'll have to take him at his word. i don't have the psychic powers to understand what he originally meant if he meant something different.

He may well have meant that, he also may have altered his subsequent posts based on how foolish his original post was. Either way, it doesn't matter. That road has "done been traveled."

 

[AniHawk]

He may well have meant that, he also may have altered his subsequent posts based on how foolish his original post was.

there's not really any need to assume the guy's being a dick just so you could continue to believe your interpretation of the guy's original post. i can see both interpretations being correct, but i have to assume that the one he made himself is the correct one, because i believe he has far more experience being kame-sennin than you being kame-sennin.

i say this as a guy who very often makes comments and has to go back and elaborate because i was too brief earlier.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

there's not really any need to assume the guy's being a dick just so you could continue to believe your interpretation of the guy's original post. i can see both interpretations being correct, but i have to assume that the one he made himself is the correct one, because i believe he has far more experience being kame-sennin than you being kame-sennin.

You will excuse me if I've suddenly become cynical about people and their posting habits in this thread.

People will do a lot to save face, especially when they say something incredibly foolish. But that's all I'll say about this subject as well. Good day sir.

 

[UltimaPooh]

He may well have meant that, he also may have altered his subsequent posts based on how foolish his original post was. Either way, it doesn't matter. That road has "done been traveled."

So why do you keep responding if it's over with?

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

So why do you keep responding if it's over with?

Am I responding to the same person? I don't think I am.

 

[AniHawk]

You will excuse me if I've suddenly become cynical about people and their posting habits in this thread.

People will do a lot to save face, especially when they say something incredibly foolish. But that's all I'll say about this subject as well. Good day sir.

maybe, but i don't see a need to be hostile about it. although, if i had to guess, i'd say it's probably the thing that you specialized in being called out in particular that rubbed you the wrong way.

So why do you keep responding if it's over with?

to be fair, i'm being a dick by keeping it going.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

maybe, but i don't see a need to be hostile about it. although, if i had to guess, i'd say it's probably the thing that you specialize in being called out in particular that rubbed you the wrong way.

The only thing that "rubbed me the wrong way" was that other poster either knowingly reading half my post or not understanding most of my post.

I don't see his posts now, I didn't even see his post "calling me out."

I just know the trend I've seen in this thread is all, I don't feel the need to "put up with it" so to say. So I just call it like I see it, and finish it. Otherwise it turns into meaningless back and forth either of two people bitching at eachother, or with people changing their meaning to better suit their needs at the moment.

I'll have no part of either. It's far easier to end a conversation or hit "Ignore user" than it is to make an entire forum put up with bickering.

To be clear, Kame is not on ignore, the other guy is.

 

[.GqueB.]

I like this Alienshogun fellow. He sees that a conversation is going no where so he ends it. We could all learn something from this person.

 

[AniHawk]

The only thing that "rubbed me the wrong way" was that other poster either knowingly reading half my post or not understanding most of my post.

I don't see his posts now, I didn't even see his post "calling me out."

oh no, i just mean that when you saw firehoses and dogs being equated to pepper spray, something that you specifically trained to become an expert in, it might have been insulting because you know the difference between the two. i might be reading too much into that though.

I just know the trend I've seen in this thread is all, I don't feel the need to "put up with it" so to say. So I just call it like I see it, and finish it. Otherwise it turns into meaningless back and forth either of two people bitching at eachother, or with people changing their meaning to better suit their needs at the moment.

I'll have no part of either. It's far easier to end a conversation or hit "Ignore user" than it is to make an entire forum put up with bickering.

ignoring user would be great if you never saw people responding to ignored users or that you have a notification that a post is being skipped. i just make a mental note instead. actually, avatars tend to help.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

oh no, i just mean that when you saw firehoses and dogs being equated to pepper spray, something that you specifically trained to become an expert in, it might have been insulting because you know the difference between the two. i might be reading too much into that though.

Yeah, that didn't bother (insult) me at all. Just the issue of equating the two as an absurdity.

Anyhow, this really is kind of derailing the thread, so I think we should probably stop this too.

 

[AniHawk]

Yeah, that didn't bother (insult) me at all. Just the issue of equating the two as an absurdity.

Anyhow, this really is kind of derailing the thread, so I think we should probably stop this too.

fair enough

 

[cooljeanius]

Apparently Occupy DC is occupying the Franklin School? What I'm hearing is that it used to be a shelter or something that got closed down and they want it to be reopened... idk, anyone know what's the story here?

 

[kame-sennin]

Last reply to you, simply as a courtesy.

This is your original post.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32812544&postcount=8892

I still stand by what I said.

You have quite altered your position on this page as opposed to the previous page though.

Don't expect another reply on this subject, I will not take part in a ever repeating cycle of tedium.

I appreciate the courtesy. I understand that you will not be responding to this post. However, I personally believe that polite discourse is the best path to mutual understanding. You're at liberty to discontinue any debate as you see fit, but I've found that in this thread, it's best to hash out disagreements in order to find common ground. I understand that you stand by what you have said, but I disagree with your assertions. If you change your mind about not taking part in this debate, let me know. I would be happy to resume the discussion.

Edit: And for the record, my original post remains unedited. I have elaborated on it in subsequent posts, but my opinion has not shifted.

 

[RiccochetJ]

I'm fine with them. Part of the reason is that they are participation/content neutral. They can be used for both "good" or "bad" causes. I understand that people think well they're only for the rich and those with money, but I have to ask what about if Unions use them to push for worker related issues? Does that bother people? What if John Stewart had a PAC dedicated to liberal ideas?

I think that OWS people need to understand that they can use these same methods. Why spend thousands of dollars of feeding yourself when sleeping outside when you could actually form a PAC or hire a lobbyist? I also don't want to hear the "oh billionaires and big corporations will drown us", that's just defeatism. If people keep saying oh these millionaires (members of the 1%) wanted to be taxed higher, well how about trying to get them to fund things? How about the fact that left/liberals aren't only broke people. I mean isn't Michael Moore and Russell Simmons one of the 1%? They seem to agree with you. Besides I don't buy the oh the media is controlled example, guess what the internet exists and paid ad space is actually pretty cheap, and there is a ton of avenues for free space for text, audio, video available for free.

Like I said I am fine with them because they are content neutral, people should learn to use them and not just complain about them.

Thank you for the response. So many things to mull over.

So do you think that perhaps lobbying has become out of control? I mean in the sense that there can be a single point for money (ie: corporations) to fund certain rules?

Quid pro quo: I believe that lobbying is important to our democracy. "Thank you for Smoking" is one of my favorite movies. And yet at the same time, I feel that lobbying and 'soft' money should have a cap.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Thank you for the response. So many things to mull over.

So do you think that perhaps lobbying has become out of control? I mean in the sense that there can be a single point for money (ie: corporations) to fund certain rules?

Quid pro quo: I believe that lobbying is important to our democracy. "Thank you for Smoking" is one of my favorite movies. And yet at the same time, I feel that lobbying and 'soft' money should have a cap.

I'm not him, but personally I think lobbying is fine, however, corporations drown out all the little voices. That becomes the issue. IMO there needs to be some kind of regulation with lobbying, something that lets everyone have the "same" voice.

That said, I know jack shit about the workings of lobbying. I just know those with a lot of money get greater say.

I also don't think corporations should be able to contribute to election campaigns because that creates a "relationship" between the candidate and that corporation which is never good for democracy IMO.

But that's just me.

 

[kame-sennin]

Thank you for the response. So many things to mull over.

So do you think that perhaps lobbying has become out of control? I mean in the sense that there can be a single point for money (ie: corporations) to fund certain rules?

Quid pro quo: I believe that lobbying is important to our democracy. "Thank you for Smoking" is one of my favorite movies. And yet at the same time, I feel that lobbying and 'soft' money should have a cap.

I think a lot of people would argue that speaking with your representatives in order to advance an agenda (lobbying) is fine. It only becomes a problem when money is involved because it adds disproportionate weight to the lobbying of wealthy individuals and corporations.

 

[Eteric Rice]

I think a lot of people would argue that speaking with your representatives in order to advance an agenda (lobbying) is fine. It only becomes a problem when money is involved because it adds disproportionate weight to the lobbying of wealthy individuals and corporations.

Pretty much this.

Calling a representative is fine. Involving money basically turns it into bribing.

I think they need to cap donations as well. Also stop donations from corporations.

 

[akira28]

That man's experience outclasses you. You need to understand they you know dick compared to him in this area. Then again you've entered the Walmart pattern again.

expert witness?

 

[akira28]

Because "it is because I say so" is a terrible argument? Nobody disputes it makes it safer for cops to semi-incapacitate people they're dealing with, but generally in the United States we think punishment should be levied out after judicial process, not because it will make somebody's job easier.

So...you agree that it's safer for all involved to use pepper stray, or whatever the method may be, but you don't think it should be used because?

If they have to semi-incapacitate everyone for safety...it's not worth it really. I mean to argue with you. If you can't see the problem with that line of thinking.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Thank you for the response. So many things to mull over.

You're welcome.

So do you think that perhaps lobbying has become out of control? I mean in the sense that there can be a single point for money (ie: corporations) to fund certain rules?

I can understand the belief that it has gotten out of control, but I also think that's part of the price we pay with the first amendment being as strong as it is for lawful speech. It'd rather have the good and bad instead of what is subjectively felt to be good by a government official.

Well keep in mind that in the end corporations are still composed of humans, so just by virtue of it being a corporation isn't an issue to me. I mean much like a union people feel it is more effective to pool resources and efforts into one.
I mean this case is an example, now I am not personally Pro-Life, but one could easily find the situation flipped to involve Planned Parenthood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission_v._Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc.

It can be looked at as good or bad (like all speech), but you get the good and the bad with free speech (MLK at one end to Westboro at the other) I mean there is a reason why the ACLU supported the decision and even explicitly said

The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission

Heck, the public (and Dem and Rep) even agrees with this.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/public-agrees-court-campaign-money-free-speech.aspx

I also notice people always say Corporations, but they don't mention the Citizens United also applied to Unions. I feel like there is a heavy double standard being implied when this occurs whether deliberate or people not thinking the two are the same. I think it's curious that this occurs. I'm never seen someone say end Union Lobbying, just Corporate Lobbying. I wonder if most people realize what would occur if Citizens United was overturned.

Quid pro quo: I believe that lobbying is important to our democracy. "Thank you for Smoking" is one of my favorite movies. And yet at the same time, I feel that lobbying and 'soft' money should have a cap.

My wife (and I did to) loved Thank You For Smoking, I think we saw the movie 3 times when it was in theaters.

 

[luxarific]

Dumb-ass Training and the U.C. Davis Pepper Spray Incident: Thoughts From a Fromer Cop

And if police need to remove these students, then the police can go in four officers to one protester and remove them. Lift them up and take them away. Maybe you need one or two more officers with a threatening baton to keep others from getting involved. It really can be that simple.

People don’t hate the police for fighting off aggressors or arresting law breakers. They do hate police for causing pain—be it by dog, fire house, Taser, or mace—to those who passively resist. And that’s what happened yesterday at U.C. Davis.

 

[Slavik81]

I also notice people always say Corporations, but they don't mention the Citizens United also applied to Unions. I feel like there is a heavy double standard being implied when this occurs whether deliberate or people not thinking the two are the same. I think it's curious that this occurs. I'm never seen someone say end Union Lobbying, just Corporate Lobbying. I wonder if most people realize what would occur if Citizens United was overturned.

Unions are not incorporated? That seems kind of odd.

But regardless, I'd expect that all legal entities be subject to the same rules.

 

[gcubed]

when discussing citizens united and corporations, unions are thrown in there as well, at least for almost everyone who discusses it on here.

The only gray area I have is a multinational corporation giving money.

 

[GaimeGuy]

No matter how much you and other conservatives repeat it, unions are not the same thing as corporations.

Corporations are entities which exist for the purpose of making a profit and producing a positive return for its investors. Note that a corporation makes money due to the efforts of its employees, and its profits are leftover after compensating its employees. The money brought in by the labor force's effortss goes to the company's investors.

A union is an entity which exists for the purpose of promoting its member's interests. The efforts of the members of the union go towards benefiting the members of the union. Not a separate group of persons.


Amazing that you can try to equate the two.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

No matter how much you and other conservatives repeat it, unions are not the same thing as corporations.

Corporations are entities which exist for the purpose of making a profit and producing a positive return for its investors. Note that a corporation makes money due to the efforts of its employees, and its profits are leftover after compensating its employees. The money brought in by the labor force's effortss goes to the company's investors.

A union is an entity which exists for the purpose of promoting its member's interests. The efforts of the members of the union go towards benefiting the members of the union. Not a separate group of persons.


Amazing that you can try to equate the two.

So you think a donation from a Union is different from a Corporation?

 

[GaimeGuy]

So you think a donation from a Union is different from a Corporation?

I don't think any entity other than a person should be involved in the electoral process. Especially not a corporation. A union is slightly more "forgivable" since it represents more "pure" interests (that is, ones that are more in line with the fundamental purpose of a society), but it still exists as a distinct entity from its members.

Unions are not some kind of corporate offshoot, so why is it that conservativs always bring them up during a discussion about corporations? i'm sick of unions and corporations being treated like partisan organizations taht each represent one side of the political spectrum

 

[entremet]

Damn NYPD. I hope they get sued for millions.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I don't think any entity other than a person should be involved in the electoral process. Especially not a corporation. A union is slightly more "forgivable" since it represents more "pure" interests (that is, ones that are more in line with the fundamental purpose of a society), but it still exists as a distinct entity from its members.

So do you or do you not think a Union should be allowed to donate during an election, while a corporation should not?

Does that also mean this corporation?

 

[Slavik81]

No matter how much you and other conservatives repeat it, unions are not the same thing as corporations.

Corporations are entities which exist for the purpose of making a profit and producing a positive return for its investors. Note that a corporation makes money due to the efforts of its employees, and its profits are leftover after compensating its employees. The money brought in by the labor force's effortss goes to the company's investors.

A union is an entity which exists for the purpose of promoting its member's interests. The efforts of the members of the union go towards benefiting the members of the union. Not a separate group of persons.

Amazing that you can try to equate the two.

That's factually incorrect. In both the United States and Canada, you may incorporate a non-profit organization.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

That's factually incorrect. In both the United States and Canada, you may incorporate a non-profit organization.

Such as the one I linked too in my last post. Hell, they explicitly check corporation on the return form.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I already said, I do not think any entity excluding a person should be allowed to donate to a campaign or vote. Why are you trying to bring planned parenthood into this? Stop trying to make everything into a "you just want liberal groups to be able to donate!" situation.

 

[speculawyer]

That's factually incorrect. In both the United States and Canada, you may incorporate a non-profit organization.

He is clearly talking about a for-profit corporation.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I already said, I do not think any entity excluding a person should be allowed to donate to a campaign or vote.

Fair enough about Unions, but what about a corporation like the one in my link? Don't they have a right to lobby and campaign for their candidate via ads or donations.

He is clearly talking about a for-profit corporation.

A corporation is a corporation though.

 

[GaimeGuy]

That's factually incorrect. In both the United States and Canada, you may incorporate a non-profit organization.

way to miss the point, you and i both know what the issue at hand is. I know that non-profits can be incorported. -_-

 

[makingmusic476]

I agree that all corporations should be held accountable to any new rules, but that amendment a couple of pages back specified for-profit entities. Edit: I actually agree that all non-person entities should be forbidden from donating, but none of the legislation we've seen goes that far.

The older amendment that died in the water gives Congress a few general powers concerning these things:

• Authorizes Congress to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns and allow states to regulate such spending at their level;
• Includes the authority to regulate and limit independent expenditures, such as those from Super PACs, made in support of or opposition to candidates;
• Would not dictate any specific policies or regulations, but instead would allow Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation that withstands constitutional challenges.

Of course, that makes it easy for Congress to alter any such legislation passed should they decide to do so.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I mean you're basically giving executives double-influence b allowig organizations to donate to politicians. Why do i have to point this out?

 

[sangreal]

I already said, I do not think any entity excluding a person should be allowed to donate to a campaign or vote. Why are you trying to bring planned parenthood into this? Stop trying to make everything into a "you just want liberal groups to be able to donate!" situation.

Good news. Only individuals may donate to a campaign or vote!

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I mean you're basically giving executives double-influence b allowig organizations to donate to politicians. Why do i have to point this out?

Thats the same with Union leaders though.

I already said, I do not think any entity excluding a person should be allowed to donate to a campaign or vote. Why are you trying to bring planned parenthood into this? Stop trying to make everything into a "you just want liberal groups to be able to donate!" situation.

Because it's an example of people using a corporation to express their views and use the corporate structure to do so. One which I have no problem with.

I agree that all corporations should be held accountable to any new rules, but that amendment a couple of pages back specified for-profit entities. Edit: I actually agree that all non-person entities should be forbidden from donating, but none of the legislation we've seen goes that far.

I have issues with that for the reasons I've about speech, but at least that's consistent, and you point out how some people (and not directed towards game) don't seem to realize what corporations entail.