• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dozens arrested in third night of protest

Should police officers be prohibited from making frivolous traffic stops?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • No

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • It depends

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Total voters
    18

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No, reining in is not what is needed. More training. Why the anti-police attitude? If you were treated unjustly in the past that was probably due to police being underpaid (you do not get the best recruits that way) and undertrained.

I don't like seeing these kinds of stories. They lead to mistrust between the police and the public, along with a great deal of public disorder, such as we're seeing now and which we saw all last summer. I never said that I was ever personally treated unjustly by the police, but I've known people who have, as well as hear plenty of cases in the news.

Every time these things happen, the common solution is more training, but how much training do they require? What is the quality of that training? This was not a rookie. She was a 26-year veteran of the department. Likewise, Chauvin was not a rookie, and the prosecutor in the case called several expert witnesses who said that his hold was not part of police training.

What about the internal culture of police departments? I recall a recent article where some posts from message boards frequented by law enforcement officers had some rather choice comments, some were derogatory and racist.

This has been an ongoing issue for a long time now, but it seems the major flashpoints always come up whenever there's a police shooting or killing of a person of color. This is why BLM exists, and it's also why we've seen NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem. If the apparent proximate cause of the problem is the police, then I don't see how addressing that problem and proposing a solution would amount to an "anti-police attitude." At least I'm not advocating for defunding the police, as some people are. All I'm advocating is defanging the police.
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It would be interesting to take a poll and find out the reasons people own guns. I could not find that in a quick look on the internet but I found this:

The latest results are from Gallup's annual Crime poll, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 15, 2020. As is typical, the rate of personal gun ownership varies most by political party and ideology, gender, race/ethnicity, region and urbanicity, with smaller differences seen by household income and marital status.
  • Republicans (50%), rural residents (48%), men (45%), self-identified conservatives (45%) and Southerners (40%) are the most likely subgroups to say they personally own a gun.
  • Liberals (15%), Democrats (18%), non-White Americans (18%), women (19%) and Eastern residents (21%) are the least likely to report personal gun ownership.
What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?

It's interesting that 50% of Republicans have guns, but only 18% of Democrats. I guess if there ever is a civil war between Republicans and Democrats, the Democrats would be at a severe disadvantage.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It's interesting that 50% of Republicans have guns, but only 18% of Democrats. I guess if there ever is a civil war between Republicans and Democrats, the Democrats would be at a severe disadvantage.
I noticed that immediately. The dems vs. the GOP... :D:(
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Is corruption in the city still corruption,
even if there's no capitalist to blame it on?
Yes.
Politicians accrue power, even if not lucre.

If they do it for personal gain, then that would still be a capitalistic motivation.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I never look but I am surprised if you see a lit of expired tags. I never let a tag expire in my life, except once when the DMV sent the renewal notice to the wrong address. I got pulled over for that and I am glad, because otherwise I would not have known it was expired. I only got a small ticket for that but he could have given me a much bigger ticket.

In most cases where I notice it, it's only a month or two past the expiration. There's always a few procrastinators out there - or people who may be short on cash and need to put it off. Usually, renewing the tags also entails showing proof of insurance - and those who can't afford insurance might also put off renewal. Another possible reason is that their vehicle may have failed inspection or the emissions test, in which case they might have to pay for repairs. This can also hit the lower income people and those who can least afford to pay.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
In most cases where I notice it, it's only a month or two past the expiration. There's always a few procrastinators out there - or people who may be short on cash and need to put it off. Usually, renewing the tags also entails showing proof of insurance - and those who can't afford insurance might also put off renewal. Another possible reason is that their vehicle may have failed inspection or the emissions test, in which case they might have to pay for repairs. This can also hit the lower income people and those who can least afford to pay.
I guess that never occurred to me because I have never been short on cash.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If they do it for personal gain, then that would still be a capitalistic motivation.
Political power is personal gain that's not capitalistic.
It seems that you're trying to define corruption is
a feature of only capitalism. I can easily refute that.
Pbbbbttttttt!
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Political power is personal gain that's not capitalistic.
It seems that you're trying to define corruption is
a feature of only capitalism. I can easily refute that.
Pbbbbttttttt!

Why would anyone want political power? I can think of three possible reasons:

1. For selfless reasons, to make society a better place (socialists)
2. For personal glory or prestige (narcissists/tyrants)
3. For money (capitalists)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Why would anyone want political power? I can think of three possible reasons:

1. For selfless reasons, to make society a better place (socialists)
2. For personal glory or prestige (narcissists/tyrants)
3. For money (capitalists)
A selfless reason is never selfless.
They're doing what they want to do.
But socialists like money just as much as do capitalists.
This is so even when their buying power is based upon
economic power that's not monetary.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
A selfless reason is never selfless.

Except when it is.

They're doing what they want to do.

That's the second group I mentioned, those who do it for personal glory or prestige - not necessarily monetary reasons. They just want fame or to make a name for themselves. Maybe they like the roar of adoring crowds. Not to mention groupies.

But socialists like money just as much as do capitalists.
This is so even when their buying power is based upon
economic power that's not monetary.

Only if they can use it for society's benefit. They wouldn't keep the money for themselves, or at least they shouldn't. If they did, then they would cease to be socialists. They would then be capitalists.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Except when it is.
Altruistic acts are still driven by personal motivation.
That's the second group I mentioned, those who do it for personal glory or prestige - not necessarily monetary reasons. They just want fame or to make a name for themselves. Maybe they like the roar of adoring crowds. Not to mention groupies.



Only if they can use it for society's benefit. They wouldn't keep the money for themselves, or at least they shouldn't. If they did, then they would cease to be socialists. They would then be capitalists.
The old No True Scotsman fallacy, eh.
It's identical to Christians who tell me that when
self proclaimed Christians do bad things, they're
not real Christians.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Altruistic acts are still driven by personal motivation.

Perhaps there may be some personal emotional satisfaction in selflessly making the world a better place, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

The old No True Scotsman fallacy, eh.
It's identical to Christians who tell me that when
self proclaimed Christians do bad things, they're
not real Christians.

Well, it depends. One key difference with Christianity is they have the option of praying for forgiveness if they do bad things. Socialists may not be quite so forgiving for any kind of malfeasance. Although I guess being purged from the party could be just as bad as excommunication.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
The major reason why the U.S. doesn't have sensible gun control is because people don't feel protected by the police.

While it doesn't appear to be a factor in this case, I would also look at the War on Drugs as being a major contributory factor which creates the culture of animosity which exists between the police and public.
"There's a hole in my bucket, dear Lisa, dear Lisa."
 
Top