You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Noam Chomsky: "The general population doesn’t know what’s happening, and it doesn’t even know that it doesn’t know..!!"
With great claims comes the burden of great evidence.
Speculations are as good as anyone can get without true substantiation. If these speculations are corroborated, then how we work with them is what will define the future.
Shouldn't you take a bit of your advice and go back to the conversation you abandoned or currently persist as a hypocrite based on your ideology?
https://steemit.com/police/@dullhawk/police-is-not-a-race-it-s-a-gang
I'd actually forgotten about it, lol. And in all reality I don't care much. There is not going to be any agreement between us on that point so I moved on.
Also....why did you get flagged? ._.
That's fine but right now it makes you a hypocrite, with great claims there comes the burden of great evidence to back them up. You've yet to provide evidence to back up your claim that police were created in this country to uphold the law and maintain liberty. Right now it's not about agreeing at all, it's about being a hypocrite at this point.
That you don't care and you forgotten about it is an understandable but I want to know how you forgot about it as you've made a comment after my comment to you, it seems like you avoided commenting.
Who knows why he's flagging me, my best guess is that after exposing @htooms for his hypocrisy and possibly being an account manned by one fyrstikeen he got mad and decided to retaliate, but that's just a guess, and I don't care to ask him why he's flagging me with his sockpuppet accounts, especially after he called me a dicksucker.
shrug It doesn't require much evidence as it's not even that great of a claim. The only people who disagree with the notion that the police's purpose is to uphold liberty and justice is anarchists, so it is very much so a disagreement on an ideologically fundamental level.
OPs claim of knowing some deeper truth that others don't. That is quite a bold claim that requires much substantiation.
If you won't drop something discussed in the past, then at this point I'm just going to label you as obsessive over it and hence forth ignore you. Reasonable enough?
The claim that police were established to uphold liberty and justice is a bold faced lie in the face of facts. Police have been established to round up runaway slaves, the police forces we have today have been founded directly from slave patrols.
The OPs claim is not the issue at all, it is your premise that was entwined into your argument repeatedly, that police were established to uphold liberty and justice. Their purpose aside you pointed to their inception and the why and how of that being legitimate and therefore not a gang, when in fact they are a gang through and thorough, which is why I pointed out that quote about challenging your beliefs from this post, granted right now I've very much successfully hijacked it but it wasn't my intention for that I apologize @stephenkendal, sought to point out that if you live by that ideology it makes you a hypocrite, as you abandoned that discussion first of all, where I challenged your argument, but more importantly I brought evidence supporting the fact that police weren't established to maintain liberty, quite the contrary they were established to maintain slavery.
Couldn't let dead dogs stay dead.
Again, we're at a completely fundamental approach. What you're talking about are "proto-police" forces that the south had before the civil war. Before that time during the colonies, they were equal to bounty hunters and that's it. You're morally bankrupt if you have nothing else to compare them to than things that have been long since gone for a decade+. You've committed an ad hoc plain and simple.
'dead dog' is not an argument, it is a cop out.
He brought this drama from another post way before this. There was no argument intended, nor do I care to continue to discuss with him about this topic. His intent is an obsessive meandering of said topics that, if another stops talking to that should indicate that they're not interested anymore, are more or less frivolous at this point.
I already know his position plain and clear, and we're not going to reach any impasse because he's all the way down on the libertarian scale.
Your entire argument is derived from the same fantasy as before, now though you've danced around providing any evidence that police were the result of maintaining liberty, instead you focused on marginalizing the purpose of slave patrols to bounty hunters, and their inception and those implications of their purpose into things that have been long since gone, when nothing is further from the truth as you can see in statistics of cop on black violence.
No they weren't bounty hunters, they were institutionalized:
No, these things have not long been gone:
No ad hoc, plain and simple, it's providing evidence counter to your claim that they were established to maintain liberty. Nothing is further from the truth:
Law enforcement has never been about maintaining liberty, period, and it certainly isn't about that today. It's about the immorality of imposing the will of people that have the delegated rights that individuals cannot have, nor delegate. Moral bankruptcy is to defend such things and to skirt around such issues, as long as a group of people can do what no individuals are allowed to do, such as impose arbitrary mandates, enforce those mandates, kidnap and murder those that break or resist their mandates, extort wealth through the threat of force or coercion, as long as you are for these things you have no moral ground to stand on, your linchpin is defending immorality.
There is nothing more to discuss, as you've brought unwarranted drama by bringing a disagreement on another post to a different place. Good day, and good riddance.
I don't think there's any need to express what you're going to label me especially since the discussion was simply abandoned and not concluded, so whatever you wish to label me isn't my problem at that point then.