Boy Delivers Blow in the Groin Of Common Sense

[Callipygous]

Until black people are in equal economic terms to whites it is meaningless to disassociate them in large studies like this, and I could not agree more that black people are not born this way but are borne into it. I did not bring up the biological difference, you did and I find it meaningless to talk about as I think everyone should be treated as an individual no matter the age race or reason.

 

thats just bad science. being black doesnt make someone more likely to commit crime, living in a slum does. if you want to put up a curfew for that group of people put a curfew on the slum, not blacks.

 

teenagers have that higher tendancy because they are teenagers, so the group you put the curfew on is teenagers.

 

 

 

So do you support such a curfew to reduce violent crime, because I don't give a damn about vandelism.

 

i would argue that the main purpose of curfew laws is to prevent vandalism, not violence. you have arrests, court, and jail to fight violence. that is appropriate to the level of the crime; you hurt someone, you go to jail. curfew laws are there to fight vandalism. its a lesser crime, they are trying to find a more appropriate way of fighting it. teenagers are more likely to commit vandalism so they put a curfew on teenagers.

[Dak]

thats because being black doesnt make someone more likely to commit crimes. being a teenager does. during those years your developing physically and mentally in ways that make you think its fun to go out and vandalize things with your friends. or film one another slapping random people on the street.

 

it depends how you look at it. statistically, in an area where crime is disproportionately commited by kids/blacks, then any given kid/black person is more likely than adults/whites to be a criminal.

 

on the other hand, its unfair to judge either most kids or most blacks on the actions of what is generally a minority of that demographic.

 

during those years your developing physically and mentally in ways that make you think its fun to go out and vandalize things with your friends. or film one another slapping random people on the street.

 

again, its generally a minority of the demographic. To argue the same thing but with kids replaced with blacks, theres generally some kind of local social reason why crime is commited disproportionately by blacks (in the areas where it is). So one could offer a reason why blacks are statistically more likely to commit crime, and then use it as justification for curfewing all blacks

 

[edit]or, having read post #48, you could replace 'black' with 'poor' to get the same argument[/edit]

 

that is a tad strange... maybe because sending a 20-25 year old home doenst put them under control where as bringing a teenager home is putting them back under the judgement of their parents?

 

i dont know : P

 

but it would stop them from commiting crimes. I just feel were being a tad blazae about the rights of people who are < 16, whilst we wouldnt even dream of inpinjing on those same rights of a 20-25 year old by curfewing all, guilty and innocent alike, based on the behaviour of a minority of that age-group. If we were to curfew 20-25 year olds, I'm sure thered be numerouse accusations of contraventions of human rights, and no-one would react to those accusations by saying 'youngish adults deliver to the groin of common sence'.

[Callipygous]

it depends how you look at it. statistically' date=' in an area where crime is disproportionately commited by kids/blacks, then any given kid/black person is more likely than adults/whites to be a criminal.

 

on the other hand, its unfair to judge either most kids or most blacks on the actions of what is generally a minority of that demographic.

 

 

 

again, its generally a minority of the demographic. To argue the same thing but with kids replaced with blacks, theres generally some kind of local social reason why crime is commited disproportionately by blacks (in the areas where it is). So one could offer a reason why blacks are statistically more likely to commit crime, and then use it as justification for curfewing [i']all[/i] blacks

 

[edit]or, having read post #48, you could replace 'black' with 'poor' to get the same argument[/edit]

 

again, thats just bad science. see my last post.

[Rakista]

1 --- breaking curfew... no one wants little punk scuzzheads on the streets at night. As for those teens who aren't, they should be happy to be safe at home

 

Calling people names does not get us anywhere. Is it all right to call jews #@$# or blacks %^$#$? All it does is dehumanize people which will only result in an argument that is set in prejudice by the threat of violence against the person.

 

2 --- drinking... you can't wait till you're of legal age to start killing brain cells? You're innate stupidity isn't good enough?

 

Calling someone stupid on the Internet, lol. Drinking is a personal choice that effects no one except yourself, esp in a country without universal healthcare.

 

3 --- smoking... similar as above. Wait till your not your parents problem before you begin growing a lovely series of tumors

 

Again a personal choice and anyone who wants cigs or alchohol that is under 18 will get it so the laws are mostly unenforceable. Which means they are bad laws.

 

4 --- Resisting arrest... anyone who fights back against cops (who sacrifice so much in their lives to protect the public) is fighting for anarchy, and can't be trusted to move about without a babysitter.

 

Anyone who blindly accepts police rule should live in a police state.

 

5 --- destruction of property... if you didn't do anything wrong, why are you trying to get away? Even a criminal will get out without even a slap on the hand, if you're so innocent, you should get of scott free. By running, you admit that you're nothing but a lowly scumbag and the cop in question shouldn't have any probelm with stopping you with excessive force.

 

If the state decides something is wrong does not make it wrong. If I decide something is wrong than I will follow my belief to the best of my ability. Just because you say something is wrong gives me no reason but to listen to you and consider what you say. Yet when you do so in such a vituperate manner I have no choice but to also lose respect for you as a reasonable person.

 

Again you are calling people names which is anything but mature, I can imagine you all riled up when you are writing this but realize I am drinking my evening tea calm as a cucumber. Grow a backbone and do not allow people to cause you to slander them. That means they are better than you and get to laugh freely. Lol.

 

Then drop this sh*t about cops being trash. They put their lives on the line every night for nothing but a check scarcely better than a teacher's. And what do they get for it? Nothing but crap from anyone who's narcicistic enough to think they've been wronged by the law, no matter what they did to deserve being jailed /beaten /taken home.

 

As a non-violent protestor I've been beaten and dragged down streets till my knees bled for days becuase I had no skin on them. I did nothing violent but was cruelly treated by monsters. Police are not the angels you make them out to be and I can only assume you enjoy the status quo so much that you can justify violence against anyone that disagrees with you, but you do not have the guts yourself to do it so you let your police do it for you. Do you think the LAPD was right in shooting a 2 year old when they tried NO non-violent means of ending the stand off and engaged him knowing that they would be confronting a man holding a child as a human shield? I call such people monsters deservedly.

 

Want to see some pictures of friends of mine?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm

 

Want to see more ?

http://www.papv.org/

more

Police are almost 50% more likely to engage in domestic violence according to this study

 

Want me to show you police pics from other countries so you can see my point more clearly? Ever here of the Gestapo? If you reply with even more hate and anger I will make a fool of you by showing pics and video from supposedly civil nations engaging in murder of civilians. The only way to battle hateful people like you is through education. I hope you learned something.

 

Rakista, you're just one of those lowlifes who doesn't like anything that gets in the way of your fun, no matter how petty or harmful. Grow up.

 

I am not going to call you anything but ignorant and that is richly deserved but seeing that you are already on the internet there is probably some hope for you. Try to read articles in magazines that you disagree with for starters so your views are not so hopelessly one-sided and filled with hate. Good luck in the night

[Dak]

thats just bad science. being black doesnt make someone more likely to commit crime, living in a slum does.

 

replace 'black' with 'people who live in slums' then. Its still the same argument.

 

And Im sure there are biological reasons why 20-25 year old males are more inclined to violence, yet we dont curfew them.

[Rakista]

thats just bad science. being black doesnt make someone more likely to commit crime' date=' living in a slum does. if you want to put up a curfew for that group of people put a curfew on the slum, not blacks.

 

teenagers have that higher tendancy because they are teenagers, so the group you put the curfew on is teenagers.

 

 

 

 

 

i would argue that the main purpose of curfew laws is to prevent vandalism, not violence. you have arrests, court, and jail to fight violence. that is appropriate to the level of the crime; you hurt someone, you go to jail. curfew laws are there to fight vandalism. its a lesser crime, they are trying to find a more appropriate way of fighting it. teenagers are more likely to commit vandalism so they put a curfew on teenagers.[/quote']

 

 

I can't find any studies to support what you are saying even if it were true. Mind to link some. The studies I did find showed that black people committed more violent crimes nationwide than whites but it did not say which were urban or rural.

 

By the way my argument that more blacks join a lifestyle that causes violence willingly even if they do have other oppurtunities many black males wherever they live will choose a gangster lifestyle. It is the lifestyle they are choosing to follow not the area. The lifestyle may be predominent in the area but it is not the only example of a possible life a young black man can aspire to even in the ghetto there are rare male role models that are healthy.

[Dak]

If the state decides something is wrong does not make it wrong. If I decide something is wrong than I will follow my belief to the best of my ability.

 

Im infering from that that you are also of the oppinion that "just because the state descides something is wrong does not make it wrong. If i descide that something is right, then i will follow my bellief and do it irreguardless of illegality."

 

that kind of attetude should only be adopted by those who are mature and responcible, and who are both capable of and willing to concider their actions in great depth and from multiple points of view before doing anything, and even then should only be adopted with caution.

 

Im sure youd be the first to complain if you were beaten up by someone who descided that beating people up is OK (despite the fact that its illegal), or if your mum was raped by someone who descided that the fact that the state descided that rape is wrong does not, in actual fact, make it wrong.

 

I cant help but get the impression that you broke the law and are now throwing a wobbly at the fact that you got caught and punished, rather than accepting the repercuttions of your actions.

 

The studies I did find showed that black people committed more violent crimes nationwide than whites but it did not say which were urban or rural.

 

proportionally more crimes. it may not sound an inportant difference, but it is. black people would have to put in a hell of a concerted effort to actually commit more than 50% of crimes.

[Rakista]

replace 'black' with 'people who live in slums' then. Its still the same argument.

 

And Im sure there are biological reasons why 20-25 year old males are more inclined to violence' date=' yet we dont curfew them.[/quote']

 

here, here.

[Rakista]

that kind of attetude should only be adopted by those who are mature and responcible, and who are both capable of and willing to concider their actions in great depth and from multiple points of view before doing anything, and even then should only be adopted with caution.

 

I have not done anything violent in 10 years. I have never had a DUI, speeding or parking ticket. But I have non-violently protested and been maced, beat, spat on, called names, and the like. I have called police officer names but never done anything physcial.

 

I hardly think having a personal code of ethics is a dangerous or inviable thing. I am more afraid of individuals whose only compulsion against unethical behaviour is the credence of law or god. Those people scare me, are you saying that living life according to your own observations on civility is prone to error? Perhaps some small ones but I would think that if you have studied the rights of man from Rousseau to Chomsky and one reached his own conclusions on the universality of human rights as I have you would be more sober minded when it comes to impeaching such liberties.

[Callipygous]

Calling someone stupid on the Internet, lol. Drinking is a personal choice that effects no one except yourself, esp in a country without universal healthcare.

 

i know what your trying to say, but your wrong. the reason people under 21 arent allowed to drink in the US is because your decision making skills are still developing. you know, the skills you use when deciding whether your sober enough to drive or if its worth the risk...

 

Again a personal choice and anyone who wants cigs or alchohol that is under 18 will get it so the laws are mostly unenforceable. Which means they are bad laws.

 

anyone who wants to kill someone can head down to wallmart and buy a 22 and then shoot someone before anyone has a chance to react. does that mean thats a bad law too?

 

 

Anyone who blindly accepts police rule should live in a police state.

 

anyone who doesnt accept police authority should live in the 13th century.

 

 

 

If the state decides something is wrong does not make it wrong.

no, it just means that since you live in this country you have to either follow that decision until it changes or accept the consequences for not doing so.

 

 

As a non-violent protestor I've been beaten and dragged down streets till my knees bled for days becuase I had no skin on them. I did nothing violent but was cruelly treated by monsters. Police are not the angels you make them out to be and I can only assume you enjoy the status quo so much that you can justify violence against anyone that disagrees with you, but you do not have the guts yourself to do it so you let your police do it for you.

 

while were talking about prejudice....

 

yet again, your personal experiences do not mean that the system is bad. there are bad cops out there, plenty of them im sure. there are also bad priests. there are bad mothers and bad teachers. as youve been arguing this whole time, a few bad apples are not something you should judge an entire group on.

 

putting up a curfew isnt judging the entire group, its going with the lesser of two evils.

 

i understand this may be more of a matter of principle, but is it really that big of a deal to have to be off the streets by 9pm when your 15?

[Rakista]

proportionally more crimes. it may not sound an inportant difference, but it is. black people would have to put in a hell of a concerted effort to actually commit more than 50% of crimes.

 

sorry lol.

 

I am now into my evening beer and am prone to error but that is how I learn by people pointing it out

[Rakista]

i know what your trying to say, but your wrong. the reason people under 21 arent allowed to drink in the US is because your decision making skills are still developing. you know, the skills you use when deciding whether your sober enough to drive or if its worth the risk...

 

Well I believe the latest study showed brain development stops at 23-25 so maybe we should extend it to there? I am not exactly a libertarian but I believe that if anthing should be illegal to 21 it should be driving. Isn't that the way in Europe?

 

 

anyone who wants to kill someone can head down to wallmart and buy a 22 and then shoot someone before anyone has a chance to react. does that mean thats a bad law too?

 

I am not a fan of guns having been shot at, but I don't understand exactly what you are saying.

 

anyone who doesnt accept police authority should live in the 13th century.

 

I have no problem with the concept of police and even liked the police in London when I visited this spring. They did not have guns and have a much lower rate of violence against citizens. I have a problem with police like this , which is where I live now. I was there but not swabbed I ran into the forest. This is why I run away from cops. They took a Q-tip and rubbed under the eyelids with pepper spray. Yeah I put myself in situations protesting but that does not mean I should be denied civil rights.

 

 

 

no, it just means that since you live in this country you have to either follow that decision until it changes or accept the consequences for not doing so.

 

Or run like the devil when the police are coming.

 

while were talking about prejudice....

 

yet again, your personal experiences do not mean that the system is bad. there are bad cops out there, plenty of them im sure. there are also bad priests. there are bad mothers and bad teachers. as youve been arguing this whole time, a few bad apples are not something you should judge an entire group on.

 

putting up a curfew isnt judging the entire group, its going with the lesser of two evils.

 

Well my judgement of police is not prejudice I doubt many people on this forum have been confronted police brutality up close but let me tell you this. When cops get together in a police line there are they are not there to enforce the law most of the time, protect property or anything noble. They are there to crack heads because you have dissented against popular opinion and that is wrong. Police in this country would be a lot better if they were disarmed as it contributes to a macho image that causes violence. Again I am not a violent person in the least.

 

i understand this may be more of a matter of principle, but is it really that big of a deal to have to be off the streets by 9pm when your 15?

 

It is the slippery slope. Since I have had people like the ACLU defend my rights I choose to defend others in much the same manner. By the way I would never let my children out past 6 o'clock on a school night unless they could get a ride home and I could call where they are on a landline.

 

Thanks for being civil

[Callipygous]

I am not a fan of guns having been shot at, but I don't understand exactly what you are saying.

 

its against the law to murder someone. we cant stop people from murdering other people. by your definition that would make it a bad law, since we cant enforce it.

 

 

They took a Q-tip and rubbed under the eyelids with pepper spray. Yeah I put myself in situations protesting but that does not mean I should be denied civil rights.

 

those are police who deserve to be shot, yet again. bad apples. if you can hold someones eyelids open they are already under control... morons...

 

 

Well my judgement of police is not prejudice I doubt many people on this forum have been confronted police brutality up close but let me tell you this. When cops get together in a police line there are they are not there to enforce the law most of the time, protect property or anything noble. They are there to crack heads because you have dissented against popular opinion and that is wrong. Police in this country would be a lot better if they were disarmed as it contributes to a macho image that causes violence. Again I am not a violent person in the least.

 

when police gather in a line its to deal with a disruptive crowd, such circumstances often turn violent toward the cops. i have no problem with them doing whatever they need to to ensure the safety of their team when dealing with stuff like that. dissenting against popular opinion is fine. blocking roads because your stupid hippy ass doesnt understand that the things our govt. does are done to support the way of life you cherish so much, and that not everything can be settled by sitting down and talking, is not.

 

(RANT, sorry im fine with expressing your opinion but when you start to muck with other peoples daily lives to get YOUR OPINIONS out i have a big problem with that)

 

yet again, im sure there are plenty of times when police have used violence when it wasnt necessary. however, the majority of cops are not clubbing people over the head for non-violent demonstration.

[Rakista]

when police gather in a line its to deal with a disruptive crowd, such circumstances often turn violent toward the cops. i have no problem with them doing whatever they need to to ensure the safety of their team when dealing with stuff like that. dissenting against popular opinion is fine. blocking roads because your stupid hippy ass doesnt understand that the things our govt. does are done to support the way of life you cherish so much, and that not everything can be settled by sitting down and talking, is not.

 

We asked to talk to the lumber company literaly dozens of times. They called us stupid hippies too. So their own prejudice forced us to use civil disobedience, which happens more often than not. Believe you me, I only go nowadays to support my friends as I prefer to do my arguing online. I have been beaten so many times by the police from the WTO in Seattle to the anti-war demonstration in Oakland that I am scared of American police officers.

 

Police gather to confront ANY protesting crowd in California by law in some counties and often contribute to the violence themselves by their very presence. Something English police are very good at dealing with and something that Californian police are very poor at dealing with. I am not a hippy just because I live in Humboldt, heh. My friends wish I was a hippy though as they are mostly but I wear collared shirts and slacks with shined shoes I guess you call me a hipster. Which is like a hippy who takes a bath, has a job and drinks a lot of coffee. I am politically active but that is the nature of my life being oppressed as a youth has made me somewhat of a curmudgeon. I am also unique in being mostly left wing but I am pro-life as I am consistent life ethic against death penalty, poverty and war.

 

I love when conversations start hostile and end up all nice and cheery. Esp when I am into my 3rd beer which ususallyt is too much.

[AzurePhoenix]

Do you think the LAPD was right in shooting a 2 year old when they tried NO non-violent means of ending the stand off and engaged him knowing that they would be confronting a man holding a child as a human shield? I call such people monsters deservedly.

You're blind if you think that men like that father can be rationalized with. They care for no one, and are willing to risk everything to escape. The man picked up a weapon and used his child as a shield. There is no rationalizing with someone like that, and you can't simply let him go. They did what they had to, and you can be certain that the live's of some of those cops were ruined that day.

 

I am not going to call you anything but ignorant and that is richly deserved but seeing that you are already on the internet there is probably some hope for you. Try to read articles in magazines that you disagree with for starters so your views are not so hopelessly one-sided and filled with hate. Good luck in the night

You think dissenters and thugs are the oly ones who suffer?

 

http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=17754

 

I knew this man for five years. We've had dinner with him, he's been to our barbecues. He had seven kids, and for years he's worked his ass off, working overtime, doing extra jobs on the side, skipping weekends and vacations just to support his family. Now he's dead because some car-stealing punk bastards decided two or three years of freedom (probably less) was worth this man's life.

 

Try to pay attention before you throw your heart out to the dregs of society.

 

Some of the finest human beings I know are police. Are there bad cops? Sure. Anyone anywhere can be a foul excuse human being. Teachers, politicians, firefighters, military leaders, religious leaders, even your friendly neighborhood crack dealer - anyone, no matter what they do for a living, can be a bad apple.

[Rakista]

You're blind if you think that men like that father can be rationalized with. They care for no one, and are willing to risk everything to escape. The man picked up a weapon and used his child as a shield[/i']. There is no rationalizing with someone like that, and you can't simply let him go. They did what they had to, and you can be certain that the live's of some of those cops were ruined that day.

 

Ok, well I am a robotic engineer grad student and maybe I have a different POV from my engineering background but I was exposed to half a dozen non violent means that could of been used before sending in the SWAT team. I absolutely agree he was not rational but that does not mean you cannot rationalize at his level. From what has been leaked out they did not attempt anything along these lines before sending in SWAT. Please correct me, I love being corrected.

 

The point is they did not try a single non-violent method and got cocky thinking they could shoot him without killing the child. Their cockiness caused the manslaughter (imho) of a child and that entire chain of command should get 3-15 years. With 15 years for the shooter I'm sure he won't make any mistakes like that again. Police do not deserve to be above the law when they make poor decisions. They have chosen a job that they can kill people if they mess up and just like bad doctors get their licenses taken away when they kill someone negligently so should a police officer. Things like this would not happen as often if our police officers were more like bobbies in England though who do not carry guns. Our police officers in America make many people frightened because when they make rash descisions they do so with guns.

 

A tazer was not used, neither was tear gas or loud noise. They spent less an 2 hours outside before rushing in when waiting 10-12 hours could of saved that child's life. I'm saying that what they did was poorly thought out and they should be man enough to take responsibility for their actions.

 

Disclaimer, I have a friend who works on development on this Electrified Water Cannon would of worked had it been out of prototype stage but this is what I think of when I think of non violent means to end standoffs. Imagine a stream of water almost as powerful as a fire hose blasting from a remote controlled robotic NonViolent alternative to SWAT. That means no one dies and everyone can be taken into custody.

 

You think dissenters and thugs are the only ones who suffer?

 

When anyone dies I am saddened. I never said innocent police should die but I would hardly call police the pillars of society. Unlike teachers who have a pretty typical criminal profile police have abnormaly high amounts of domestic violence, child molestation and the most obvious cronyism. I've heard so many police officers lie in court to defend their ass or someone else's ass it is laughable that they are allowed to testify at all. I think all police should be required to have video and audio built into their uniforms so things like this stop but the police union has corrupted the course of American law when it comes to seeking justice from police misconduct. If American police want us to like them they need to stop allowing Rambos and bigots to put on uniforms and stop protecting misconduct. I know there are good cops out there but their bad apples kill, maim and torture people sometimes with impunity but always with the assurance that they were doing so under the guise of protecting the public from whomever they are abusing. Police like no others fall under a higher scrutiny when it comes to enacting violence because they themselves are said to be here to protect us from it. I don't hate police officers at all and I treat all police as individuals which is easy in my small town and out of the dozen I have confronted here maybe 3 treated me like a human being. The best police I have ever met were in Sunnyvale, CA. I liked them all when they came out to check us protesting at Intel for dumping toxic waste into the Salt River and getting off scot-free. They even let us go get water and come back. I'm sure many are nicer to their families and friends because they are not the one's blocking logging roads, lol.

 

 

 

 

Try to pay attention before you throw your heart out to the dregs of society.

 

Most police officers are 2 year college graduates who simply do not have the schooling to make a contribution to society like a scientist who can contribute to the lives of billions of people by their individual efforts in their fields; however, police officers interact with people in the most desperate of situations and as Allah says, by saving one life you have saved the world. I think in some respects that is something I would never be able to do. The last violence that was non-police I had to deal with was a raging meth addict who had broken through the wall of my friends apartment from his own and we called the police. He had been up for like 7 days and had attacked a poster on his wall.

 

 

Some of the finest human beings I know are police. Are there bad cops? Sure. Anyone anywhere can be a foul excuse human being. Teachers, politicians, firefighters, military leaders, religious leaders, even your friendly neighborhood crack dealer - anyone, no matter what they do for a living, can be a bad apple.

 

Well the good cops should get together and start their own police union so they can get rid of the bad cops. I'm pretty sure most cops know about the small and large acts of corruption and abuse of powers of the police department they are in but are afraid to name names. American cops could learn alot from Europe where these problems are far far far less frequent. I don't like living in a country where I cannot trust my local police force to protect my right of protest. That is only a few steps from a police state and why I am not going to be finishing my studies in the states and have decided on England for my PhD, once I get my masters. I will likely seek citizenship there as well the US is leaning too right for my tastes and I would not see any progressive change in my lifetime.

[AzurePhoenix]

The last violence that was non-police I had to deal with was a raging meth addict who had broken through the wall of my friends apartment from his own and we called the police. He had been up for like 7 days and had attacked a poster on his wall.

I gagged on my Root Beer after reading that last line. That's why Ilove knowing so many cops, they all have dozens of stories as funny as that. The gory ones are good too.

 

I have a friend who works on development on this Electrified Water Cannon would of worked had it been out of prototype stage but this is what I think of when I think of non violent means to end standoffs.

I'm familiar with the idea. I'm just not excited because no matter wha they use, the cops who use each new non-lethal weapon always get attacked for using excessive force on the rare occasions when the weapons prove to be too powerful, or when they're used on people the media calls "defenseless." It doesn't matter that they were bubbling over with PCP, were carring metal pipes, and stood six two. Or in the case of anyone under eighteen it doesn't matter what the cops do, even if the kid has got a knife or even a gun. The police always end up being called monsters or murderers. No one cares that their lives are on the line too, as well as vicitms on the scene.

[Phi for All]

How is this a strawman argument?

You brought up underage drinking and other criminal activity to justify a criticism of curfew laws. You brought up underage voting, mental hospitals, assaulting a psychologist and your own psychotic behavior, again to criticize curfews. You've red-herringed and strawmanned your way into a rant and you are derailing this thread with it. Stop or you will start down the road to being banned.

If so please learn what you are talking about before you put in bold. I don't like wasting my time with foolishness or overeaction but when you say things like;

Please learn what you are talking about before you quote what I said. I don't like wasting my time with foolishness or overeaction when you quote me with someone else's words.

[Rakista]

You brought up underage drinking and other criminal activity to justify a criticism of curfew laws. You brought up underage voting, mental hospitals, assaulting a psychologist and your own psychotic behavior, again to criticize curfews. You've red-herringed and strawmanned your way into a rant and you are derailing this thread with it. Stop or you will start down the road to being banned.Please learn what you are talking about before you quote what I said. I don't like wasting my time with foolishness or overeaction when you quote me with someone else's words.

 

Underage drinking and other criminal activity as you put it directly relates to what curfews are supposedly brought about to prevent. Limiting these would limit many many other poeple's posts as well. In fact I think besides a few curt replies the whole shebang would be null and void if you think that such relevent concerns pervert the course of the discussion. If you think either one of these is a strawman can you please tell me what is in context for this discussion or any discussion on the general forums which I have perused because I am more than happy to oblige if you can show me explicitely what you are talking about. I don't like when people accuse me in generalaties it usually shows a lack of intellectual rigor even if wrapped up in psuedo-intellectualism

 

Underage voting is one of the only ways in which underage people can directly prevent curfews from being enacted or get them repealed. Again no point, unless you want to limit the discussion to one side unfairly which it seems is what is going on here late at night on the Intarweb, lol. Removing the ability to argue in tangentials and parentheticals I can agree with but I hardly think such applies where the creation or nullification of said law is concerned. I mean it is not as if I am speaking of some set of machinations to disrupt the government of the US to prevent the law from being effected. I can point you to some supreme court arguments that I know do something similiar when concerning the constitutionality of a law by who could legally vote at the time, but it would take me awhile and I'm drinking on a Sunday night so blah. It was pre Jim Crow laws though.

 

My own personal history may have been over the top but it relates to the ability of parents and government to usurp the rights of children which correlates pretty well with the discussion, imho. The original article is pretty weak on details for those who would want to stop curfews so I had to use my imagination and if you don't know what that is here is a link. If you don't want people to disrupt the precious status quo here than you should stop registrations not threaten people you apparently disagree with.

 

I'm sure we are all psychos at some point in our lives. I mean I think you have psychotic tendencies for coming into a discussion on a general forum and making false accusations about the proper decorum for a critical debate like we were in a Junior High Lincoln and Douglas Debate team and you lost your notes so you have resorted to screaming.

 

You know it could be you just have nothing to say about something; but, that doesn't mean you should come into a discussion to discount others unfairly by using words that confuse you so dearly with a false sense of superiority. I am looking over your posts and laughing. Are you going to accuse me of Ad hominim attacks next or what? Some of your posts are insightful I wish you would actually contribute to the discussion instead of attacking me.

 

Arguing logical syntax is valid in my world of programming, philosophy and such. If it is not in yours than I pry don't want to talk to you anymore as I enjoy breaking things down and building them up again as an engineer. If things were black and white there would be no disagreements and hence no forums to spout off so colourfully on. That would make me a sad Rakista.

 

Please, oh please write more than 2 paragraphs your high and mightiness when you want to contribute to a discussion. Coming into a forum and laying down a single paragraph of smite which must have contributed to you having 1500 posts means nothing to me or anyone else and that is one of the only off-topic posts in the discusion not mine. In fact I feel insulted by your accusations as if you were perscuting me for my beliefs.

 

Sorry about misquoting you; I have dozens of tabs open in many other forums. I presumed when someone wrongly accused me of a strawman argument that they would of actually contributed to the discsussion and scrolled up to a similiar picture mistakingly attributing someone else's nil thoughts to you. You must get off on some power trip here coming in with big bold letters, lol. I've done it to when I had powers to moderate the questions given to NASA scientists for the robotics education project at Rio Tinto. God I was an ass, but I can admit it at least.

 

Don't threaten people with bans when it is makes some people think you look like you simply disagree with them and do not want to argue. My friends on ICQ are laughing at you now too, BTW. Contribute to the discussion which has broken off onto a tangeant about police officers or some such thing but that is from another's inquiry not mine. I was merely satisfying other's curositity, I swear on my Smurf figurines. I look forward to your reply, oh psycho one who knows where the bold button is.

[Phi for All]

If you think either one of these is a strawman can you please tell me what is in context for this discussion or any discussion on the general forums which I have perused because I am more than happy to oblige if you can show me explicitely what you are talking about.

Oh, perusing now, are we? How... pseudo-intellectual. Peruse your posts where you mention your underage drinking in the same sentence where you declare that you were hassled for no reason and broke no laws other than curfew.

Underage voting is one of the only ways in which underage people can directly prevent curfews from being enacted or get them repealed.

It makes even less sense when you repeat it.

Again no point, unless you want to limit the discussion to one side unfairly which it seems is what is going on here late at night on the Intarweb, lol.

Choosing to misunderstand is another form of strawman. Do you deny that you were ranting up a storm after a few beers and are now merely focusing your past rage on my moderation of this thread, equating it to the excessive force you once experienced?

My own personal history may have been over the top but it relates to the ability of parents and government to usurp the rights of children which correlates pretty well with the discussion, imho.

Parts did relate, but most was, as you admit, over the top, thus the reason for my intervention.

If you don't want people to disrupt the precious status quo here than you should stop registrations not threaten people you apparently disagree with.

Perhaps if you stay you will observe that I try not to debate in posts from a Moderator status. My objections to your red herring tactics were as a member. My objections to your flaming tactics since then are as a Moderator.

I mean I think you have psychotic tendencies for coming into a discussion on a general forum and making false accusations about the proper decorum for a critical debate like we were in a Junior High Lincoln and Douglas Debate team and you lost your notes so you have resorted to screaming.

This is a well moderated debate board. If you prefer a place where decorum is not appreciated, a list of them can be generated for you.

Sorry about misquoting you; I have dozens of tabs open in many other forums.

Apology accepted; I can relate.

You must get off on some power trip here coming in with big bold letters, lol. I've done it to when I had powers to moderate the questions given to NASA scientists for the robotics education project at Rio Tinto. God I was an ass, but I can admit it at least.

Quite the opposite. It takes up my time and sidetracks the entire thread, particularly when the member in question shows no sign of taking the criticism in stride and realizing that they are being an ass.

 

Don't threaten people with bans when it is makes some people think you look like you simply disagree with them and do not want to argue.

I should have explained the ban. We have a point system which will ensure a temporary ban should you continue to use strawmanning as your fallacy of choice.

My friends on ICQ are laughing at you now too, BTW.

My consternation knows no bounds.

[Rakista]

Oh, perusing now, are we? How... pseudo-intellectual. Peruse your posts where you mention your underage drinking in the same sentence where you declare that you were hassled for no reason and broke no laws other than curfew.

 

You did not quote me, if you had ever been in a real debate you would know summarizing is frowned upon. You do not argue the 'gist' of something in a Lincoln Douglas debate which I participated in for 2 years of HS and a semester of College, have you ever been in one? Who do I report you to anyways, you seem clownish but not amusing and deserve the powers of ridicule not the powers of moderation (ad hominem attack). You have again shown no ability to actually engage in discussion instead resorting to generalities to make your point. I still can't believe you are a moderator, lol. Do you want me to go through at least 3 other people's posts in the same discussion that use ad hominem attacks against me and others that you as a moderator ignored or do you want me to go through posts you have made and point out logical fallacies? I have some time before I have to hit the lab today and both sound like fun side projects.

 

It makes even less sense when you repeat it. Choosing to misunderstand is another form of strawman. Do you deny that you were ranting up a storm after a few beers and are now merely focusing your past rage on my moderation of this thread, equating it to the excessive force you once experienced?

 

Hey mr. bona fide genius you are choosing to misunderstand me and my arguments, does that make your arguments strawmen? I did not equate any past exp to you, now you are lying which I may report your post for. Learn to use quotes from people you are talking to. It is truly bizarre talking to someone who is talking around me after accusing me of something and threatening me with banishment. Ever hear of argumentum ad consequentiam ( I almost spelled that right in Google, I guess a year of high school Latin actually helps ). You are threatening me because you disagree with me aren't you? Stop accusing people of logical fallacies when you are making them yourself. Reveal your bias in the discussion as there are at least 7 ad hominem attacks against me that you are tellingly ignoring which would lead any reasonable moderator to believe you are abusing your privileges.

 

Parts did relate, but most was, as you admit, over the top, thus the reason for my intervention. Perhaps if you stay you will observe that I try not to debate in posts from a Moderator status. My objections to your red herring tactics were as a member. My objections to your flaming tactics since then are as a Moderator.

 

So I got a little parenthetical, so did other posts in this discussion which I responded to. Sue me, so I can win.

 

Well I would like to again point out your inability to see that people on this discussion called me names such as dirty hippy, scuzzball and the like yet you did nothing which leads me to believe this is personal, I sincerely hope you lose your moderation for this oversight. I have moderated forums in the past and you are not the worst moderator I have come across but you are one of the most inconsistent. Show me where I committed the first act of flaming, please.

 

This is a well moderated debate board. If you prefer a place where decorum is not appreciated, a list of them can be generated for you.Apology accepted; I can relate. Quite the opposite. It takes up my time and sidetracks the entire thread, particularly when the member in question shows no sign of taking the criticism in stride and realizing that they are being an ass.

 

If you are the best moderator you have than this board is a joke. It is you who came in screaming with absolutely no proof for your accusations. You do not quote me, you summarize me; you do not give concrete examples, you make nebulous threats and worst of all you have contributed nothing to the discussion so we do not know your intentions. I hardly believe you are impartial as you have not proved yourself to use logic over appeals to authority or force. Which again are logical fallacies if you did not know. If you think I used a strawman than you should of quoted what I said and explained yourself. See how I am doing it? You can learn from me, but I can't from you. No matter how hard you try to explain yourself it sounds sophomoric. I learned logic from programming and logic classes and I learned debate from debate classes. I have no idea where you learned about logical fallacies but you are using them too inconsistently to be pre-law and too brazenly to not be educated in the least, so what is your history?

 

I should have explained the ban. We have a point system which will ensure a temporary ban should you continue to use strawmanning as your fallacy of choice.My consternation knows no bounds.

 

You should not have threatened a ban when it is you who cannot make a single logical argument that explicitly shows my strawman, red herring or other logical fallacy. Resorting to overt generalization shows a weak mind for logic or a weak appetitive for debate. If you can't stomach some of my points maybe you should take some tums.

 

You are a moderator? Lol. I'm still laughing a little.

[Callipygous]

Well I would like to again point out your inability to see that people on this discussion called me names such as dirty hippy, scuzzball and the like yet you did nothing which leads me to believe this is personal, I sincerely hope you lose your moderation for this oversight.

 

nothing was done about those because a monkey with a keyboard would be able to tell that they were generalized statements, not direct assualts on you.

[matt grime]

Rakista, do you understand the fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc? Or more importantly, those who disagree with you are pointing out that you are implying a causal link that being of certain distinctions (such as of a race minority) causes criminal behaviour. That is not the case. Being teenage with all its rampant hormones and refusal to acknowledge restraint does predispose to criminal (or criminalized at any rate) or antisocial behaviour. Such reasoning as yours has been exactly used to justify pogroms and the very thing you claim to be against. and to create a silly example, it is well known that there is a link between low prices of bread and affordable housing, that doesn't mean that keeping bread cheap will make penthouses in manhattan affordable.

 

I think most might agree that the curfews imposed upon people merely because of their ages are draconian and often unwarranted and do unfairly discriminate against people who have no ill intent. However, those are the rules that your society has imposed. True, that is not you direct decision but it is the decision of you parents and their generation and you do influence them since you can talk to your parents and make your case. If you wish for independence from them then yuo must accept that they have no responsibilty, financial or otherwise, for you. But, whilst you are their responsibility that is something you must accept. Perhaps when you are in a position to make a difference to those younger than you you will campaign to change the law. I know I for one do not think curfews on the young are good but i find your arguments indefensible.

 

if you wished to mount a campaign of civil disobedience then why not remain out after curfew peacefully without breaking any other laws? that is the way to change opinions. Do not drink, nor smoke. Whilst i think the US laws on the legal age to drink are ridiculous that does not mean i agree you should break those laws by drinking in large groups of youths after a curfew. there are better ways to obtain acceptance. ghandi's biggest coup was showing that it was possible to take the moral highground and be successful. so, drink with meals in restaurants with parents, with your family, show that it can be acceptable to drink. and remember that adults are as liable to arrest fro drunk and disorderly behaviour too.

[matt grime]

I am not exactly a libertarian but I believe that if anthing should be illegal to 21 it should be driving. Isn't that the way in Europe?

 

no, that is false. in the UK legal driving age is 17 for cars (16 for motorbikes) and 18 for drinking and voting. ages of consent for sex are variable depending on the ages of both partners

 

 

in London when I visited this spring. They did not have guns and have a much lower rate of violence against citizens.

 

We do ahve armed police, you just aren't aware of them.

[Phi for All]

You should not have threatened a ban when it is you who cannot make a single logical argument that explicitly shows my strawman, red herring or other logical fallacy.

In an argument where you quoted Callipygous, thereby directing your strawmen at him:

so basically you werent doing anything wrong besides breaking 3 laws. damn those blackhearted police for abusing their powers by arresting people who are breaking laws... your family has expensive lawyers! how dare they try to make you abide by society's rules.

We were breaking laws we did not create and could not vote on.

So you set up a straw man for Callipygous to attack in the guise of minors who are justified in breaking laws because they did not write them.

If you are under 18 in the US you are no better than a slave in roman times where your parents can send you to mental hospitals for no reason at all' date=' which is a popular way for rich parents to take vacation in the suburbs from "unruly" kids.[/quote']This is the part where you set up a straw man in the guise of parents who send their children, for no reason at all (other than their repeated civil disoediance), to mental institutions, which has nothing to do with the curfew argument you quoted Callipygous for.

I think children have an obligation to defy laws until they have the right to rule themselves. Even up to the point of killing' date=' maiming or destroying the lives of your oppressors if they threaten your physical liberty for extreme amounts of time.[/quote']As an aside, this is the post where I as a member started thinking you were an absolute nutcase and probably deserved every beating you ever got. "I think children have an obligation to defy laws until they have the right to rule themselves. Even up to the point of killing, maiming or destroying the lives of your oppressors if they threaten your physical liberty for extreme amounts of time." Pardon me while I shudder. Not a strawman but definitely the springboard you use for future special pleading. You will note that at no time did I use this in an ad hominem attack, but I admit your justification of children murdering policemen prejudiced me a bit.