About that Calinis topic

Well, BC does't support the jail system (yes Zealot, he told me this in Chatbox some one else was there), so Calinis is just questioning what he BC thinks the governments should do with criminals.


And Calinis does have a point because you ecspecially sound like an idiot Zealot "Oh, Police are bad their just a tool of fascism" well, in your ideal country would the police would be exactly the same, but since you support the country you would probaby say its not fascist.

and no, I am not necicarly sideing with Calinis (I agree he is showing his old habits).

Whether he supports jail system or not, is not the point.
Calinis accused him of supporting murder, rape, and every other crime, not just jailing. This is not a legiment question because its false accusations known also as slander, the jailing question came up as I attempted to debate him which apparently he is now hiding behind even though when the initial of it began he had no resemblance at all to this style of debate. Just the usual, "He supports murder, rape, and killing innocents because he’s against police" Does that make sense to you? If it does...explain.

And make sure you understood BC, im sure he has to accept some type of punishment for wrong doings, whether jailing is involved or not.

I mean...Look at the options!
Because he's a selfish piece of shit with no respect for anyone
Because immoral people deserve freedom too!!!!
Because he's a dumb kid and is incredibly indecisive

That's just pure slander, there’s not even one choice that is against the entire post creators (AKA Calinis') slanderous opinions.

Well all I said was: Calinis had a point.

Liche wrote:

Well all I said was: Calinis had a point.

But i ment, what point is that? He didn't even mention the jailing system last i checked, just that he thinks BC supports letting murderers out...which is mainly slander as he has never said/stated that.

And what kind of revolutionary supports the jailing system? Moast of the people found in jails are victims of the material conditions that they're forced to live under by capitalism.

And no, calinis doesn't have a point. He's implying that BC must be in favour of murder just for opposing cops and overall a police system in a completely slanderous fashion. He's trying to use an ad hominem fallacy and hyperbolae to disprove the real reasons for which BC and many other revolutionaries disprove of police systems.


And I must say that day by day it's much hardrer to take you seriously Liche, mainly because you don't read what you're replying to thus you reply to something you don't know making your reply absolutely invalid wether it is an opinion or an objective arguement.

I'm against police forces because I indeed see them as tools of fascism and oppression. So they are in USA, Mexico, Russia whatever so they were in USSR.

How would police corps work like under communism? There wouldn't be police corps. Most revolutionaries agree that firstly society shouldn't just punish. Under socialist systems its the community as a collective who determines what a crime is, is in charge of prosecuting it, what punishment should be applied and is as wel in charge of enforcing said punishment.

Most socialists agree that prior to applying any punishment, the whole context in which said crime was commited should be taken into account: the circumstances in which the crime took place, the motives the infractor must have had and wether the infractor was or not in his sane mind while perpetrating said crime.

A similar system already takes place in several run-down communities within Mexico City. Basically every person within that community is surveilling while simply strolling around, walking to work at work or whatever they might be doing. If they spot a wrongdoer one just blows a whistle and immediately everyone comes out of the buildings, surround the wrong doer and catch him.

What do they do? They collectively decide the punishment to apply which is often a beating by 200-600 people. They tie that wrongdoer to a pole and make a huge queue starting with women. They beat him one by one with anything they want: their fists, nails, biting him, kicking him, hiting with frying pans, bottles, you name it. Then the men begin hitting him also with anything they may want: their fists, pipes, baseball bats, pipewrenches, you name it.

After they're done, if the man survives they hang him head down from that pole and let him die.

Those are some of the places with the lowest crime rates in the city and there are almost no cops there and cops are often target of these people too. Once, a cop was found trying to kidnap a girl, the people stopped him then two more police men showed up to assist their fellow policeman. The result? Two policemen were set on fire alive and one beaten almost to death. Even the mayor of the city showed up there with a helicopter and dozens of policemen just staring at the people taking justice by their own hand, unable to do anything. They waited until the 3rd policeman was left ther by the people to rescue him.

Do I agree with that? Partially. It's just a demonstration of collective law enforcement being functional. A re they acting wrong? Probably, they act according to their knowledges and sense of ethic but colective and democratically indeed.

In some of such communties great part of the neighborhood organizes volunteers to perform surveillance during a determined period of time.

I can say that such a system is far more efficient than the police system in regards to crime prevention, and they're not at the service of a priviledged elite. That's demoratic law enforcement.

Because the "PermaBan Calinis" thing has been locked and I cannot say this there, I shall say it here:

I change my mind.

Zeal, you'd need some sort of police force to investigate crimes. They have to work under a set of rules. Otherwise, it's vigilanteism, which is what those villagers did. THEY are guilty of a henous murder as far as I'm concerned, and ALL need to go to jail, the psychos. That's why WE don't allow "mob rules" when dealing with malcontents. It's madness, and rarely ever fair. Was that cop REALLY trying to kidnap the girl, or just try to arrest her? I'm not actually trying to call that into doubt, I'm simply saying that people tend to jump to conclusions. The police should have FIRED INTO THE CROWD. With rubber bullets, of course, but still. These groups are crazy, and need to be KEPT from power.

I don't care how "effective" it is. By your definition, Shiara law should be implimented around the world because, according to statistics, it works.

Democratic law enforcement? Yes. GOOD? Fuck no. They're murderers, all of them, plain and simple. An angry mob. Oh yes, angry mobs are SO good for keeping the peace. Sure they may work, but it's lot in the slightest lawful. Or good. And yes, I'm supporting the criminals' rights. They have them too. Did the angry mob know what happened? No. Why? No. Kill him? Mhmm. Governments where that happens tends to call in the national guard ad impose martial law. And I support it, actually.

The many are crazy. The few are sane. And hardly ever is that not true.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Zeal, you'd need some sort of police force to investigate crimes. They have to work under a set of rules. Otherwise, it's vigilanteism, which is what those villagers did. THEY are guilty of a henous murder as far as I'm concerned, and ALL need to go to jail, the psychos. That's why WE don't allow "mob rules" when dealing with malcontents. It's madness, and rarely ever fair. Was that cop REALLY trying to kidnap the girl, or just try to arrest her? I'm not actually trying to call that into doubt, I'm simply saying that people tend to jump to conclusions. The police should have FIRED INTO THE CROWD. With rubber bullets, of course, but still. These groups are crazy, and need to be KEPT from power.

I don't care how "effective" it is. By your definition, Shiara law should be implimented around the world because, according to statistics, it works.

Democratic law enforcement? Yes. GOOD? Fuck no. They're murderers, all of them, plain and simple. An angry mob. Oh yes, angry mobs are SO good for keeping the peace. Sure they may work, but it's lot in the slightest lawful. Or good. And yes, I'm supporting the criminals' rights. They have them too. Did the angry mob know what happened? No. Why? No. Kill him? Mhmm. Governments where that happens tends to call in the national guard ad impose martial law. And I support it, actually.

The many are crazy. The few are sane. And hardly ever is that not true.

OMG UR FASCIST! QUICK BAN!!!!!!!! arg no facit should be here, police are fakist u like police = ur fatshit

Yes, I am fat. I don't appreciate being called a fatshit, though.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Yes, I am fat. I don't appreciate being called a fatshit, though.

sorrry, it was a joke, and the joke was that i misspelled it so it looked like that.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Zeal, you'd need some sort of police force to investigate crimes. They have to work under a set of rules.

That can be done collectively and democratically, you don't need an institution specialized for that.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Otherwise, it's vigilanteism, which is what those villagers did.

One thing is what I propose and other what those people did. The only common grounds both systems have is that they're collective means of law enforcement.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

THEY are guilty of a henous murder as far as I'm concerned, and ALL need to go to jail, the psychos. That's why WE don't allow "mob rules" when dealing with malcontents.

They indeed engaged in murder, but it was demoratic at least and given the circumstances relatively justified. Anyway, that's not what I propose, I'm just saying it's a proof that collective law enforcement is possible.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

It's madness, and rarely ever fair. Was that cop REALLY trying to kidnap the girl, or just try to arrest her? I'm not actually trying to call that into doubt, I'm simply saying that people tend to jump to conclusions.

What conclusion would you jump to if you saw a policeman quickly jumping off from a police car runing towards a 7 year old girl, snatching her and runing back towards the police car?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

The police should have FIRED INTO THE CROWD. With rubber bullets, of course, but still. These groups are crazy, and need to be KEPT from power.

Considering at least 20 of the crowd were armed with shotguns and pistols, and they were like 600 people it would have been a pretty stupid idea.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I don't care how "effective" it is. By your definition, Shiara law should be implimented around the world because, according to statistics, it works.

I'm just saying it is more effective than police to prevent crimes. And I'm bringing it as an example of the workability and plasuibility of collective law enforcement. If these people were properly educated they would surely be able to take much better decisions without losing such a magnificent and efiicient coordination and capability to enforce law.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Democratic law enforcement? Yes. GOOD? Fuck no.

Good is a subjective term, for you maybe it isn't good but such coordination prevented a kidnap and has prevented several other crimes.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

They're murderers, all of them, plain and simple. An angry mob. Oh yes, angry mobs are SO good for keeping the peace. Sure they may work, but it's lot in the slightest lawful. Or good.

All they need is more knowledge and a certain ethical code, their organization is awesome.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And yes, I'm supporting the criminals' rights. They have them too.

And what did I say in my original post?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Did the angry mob know what happened? No. Why? No.

Yeah, they did know what happened for at least 15% of that mob served as witness.

Here in the city, for example, you can be in a traffic jam and a guy armed with a gun can come and mug you. People surrounding you won't do shit. In such places that is just impossible, everyone will approach to help, will catch the criminal and will democratically punish him.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Kill him? Mhmm. Governments where that happens tends to call in the national guard ad impose martial law. And I support it, actually.

An euphemism for "fascism". They've been doing so lately here.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

The many are crazy. The few are sane. And hardly ever is that not true.

And what is this supposed to prove?

One, I thought that was serious. My bad.

Two, Zeal, an institution allows for those specialised in that work to investigate. I wouldn't want, say, a teacher investigating a crime. EVER.

Three, collective la enforcement IS possible, yes. Still does not make it right.

Four, you never said she was seven. You gave no details. In fact, most of those there wouldn't have known, I'm sure. Just relying on others' word, and thats not enough in most courts to convict. Sometimes it's not right, if the guy IS guilty, but if it WAS allowed, well, I can just imagine those that will be placed under the mob's fist. Innocent people would be conviced based on someone's word. And that's, I'm sure, all most of those 600 would have had. A lot of people just plain don't like me. I'd be a dead man. Oh, and if the cops there are that bad, maybe someone should do better background checks or something. Obviously these aren't the kind of people who SHOULD be cops.

Five, permanent martial law will also prevent most crimes. Should we have that?

Six, people not helping others isn't the fault of the cops. It just goes toward what I've said many times. People are douches.

Seven, when I said I supported martial law in those cases, I meant all out riots like you gave. It prevents THOSE people from hurting THEMSELVES, and prevents destruction, and prevents others outside the mob from being hurt. That's why protests in most countries are bordered by police so as to protect everyone. They can protest, which is like a riot, in a large mob, but the police are there to prevent the opposition from hurting them. (Obviously it's mostly the other way around in a real riot, but you get my point, I hope.)

Eight, It's simply a saying that is more often than not true. Here's another one.

"A person is rational. People are scared, panicky, and violent."

It is so rare that that or my previous one are wrong....

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And what kind of revolutionary supports the jailing system? Moast of the people found in jails are victims of the material conditions that they're forced to live under by capitalism.

so I can use that as an excuse if I get sued fro downloading 1 TB of movies?
if so I completely agree with whatever you said.

THANK you Kenzu. A rational person. He reminds me of Calins, only instead of drugs, EVERYTHING is the evil capitalist society.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Two, Zeal, an institution allows for those specialised in that work to investigate. I wouldn't want, say, a teacher investigating a crime. EVER.

Anyone intelligent enough can investigate, and there's no better wya to investigate than investigate collectively.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Three, collective la enforcement IS possible, yes. Still does not make it right.

Why?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Four, you never said she was seven. You gave no details. In fact, most of those there wouldn't have known, I'm sure.

You were the one to jump into the conclusion that "girl" meant "adult human female" in that context.

Tyrong kojy wrote:

Just relying on others' word, and thats not enough in most courts to convict.

Often money, good connections and legal loopholes are much more important than even the word of the witness.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Sometimes it's not right, if the guy IS guilty, but if it WAS allowed, well, I can just imagine those that will be placed under the mob's fist. Innocent people would be conviced based on someone's word. And that's, I'm sure, all most of those 600 would have had.

It's better to have crime prevented.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

A lot of people just plain don't like me. I'd be a dead man.

If they don't like you they must have a reason not to.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Oh, and if the cops there are that bad, maybe someone should do better background checks or something. Obviously these aren't the kind of people who SHOULD be cops.

Cops can be "good" or "bad", but objectively they're a tool of this system.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Five, permanent martial law will also prevent most crimes. Should we have that?

Depends on what you define as "crime".

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Six, people not helping others isn't the fault of the cops. It just goes toward what I've said many times. People are douches.

Who said it was the cops' fault?

The only way to be right in stating that people are douches is if everyone without expception was a douche.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Seven, when I said I supported martial law in those cases, I meant all out riots like you gave. It prevents THOSE people from hurting THEMSELVES, and prevents destruction, and prevents others outside the mob from being hurt.

Actually it hurts those people and their environment. Such "mobs" as you call them don't harm anyone who is not involved in the crime they're prosecuting.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

That's why protests in most countries are bordered by police so as to protect everyone.

Or to actually hurt them like it so often happens.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

They can protest, which is like a riot, in a large mob, but the police are there to prevent the opposition from hurting them. (Obviously it's mostly the other way around in a real riot, but you get my point, I hope.)

I get your point, but the application of police force in such a way as you mentioned it, is rather rare.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Eight, It's simply a saying that is more often than not true. Here's another one.

"A person is rational. People are scared, panicky, and violent."

It is so rare that that or my previous one are wrong....

It's nothing irreversible, though.

Kenzu wrote:

I dont think "vigilant citizens" can not face professional murderers and violent criminals. Trained police force is necessary for this.

Send a professional murderer against 50 folks armed with shotguns, rifles and pistols, 200 armed with torches and 300 with anything they could grab and expect him to beat them.

Kenzu wrote:

Theft can be understood as a result of harsh capitalism, rape and murder cannot. (Most murderers know their victims and plan for it out of many different reasons: Jealousy, hate, greed)

Yes, so? Rape and murder can be understood as well as products of mental illness or extremely harsh emotional conditions (in the case of murder).

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

THANK you Kenzu. A rational person. He reminds me of Calins, only instead of drugs, EVERYTHING is the evil capitalist society.

I'll take this as an outright insult and as proof that you're not understanding at all what I'm posting.

Yes there is. Having QUALIFIED individuals investigating is better.

Mob rules, violence, hate. Need more reasons?

Yes, I concluded that. Based on all the evidence I saw. Whch, again, is all those 6000 would have had.

Yeah, sucks, and that's why we try to clsoe those loopholes when we can. Still better than a mob deciding how best to kill someone.

No, it's not better to prevent it. Not if it means the innocent. By that not, we should kill all the blacks in America's capitalist society, becasue statistically they're more likely to commit crimes, and it's better to prevent it.

I'm fat, and a nerd. I can tell you exactly what the head tail of a Twi'lek is. It's a leku. It contains their brain. How's that for nerdy? People are douches. Sounds like a good enough reason to hate me to me. Sure was in highschool, and some people just can't grow up.

"Tool of the system." You're absolutely right. And that tool's use? "To serve and protect."

Most robberies, street murders and rapes. Sounds like a good use of martial law to me. Oh, and random searches of homes would also help. Fine child pornography, drugs, guns, plans for possible attacks, etc. Hidden bodies.

No, not EVERYONE is a douche. You're just being a smartass here, Zeal, just to be annoying. Or a douche.

They can harm those closest to the perpetrator. Think of all the worst things that can possibly happen, and they will, more often than not. And you're right, martial law IS harmful to the people. So don't riot and form an angry mob. People will, in their anger, do violent things to things and people that have nothing to do with the criminal. And ESPECIALLY to those that DO have a connection.

Hurt who? The protesters? How does making sure the protesters keep away from their opposition, thus keeping, or trying to anyway, a fight from occurring hurting them? Is it not allowing them on certain roads? Well, cities generally have to keep running, and it keeps those who otherwise don;t give a shit from getting mad becasue they can't go somewhere. A lot of places make protesters stay on sidewalks, off the road entirely. If not, tey're be arrested because the police have to keep everyone happy. Including those going to work or shopping or whatnot.

Because riots themselves are generally rather rare.

What's not irreversable? Huh?

Oh, they could win, yes. "Hey kids, KILL PEOPLE WHO HURT YOU BRUTALLY AND VIOLENTLY!" Yes. There's a good message. incidentally, bombs and such could REALLY turn the tables to the pscho, especially if he knows he's going to have to deal with a mob. Ofcourse this won't likely happen either way, because I said said, "people are scared...." And especially the one.

And rape and murder would still occur, BECAUSE it's not capitalism. And there would be no prevention. At all. More planning, more violent murders, yes. No prevention. It would be Oklahoma City over and over again.

Oh no, I UNDERSTAND. You have this utopian world view that doesn't take into accout REAL human nature, placing FAR too much faith on the common man. His inteligence, his rationality, etc. There's a reason we entrust the elite to be our leaders. They're usually better. USUALLY.

Note: Not quoting because of length. No one wants to read whole pages of previously typed stuff, and I don't know how to quote specific points. Then there's the quoting IN the quoting, which is just generally annoying....

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Yes there is. Having QUALIFIED individuals investigating is better.

Qualification is subjective. What qualifies a person as an investigator?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Mob rules, violence, hate. Need more reasons?

You're adressing collective law enforcement in general. Those characteristics mentioned by you are not intrinsic to all kinds of Collective law enforcement.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Yes, I concluded that. Based on all the evidence I saw. Whch, again, is all those 6000 would have had.

Your mistake was to conclude that "girl" meant "adult woman". You jumped to the biased conclusion that the only possible way in which a policeman would try to catch a "girl" would be by trying to arrest her.

As for those people, around 30 were 1st hand witnesses, as more people gathered they witnessed how the policeman had the girl in his arms, the girl crying and the man running. He hadn't reached the police car when it was already surrounded by hundreds of people.

Why would 150-200 witnesses be unreliable?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Yeah, sucks, and that's why we try to clsoe those loopholes when we can. Still better than a mob deciding how best to kill someone.

Impunity is not better than massively coordinated crime prevention.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

No, it's not better to prevent it. Not if it means the innocent. By that not, we should kill all the blacks in America's capitalist society, becasue statistically they're more likely to commit crimes, and it's better to prevent it.

Who is talking about being based on statistics to target criminals? You're using a hyperbole my friend.

If 50 people see how a man is trying to rape a woman and those 50 men stop the rapist and lynch it, is that fair? I'd say it is, and I'd say it's inmensely more effective than having the girl raped, and having to wait for the legal system to somehow compensate her.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I'm fat, and a nerd. I can tell you exactly what the head tail of a Twi'lek is. It's a leku. It contains their brain. How's that for nerdy? People are douches. Sounds like a good enough reason to hate me to me. Sure was in highschool, and some people just can't grow up.

Don't generalize. A nd you being a fat nerd is not a good reason to hate you, it's a stupoid and completely reversible genus for hatred against you.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

"Tool of the system." You're absolutely right. And that tool's use? "To serve and protect."

Exactly, "to serve and protect" the interests of the state and the priviledged elite.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Most robberies, street murders and rapes. Sounds like a good use of martial law to me. Oh, and random searches of homes would also help. Fine child pornography, drugs, guns, plans for possible attacks, etc. Hidden bodies.

That would be supposing soldiers wouldn't do that themselves or condone it in special ocassions.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

No, not EVERYONE is a douche. You're just being a smartass here, Zeal, just to be annoying. Or a douche.

That's your misinterpretation of things given your own experience. Objectively people are not naturally douches because not all people are douches. If some people are not douches and some other stopped being douches, that means anyone can stop being so and it also means it's not a natural human condition. Just a human limitation like when babies are learning to stand up and walk or speak.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

They can harm those closest to the perpetrator. Think of all the worst things that can possibly happen, and they will, more often than not. And you're right, martial law IS harmful to the people. So don't riot and form an angry mob.

I'm not saying that a mob is the exemplar form of collectuve justice I'm just saying that 1) it's more efficient than either martial law or police force 2) proves that collective law enforcement is plausible.

It's the 2nd time I repeat this.

And, people have the right to riot when teh status quo is not ligitimate.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

People will, in their anger, do violent things to things and people that have nothing to do with the criminal.

In most cases of the kind I quoted no one but the perpetrator is harmed excpet when someone tries to intervene in defence of the perpetrator.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And ESPECIALLY to those that DO have a connection.

Not in t he kind of cases in which I've quoted. It has even happened that members of the perpetrator's family side with the mob to lynch their family memeber for his wrong doing.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Hurt who? The protesters? How does making sure the protesters keep away from their opposition, thus keeping, or trying to anyway, a fight from occurring hurting them? Is it not allowing them on certain roads? Well, cities generally have to keep running, and it keeps those who otherwise don;t give a shit from getting mad becasue they can't go somewhere. A lot of places make protesters stay on sidewalks, off the road entirely. If not, tey're be arrested because the police have to keep everyone happy. Including those going to work or shopping or whatnot.

They harm them by beating protesters, by throwing tear gas and high-pressure water and by shooting rubber bullets and using ultrasonic devices and stun guns.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Because riots themselves are generally rather rare.

From a certain ammount of riots and protests taking place, most of them have police using force against protesters.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

What's not irreversable? Huh?

What you referd to with your quotes.

Tyong Kojy wrote:

Oh, they could win, yes. "Hey kids, KILL PEOPLE WHO HURT YOU BRUTALLY AND VIOLENTLY!" Yes. There's a good message.

Huh?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

incidentally, bombs and such could REALLY turn the tables to the pscho, especially if he knows he's going to have to deal with a mob. Ofcourse this won't likely happen either way, because I said said, "people are scared...." And especially the one.

Not like mobs wouldn't count with explosives though. The entire weapons' black market in Mexico city is in charge of such a neighborhood. They have assault rifles, grenades, grenade launchers, RPGs and several kinds of explosives at their disposal. If attacked by a psycho, they'd surely use such weapons.

Tyrong kojy wrote:

And rape and murder would still occur, BECAUSE it's not capitalism. And there would be no prevention. At all. More planning, more violent murders, yes. No prevention. It would be Oklahoma City over and over again.

Crime would definitely diminish when its roots are cut off. And if surveilance is collective and organized and economy collectively controlled it is much harder for a potential criminal to take what he needs to perpetrate a terrorist attack.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Oh no, I UNDERSTAND. You have this utopian world view that doesn't take into accout REAL human nature, placing FAR too much faith on the common man.

"Human nature". This whole "human nature" thing is disproven by the fact millions of persons don't count with that "human nature". What you call human nature is just a bunch of temporal and reversible conditions like imaturity and ignorance.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

His inteligence, his rationality, etc. There's a reason we entrust the elite to be our leaders. They're usually better. USUALLY.

Actually most often they're even less rational than the common man. The problem is that we've been employing a system that precisely permits small groups of select individuals to advance at the expense of majorities creating thus the illusion you mention.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Note: Not quoting because of length. No one wants to read whole pages of previously typed stuff, and I don't know how to quote specific points. Then there's the quoting IN the quoting, which is just generally annoying....

Well, I use it for pragmatic reasons. In case you consider using it this is the format (without spaces):

[ quote="Insert nick"] Quoted text1.[/ quote]
Reply 1.

[quote ="Insert nick"] Quoted text2.[ /quote ]
Reply 2.

mattabesta wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And what kind of revolutionary supports the jailing system? Moast of the people found in jails are victims of the material conditions that they're forced to live under by capitalism.

so I can use that as an excuse if I get sued fro downloading 1 TB of movies?
if so I completely agree with whatever you said.

You don't need an excuse.

I'll startwitht he quotes. THat seems like a lot of work, going up and down like that, copy and pasting over and over. Nah, I'm good.

One, not being a teacher, that's for sure. Forgive me, but I can't see a teacher digging around a corpse trying to find evidence.

Two, true, and in general, "collective law enforcement" won't begood. You just admitted that.

Three, wait, are you making it sound like my argument has no validity here based on the lack of evidence you provided? Nice try, but YOU needed to give ME the evidence. What I originally thoguht it was is moot. I had to think of something. And there's nothing saying a little girl can't do something wrong and steal or kill. That's where YOU jumped to conclusions. So again, how would all those other people know that she wasn't being arrested based on the word of only a few and nothing else?

Four, and refer to some of my other points to see why crime prevention with what you're proposing would remove too many freedoms, and is simply unfair and dangerous.

Five, that's not a hyperbole. You said crime prevention is best. Well, I can think of many ways to prevent crime that WOULD be proposed by people. And yes, it would be better to stop the rape. Now, considering most rapes happe in other people's homes, and not on the street where everyone can see, how would they stop it? The only way with what you;'re proposing would be to, say, watch everyone's home all the time. Everywhere. Without their knowledge, becasue if they knew, and were doing something illegal, they'dremove the cameras. Kick people out. It's a person's right to walk around their house naked, or to have sex in their home, and I doubt most would like people watching them. And yes, I know of voyures. And that's the onyl way 50 people would be able to stop anything.

Please delete the above post. I pressed send too soon.

I'll start witht he quotes. THat seems like a lot of work, going up and down like that, copy and pasting over and over. Nah, I'm good.

One, not being a teacher, that's for sure. Forgive me, but I can't see a teacher digging around a corpse trying to find evidence.

Two, true, and in general, "collective law enforcement" won't begood. You just admitted that.

Three, wait, are you making it sound like my argument has no validity here based on the lack of evidence you provided? Nice try, but YOU needed to give ME the evidence. What I originally thoguht it was is moot. I had to think of something. And there's nothing saying a little girl can't do something wrong and steal or kill. That's where YOU jumped to conclusions. So again, how would all those other people know that she wasn't being arrested based on the word of only a few and nothing else?

Four, and refer to some of my other points to see why crime prevention with what you're proposing would remove too many freedoms, and is simply unfair and dangerous.

Five, that's not a hyperbole. You said crime prevention is best. Well, I can think of many ways to prevent crime that WOULD be proposed by people. And yes, it would be better to stop the rape. Now, considering most rapes happe in other people's homes, and not on the street where everyone can see, how would they stop it? The only way with what you;'re proposing would be to, say, watch everyone's home all the time. Everywhere. Without their knowledge, becasue if they knew, and were doing something illegal, they'dremove the cameras. Kick people out. It's a person's right to walk around their house naked, or to have sex in their home, and I doubt most would like people watching them. And yes, I know of voyures. And that's the onyl way 50 people would be able to stop anything.

Six, You're right, it's NOT a good reason. But it's still a reason. And as for it being reversable, yes, it is, bu have you ever tried? And I don't mean a few pounds. I mean several hundred. Not as easy as most skinny people like to think.

Seven, right back to the basless blaming like Calinis does.

Eight, soldiers DO do that in a war. And people don't like it. This is one of the things I mentioned that you should refer to to see why it would hurt freedoms and piss people off.

Nine, still waiting forit to be proven wrong. Yes, I DO trust others, probably more than I should. Bt the point is people can do jerky things. Everyone. Even, (if this is about what I think it's about,) cops. Like, cops laughing at someone who was hit by a car. I laughed at my one friend once. He tried to jump a ditch in a fourwheeler and it flipped. Broke his collar bone. I was like, "Dude, are you okay?" "Oh yeah. Just a little sore, but I'll be fine." "Oh good." Then I laughed at him. For being stupid. People do that. Have you never watched a slapstick comedy? Home Alone, for example? Or laughed when someone gets hit in the face with a ball, does a flip, lands on his back, and gets right back up trying to look like nothing happened, like no one saw? Because I do. And thus, people can be douches.

Ten, I know it's plausible. So is another Nazi government. Plausible does not make it right, in either case.

Eleven, in an ideal situation, no, no one else is hurt. But they can very easily be.

Twelve, more often than not I can guarentee that the family, who may be innocent, would side with the criminal, protect their loved one. And would suffer. Being beaten, raped, and murdered by the mob.

Thirteen, I assume you're refering to incidents like the May Day proests in LA. Well, the LA police ARE a little out of control. Kind of remind me of the ineffectual, corrupt Mexican police. Only wit more power. And they're critisised for this, and people are forced to step down. This is incompetent leaders. And they need leaders. Without, there would be no organisation. You need someone outside of the situation calling the shots, someone with a cool head, and people to follow orders. One sees the big pictures, and commands. Idealy, the "soldiers" do what they're told. But shit does happen. Lines are crossed. It happens. Then you try to fix it, you don't throw out the who package.

Fourteen, that's individuals, generally. Actual, legal protests that don't impede trafic, don't force a shutdown of the city, and don't interrupt people's lives rarely are met with this. The May Day protests are an exception, as I have said up there. The majority of people outside the protest WANT the police to get these people off the streets, so they can get on with their lives. And when they don't they break the law. When they resist, police have to use force. Though admitedly, they're getting a little too happy with the stun guns, lately. So train them better.

Fifteen, sure it's reversable. And it would be nice. In a perfect world that doesn't exist, and won't, everyone will be brave, happy, and strong. In reality, many are cowards, miserable, (some by choice, IE, goths) and weak. And if you think you can change this, you're happy to try. God luck to you.

Sixteen, another point to refer to to see how it won't work. Children often learn by example. Do you really want chuldren growing up learning that killing is wrong? KNOWING how to kill? Having DONE IT? All this crap about killing the criminal, how about NO killing of the criminal? NOT becoming murderers yourselves? I kind of like that idea. I can just see it now. "Jhonny stole my marker, so I stabbed him." "Why?" "Because a man stole my mommy's purse and the people cut off his head. I thought it was okay." Most children can be taught the difference between reality and fiction. Not so if it's reality and reality.

Seventeen, I'm not trying to give a real example of challenges faced. And I thought that crime would be gone in your world. Then, how would there BE a weapons black market? Sounds like an contradiction to me.

Eighteen, the surveilance we have IS organised. So what's your point? ANd it still doesn't adress when a guy gets horny and wants to fuck the first girl he comes across. Or the ones that get OFF on rape, and only rape. Yes, there are peope like that. And I meant Oklahoma city as an example of crimes being planned out more. How could you not really see that? You're reading things into the bits you shouldn't, and not when you should. Are you doing it on purpose?

Nineteen, I thought you wanted a freedom of religion thing. Well, most of the religious, at least the fundamentalists, are ignorant. You can't change them if they don't want to be changed. Ad they won't want it. There are some who think that Jews should be killed, and actively try for that. So then what? Your veiws of this perfect society contradict each other and won't allow for each other. Shoudl the mob prevent these people from worshiping how the want? Should they kill all those reposible for the murders they will, and do, commit? Lynching of blacks and gays are still done, and the KKK are motivated by religion. They WANT to remain ignorant. So how is it reversable in your world?

Twenty, (Fuck....) I admited some are corrupt. But many earn their place, and we elect them. Obama earned where he is right now, for example. He wasn't ALLOWED to advance. He earned it. He earned the election. Now, here's hoping he prove competent. He MIGHT be bad. All I see here is another Calinis like blaming. I see a system where the majority choose their leader out of many others. I see a system that usually isn't broken, and a system where the people, who might prove more often than not to be complete morons, choose a leader for better or worse. Sometimes he's good, sometimes he's not and never gave any indication otherwise. Yes they can cheat, like Bush. Sometimes though, they're fair like Obama, (so far.)

For length reasons, I had to split the post in 7 different posts. Just kidding, 2 posts.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Please delete the above post. I pressed send too soon.

I'll start witht he quotes. THat seems like a lot of work, going up and down like that, copy and pasting over and over. Nah, I'm good.

I don't copy and paste anything... I just press the "quote" button and separate paragraphs.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

One, not being a teacher, that's for sure. Forgive me, but I can't see a teacher digging around a corpse trying to find evidence.

Anyone with knowledge on a certain field can be a teacher. Those that dig up around corpses to find evidence are forensics which is an interdisciplinary field of knowledge.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Two, true, and in general, "collective law enforcement" won't begood. You just admitted that.

I've said like 3 times that I don't randomly support collective law enforcement. I've said that I consider it more effective and fair than the police system but still too far from what I'd call a "proper collective law enforcement system".

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Three, wait, are you making it sound like my argument has no validity here based on the lack of evidence you provided? Nice try, but YOU needed to give ME the evidence. What I originally thoguht it was is moot. I had to think of something. And there's nothing saying a little girl can't do something wrong and steal or kill. That's where YOU jumped to conclusions. So again, how would all those other people know that she wasn't being arrested based on the word of only a few and nothing else?

Simply put, you assumed that "girl" means "adult female". Jumping to that conclusion was your mistake.

As for a little girl, well, she can still or kill but legally she can't be arrested if at much detained.

Now let me describe you how the events took place: A glittle girl stroll in the street, there are lots of persons in the street doing their everyday activities. Then a police car quickly appears and approaches to the girl, it stops and a man gets off and snatches the girl. By that moment alrady dozens of people saw what the policeman did and began surrounding the vehicle and called more people. As more people approached hey could clearly see the policeman had stopped running with a girl cryiing between arms and dozens of people saying they had witnessed the man kidnapping her. People were exposed to the evidence in the crime scene and they decided to take action.

Is that clearer to you?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Four, and refer to some of my other points to see why crime prevention with what you're proposing would remove too many freedoms, and is simply unfair and dangerous.

Given the constant misundertanding in which you ahve engaged when interpreting my ideas, I'm pretty sure that you did't understand correctly the kind of system I propose.

It is impossible to prevent every crime. It is impractical and wrong to surveill house by house. The kind of prevention system I'm proposing doesn't have to do with surveilling eachh home or each person, it has to do with a coordinated collective law enforcement.

For example, lets say there is a quarrel in a home and the man is beating his wife. The woman could go out of her home and ask for help and it would be the neighbours to take action in stopping her husband. Her husband would be detained and an investigation and trial would ensue to determine how to procede with that case.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Five, that's not a hyperbole. You said crime prevention is best.

It's a hyperbole because you're deviating from the point through an exageration.

I'm not ptoposing to base surveillance on statistics or to target populations per crime indence rate. I already adressed the point above and I hope that it was clear enough to you.

To summarize: it's something like "participative law enforcement". If people witness a crime they should act and call others to assist.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Well, I can think of many ways to prevent crime that WOULD be proposed by people.

Which greatly depends on the context in which those people are found.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And yes, it would be better to stop the rape. Now, considering most rapes happe in other people's homes, and not on the street where everyone can see, how would they stop it?

As I said, it's impossible to stop every single crime. In such circumstances as you describe there's no possible way to prevent the crime at least for the 1st time unless you are surveilling every single home every time which IS NOT what I propose.

But, after accusing the man, in a collectivizised law enforcement system, he would have no way to escape if he remained within the society. So it would be his 1st and last rape.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

The only way with what you;'re proposing would be to, say, watch everyone's home all the time. Everywhere. Without their knowledge, becasue if they knew, and were doing something illegal, they'dremove the cameras. Kick people out. It's a person's right to walk around their house naked, or to have sex in their home, and I doubt most would like people watching them. And yes, I know of voyures. And that's the onyl way 50 people would be able to stop anything.

Which in no way is what I proposed nor ever implied proposing.
You definitely like to jump to conclusions instead of clarifying and confirming your assumptions don't you?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Six, You're right, it's NOT a good reason. But it's still a reason. And as for it being reversable, yes, it is, bu have you ever tried? And I don't mean a few pounds. I mean several hundred. Not as easy as most skinny people like to think.

I never said it is easy. It's also quite hard (I'd say impossible) to build a 100 story buidling if you're just one man, but gather a thousand and it will not only possible but far easier.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Seven, right back to the basless blaming like Calinis does.

Not at all. Who do they serve and protect objectively? They serve the state and they'll protect whoever that is protected by the state accoridng to the laws... It's not like policemen are guided by their own moral codes, they just have to obey the laws imposed by the state.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Eight, soldiers DO do that in a war. And people don't like it. This is one of the things I mentioned that you should refer to to see why it would hurt freedoms and piss people off.

And when did I ever state it wouldn't piss people off? And martial law actually could be considered a crime.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Nine, still waiting forit to be proven wrong. Yes, I DO trust others, probably more than I should. Bt the point is people can do jerky things. Everyone. Even, (if this is about what I think it's about,) cops. Like, cops laughing at someone who was hit by a car. I laughed at my one friend once. He tried to jump a ditch in a fourwheeler and it flipped. Broke his collar bone. I was like, "Dude, are you okay?" "Oh yeah. Just a little sore, but I'll be fine." "Oh good." Then I laughed at him. For being stupid. People do that.

It has nothing to do with those cops that made fun about me being hit by a truck. My point is simply that people are not douches naturally, it's just a limitation.

And in the way you put it with your friend, you're not being a douche at all.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Have you never watched a slapstick comedy? Home Alone, for example? Or laughed when someone gets hit in the face with a ball, does a flip, lands on his back, and gets right back up trying to look like nothing happened, like no one saw? Because I do.

I've never found funny such things to be honest.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And thus, people can be douches.

Can be, but it's not an irresversible condition present in all humans.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Ten, I know it's plausible. So is another Nazi government. Plausible does not make it right, in either case.

Lets see if this works for you to understand better:

"See? Collective law enforcement is plausible, now lets make it the right way".

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Eleven, in an ideal situation, no, no one else is hurt. But they can very easily be.

In an ideal condition, there is no need to riot in the first place.

Continuation of previous post.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Twelve, more often than not I can guarentee that the family, who may be innocent, would side with the criminal, protect their loved one. And would suffer. Being beaten, raped, and murdered by the mob.

It greatly depends on the kind of culture we're talking about. But indeed it's natural that those who side with the criminal will be considered criminal too.

Again, for the 4th time, this is not my ideal system of law enforcement thus is not what I propose.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Thirteen, I assume you're refering to incidents like the May Day proests in LA. Well, the LA police ARE a little out of control. Kind of remind me of the ineffectual, corrupt Mexican police. Only wit more power. And they're critisised for this, and people are forced to step down. This is incompetent leaders. And they need leaders. Without, there would be no organisation. You need someone outside of the situation calling the shots, someone with a cool head, and people to follow orders. One sees the big pictures, and commands.

I'm also talking about the protests in Italy where a protester got his abdomen cut open by the water launched at him and his guts in his hands or the protests in Turkey where tens of protesters had been hospitalized. That happens everywhere with any protest.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Idealy, the "soldiers" do what they're told. But shit does happen. Lines are crossed. It happens. Then you try to fix it, you don't throw out the who package.

Idealy, there would be no reason to protest or riot in the first place. If people are protesting there must be a reason thus what should be targetted is the reason for that protest and not the protesters. It's like theft, if there is theft there is a reason behind theft so the problem is noth the thief but the reason that makes him steal.

The target should be mainly the cause, not the consequence.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Fourteen, that's individuals, generally. Actual, legal protests that don't impede trafic, don't force a shutdown of the city, and don't interrupt people's lives rarely are met with this. The May Day protests are an exception, as I have said up there.

"Legal protester", interesting term. Often these people are not even paid real attention that's why others prefer another kind of protest, that actually calls the attention.

I insist, th problem are not the protesters, the problem is the reason that pushed them to protest.

And I'm not so into protests, I prefer coordinated organized resistance and revolution rather than just causing some nuisances. But even though I'm not into protests I consider them legitimate regardless of the way in which they're manifested as long as these protests are radical.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

The majority of people outside the protest WANT the police to get these people off the streets, so they can get on with their lives.

I think this is pretty arguable and depends a lot in the context.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And when they don't they break the law. When they resist, police have to use force. Though admitedly, they're getting a little too happy with the stun guns, lately. So train them better.

They may be protesting precisely against the law so why should they take it seriously or follow it? Anyway the relevance of this has already adressed 4 parragraphs above.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Fifteen, sure it's reversable. And it would be nice. In a perfect world that doesn't exist, and won't, everyone will be brave, happy, and strong. In reality, many are cowards, miserable, (some by choice, IE, goths) and weak. And if you think you can change this, you're happy to try. God luck to you.

It's reversible and it's possible hard or not, it's possible and is worth trying. Anyway I'm not speaking of a perfect world but indeed a much better one which will eventually happen.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Sixteen, another point to refer to to see how it won't work. Children often learn by example. Do you really want chuldren growing up learning that killing is wrong? KNOWING how to kill? Having DONE IT? All this crap about killing the criminal, how about NO killing of the criminal? NOT becoming murderers yourselves? I kind of like that idea. I can just see it now. "Jhonny stole my marker, so I stabbed him." "Why?" "Because a man stole my mommy's purse and the people cut off his head. I thought it was okay." Most children can be taught the difference between reality and fiction. Not so if it's reality and reality.

And when did I propose this?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Seventeen, I'm not trying to give a real example of challenges faced. And I thought that crime would be gone in your world. Then, how would there BE a weapons black market? Sounds like an contradiction to me.

You don't need weapons to build weapons, all you need is resources. Very powerful weapons can be made out of agricultural and industrial tools, a good control over them should help preventing those resources' weaponization.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Eighteen, the surveilance we have IS organised.

Potencially and compratively is much less organized and far less powerful and effective.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

So what's your point?

That the kind of colective security system I propose would work far more effectively than the actual police enforced security system.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

ANd it still doesn't adress when a guy gets horny and wants to fuck the first girl he comes across. Or the ones that get OFF on rape, and only rape.

Neither does the system I propose.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Yes, there are peope like that. And I meant Oklahoma city as an example of crimes being planned out more. How could you not really see that?

I adress this above. Crimes can be planned indeed, but crimes like the Oklahoma City bombing require a fair ammount of economic disorganization to allow industrial and agricultural resources to be weaponized.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

reading things into the bits you shouldn't, and not when you should. Are you doing it on purpose?

Huh?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Nineteen, I thought you wanted a freedom of religion thing. Well, most of the religious, at least the fundamentalists, are ignorant. You can't change them if they don't want to be changed.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean that fundamentalism that threatens social integrity will be allowed in the sae way "freedom" doesn't mean that you can kill anyone you want at will without consequences.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Ad they won't want it. There are some who think that Jews should be killed, and actively try for that. So then what?

If they can't be changed they'll be either expelled or contained, as simple as that, but there is a higher probabily of most of them being potencially changeble from such absurd views.

I used to think all homosexuals and Palestians had to be killed, I dramatically changed that idea. I knew a guy that 6 years ago was a total nazi and he gradually abandoned those ideas.

Things based on ignorance are weak and when confronted with knowledge and coherence they crumble.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Your veiws of this perfect society contradict each other and won't allow for each other. Shoudl the mob prevent these people from worshiping how the want?

Again, I'm not proposing a mob law enforcing system, I laready explained that 6 times. I'm just saying it demonstrates the plausibility of collective law enforcement.

I advocate freedom of religion as long as it doesn't threatten social integrity. That is it would allow a religion in which people have to wear a certain kind of clothing, do prayers, have their temple but not that advocates killing or torturing. You get the drift?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Should they kill all those reposible for the murders they will, and do, commit?

I clarified above more than once. I hope that is enough.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Lynching of blacks and gays are still done, and the KKK are motivated by religion. They WANT to remain ignorant. So how is it reversable in your world?

If their ignorance was irreversible (which I don't know why would it be irreversible) they would be expelled from society. If that didn't work they'd be contained. As simple as that.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Twenty, (Fuck....) I admited some are corrupt. But many earn their place, and we elect them. Obama earned where he is right now, for example. He wasn't ALLOWED to advance. He earned it. He earned the election. Now, here's hoping he prove competent. He MIGHT be bad. All I see here is another Calinis like blaming.

I won't discuss the legitimacy of that system because while you may consider it legitimate and agree with it, I don't so it's pointless to discuss about it.

What you were arguing is that leaders often represent "the best men". My point is that this is most often untrue. First of all, I'm assuming "best men" would be the "most capable men". How is that untrue? Well, most often they're not exceptionally more rational than the common man and quite often are less rational than a quite considerable ammount of persons.

Firstly, this system allows for a bunch of fairly needless jobs to exist, for example, managers. Any engineer can manage a factory but not any manager could manage it.

Management is just product of common sense (which most persons have) and knowledge on the workability of a system. Lately there has been an emphasis in trying to make a science out of management when it's something quite simple as long as you count with average intelligence and knowledge of the workability and objective of the system to be managed, that said, anyone can be a manager as long as 1) that person knows how the different parts of the system to manage work, 2) what is the objective of that system and 3) has common sense (which in no way is something provided by a career of management).

However, the actual neoliberalist culture is trying to build the impression that managers are exceptionally capable individuals when most often they're not only not exceptionally capable but not capable of actually managing things. I get back to the engineer and the manager.

The engineer knows how the different parts of the factory work, the manager has to learn that. The engineer is already qualified and far more capable than the manager to manage said factory.

Most of those persons that are considered to be "outstanding" or "exceptionally capable" are actually in the majority just persons which got greatly favoured by the circumstances.

The actual circumstances involve a greatly misguided and mostly ignorant populace usually choosing said leaders for the wrong reasons and very select circles of priviledged people that most often create or control said leaders and the circumstances for their choice.

My point, in a great majourity of cases leaders are not exceptionally capable, just exceptionally well placed. I'd say that the majourity of the most outstanding and capable men in history haven't been leaders and that equation repeats in the present. And even so, a great deal of those capable men have also been to an extent favoured by their circumstances in comparison to the majority of humans.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I see a system where the majority choose their leader out of many others. I see a system that usually isn't broken, and a system where the people, who might prove more often than not to be complete morons, choose a leader for better or worse. Sometimes he's good, sometimes he's not and never gave any indication otherwise. Yes they can cheat, like Bush. Sometimes though, they're fair like Obama, (so far.)

And that in no way means that the leaders are more capable or better than the average man.

I pondered reponding to this, Zeal. I did. But no. Your arguments have now changed from what you were originally proposing. You've changed what you were saying. You began by supoprting those fucking Mexican mobs that killed the cops. And now you're not. What's more, you're taking things out of context, reading things into what I'm saying when you shouldn't and not doing so when you should. Taking thins litterally when they're exagerations, and seeing exagerations when there are none.

I haven't been misunderstanding anything. I've been arguing with the little information that you're giving, exactly what you're saying, anf forgive me, but if you've at all not been literal, you're not very good at showing it.

You didn't give me the details of the kidnapping, so i went with what I knew, what little I knew. It was YOUR job to tell me. THEN. NOT NOW. THEN. You've been vague simply calling it a "participative law enforcement" which means nothing. nothing. I don't care what the hell you call it. I'll call communism "shitty-mc-fuckerton" but it still means nothing unless it's actually explained. Which you have not done, in any kind of detail. People coming out to help DOES happen. A LOT. But it's still not good, because they can get violent. And I know that's not what you're proposing.

I think I know what to refer to you as. Some people are smart. Others are jerks. SOme can be liberals, others conspiracy thorists. You're a radical fundamentalist conspiracy theorist. Talking to you is like talking... to a fundamentalist, actually. Unable to understand at all what I'm saying, and being so vague in your responses as to be maddening.

I'm done.

No, one more thing. How, praytell, can 1000 people help me loose wheight? I'm curious? Because in that quote you completely cut out that whole part. So it sounds like you, like a fundy, wanted to purposfully quote me out of context making it sound like somehting entirely different. It's like a fundy and where Darwin talks about the human eye. How they LOVE to quote that.....

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I pondered reponding to this, Zeal. I did. But no. Your arguments have now changed from what you were originally proposing. You've changed what you were saying. You began by supoprting those fucking Mexican mobs that killed the cops. And now you're not. What's more, you're taking things out of context, reading things into what I'm saying when you shouldn't and not doing so when you should. Taking thins litterally when they're exagerations, and seeing exagerations when there are none.

Want me to disprove you? I definitely can, but it will take time to put everything together.

Just to reply quickly.

I said that those mobs were more effective than police force and thus I prefered such kind of justice system than cops. BUT I never said I thought they were an ideal form of justice therefore not the one I'd substitute police force with.

Tyrong kojy wrote:

I haven't been misunderstanding anything.

I can prove it and I will. I just hope you'll read it anyway.
A quick example: I say that policemen werer kidnapping a girl. Your immediate conclusion is that "girl" means "adult female" Why? On which grounds? Couldn't you clarify before jumping to conclusions? Couldn't you ask if you were not sure of the meaning of the word "girl" in that context?

The impression such conclusions give me is that you let your bias blindfold your objective judgement.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I've been arguing with the little information that you're giving, exactly what you're saying, anf forgive me, but if you've at all not been literal, you're not very good at showing it.

Point partially adressed above.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

You didn't give me the details of the kidnapping, so i went with what I knew, what little I knew. It was YOUR job to tell me. THEN. NOT NOW. THEN.

Again, it was completely your mistake to assume that "girl" meant "adult female infractor". Again, why would you jump to that conclusion?

The only possible explanation I can find is that you're letting your bias out by immediately understanding it in a context in which it wouldn't seem like a kidnapping.

Tyrong kojy wrote:

You've been vague simply calling it a "participative law enforcement" which means nothing. nothing.I don't care what the hell you call it. I'll call communism "shitty-mc-fuckerton" but it still means nothing unless it's actually explained. Which you have not done, in any kind of detail.

You seem to imply that I have constatly employed the term "participative law enforcement" which I used just once. Just pointing that out.

Now, the system which I support? I have just defined some brief details. I never claimed to have described it in detail.

Some traits of that system which I have mentioned include: If possible prevention or interception of the crime and detention of suspects followed by investigation and collective decision on how to procede on the case.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

People coming out to help DOES happen. A LOT. But it's still not good, because they can get violent. And I know that's not what you're proposing.

Part of what I'm proposing is that people coming out to help should be the law enforcement. In ordr to do so effectively there should be a democratically decided course of action in such cases.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I think I know what to refer to you as. Some people are smart. Others are jerks. SOme can be liberals, others conspiracy thorists.

Not really.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

You're a radical fundamentalist conspiracy theorist. Talking to you is like talking... to a fundamentalist, actually. Unable to understand at all what I'm saying, and being so vague in your responses as to be maddening.

Would you mind demonstrating this claim? Because I can actually demonstrate that you have been totally misunderstanding my points.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I'm done.

No, one more thing. How, praytell, can 1000 people help me loose wheight? I'm curious?

I never implied such a thing. What I said is that what can be reversed is the idiotic reaction of hatred towards your person just for being fat.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Because in that quote you completely cut out that whole part. So it sounds like you, like a fundy, wanted to purposfully quote me out of context making it sound like somehting entirely different. It's like a fundy and where Darwin talks about the human eye. How they LOVE to quote that.....

Could you demonstrate please?