Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

[ThamiorTheThinker]

As others have pointed out, that is not a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when two pieces of information (rather, two statements) negate each other or deny the truth of each other. For example, I am contradicting myself if I say I have black hair and that simultaneously I don't have black hair.

What police are doing is withholding their identity in order to uphold law. If they suspect a known drug dealer, they aren't going to tell the drug dealer or give away through their actions that they're police. That would give them a disadvantage in accomplishing their job as police officers.

What you seem to be suggesting, as others have also pointed out, is that you have an issue with that fact that you can't know when people are police officers - but I think it's better to only not know when someone is a police officer when they don't claim to be, than it is to not know when they ARE claiming to be.

I hope that makes sense. Can you see how police are doing a service by keeping their identities protected, but at the same time how impersonators are NOT (at least in most cases) doing a good service? If you lie about being a police officer and you aren't one, it's generally out of some selfish interest (historically, a destructive one at that). When a police officer lies about their position, however, it is (generally) in order to withhold order, as in the drug dealer hypothetical above (which is probably a common case).

One more point; you ask if policing should be considered a civil right, but I'm not sure that police work is the kind of thing that involves just one job - apprehending criminals. Police officers do much more than that, and their jobs require understanding of local and federal law, self-defense and psychology. These are not things you just acquire anywhere - these skills and knowledge bases require training and time to acquire. So no, civil rights (which must be able to be upheld by the majority) are not best fitted to include policing.

[TSBU]

There are a lot of policemen in every country, and, even though they don't serve the same "laws" (people) we keep calling them all by the same name. It's well known how corruption and stupidity are nearly synonymous with police in many places. Of course, that doesn't mean that every policeman is the same kind of person, it's only a matter of statistics.

What is always true, is that they obey, they can't decide when do they have to catch a criminal, when someone is a criminal, they just catch people, even if they don't like their orders or the "law" (people) who give them orders, and they take care of every people who use violence and isn't a policeman.

In many countrys, catching a criminal is only effective if you have "evidence" for other people. (That means that, if you are a murderer, and the only evidence is that only a person have see you, it's easy to escape punishment), and that means that maaaaaany criminals that "everybody" knows that are criminalls, are free. Just because, even though we all know it, nobody has an "evidence", and so, in many places, we all know where are the slave prostitutes, etc, but... and in many countrys, police is, with no many distinction, another criminall organization.

"Civil rights" are two bubble words for rich heads. Nothing should be regarded as a civil right, and, of course, civil rights doesn't exist. But it will be regarded that way no matter what you say.... I think it's useless to talk about anything pretending to convince "everybody", that's impossible, for anything. And you can only aproach it, using no reason, but brainwashing (like all that state stuff in schools).

[Empiricist-Bruno]

TTT,
I'm sorry to read your reply: your words suggest that you care about the police or about their work. On the other hand, I'm saying you have no right to know who they are. You are fine with that or find an excuse for the stranger. You have a stranger in your midst that does dangerous drugs (I rank firearms as drugs) and you defend that character.

What this tells me is that this stranger that has high-jacked society and who is holding society hostage does succeed in making friends of the people he/she holds hostage. That make sense: that will make the high jacking easier.

I would argue that if they need to be unknown in order to do their jobs, then there is something wrong with the job they do, or more precisely, the way they do their job. The solution is to make of policing a civil right. This way, we know everyone is a cop or can act in that capacity. I don't want no alien ruling it over me. If you yourself are fine with it, then I respect your opinion. Let's simply agree to disagree.

[ThamiorTheThinker]

TTT,
I'm sorry to read your reply: your words suggest that you care about the police or about their work. On the other hand, I'm saying you have no right to know who they are. You are fine with that or find an excuse for the stranger. You have a stranger in your midst that does dangerous drugs (I rank firearms as drugs) and you defend that character.

What this tells me is that this stranger that has high-jacked society and who is holding society hostage does succeed in making friends of the people he/she holds hostage. That make sense: that will make the high jacking easier.

I would argue that if they need to be unknown in order to do their jobs, then there is something wrong with the job they do, or more precisely, the way they do their job. The solution is to make of policing a civil right. This way, we know everyone is a cop or can act in that capacity. I don't want no alien ruling it over me. If you yourself are fine with it, then I respect your opinion. Let's simply agree to disagree.

The emboldened parts of your quote are things I'm going to address.

I disagree with your premise that firearms can be classified as similar to drugs. I'll extrapolate by assuming you mean that, when one possesses a firearm and the ability to use its intended function, that person's thinking, behavior and decision-making can be affected in dangerous ways. However, research consistently suggests otherwise (I'll leave some links below), and furthermore police are trained and taught to respect their firearms and use them only in self-defense or the defense of others. While I cannot deny there are grey areas and cases in which the possession of a firearm grants police officers power they should not have otherwise had, I have to pretty much disagree that firearms force or somehow adversely impact an officer's decision making in dangerous ways by default. People don't just pick up guns and become criminals, as the case is with many narcotics, like PCP or cocaine.

You then made a slippery slope claim without even showing the steps necessary to get to the bottom. What I mean by that is you started with this claim that police officers with hidden identities ("strangers") are using things which you think have a corrupting force over decision-making (guns, by your comparison of them to dangerous narcotics). You then jumped to this unsupported claim that these "strangers" (undercover police) are highjacking society.

Not only was that a slippery slope claim you made, and at that, one that you didn't explain clearly with evidence to support it; you also failed to clearly define what you think "highjacking society" means and what it implies. So, I cannot even properly challenge your idea of what police are doing by, as you think they are, "holding society hostage". Explain what you mean, and give me evidence to suggest that police are actually doing this, and why you think that follows from or is related to your claim that guns are like dangerous narcotics.

So, as you can see, you have a lot of ground to cover before I even begin to challenge your idea.
1) Support your assumption that firearms are comparable to dangerous narcotics/drugs.
2)[ Explain what you mean by saying that society is held hostage by undercover police or by police in general.
3) Whatever your meaning of that claim is, support it with reasons and evidence.

You also made one very big mistake in your argument here: Police go undercover in order to withhold the law (generally). They aren't always undercover. You implicitly suggested that police officers' identities have to be or are often hidden, but that simply isn't the case. They aren't always "strangers". Most of the time, the opposite is true. You also claimed that I defend the character you described, but that isn't true. I defend police officers who exercise their given right to beneficial ends (i.e., what they're meant to do by exercising their right to withhold their identities). I would rather you not straw-man my argument.

To address that last emboldened section: 1) You say you argue there's something wrong with how police perform their primary job function if it requires undercover work, but you didn't actually give an argument, and 2) they aren't required to withhold their identities, they merely have the right to.

I should also mention that entrapment is a crime. Police DO have legally-bound restrictions to this right.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

TTT,

You disagree that firearms belong under the drug label?

I'll extrapolate by assuming you mean that, when one possesses a firearm and the ability to use its intended function, that person's thinking, behavior and decision-making can be affected in dangerous ways.

No, this isn't what I meant. I claim that firearms are a drug and so, in relation to a firearm, it is only appropriate to describe a gun person as a user. Of course, you can have possession of a joint and never use it, so it all depends. Are there cops out there who have guns and who would never use them? I don't know. I don't know who they are. I have no right to know. I think as a whole, most people would think that those in police uniforms are users and not just in possession in regard to firearms.

If this is correct, and let's presume that this is correct, then we have to look at who they are from a whole new perspective. We have to look at these people as being in a drugged state, high on terror, high on hate. I guess this isn't too different from what you say... I'm not into euphemisms.

However, research consistently suggests otherwise (I'll leave some links below), and furthermore police are trained and taught to respect their firearms and use them only in self-defense or the defense of others.

The links are below? And who does the police training? Aren't they self-trained and self-taught? (I certainly never have trained anyone entering police uniforms.) If they are, and I think they are, then they can argue whatever they want about their training as it doesn't matter. But if anyone has and shows respect for firearms, it tells me a great deal about their character and world views. I do understand why these types want you not to know them really.

It seems to me that you have somewhat naive political views. I used to hold similar beliefs. Experience has thought me that you first establish your power and then you rationalize it; you use arguments to defend or justify your power or your aggression or your threat of aggression. The purpose of the argument has nothing to do with stating a truth or an ideal or a goal; it has everything to do with preserving the power of the one that has the power, along with his/her leadership and drugs. The purpose of their talk is to ensure that their fascist power, their fascist lead will be preserved. This kind of talk is all smoke and mirrors; those who believe it are dismantled. What I do not know is if you speak as a dismantled person or as a stranger.

People don't just pick up guns and become criminals, as the case is with many narcotics, like PCP or cocaine.

Straw man argument? Did I say that guns as drugs had effects similar to those of many narcotics like the ones you mention? Keep in mind that drugs are not just used to do evil, they are often used to save lives.

If you are a gun user, the drug will make you more dangerous than if you didn't have it. Are you implying that I believe that dangerousness implies criminality? Criminality is created mostly by the guys in police uniform; they certainly won't criminalize their use of their pet drug, at least not when it is in their own fascist hands, (except perhaps on exceptionally rare occasions when their is a major public outcry against a single one individual in their group, a scapegoat.)

are using things which you think have a corrupting force over decision-making (guns, by your comparison of them to dangerous narcotics).

Straw man argument?

My experience in reading history is that all the advanced societies in which we live in today started with some highjack by a police force. But I'm not a historian. Are there any historian here willing to contradict my assessment of world history?

You implicitly suggested that police officers' identities have to be or are often hidden, but that simply isn't the case. They aren't always "strangers"

Tell me TTT, can I look forward to logging on to my police force's web site and have all the faces and names of all the police officers working in the force made available to me along with the area and division (narcotics, murders) they are part of (all recently updated)? These guys allegedly work for the public; they aren't a private company or are they? No, they will find reasons for you not to obtain this and although you may buy into their smoke screen, I do not. If your police does offer you this information, please let me know where you live.

1) You say you argue there's something wrong with how police perform their primary job function if it requires undercover work, but you didn't actually give an argument,

TTT, "undercover work" equals "stranger work" to me. If you do good work or worthwhile work, you don't need to do it as a stranger, in my opinion.

Thanks for all the questions. I sincerely appreciate your interest.

-- Updated September 16th, 2016, 1:37 pm to add the following --

TTT, for your information, I even consider this computer in front of me under the drug label. If something can change the way you think about yourself and it spends energy other than your own in the process then as far as I'm concern it is subject to being labeled a drug. This computer on its own certainly isn't as dangerous a drug as a firearm.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yes, that is correct. But guns are a drug and so with guns, people are drugged and these drugged people are a lot more effective at killing people. What need to we have for that? What amount of respect if any do we need to have for that?

-- Updated September 16th, 2016, 1:38 pm to add the following --

TSBU,

Is there slavery in your country? If there isn't doesn't it mean you have civil rights in your country?

[ThamiorTheThinker]

TTT,

You disagree that firearms belong under the drug label?

I'll extrapolate by assuming you mean that, when one possesses a firearm and the ability to use its intended function, that person's thinking, behavior and decision-making can be affected in dangerous ways.

I claim that firearms are a drug and so, in relation to a firearm, it is only appropriate to describe a gun person as a user.

If this is correct, and let's presume that this is correct, then we have to look at who they are from a whole new perspective. We have to look at these people as being in a drugged state, high on terror, high on hate. I guess this isn't too different from what you say... I'm not into euphemisms.

Yes, of course I disagree. The use of drugs have a direct impact on someone's behavior, whereas it's unclear what impact the possession of firearms have on the possessor's psychology.

The links are below? And who does the police training? Aren't they self-trained and self-taught? (I certainly never have trained anyone entering police uniforms.) If they are, and I think they are, then they can argue whatever they want about their training as it doesn't matter. But if anyone has and shows respect for firearms, it tells me a great deal about their character and world views. I do understand why these types want you not to know them really.

Yes, forgive me. I forgot to do that last part. I'll provide the research I was talking about after my reply. No, police are trained by academies. I'd recommend looking into police academy training regiments and the kind of education they are required to complete before joining as an officer.

People don't just pick up guns and become criminals, as the case is with many narcotics, like PCP or cocaine.

Straw man argument? Did I say that guns as drugs had effects similar to those of many narcotics like the ones you mention? Keep in mind that drugs are not just used to do evil, they are often used to save lives.

And the same goes for firearms. They are used to save lives as well. And actually, this wasn't a straw man of your argument. You did, indeed, say this about firearms:

We have to look at these people as being in a drugged state, high on terror, high on hate. I guess this isn't too different from what you say

You even said the same here:

If you are a gun user, the drug will make you more dangerous than if you didn't have it.

Are you implying that I believe that dangerousness implies criminality? Criminality is created mostly by the guys in police uniform; they certainly won't criminalize their use of their pet drug, at least not when it is in their own fascist hands, (except perhaps on exceptionally rare occasions when their is a major public outcry against a single one individual in their group, a scapegoat.)

In the above lines, you used a question-begging definition of police by saying "fascist hands". What are your grounds for calling them fascists, and do you even understand what it means to be a fascist? What is your evidence that police are the proprietors of criminality?

are using things which you think have a corrupting force over decision-making (guns, by your comparison of them to dangerous narcotics).

Straw man argument?

My experience in reading history is that all the advanced societies in which we live in today started with some highjack by a police force. But I'm not a historian. Are there any historian here willing to contradict my assessment of world history?

You implicitly suggested that police officers' identities have to be or are often hidden, but that simply isn't the case. They aren't always "strangers"

Tell me TTT, can I look forward to logging on to my police force's web site and have all the faces and names of all the police officers working in the force made available to me along with the area and division (narcotics, murders) they are part of (all recently updated)? These guys allegedly work for the public; they aren't a private company or are they? No, they will find reasons for you not to obtain this and although you may buy into their smoke screen, I do not. If your police does offer you this information, please let me know where you live.

Police officers have identity badges, nametags and keep their faces unobscured while doing patrols. You can walk into any police station and find a roster. Police are also not required to hide their identities while not in uniform, either. Furthermore, police stations are government own and publicly funded with tax dollars. They are not private companies. That question is already decisively answered for you.

1) You say you argue there's something wrong with how police perform their primary job function if it requires undercover work, but you didn't actually give an argument,

TTT, "undercover work" equals "stranger work" to me. If you do good work or worthwhile work, you don't need to do it as a stranger, in my opinion.

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of doing work effectively. In SOME cases, police officers and investigators MUST keep their identities hidden in order to catch criminals or carry out their required job functions. Again, this isn't really a matter of how you see it, it is a simple matter of fact that some functions in the line of duty of a police officer require anonymity. Not always, and not for all officers, but surely it has been necessary before. I will also re-establish that there ARE laws which restrict this ability. Police are, for example, not legally allowed to commit entrapment.

If something can change the way you think about yourself and it spends energy other than your own in the process then as far as I'm concern it is subject to being labeled a drug.

Then I understood your point correctly, and I still disagree. You've described too many things which would fall under your label of "drug" for the label to have any significant meaning among other words. Also, in point of fact, firearms do not have the effect you say they do. Guns enable people to kill more easily, yes, but they do not necessarily have the exact psychological impact on people you claim they do.

Here are the sources I'm working with:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 40306/full

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/4430868/Theori ... rol_Debate

[Empiricist-Bruno]

TSBU,

Is there slavery in your country? If there isn't doesn't it mean you have civil rights in your country?

TTT,

The use of drugs have a direct impact on someone's behavior, whereas it's unclear what impact the possession of firearms have on the possessor's psychology.

Did you know, some drugs impact some people's behavior and don't affect other people's behavior? Do you claim to understand the impact of drugs on people? Does anyone make this claim?

You've described too many things which would fall under your label of "drug" for the label to have any significant meaning among other words.

Can you please tell me what it means to have significant meaning among other words?

Guns enable people to kill more easily, yes, but .

I'm concerned about the way you express this thought. The verb to enable really has two sense and it creates an ambiguity here. To enable can mean 1) give permission and it can also mean 2) to facilitate to a point where an action becomes a possibility.
A knife will enable you to kill and the meaning with this tool is #2.
A firearm will enable you to kill and the meaning is #1, not #2.
The reason is that when people are enabled by a gun to kill, they do not do the killing themselves, they just authorize it as the deadly energy that kills that comes from the gun's bullets and not from people.

For some reason, I am under the impression that you are confused about this and this is why I thought to make the point here.

I'd recommend looking into police academy training regiments and the kind of education they are required to complete before joining as an officer

Okay, police academies train the police. In what way does this contradicts my claim that police are self-trained?

Furthermore, police stations are government own and publicly funded with tax dollars. They are not private companies.

How do you know that the government isn't an arm of the police? You have no right to know who they are.

Police are, for example, not legally allowed to commit entrapment.

These kinds of laws help to fool people into thinking that the system is legit. How many police officers are sitting in jail right now due to this law, if I may ask? What police officer will enforce the law against his own body? If newspapers report entrapment, will you believe them or will you believe the police's denials?

In SOME cases, police officers and investigators MUST keep their identities hidden in order to catch criminals or carry out their required job functions.

No, this is simply the main excuse, the most believable one that the police come up with to hide from you. If you know why police do what they do, it is because you have joined their train: you are now with the hijackers. But police business is not civilian business. A guy in a police uniform once told me something like that when I asked him a question about what was going on. TTT, are you identifying yourself as a police officer here or as being with them?

but they[drugs] do not necessarily have the exact psychological impact on people you claim they do.

What are the exact psychological impact on people that I claim they do have, if I may ask?

...do you even understand what it means to be a fascist?

Please do tell me if I do.

What are your grounds for calling them fascists, and do you even understand what it means to be a fascist? What is your evidence that police are the proprietors of criminality?

I don't know any cop. I have no right to know them. In a way, some fascists are better than the uniforms because nothing legally precludes you from knowing them.
What I do know are police uniforms. I am legally obliged to recognize the uniform. And I must recognize as a police officer whom ever is inside these cloths unless of course that person is impersonating a police officer. But, impersonating a police officer is all about entering a police uniform so whether you recognize a person in a uniform or not as a police officer, you are breaking the law. And there is a gang of unknown people that are enforcing these laws with the help of kangaroo courts. This gives off a fascist smell, in my opinion. Also, once, I was giving a witness statement to a uniform and the guy in it told me that he wanted to get a conviction. He wasn't interested in the truth, or the facts. He was there to make a convict. That has helped me understand that certifying criminals is the objective of police activity.

Police officers have identity badges, nametags and keep their faces unobscured while doing patrols. You can walk into any police station and find a roster.

You can really walk in a police station and ask for the names and photos of all officers working in a station? Ho man, you are brave. Has anyone ever tried asking for this? I am afraid of doing anything that the armed fascist gang might view as suspicious. I have spent enough time siting locked up in a police looking cruiser, you know. And why wouldn't that information be simply available online? I can get this information about my Members of Parliament but these cocky guys that have never been elected can lord it over me and I can't know who they are? What the hell is going on here?
In my opinion, the fact that some people don't obscure their face has nothing to do with allowing you to know the police.

I think that policing should be a civil right because I believe it is the only way to create a real safe environment for the community. I think that this is especially important regarding laws that cover for a person's own personal safety. I see this as the only way to go.

And the same goes for firearms. They are used to save lives as well.

Typically, drugs that do save lives do not need to kill anyone in the process. In this respect, firearms always do something evil, even as they do something good, so they are a more controversial a drug than most other drugs, in my opinion. Whether controversial drugs such as guns are advisable for a good purpose at anytime is not a settled question, in my opinion. I think such drug are always good for the narcissist, but that doesn't imply that guns are a good drug overall.

[ThamiorTheThinker]

TTT,

The use of drugs have a direct impact on someone's behavior, whereas it's unclear what impact the possession of firearms have on the possessor's psychology.

Did you know, some drugs impact some people's behavior and don't affect other people's behavior? Do you claim to understand the impact of drugs on people? Does anyone make this claim?

Since we were talking about narcotics specifically, and given that narcotics generally have an impact on the user's behavior and psychological state, it is safe to say that my point stands.

You've described too many things which would fall under your label of "drug" for the label to have any significant meaning among other words.

Can you please tell me what it means to have significant meaning among other words?

To quote you: 'If something can change the way you think about yourself and it spends energy other than your own in the process then as far as I'm concern it is subject to being labeled a drug.'

If we use that definition, however, then many things which people would not normally think of as having drug-like properties or effects on individuals would still be called drugs. In other words, drugs are generally thought of as a very specific classification of objects used for legal and medical purposes, and your definition is too broad to fit that usage. Firearms, in this case, do not (without your own psychology factoring in) change your state of mind or how you think of yourself. The presence or possession of a firearm is not even like the way you described it, because it doesn't spend energy which changes the way you think of yourself, and it is certainly not like any drugs that the dictionary definition of the word describes.

Guns enable people to kill more easily, yes, but .

I'm concerned about the way you express this thought. The verb to enable really has two sense and it creates an ambiguity here. To enable can mean 1) give permission and it can also mean 2) to facilitate to a point where an action becomes a possibility.
A knife will enable you to kill and the meaning with this tool is #2.
A firearm will enable you to kill and the meaning is #1, not #2.
The reason is that when people are enabled by a gun to kill, they do not do the killing themselves, they just authorize it as the deadly energy that kills that comes from the gun's bullets and not from people.

For some reason, I am under the impression that you are confused about this and this is why I thought to make the point here.

One must authorize a knife to kill someone, because in order to kill someone using a knife, they must take specific physical actions which lead to the knife being stabbed or cut into parts of the victim's body. In the case of a firearm, this is also what happens - the user takes specific physical actions which lead to the trigger being pulled and the projectile being fired and landing in the victim's body in an area which was aimed at deliberately.

In short, your distinction between the two meanings and their applications to knives and guns was quite a false division and, in truth, guns also fit meaning #2. The gun cannot cause death without the user's deliberate action, and neither can the knife. They are the same in that regard. Guns don't kill, people kill using guns. Knives don't kill, people kill using knives. In both cases, the weapon is the tool, the user is the actor.

I'd recommend looking into police academy training regiments and the kind of education they are required to complete before joining as an officer

Okay, police academies train the police. In what way does this contradicts my claim that police are self-trained?

Do I really have to explain myself? Isn't it obvious? Police officers do not train themselves. Senior officers and government-hired, experienced professionals train new police officers. It is a clear counter to your point. What else is there to explain?

Furthermore, police stations are government own and publicly funded with tax dollars. They are not private companies.

How do you know that the government isn't an arm of the police? You have no right to know who they are.

You're just being ignorant and refusing common knowledge with this question. I know because of how my local and federal government works, how policing works in my nation and region, and because of how the legal system works in conjunction with police affairs. It seems to me you're just asking another question to try and complicate the issue.

It is not the case that I have no right to know which individuals are police officers, it is only the case that they have legal permission to, in some cases, disguise their identities. Those are not the same thing, don't conflate them.

Police are, for example, not legally allowed to commit entrapment.

These kinds of laws help to fool people into thinking that the system is legit.

Okay.. back that claim up. You're just stating it. Give me evidence.

How many police officers are sitting in jail right now due to this law, if I may ask? What police officer will enforce the law against his own body? If newspapers report entrapment, will you believe them or will you believe the police's denials?

You could find incarceration records if you'd like to know. I don't think I have to answer that first question for you. Besides, it's not relevant. These laws against entrapment exist and are presumably enforced by the superiors of each officer, unless you have direct evidence to the contrary, and I'd like to know if you do.. that way you can stop asking more questions than you answer.

In SOME cases, police officers and investigators MUST keep their identities hidden in order to catch criminals or carry out their required job functions.

No, this is simply the main excuse, the most believable one that the police come up with to hide from you. If you know why police do what they do, it is because you have joined their train: you are now with the hijackers. But police business is not civilian business. A guy in a police uniform once told me something like that when I asked him a question about what was going on. TTT, are you identifying yourself as a police officer here or as being with them?

And here we are again... you are assuming that police are "hiding" from the public eye instead of making arguments and giving evidence to support that assumption. You keep calling them hijackers, but you have not defined the term or how it is that police actually fit that description. Back up your claims. You're begging the question once again.

but they[drugs] do not necessarily have the exact psychological impact on people you claim they do.

What are the exact psychological impact on people that I claim they do have, if I may ask?[/quote]

Why don't you stop asking questions and try to answer them yourself? Also, I provided sources in my last post which answer the question for me. Feel free to check out those and others. The conclusion I've reached, however, is that the presence and possession of firearms do NOT have the impact you claim they do. So, the answer to this question is irrelevant, anyway, as I only wanted to show that your point was wrong, and the research I provided does support that idea.

...do you even understand what it means to be a fascist?

Please do tell me if I do.

It's bad argumentative practice to turn your interlocutor's question on them just to avoid answering it. I'll answer it, anyway. No, you don't seem to understand the definition of fascism.
Fascism, according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as such: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Of course, this sounds rather unpleasant, but this definition could cover many kinds of political systems. Moreover, you have not provided any evidence that police officers act in a way which suppresses social and economic regimentation or oppression of those who oppose current political philosophies; and remember that here I am talking about police in the US and Canada, since they are the ones who are granted the legal power to hide their identities. So, if you want to refer to police forces in another country or region of the world, I'd ask that we save that conversation of another time. I am specifically talking about US and Canadian police, and I believe that's what the OP was leaning toward, as well.

What are your grounds for calling them fascists, and do you even understand what it means to be a fascist? What is your evidence that police are the proprietors of criminality?

I don't know any cop. I have no right to know them. In a way, some fascists are better than the uniforms because nothing legally precludes you from knowing them.
What I do know are police uniforms. I am legally obliged to recognize the uniform. And I must recognize as a police officer whom ever is inside these cloths unless of course that person is impersonating a police officer. But, impersonating a police officer is all about entering a police uniform so whether you recognize a person in a uniform or not as a police officer, you are breaking the law. And there is a gang of unknown people that are enforcing these laws with the help of kangaroo courts. This gives off a fascist smell, in my opinion. Also, once, I was giving a witness statement to a uniform and the guy in it told me that he wanted to get a conviction. He wasn't interested in the truth, or the facts. He was there to make a convict. That has helped me understand that certifying criminals is the objective of police activity.

Addressing those last two sentences, you made a HUGE generalization about police activity based on the actions of ONE police officer. That is a fallacy and a particularly bad one at that.

Also, I'd like to refer you to my above point that you have yet to show any evidence that police officers in the US and Canada are acting in a way that aligns with the definition of fascism. Fascism isn't just a buzzword that means any oppressive or corrupt government or social sector. Rather, fascism has a specific definition, and you need to give me convincing evidence to support your claim that police officers act in a way that aligns with that definition.

Police officers have identity badges, nametags and keep their faces unobscured while doing patrols. You can walk into any police station and find a roster.

You can really walk in a police station and ask for the names and photos of all officers working in a station? Ho man, you are brave. Has anyone ever tried asking for this? I am afraid of doing anything that the armed fascist gang might view as suspicious. I have spent enough time siting locked up in a police looking cruiser, you know. And why wouldn't that information be simply available online? I can get this information about my Members of Parliament but these cocky guys that have never been elected can lord it over me and I can't know who they are? What the hell is going on here?
In my opinion, the fact that some people don't obscure their face has nothing to do with allowing you to know the police.

You are ONCE AGAIN using question-begging connotations of police officers. For one, I feel very safe in all of the police stations I've entered, and for another, you've called police a "fascist gang" that might view me as suspicious but fail yet again to support this idea. Also, this information IS available online. I never said it wasn't.

I suspect you are trying to arouse fears against police activity and intentions instead of actually responding to my arguments and counterpoints in a aproductive manner. I don't think I'm interested in continuing such a conversation if that's what you're going to do, Empiricist Bruno.

I think that policing should be a civil right because I believe it is the only way to create a real safe environment for the community. I think that this is especially important regarding laws that cover for a person's own personal safety. I see this as the only way to go.

That's the only way to go? Well, show me why. Those are a lot of strong-sounding claims, but I'm not seeing how they're true. The burden of proof lies on your shoulders, friend. You once again beg the question - reasserting your claims without really making steps to showing that they may be true or at least agreeable. HOW does policing as a civil right create safe environments for a community? HOW is it important in regard to laws covering personal safety? WHY is it the only way to go, in your mind?

And the same goes for firearms. They are used to save lives as well.

Typically, drugs that do save lives do not need to kill anyone in the process. In this respect, firearms always do something evil, even as they do something good, so they are a more controversial a drug than most other drugs, in my opinion. Whether controversial drugs such as guns are advisable for a good purpose at anytime is not a settled question, in my opinion. I think such drug are always good for the narcissist, but that doesn't imply that guns are a good drug overall.

While I submit that firearms often are used to kill an assailant(s) to save lives, it is not the case that guns always take lives in their employment as life savers. They can maim or injure without killing, and they may also serve as a deterrent - take for example cases in which the fact that a police officer possesses or displays a gun deters the criminal(s) from proceeding with their violent act. I've been taught by a large body of anecdotal evidence from police, civilian gun owners and gun trainers that sometimes, the firearm is not even necessary except as a show of power to your assaulter(s).

Also, bottom line is, when a violent assailant is threatening lives and will stop at little to nothing to proceed in their assault, death is sometimes the only necessary end to such an assault. If guns are an evil as you believe, at least understand that they are sometimes a necessary evil.

Also, I'll provide more evidence to support my previous claims, though the sources provided before should have sufficed.
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/201 ... _1403.html

https://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/g ... ntion.aspx

http://csgv.org/blog/2015/psychology-gun-ownership/ ---> This source discusses some correlations between American gun owners and statistics on their psychological attributes, and essentially shows that firearms owners are more often predisposed to owning and using firearms, instead of the firearms themselves having some effect on the possessor's psychology.

The next source speaks about the weapon effect, dubbed in the 1960's by psychologists. It was later argued that the presence and image of firearms incite similar reactions in test subjects to spiders and snakes. In a sense, guns are not inciters of aggressive tendencies except to the extent that they are viewed as symbols of aggression and danger. These sources suggest to me that the presence of firearms (though not the possession of them, which is a different matter) generally incite feelings of fear rather than aggression. The firearm does not create, rather it enables, aggressive acts. In a sense, guns seem to make many people nervous, but when they possess them, they might feel empowered. This is different in the case of police, however, because police are trained to handle firearms safely and only use them when needed. Their arms do not encourage violent or aggressive behavior, rather, they incite a sense of empowerment which can come in handy. In actuality, the image or mere presence of a gun only incites fear or a sense of revolt.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ring-minds

[Empiricist-Bruno]

TTT,

Since we were talking about narcotics specifically,

Were we, really? Are guns a narcotics?

given that narcotics generally have an impact on the user's behavior and psychological state, it is safe to say that my point stands

Okay, Prozac is not known to have any effect on healthy people. But it obviously does has an impact on some user's behavior and psychological state. My question is, "Is Prozac a narcotic only when it is used by people suffering from depression?" When the narcotic has no influence, it becomes candy or like a firearm?

If we use that definition, however, then many things which people would not normally think of as having drug-like properties or effects on individuals would still be called drugs. In other words, drugs are generally thought of as a very specific classification of objects used for legal and medical purposes, and your definition is too broad to fit that usage. Firearms, in this case, do not (without your own psychology factoring in) change your state of mind or how you think of yourself. The presence or possession of a firearm is not even like the way you described it, because it doesn't spend energy which changes the way you think of yourself, and it is certainly not like any drugs that the dictionary definition of the word describes.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Here I will simply say that I disagree that my definition is too broad. In my opinion, it is your mind that needs to learn to stretch a little. Your narrow perspective makes you miss the big picture, in my opinion.

One must authorize a knife to kill someone, because in order to kill someone using a knife, they must take specific physical actions which lead to the knife being stabbed or cut into parts of the victim's body. In the case of a firearm, this is also what happens - the user takes specific physical actions which lead to the trigger being pulled and the projectile being fired and landing in the victim's body in an area which was aimed at deliberately.

No, your statement is essentially wrong: a knife is an inert object incapable of doing anything. Authorizing inertia will not enable inertia to do anything. If the knife you hold cuts into a victim's body it's because you have authorized yourself to cut into the victim's body. It's your deed.
When you pull the trigger, pulling a trigger is all you do. The rest is the job of the gun, with your authorization: The power that drive the bullet isn't your power; it isn't you that does the killing as your energy isn't involved in the killing. You've just authorized it by pulling the trigger. The aim of the gun is not yours; it is the gun's. Please do not confuse yourself for a gun. You can make the difference... maybe.

your distinction between the two meanings and their applications to knives and guns was quite a false division

Please take that back now.

in truth, guns also fit meaning #2. The gun cannot cause death without the user's deliberate action,

A dangerous false statement, easily proven false.

Guns don't kill, people kill using guns. Knives don't kill, people kill using knives. In both cases, the weapon is the tool, the user is the actor.

Some weapons are tools but then again some soldiers are tools too. Soldiers, as actors, are being used. The difference between the tool and the user can and does melt sometimes.

When people kill in conjunction with drugs, the killer is a drugged person. If a person uses a tool to kill the killer is a straight person. Drugged Obama killed Osama bin Laden, for instance.

Police officers do not train themselves. Senior officers and government-hired, experienced professionals train new police officers

A Senior officer is not a police officer?

You're just being ignorant

Forum Rule A.

It seems to me you're just asking another question to try and complicate the issue

Forum Rule D.6.

So, I am obfuscating? A blogger is obfuscating when his/her view points or questions start to seem too challenging for you?

It is not the case that I have no right to know which individuals are police officers, it is only the case that they have legal permission to, in some cases, disguise their identities. Those are not the same thing, don't conflate them

My issue here is that you have no right to know who they are. If you have no right to know who they are, the second thing you talk about is irrelevant because you don't know who has legal permission. So no, I am not conflating these things.

Okay.. back that claim up. You're just stating it. Give me evidence.

You seem to trust them.

These laws against entrapment exist and are presumably enforced by the superiors of each officer, unless you have direct evidence to the contrary, and I'd like to know if you do.. that way you can stop asking more questions than you answer.

If I missed some of your questions, then please do repeat them. Sorry. If a question is repeated, I'll get to understand that an answer is required and the question wasn't just a rhetorical one.

Do each officer in the police have superiors? Maybe we're getting somewhere, now. How do you know? How do you know police business? Who lied to you?

And here we are again... you are assuming that police are "hiding" from the public eye instead of making arguments and giving evidence to support that assumption.

I don't know what police impersonators are doing. I presume that it is an important possibility to take into consideration. If someone is hiding from me and I can't find that person, doesn't this stand as evidence to support my case?

You keep calling them hijackers, but you have not defined the term or how it is that police actually fit that description.

I presume that you are legally obliged to pay tax.

Why don't you stop asking questions and try to answer them yourself?

I once said the same thing to a guy in a police uniform and it didn't work. I guess I looked suspicious to him.

Also, I provided sources in my last post which answer the question for me.

Forum Rule C2

It's bad argumentative practice to turn your interlocutor's question on them just to avoid answering it. I'll answer it, anyway.

I did not ask you the question that you asked me; I did not returned the question to you. I simply wanted your opinion as to whether you though I knew or not. I did not ask for an explanation. I did not solicit your understanding of fascism.

It's interesting for me to note however that you provide the Merriam-Webster's view on the matter as if it were your own view. In my opinion, the dictionary is a lot of garbage especially with politically loaded definitions; its how you use your own words that matters.

So, I didn't answer your question. I guessed rightly that you didn't need my answer as you already had your own answer on the topic.

Addressing those last two sentences, you made a HUGE generalization about police activity based on the actions of ONE police officer. That is a fallacy and a particularly bad one at that.

Leonardo da Vinci once saw after throwing a rock in the water that the energy it created traveled in the form of waves. He then thought, if energy travels in waves in the water, it will also travel in waves in the air with sound and light energy will also travel in waves. He got it all right, 500 years ahead of everyone.

fascism has a specific definition, and you need to give me convincing evidence to support your claim that police officers act in a way that aligns with that definition.

I cannot accuse the police of being fascist as I have no right to know them. My evidence is a suspicion based on my smell sense.

you've called police a "fascist gang" that might view me as suspicious but fail yet again to support this idea

Have I really done this? Police are not a fascist gang. I have a very high opinion of the police. I just don't know who's in the buildings labeled "police station."
I see the police like I see the sun. But sometimes, your adversaries will position between you and the sun so that you can't see them. That's a WW2 fighter strategy. I'm very worried about this, yes.

Also, this information IS available online. I never said it wasn't.

Now that's one reference I'd really like to see. It could settle the question.

I don't think I'm interested in continuing such a conversation if that's what you're going to do, Empiricist Bruno.

You will be missed!

The burden of proof lies on your shoulders, friend.

Unfair. If the police has the right to remain unknown to you, then why would I have to prove anything to you?

HOW does policing as a civil right create safe environments for a community? HOW is it important in regard to laws covering personal safety? WHY is it the only way to go, in your mind?

1st question: because I'm sure it would work. 2nd and 3rd questions: Some laws can address issues of societal leadership such as don't feed the ducks laws. Such laws could be specialized and overseen by formal police officers. Saving my own ass when it is under criminal attack means that I can take care of my own safety and it leads to personal empowerment. Creating a dependance for this upon a group of drugged group is mother of injustices and serious societal problems that can't be solved and yet that must be solved.

While I submit that firearms often are used to kill an assailant(s) to save lives, it is not the case that guns always take lives in their employment as life savers. They can maim or injure without killing, and they may also serve as a deterrent - take for example cases in which the fact that a police officer possesses or displays a gun deters the criminal(s) from proceeding with their violent act. I've been taught by a large body of anecdotal evidence from police, civilian gun owners and gun trainers that sometimes, the firearm is not even necessary except as a show of power to your assaulter(s).

Are you suggesting that maiming and injuring or intimidating without killing isn't evil? Intimidation, when it comes from the right people, is a good thing? Intimidation is the threat of greater evil. A good thing? Again I agree that this is always a good thing for the narcissist. But a good thing overall? I think that this question hasn't been settled either. I think that if you are interested in strategy to maintain your own personal safety, you should first ask that no police officer ever be permitted to hide his identity from you and that you start supporting policing as a civil right.

Please also remember also that another person's violent act is sometimes though of as justice by that other person. Preventing justice from taking place is criminal.

If guns are an evil as you believe, at least understand that they are sometimes a necessary evil.

The Incas priests sacrificed young boys to God to appease them. It was deemed as a necessary evil.
Slavery was thought of as a necessary evil.
Killing animals to eat them is deemed a necessary evil. ETC.

I careless about people who support necessary evils. I think they are supporting themselves in a narcissistic way. So, no, I don't understand you with a measured amount of human pride.

Also, bottom line is, when a violent assailant is threatening lives and will stop at little to nothing to proceed in their assault, death is sometimes the only necessary end to such an assault.

Thanks for informing me about when it is that you want to kill someone. I'll make sure to get out of your way then.

[ThamiorTheThinker]

Okay, Prozac is not known to have any effect on healthy people. But it obviously does has an impact on some user's behavior and psychological state. My question is, "Is Prozac a narcotic only when it is used by people suffering from depression?" When the narcotic has no influence, it becomes candy or like a firearm

I wrote generally, not always. Also, i'm not quite sure what you meant by "it becomes candy or like a firearm".

If we use that definition, however, then many things which people would not normally think of as having drug-like properties or effects on individuals would still be called drugs. In other words, drugs are generally thought of as a very specific classification of objects used for legal and medical purposes, and your definition is too broad to fit that usage. Firearms, in this case, do not (without your own psychology factoring in) change your state of mind or how you think of yourself. The presence or possession of a firearm is not even like the way you described it, because it doesn't spend energy which changes the way you think of yourself, and it is certainly not like any drugs that the dictionary definition of the word describes.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Here I will simply say that I disagree that my definition is too broad. In my opinion, it is your mind that needs to learn to stretch a little. Your narrow perspective makes you miss the big picture, in my opinion.

Then that's a purely subjective point that we can't agree on. Nothing more to say there.

No, your statement is essentially wrong: a knife is an inert object incapable of doing anything. Authorizing inertia will not enable inertia to do anything. If the knife you hold cuts into a victim's body it's because you have authorized yourself to cut into the victim's body. It's your deed.
When you pull the trigger, pulling a trigger is all you do. The rest is the job of the gun, with your authorization: The power that drive the bullet isn't your power; it isn't you that does the killing as your energy isn't involved in the killing. You've just authorized it by pulling the trigger. The aim of the gun is not yours; it is the gun's. Please do not confuse yourself for a gun. You can make the difference... maybe.

Look, EB, the problem with drawing the distinction between the two based on the physical mechanisms which cause the weapon to take its effect is that weapons cannot do anything without the user taking action. It doesn't matter HOW the weapon leads to injury, it matters only that it needs a user. A gun cannot cause death without a shooter, and a knife cannot cause death without its wielder. There is no use in drawing the distinction, because the simple fact of the matter is that both weapons can be used by people who have the intent to kill. The gun can no more intend to kill than a rock can intend to be thrown into the ocean.

in truth, guns also fit meaning #2. The gun cannot cause death without the user's deliberate action,

A dangerous false statement, easily proven false.

You really should tell me then how you can prove it false, instead of just telling me THAT it can be proven false.

Guns don't kill, people kill using guns. Knives don't kill, people kill using knives. In both cases, the weapon is the tool, the user is the actor.

Some weapons are tools but then again some soldiers are tools too. Soldiers, as actors, are being used. The difference between the tool and the user can and does melt sometimes.

Irrelevant point, because no matter what, a gun needs a user.

Police officers do not train themselves. Senior officers and government-hired, experienced professionals train new police officers

A Senior officer is not a police officer?

My point was that an individual does not train themselves. Yes, police are trained by OTHER, more EXPERIENCED police. However, you said that police train themselves, in other words, that individuals give themselves training and are not trained by other individuals, which is obviously false.

You're just being ignorant

Forum Rule A

It's not an attack. I was informing you that you were lacking information, which is the definition of ignorance.

It seems to me you're just asking another question to try and complicate the issue

Forum Rule D.6.

So, I am obfuscating? A blogger is obfuscating when his/her view points or questions start to seem too challenging for you?

No, the questions are not challenging to me. You're just asking irrelevant questions that don't do much to further the debate.

It is not the case that I have no right to know which individuals are police officers, it is only the case that they have legal permission to, in some cases, disguise their identities. Those are not the same thing, don't conflate them

My issue here is that you have no right to know who they are. If you have no right to know who they are, the second thing you talk about is irrelevant because you don't know who has legal permission. So no, I am not conflating these things.

Okay.. back that claim up. You're just stating it. Give me evidence.

You seem to trust them.

Instead of meeting my request for evidence, you just scoot around it and tell me I trust police? Is that really how you're going to respond to a request of evidential support?

These laws against entrapment exist and are presumably enforced by the superiors of each officer, unless you have direct evidence to the contrary, and I'd like to know if you do.. that way you can stop asking more questions than you answer.

Who lied to you?

This time it's a question-begging question! I don't think anyone has lied to me. I just observe police officers who do there jobs in my hometown, the affect it has on local crime rates, and draw the conclusion that they're real police officers based on these observations. I see that no officers are being accused of entrapment, and presumably someone would speak up if they were. Furthermore, yes, the officers who go out on the streets have authorities over them. This goes for all police stations, as far as I'm aware. There's always a big wig.

And here we are again... you are assuming that police are "hiding" from the public eye instead of making arguments and giving evidence to support that assumption.

I don't know what police impersonators are doing. I presume that it is an important possibility to take into consideration. If someone is hiding from me and I can't find that person, doesn't this stand as evidence to support my case?

It's not evidence if you can't back up your claim that police are hiding from you. You essentially just restated your claim. That's begging the question.

You keep calling them hijackers, but you have not defined the term or how it is that police actually fit that description.

I presume that you are legally obliged to pay tax.

What's your point?

Why don't you stop asking questions and try to answer them yourself?

I once said the same thing to a guy in a police uniform and it didn't work. I guess I looked suspicious to him.

Again... What's your point?

Also, I provided sources in my last post which answer the question for me.

Forum Rule C2

Uh, no... that rule doesn't apply to my comment, because I gave you links directly and you didn't follow them. I didn't tell you to go look up information, I gave the information to you and you didn't check it out. I shall not waste time making a case when one has already been made for me, one that I shared a link to..

It's interesting for me to note however that you provide the Merriam-Webster's view on the matter as if it were your own view. In my opinion, the dictionary is a lot of garbage especially with politically loaded definitions; its how you use your own words that matters.

Dictionaries provide denotations, not connotations. Only connotations of words can be "politically loaded".

Addressing those last two sentences, you made a HUGE generalization about police activity based on the actions of ONE police officer. That is a fallacy and a particularly bad one at that.

Leonardo da Vinci once saw after throwing a rock in the water that the energy it created traveled in the form of waves. He then thought, if energy travels in waves in the water, it will also travel in waves in the air with sound and light energy will also travel in waves. He got it all right, 500 years ahead of everyone.

That is not a good analogy, because 1) it was a lucky guess on his part that turned out true, where as you have yet to show that your generalization is true, and 2) statistical inferences are different from qualitative inferences. You guessed, with a sample size of 1 officer, that many officers are the way you described, which is a poor use of statistical reasoning. Very clear use of the generalization fallacy.

fascism has a specific definition, and you need to give me convincing evidence to support your claim that police officers act in a way that aligns with that definition.

I cannot accuse the police of being fascist as I have no right to know them. My evidence is a suspicion based on my smell sense.

Here's the problem, though... You DID call them fascists. Remember your "fascist hands" comment?

you've called police a "fascist gang" that might view me as suspicious but fail yet again to support this idea

Have I really done this? Police are not a fascist gang. I have a very high opinion of the police. I just don't know who's in the buildings labeled "police station."

Then why didn't you word it that way? You need to be clear about what you mean so that we don't reach this confusion.

The burden of proof lies on your shoulders, friend.

Unfair. If the police has the right to remain unknown to you, then why would I have to prove anything to you?

They don't always exercise that right, that's my point. I can find information about who is who and no one is stopping me from doing so.

HOW does policing as a civil right create safe environments for a community? HOW is it important in regard to laws covering personal safety? WHY is it the only way to go, in your mind?

1st question: because I'm sure it would work.

Begging the question AGAIN.

2nd and 3rd questions: Some laws can address issues of societal leadership such as don't feed the ducks laws. Such laws could be specialized and overseen by formal police officers. Saving my own ass when it is under criminal attack means that I can take care of my own safety and it leads to personal empowerment. Creating a dependance for this upon a group of drugged group is mother of injustices and serious societal problems that can't be solved and yet that must be solved.

But here's the problem: Not everyone has the time or will to be given the rigorous training that policing requires, and not everyone would use that right the same way you would.. so, if it doesn't benefit the majority, and indeed if it can even easily lead to harmful consequences, why should it be a right?

While I submit that firearms often are used to kill an assailant(s) to save lives, it is not the case that guns always take lives in their employment as life savers. They can maim or injure without killing, and they may also serve as a deterrent - take for example cases in which the fact that a police officer possesses or displays a gun deters the criminal(s) from proceeding with their violent act. I've been taught by a large body of anecdotal evidence from police, civilian gun owners and gun trainers that sometimes, the firearm is not even necessary except as a show of power to your assaulter(s).

Are you suggesting that maiming and injuring or intimidating without killing isn't evil? Intimidation, when it comes from the right people, is a good thing? Intimidation is the threat of greater evil. A good thing?

If it comes to saving someone else from death or injury, then yes, I would say it's good. If an assailant is going to attack me/others or threaten me/others with a weapon, I'm going to retaliate. They cannot be reasoned with at that point, and so self-defense using force becomes a necessity. If you disagree, I'm going to have to seriously question your worldview.

Again I agree that this is always a good thing for the narcissist. But a good thing overall? I think that this question hasn't been settled either. I think that if you are interested in strategy to maintain your own personal safety, you should first ask that no police officer ever be permitted to hide his identity from you and that you start supporting policing as a civil right.

But I will not do that, for the reasons I gave above.

Please also remember also that another person's violent act is sometimes though of as justice by that other person. Preventing justice from taking place is criminal.

Most non-defensive violent acts are criminal, and so are usually not justified, and even if they THINK it's justified, that does not mean those thoughts align with reason or actual circumstance.

If guns are an evil as you believe, at least understand that they are sometimes a necessary evil.

The Incas priests sacrificed young boys to God to appease them. It was deemed as a necessary evil.
Slavery was thought of as a necessary evil.
Killing animals to eat them is deemed a necessary evil. ETC.

I careless about people who support necessary evils. I think they are supporting themselves in a narcissistic way. So, no, I don't understand you with a measured amount of human pride.

Bad analogies. Those three things can be easily shown that they were not indeed necessary, and were simply evils. Slavery is never necessary, sacrificing people is never necessary, and eating animal meat is never necessary. Injuring, threatening or killing aggressive and/or armed assailants? That seems pretty necessary to me.

Also, bottom line is, when a violent assailant is threatening lives and will stop at little to nothing to proceed in their assault, death is sometimes the only necessary end to such an assault.

Thanks for informing me about when it is that you want to kill someone. I'll make sure to get out of your way then.

It's not me you want to worry about, it's the people who I (hopefully don't) have to defend myself against. Aggressive assailants that are going to try to injure, rob or kill me are forfeiting their safety and rights by violating my own and the law, so I am legally allowed (and by most, encouraged) to defend myself.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

TTT, this is your initial quote:

The use of drugs have a direct impact on someone's behavior, whereas it's unclear what impact the possession of firearms have on the possessor's psychology.

I wrote generally, not always. Also, i'm not quite sure what you meant by "it becomes candy or like a firearm".

I can not see where you wrote the word generally in the above. Maybe we just aren't on the same page. What I meant by "candy" is that if a drug does not have a direct impact on someone's behavior, does it mean it is no longer is a drug? Do you define a drug by the fact that it has a direct impact on someone's behavior? Please explain the exceptions to your rule. What's a drug to you? You don't explain your view on the matter. Do you have an opinion as to what makes a drug a drug? Am I discussing things here with someone who does not know?

Look, EB, the problem with drawing the distinction between the two based on the physical mechanisms which cause the weapon to take its effect is that weapons cannot do anything without the user taking action.

Okay, say a person goes inside a police station and aims a gun at the police. The police decide to fire first and kill that person. Say this person had a toy gun. This would be then called suicide by cops. The person used the cops weapon to end his/her own life. Do you agree with this? The user of the gun that caused the death of the person is the person that had the toy gun?

In my opinion, drugs such as guns aren't weapons. In my opinion, drugs can transform a person and a drugged person can be way more dangerous than a straight person. Drugs have the potential to transform a person into something new and strange... and especially dangerous. My contention is that the use of any device as a weapon cannot include the use of guns, nuclear bombs, etc because these devices transform their users to a point where they are no longer just themselves.

Since in broad terms, a weapon is anything that you use that can help you gain an advantage over an adversary, the use of drugs cannot fit in the category of weapons because these things affect you first by transforming you. You become something else. Once you have changed, your situation has changed and it may be that you do now have an advantage over adversaries that you had in your previous state but the new person that the drug made of you is no longer the person that you were without the drug. So, although a gun may appear to be useable as a weapon, it does not really fit the label of " a thing that helps you..." because it is in fact " a thing that transforms you." At the end of the transformation, you cannot have gained an advantage over your adversaries since you are arguably no longer the same person that needed an advantage over an adversary before you started using the drug.

A gun cannot cause death without a shooter, and a knife cannot cause death without its wielder.

Wrong, a gun can be set up to cause death without a shooter. Do you really need me to draw the picture? Even the second part of your sentence is dubious: it can be possible to make your enemies fall on a knife properly positioned.

You really should tell me then how you can prove it false, instead of just telling me THAT it can be proven false.

Okay. A bird lands on a branch which has a hidden switch linked to a gun that's swinging attached to a wind cock on top of a building aiming downward on the street...

[The difference between the tool and the user can and does melt sometimes]... Irrelevant point, because no matter what, a gun needs a user

A gun needs a user! Wow! Now I guess that's an explanation why people go to the gun shop; a gun needs them! And they will show their new gun respect, right?

No, the fact is a drug user needs a gun. Gun don't need anything. Weren't you just saying that guns have no intent? See my point, now?

Yes, police are trained by OTHER, more EXPERIENCED police

Great! we agree. They train themselves.

which is obviously false.

And which I obviously didn't say, straw man.

You're just asking irrelevant questions that don't do much to further the debate.

Setting aside a question such as "How do you know that the government isn't an arm of the police?" isn't irrelevant. It strikes at the heart of the issue, in my opinion.

Instead of meeting my request for evidence, you just scoot around it and tell me I trust police? Is that really how you're going to respond to a request of evidential support?

You need more?

This time it's a question-begging question! I don't think anyone has lied to me. I just observe police officers who do there jobs in my hometown, the affect it has on local crime rates, and draw the conclusion that they're real police officers based on these observations.

Back to square one, how do you know that what you are seeing is actually what it is that you think it is? You have no right to know who the police is.

What's your point?[pay tax?]

I'm not answering here because I'm concerned you will use my reply to make further straw man arguments. If anyone else wants to see this question answered please say it and I will oblige.

Uh, no... that rule doesn't apply to my comment, because I gave you links directly and you didn't follow them.

What I have read very carefully (and many times) is Forum Rule C2; there is a link on that forum rule and I have certainly followed that link.

That is not a good analogy, because 1) it was a lucky guess on his part [Leonardo da Vinci] that turned out true, where as you have...

Your calling of a visionary prophet of the caliber of Leonardo da Vinci a lucky guy suggests to me that you must be exceedingly intelligent yourself, by comparison.

Here's the problem, though... You DID call them fascists. Remember your "fascist hands" comment?

Strangers can have fascist hands. I was referring to the the police impersonators, the ones I'm not permitted to know, by law.

They don't always exercise that right, that's my point.

And who are they? The police? How do you know? You have no right to know. We seem stuck here; we're making no progress.

But here's the problem: Not everyone has the time or will to be given the rigorous training that policing requires, and not everyone would use that right the same way you would.. so, if it doesn't benefit the majority, and indeed if it can even easily lead to harmful consequences, why should it be a right?

I have not proposed that everyone be given the same training that our current police impersonators receive. Straw man argument again? The question has to how that right might be used does need more development. I'm not concerned that everyone needs to do the same thing the way I do things. And what if it does benefit the majority? You do sound like a person with a prejudice. The reason why it should be a right is a little bit the same as the reason why they have a 2nd amendment in the US constitution, although I admit this analogy is a travesty.

If it comes to saving someone else from death or injury, then yes, I would say it's good [Intimidation].

In my opinion, intimidation is good... for the narcissist. Someone who saves others through intimidation is a good narcissist and must have ulterior motives that aren't so good for saving others, in my opinion.

If an assailant is going to attack me/others or threaten me/others with a weapon, I'm going to retaliate

If you feel people want to play with you, then by all means, do play with them. As I mentioned before, I do admire the police.

They cannot be reasoned with at that point, and so self-defense using force becomes a necessity.

The real necessity may be that you simply need to abandon yourself to your violent adversary, I don't know. From reading TTT, I do get some bad vibes.

If you disagree, I'm going to have to seriously question your worldview.

That's an honor! Thanks!

But I will not do that, for the reasons I gave above.[demand policing as a civil right]

You're the loser!

Bad analogies. Those three things can be easily shown that they were not indeed necessary, and were simply evils. Slavery is never necessary, sacrificing people is never necessary, and eating animal meat is never necessary. Injuring, threatening or killing aggressive and/or armed assailants? That seems pretty necessary to me.

Did I mentioned that "injuring, threatening or killing aggressive and/or armed assailants" was evil? Is this you straw man?

It's not me you want to worry about, it's the people who I (hopefully don't) have to defend myself against.

You know who I should or should not worry about? What about me? Do I know the same in your respect. I can tell you whom you need to worry about and whom you don't? [ad hominem statements removed - mod]

Aggressive assailants that are going to try to injure, rob or kill me are forfeiting their safety and rights by violating my own and the law, so I am legally allowed (and by most, encouraged) to defend myself.

Yes, you can fight. But if you lived in a place where the laws were different and you were legally obliged to just take it, would you then believe in the criminal activity of defending yourself? You would agree that it's not because something is legal that it is morally right?