TheFuzz Posted May 25, 2015 Author Posted May 25, 2015 TheFuzz, I hope you're not trying to make the "if you don't like it you can leave argument." Do you believe in mob rule? If the majority wants to lock up non-violent drug users than everyone else should just go along with it willingly or get out? We should never try to change the system that we were born into? You told us yourself that you are trying to change the mindset of police officers yourself. Do you not see the inconsistency in your above statement with what you yourself are trying to achieve with various police departments? Its not inconsistent, because I can leave if I want...just like Carl. Leaving is always an option, it just depends on what you are willing to do. Carl hasn't explained, and maybe this isn't the correct thread to discuss this, what he is currently doing to help his cause. Is he running for public office to try to influence legislation? Or is he just complaining, blogging, tweeting, or other forms of lazy activism? I don't know, but with as passionate (angry?) he seems to be, I hope he's doing something. If he's not, why not just leave and be happier? That does not mean he has to move to some remote wilderness, but he could move to Colorado, a place that shares his view on marijuana legalization. Or how about Vermont with the Free State Project? Then again, part of the Free State Project is trying to place liberty minded individuals in the local and state legislative bodies. If he chooses to stay where he is, he runs the risk of arrest since marijuana is still illegal in most states. I hate to make it about just one issue, because I doubt its one issue, but marijuana is an easy choice. Just because you believe a law is unjust does not exempt you from the punishments of said law. If you want to undo an unjust law, lobby for it to be stricken from the law books. 1 2
thebeardslastcall Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Just because you believe a law is unjust does not exempt you from the punishments of said law. If you want to undo an unjust law, lobby for it to be stricken from the law books. Let me change that for you to show you it from another perspective. "Just because you believe a serial-murderer rule is unjust does not exempt you from punishments of said serial-murderer rule. If you want to undo an unjust serial-murderer rule, ask serial murderers nicely for it to be stricken from the serial-murderer rule books. Until you can do that, I'm going to keep killing people, in compliance with the serial-murderer rule book." Your basic contention with people seems to be you believe in the social contract and that it gives you authority over others. So long as you hold this view there's no point in debating with you about freedom, because you're bring a gun to the debate and claiming your government (you) has legitimate domain over everyone. Also he is lobbying. Instead of pointlessly lobbying in the political system he's directly lobbying the person with the gun as they're the one making it a law. There are no laws without enforcers, enforcers are the law. Your quirks of when to insert yourself and to what degree are the relevant effect of any law book. He's saying "please don't shoot me" and you're bringing out a holy book and saying "but God told me to, if you want to change things, take it up with God!" Edit: of note, I have 2 moderated posts that haven't been approved yet. 1
Matt D Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Well I'll be damned, Jim Gordon isn't just a character in comic books.
jpahmad Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Its not inconsistent, because I can leave if I want...just like Carl. What would you say to someone in your department who makes the same argument about your "activism." What if another officer came up to you and said "hey buddy, why are you preaching to us? If you don't like the job description, then quit the force and leave us alone." What would you say to someone like this?
MMX2010 Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 TheFuzz, I hope you're not trying to make the "if you don't like it you can leave argument." That's not what he's doing. I'll use a metaphor. There are two types of people who claim to want to run a marathon: Hard Trainers and Couch Potatoes. When he asks Carl about his own behaviors, he's metaphorically pinching Carl's stomach to see how much fat is there. If there's a large amount of fat, TheFuzz rejects Carl's complaints because he doesn't experience those complaints as empathetic nor honest.
Merrifield Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Instead of answering each inquiry of "will you take me to jail?" with my usual "kids don't go to jail unless they do something very, very bad like killing someone." Should I add on that "some other cops might beat you up or shoot you if you run away"? I quote what I said earlier in hopes that you will re-read it and realize that you must have read it wrong before. I quote your response to point out the difference that I used the word "kids" and you kinda quoted me as saying "people". I would like to add that if I were talking to high school kids I would not take the same approach. Going to jail obviously doesn't require anyone to do something very, very bad, so I'd consider that a lie and the first time they see someone go to jail for a lesser crime (which they may be morally confused about) they're going to get confused and get scared. Kids are pretty intelligent in many ways, don't underestimate them. Saying cops only arrest "really bad" people is equivalent in many ways to the story of hell that scares children. It really twists them in a mental knot. On the other points you've raised, I appreciate your point of view and will follow up later with another post addressing both Carl's and your points.
BaylorPRSer Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 While I am highly intrigued that you're here, I would caution you to be mindful of how consuming the resources associated with this website affect your psyche. Universally Preferable Behavior, the non aggression principle, etc., as I'm sure you're aware, have very serious ramifications for police work and parenting. As the logic of of the aforementioned flows through you, it could very well cause some highly unpleasant dissonance if some changes in your behavior do not accompany this. The one foot in one foot out approach can do more harm than good. 1
jpahmad Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 That's not what he's doing. I'll use a metaphor. There are two types of people who claim to want to run a marathon: Hard Trainers and Couch Potatoes. When he asks Carl about his own behaviors, he's metaphorically pinching Carl's stomach to see how much fat is there. If there's a large amount of fat, TheFuzz rejects Carl's complaints because he doesn't experience those complaints as empathetic nor honest. Don't use a metaphor. Just tell me what he is doing. To me, is sure sounds like the standard "just leave then" argument. Also, why didn't he just clarify it himself when I asked him about it? Nope, he just doubled down on it. And I'm not Carl. I'm a little bit in disbelief at this point. I was exited. Really. I thought, man here is a cop who wants to change the system, or at least honesty do what he can. It gave me hope. But, all of a sudden he makes the most jack-ass, childish, meat-head argument of all time. I'm sorry to say that I was a bit naive in my excitement about this thread.
MMX2010 Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I'm a little bit in disbelief at this point. I was exited. Really. I thought, man here is a cop who wants to change the system, or at least honesty do what he can. It gave me hope. But, all of a sudden he makes the most jack-ass, childish, meat-head argument of all time. I'm sorry to say that I was a bit naive in my excitement about this thread. In my opinion, you, thebeardslastcall, and Carl Bartelt are all making the same error. You think: (1) that there really is such a thing as "the system" that TheFuzz must change, and (2) that you think philosophical argument based on rational, logical principles is the fastest way for TheFuzz to change that system. The truth is that there IS NO System; there is only the sum total of the reactions of billions of people. And you can only control your own reactions. The other truth is that the most important way to get TheFuzz to "change the system" (to use your metaphor) is to empathize with his desire to be a good patriarch, good protector, and a good father by ultra-carefully and ultra-empathetically focusing on why he spanks his children. But noooooooooo, everyone wants to talk about marijuana, the government, anarchy, and other unrelated nonsense - even though Stefan constantly admonishes libertarians for talking about these issues RATHER THAN talking about peaceful parenting. And Merrifield gave an utterly heart-breaking story about his interactions with children who openly admit that their parents say, "If you don't behave, we'll call the cops to put you in jail. Does Merrifield have to get on his knees and beg you all to give him practical advice on how to handle this heart-breaking situation, or is the welfare of the children under his limited-but-direct influence really less important to you than Carl's desire to smoke weed, the existence of the government, and anarchy? Selfishly, I'm concerned that I'll be downvoted x10 for pointing out how horribly non-empathetic your collective behavior is. Unselfishly, you're all way out of line and need to focus on what's really important. @Merrifield - I do have some practical advice for you, but I'm tired and annoyed - and I need to mull it over some more. Tomorrow. 3
MMX2010 Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I don't feel as if I'm improving the world. I feel that I have improved individual's situations in many cases. Actually, I do smile at people when they threaten me. Did you watch the second Stop A Douchebag video, where the guy pulled a gun on six different Anti-Douchebaggers, threatened to kill them all, and they all laughed? That is the Amused Mastery and Frame Control that all Pick-Up Artists and masculine men instantly recognize and hope to develop in themselves. The way you describe the spanking situation with your daughter, I don't think you're the one who can't laugh off the petulant disrespect of a silly little girl. So I'm guessing it's your wife. Hard question time: Why can't she smile whenever your daughter disrespects her the same way that you] smile whenever someone threatens you? What do you have that she doesn't, and how do you give it to her?
Carl Green Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 My goal of clarifying who here's actually for personal liberty has been accomplished. 1 1
Merrifield Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 This kind of fits into this thread. I was wondering if anyone has heard of the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)? http://www.leap.cc Don't know much about it. I've been sporadically following it on Twitter for a couple of months. I would appreciate any thoughts on the organization.
jpahmad Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Selfishly, I'm concerned that I'll be downvoted x10 for pointing out how horribly non-empathetic your collective behavior is. Unselfishly, you're all way out of line and need to focus on what's really important. Let's see, the OP: spanks his kids puts people in prison, ruining their lives just because someone tells him to do it in a typical un-empathetic fashion, makes the "why don't you just leave" argument. MMX2010, I'll sit back and watch you focus on what's really important. Good luck. 1
J. D. Stembal Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I'm offended by the level of hostility in this post and the resort to name calling. In the reality of the situation that we now live, cops are necessary. I've been a cop 24 years. I swore to uphold the constitution of the U.S. and of my state with no mention of any laws. Carl did not offend you. You offended you. It is manipulative to suggest otherwise. He also didn't resort to any ad hominem. I'm sure you understand how I am forced to pay for your "necessary" profession through the armed might of the Leviathan. I do not think you are necessary, but I do not have a choice in the matter. I'm not going to thank you for your service, or your loyalty to a piece of paper and geographical area. One's first loyalty is to their own convictions. I do appreciate the Mother's Day anecdote you shared, but you need to back up this assertion I highlighted in red with something more concrete. Can you please share any empirical evidence that you have available? Last I checked, violent crime rates were at forty year lows, but multi-generational property crime - governments stealing our futures - is at an all time high. Thank you, gun owners! http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (This website gives me nightmares.) Also, this isn't about good an evil...especially since you're implying that I am on the side of evil by staying in my profession.My profession often gets generalized and lumped into one group, so I'm used to it. Looking forward to more discussions. I did no such thing. I am merely suggesting that at some point, when the country falls apart, hard decisions will have to be made. Will you make a virtuous and just decision or not? As it stands right now, you aren't in a position to make moral choices, as I pointed out in my first reply.
thebeardslastcall Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 In my opinion, you, thebeardslastcall, and Carl Bartelt are all making the same error. You think: (1) that there really is such a thing as "the system" that TheFuzz must change, and (2) that you think philosophical argument based on rational, logical principles is the fastest way for TheFuzz to change that system. I'm not sure if it's because some of my posts got moderated and people missed them, but I do not think this is a fair assessment of my stances here. It's TheFuzz who has argued he is trying to improve his station and the like and suggesting we should get laws changed. I'm not suggesting he change the system as an external thing. I'm only suggesting and pointing out his personal responsibility for his personal actions as a member of that system and suggesting the byproduct of this personal responsibility is, as I conclude it, to weaken the system, whereas participation in the system strengthens it. I'm not suggesting he alter other people's behavior to "fix" the system or anything like that, only his behavior as he is an element of what could be called "the system". That's an important distinction I think; I'm addressing a tree to change itself and that the forest will naturally be different by consequence and not suggesting he change other trees to accomplish this forest change. by ultra-carefully and ultra-empathetically focusing on why he spanks his children. I did ask TheFuzz questions relating to his parenting and spanking his children. I have not seen any replies to those questions yet. I must admit it got harder for me to be empathetic with talking to him once his nature became more apparent, which is perhaps why I should leave the rest of that discussion with him to you if you think you can help him help his children. And Merrifield gave an utterly heart-breaking story about his interactions with children who openly admit that their parents say, "If you don't behave, we'll call the cops to put you in jail. Does Merrifield have to get on his knees and beg you all to give him practical advice on how to handle this heart-breaking situation, or is the welfare of the children under his limited-but-direct influence really less important to you than Carl's desire to smoke weed, the existence of the government, and anarchy? I did respond to this post and tried to help a little. Although I also admitted it was a very difficult situation to put yourself in, which is why I have trouble imagining any peaceful person being a cop, because they force themselves into situations where they must be the aggressor or are in a position of power for good, but do not exercise it. I tried to give some suggestions and I consider my conversation with Merrifield to still be ongoing as I haven't addressed his latest post and he seemed to still be working on more responses as well. I think the increased heat around TheFuzz has made this secondary related conversation with Merrifield a bit harder to carry on. Merrifield seems more genuine and open to me, even if I disagree with his position I feel we can learn from each other. Whereas TheFuzz seems to have done a bit of a "bait and switch" of sorts that got people's hopes up and then crushed them quickly when people realized his "flip" in attitude. My natural inclination due to personal experiences and philosophical positions is to be repulsed by cops, but I realize they are people too and I don't want to make the mistake of de-humanizing them as some do, but want to understand why they put themselves into these "impossible" situations. 1
MMX2010 Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Let's see, the OP: spanks his kids puts people in prison, ruining their lives just because someone tells him to do it in a typical un-empathetic fashion, makes the "why don't you just leave" argument. MMX2010, I'll sit back and watch you focus on what's really important. Good luck. Jpahmad, if you're going to accuse anyone of being non-empathetic, you should start with Carl Bartelt. Not only did he never attempt to discern why TheFuzz spanks his daughter, but he is also impervious to arguments that his drug habit negatively affects his community. In a world where people try (often unsuccessfully) to ensure that their purchases of legal consumer items like cars, clothes, and food doesn't either damage the environment nor place workers into exploitive slave-like conditions, Carl Bartelt buys illegal drugs, which are maintained through obvious violent means that often result in the deaths of children through gun violence. TheFuzz, being a cop, has to directly deal with the violent results of Carl Bartelt's choices. Dead teenagers battling over drugs. Dead toddlers hit by stray bullets. Non-empathetic angry protestors who can name the last three individuals killed by police, but can't name one of the last twenty homicide victims killed through drug-related violence. And what does Carl Bartelt have to say for himself? "My goal of clarifying who here's actually for personal liberty has been accomplished." Notice the lack of responsibility for anyone other than himself? Notice the lack of focus on meeting anyone's needs but his own need to smoke weed? -------------------------------- in a typical un-empathetic fashion, makes the "why don't you just leave" argument. Again, that wasn't his argument. Carl Bartelt doesn't protect anyone else, so he has no idea how to be a protector. Because Carl doesn't know how to protect himself, he needs to be protected BUT his constant desires to "do whatever he wants" damages his community by letting violent elements proliferate. TheFuzz wasn't asking, "Why don't you leave?" in order to promote the "Love it, or leave it!" argument. He was asking, "Why don't you leave?" so that Carl Bartelt would consider moving to another place where drugs are legal so that Carl's desire to use drugs wouldn't endanger everyone else around him. That you don't grasp this is sad. That Carl Bartelt's position is more strongly upvoted than downvoted is depressing - because it indicates that more people in FDR want to use their personal freedom to pursue hedonistic pleasure at the expense of their communities, rather than using their personal freedom to create a peaceful, coherent community. Stefan speaks of creating universities devoted to FDR-principles. But his dream will never be reached when the balance of this community pursues hedonism rather than community-building. ------------------- puts people in prison, ruining their lives just because someone tells him to do it That's the funniest line of all! CARL BARTELT is the someone who tells TheFuzz to put people in jail! So are you. So am I! There is no system, there is only us, and we (collectively) tell TheFuzz to put people in jail. What we want (which is ridiculous) is to simultaneously make decisions that endanger the community, empower TheFuzz to use his discretion to fix the negative results of our decisions, and then complain when we end up in jail. Carl could just as easily move, but moving requires a lot of effort - and he doesn't want to move. Hence, his only position is to selfishly yell at law enforcement, hoping that they'll change to support his drug habit. 2
thebeardslastcall Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I quote what I said earlier in hopes that you will re-read it and realize that you must have read it wrong before. I quote your response to point out the difference that I used the word "kids" and you kinda quoted me as saying "people". I would like to add that if I were talking to high school kids I would not take the same approach. You're right I did switch the wording a bit. Sorry if you feel I mis-stated what you said. I think from my point of view I was trying to imagine things from the kid's perspective and additionally I think of kids as people so it was a natural translation in my mind. I realize one is a subset of the other, but it's also an artificial distinction and the some (most?) kids translate things in their heads into personal terms like "me", which is free of any age bounds. In trying to imagine things from the kids perspective and I'm not sure they are going to make the same distinctions and groupings as you and interpret things the same way. Just as I did, they will translate what you said into their own terms. The kid is going to wonder, if he makes the distinction, where this artificial boundary of age groups changes him from to a safe kid into an unsafe non-kid and is going to see people clearly are getting jailed for crimes that aren't so serious as you said was necessary for children. Likewise it may give the child a false sense of safety around cops, who have killed kids for playing with toy guns. Many cops I've met have the "better him than me" attitude and some (a not insignificant minority) are clearly unable to separate a child who play with guns from this attitude, real or fake, even if the kid doesn't have any real idea what they are doing. I was thinking and trying to address how the kid will develop with these ideas in their head, not just how they will act in the short-term. Does that make sense and clarify my response?
Merrifield Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Carl did not offend you. You offended you. It is manipulative to suggest otherwise. He also didn't resort to any ad hominem. I'm sure you understand how I am forced to pay for your "necessary" profession through the armed might of the Leviathan. I do not think you are necessary, but I do not have a choice in the matter. I'm not going to thank you for your service, or your loyalty to a piece of paper and geographical area. One's first loyalty is to their own convictions. I do appreciate the Mother's Day anecdote you shared, but you need to back up this assertion I highlighted in red with something more concrete. Can you please share any empirical evidence that you have available? Last I checked, violent crime rates were at forty year lows, but multi-generational property crime - governments stealing our futures - is at an all time high. I am offended by his hostility to the OP who was brand new to the forum. I will take full responsibility for taking offense.I do not think cops would be necessary in a voluntary society but we dont have one. From a purely philosophical standpoint I think we should do away with police departments. Whether a system closer to what the constitution intended (which would be destined to end up right back where we are) or a new society that is purely voluntary. On a side note, the constitution never allowed for police forces. The constitution allowed for courts to be set up and laws to be written. Enforcement of those laws was left to the people and this is the basis of a citizens arrest. My state has limited the right to make a citizens arrest to felonious offenses and those that are a breach of the peace (brandishing a weapon, shoplifting) these things justify (under the law as written) the use of force to affect an arrest not only for the police but also the citizen. Or maybe said another way they justify force by the police by virtue of their citizenship. The reality is we are far from there and as long as we have police departments we need people in those departments to influence them. I think you're putting the cart before the horse to think you could do away with the cops before dismantling the entire system of government. But if we did I would still be in the business of security, although privately, because there would be a demand for it just as there is now. I don't expect thanks from you. I don't even expect thanks from those I do serve, they pay me. I get my satisfaction from the positive results. I have no empirical evidence that would contradict yours and for that I am thankful. I wonder do you know the reason for the drop in violent crime? I threw in the bit about the oath only to point out that to a previous poster that there was no mention of laws. Staying with this thought I do not find the constitution an infallible document. Slavery, women's status, and taxes are definetly flaws. I do believe the bill of rights is the only reason we are still able to have this conversation. Beard, I see you posted since I started this reply. I hope some of the above helps to clarify my position which I know won't stand up in a truly anarchist model but it is what it is just the same.
Carl Green Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I don't even expect thanks from those I do serve, they pay me. Where'd they get that money from? (who should be thanking who here?) 1
Merrifield Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Where'd they get that money from? (who should be thanking who here?)I am thankful for my job as anyone who has a job should be. As far as where the money comes from I think we both know but I'll humor you. My wife and I paid around $8000 in federal and state income tax (we both have full time jobs) another $1000 in property tax and loads of other hidden taxes including $4 per week to the municipality I work in for the use of their roads so I would guess other people in the same income bracket paid about the same.Now tell me if someone works at Walmart or a hospital where does the money come from that pays that salary? I think I could make the arguements that with 50+% of the American people recieving some type of government handout that a large portion of what gets spent at Walmart originates as tax dollars and a large portion of the compensation of doctors and hospitals originate as tax dollars. And if not today's tax dollars then government debt laid at the feet of future generations of taxpayers. The sad thing is that same 50+% of Americans are also perfectly content to bitch and moan about the cops while at the same time calling for more government involvement in their lives in the form of handouts at the cost of today's taxpayer or future generations of taxpayers.
thebeardslastcall Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Where'd they get that money from? (who should be thanking who here?) What I love about that response is the fundamental pivot in interpretation of the quoted "from those I do serve, they pay me". If I interpret his meaning he was suggesting he serves the people (as it would make less sense to ask for thanks from his boss) and the people are the ones paying him (ignoring the middle men), but you interpreted the same words (as I understand it), as serving the thieves who give him his paycheck and that he needs to thank the victims of the thievery. It shows the difference in belief of who is actually being served, which is kind of the crux of the matter.
MMX2010 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 The sad thing is that same 50+% of Americans are also perfectly content to bitch and moan about the cops while at the same time calling for more government involvement in their lives in the form of handouts at the cost of today's taxpayer or future generations of taxpayers. I'm also a member of the Roosh V Forum, where I got this humorous idea. Walmart is a form of Welfare for the working poor. College loans are a form of welfare for the middle class, especially the unemployable feminists among them. And there's no bigger form of welfare than the army. So while Carl Bartelt complains about police-officers being on the dole, he doesn't see just how many people are on the dole. I'll post more about your situation soon. It requires a lot of thought, and I can only blast short posts right now. I'm not sure if it's because some of my posts got moderated and people missed them, but I do not think this is a fair assessment of my stances here. It's TheFuzz who has argued he is trying to improve his station and the like and suggesting we should get laws changed. I'm not suggesting he change the system as an external thing. I'm only suggesting and pointing out his personal responsibility for his personal actions as a member of that system and suggesting the byproduct of this personal responsibility is, as I conclude it, to weaken the system, whereas participation in the system strengthens it. No doubt participation in the system strengthens it, but everyone participates in the system. By paying taxes, you participate in the system. By being alive, you count as a statistic that justifies the system. You always participate in the system, until you're dead. So I always view as extremely hypocritical and/or short-sighted every "you shouldn't strengthen the system" argument. So while I do appreciate both your clarification and the way you voiced it without snark or downvoting, you're still suffering from the problem I described. (1) You think that "the system" actually exists, even though it does not. (2) You think that abstract intellectual discussion of theoretical principles is the supreme lever of this discussion. (Aside: I don't know if you study art, and my knowledge of art is extremely limited, but I know that there used to be artwork that encapsulated the notion of the Privileged Position. Basically, if you looked at the artwork from any random place, the artwork didn't make any sense. But if you stood in the Privileged Position, the artwork instantly made sense. You, jpahmad, Carl Bartelt, and some others believe that Abstract Intellectual Distance / Knowledge of Libertarianism is the Privileged Position, but the true Priviledged Position is Interpersonal Relationship Knowledge / Practical Relationship-Based Advice.) I did ask TheFuzz questions relating to his parenting and spanking his children. I have not seen any replies to those questions yet. I must admit it got harder for me to be empathetic with talking to him once his nature became more apparent, which is perhaps why I should leave the rest of that discussion with him to you if you think you can help him help his children. Hopefully, he'll answer those questions. Or maybe the downvoting will drive him away. Wouldn't it be sad if the downvotes drove him away, especially when his daughter needs him to be a much more peaceful parent? (And do my questions here make you understand why I was so incredibly put off by both Carl Bartelt's line of questioning and jpahmad's dismissive reaction in this post?) https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44180-yes-im-a-cop/page-2#entry403531 Secondly, I also appreciate the emotionally vulnerable statement, "I must admit it got harder for me to be empathetic with talking to him once his nature became more apparent." But I also think that, whenever a child is in need, your emotions don't matter all that much. I'm not saying that people should have a suicidal approach to intervening when children are in need, but I am saying that the focus on your own feelings of hurt are the last thing that any needy child wants or deserves. Thirdly, there was no "flip in TheFuzz's nature". (1) Carl Bartelt used emotionally-driven hyperbole to defend his desire to smoke weed, by saying, "I can tell you one thing, I wouldn't give two flying fucks what you thought about liberty if you had me in the back of your squad car for cannabis possession. You'd be exactly like the rest of the cops, "just doing what i see is right". Taking away someone's freedom is taking away someone's freedom." (2) TheFuzz replied with a rational argument. (3) Carl Bartelt escalated by asking Merrifield, "How do you respond when someone threatens you? Do you smile at them? I sure don't." (4) TheFuzz replied, "I don't feel as if I'm improving the world. I feel that I have improved individual's situations in many cases. Actually, I do smile at people when they threaten me." Did you notice the TheFuzz is a cop? Haven't you realized that idiots threaten police officers all the time, and that professional courtesy demands that police officers laugh off these very threats? Haven't you also realized that police officers - by virtue of their weapons training, physical training, and constant realization that they could die on the job - function best when they laugh off these threats? Meanwhile, Carl Bartelt has never physically built himself up, has never faced danger in a boxing ring, and has never subdued a drug-addled threat-to-society. So what else was TheFuzz to do other than laugh off Carl Bartelt - (well, besides adding a rational argument to his dismissive laughter? Oh crap, TheFuzz did that - but his argument was flagrantly misinterpreted by the no-longer-participating jpahmad.) I did respond to this post and tried to help a little. I'm glad that you tried. Merrifield seems more genuine and open to me, even if I disagree with his position I feel we can learn from each other. Whereas TheFuzz seems to have done a bit of a "bait and switch" of sorts that got people's hopes up and then crushed them quickly when people realized his "flip" in attitude. My natural inclination due to personal experiences and philosophical positions is to be repulsed by cops, but I realize they are people too and I don't want to make the mistake of de-humanizing them as some do, but want to understand why they put themselves into these "impossible" situations. I've already covered that there was no "flip in attitude", so I won't repeat myself. But the short answer is that police officers put themselves into these "impossible situations" because if they don't, someone else will. And that someone else will be much more dangerous. I get a lot of heat on this board for having a Mistress, but my position on that has always been: (1) The philosophical arguments against having a Mistress are exceptionally weak and emotionally-driven. (2) If a woman wants to cheat on her fiancée, she's going to cheat on her fiancée, so she's better off being with me - someone who can approach the situation with more empathy, self-control, and tactical efficiency than the overwhelming majority of men. (3) If the people who shout me down as "immoral" would ask me pertinent questions about my experience, I can pass on knowledge related to "How will I know when my wife is having an affair?" and "What particular qualities do you possess that her fiancée doesn't possess?" My position on police is the exact same, except creating and encouraging non-dangerous police officers is infinitely more beneficial than my having a Mistress.
Merrifield Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I agree with the Beard that these "moderated" posts are making this a confusing thread. So I'm just going to skip to another point, but if I've failed to address something please restate it so I can. When I started in the cop business I was under different influences. I was pouring over the bible (Christian). I was under great influence of a self proclaimed born again Christian grandfather who was constantly preaching christianity at me. I worked all this confusion and programming out of my head. I've been an atheist for about 15 years. I've been on the path to voluntarism ever since. I started listening to Stef 3 months ago and joined this forum less than 2 months ago. I started this career with the view that police work as working for the citizens of the community. Our civil service system is set up so that the city government (police chief, mayor, & city manager) can't discipline me without the support of the civil service board. This is my protection against them. This is also the basis of the direct connection to the citizen employer. Any citizen can petition this board for a review of any police officer's conduct. In essence, any citizen has the same power over me as the mayor, city manager, or the chief of police. The oath to the constitution is primarily an oath to the bill of rights. In my view, an oath to protect the rights of the citizen.
Carl Green Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 What I love about that response is the fundamental pivot in interpretation of the quoted "from those I do serve, they pay me". If I interpret his meaning he was suggesting he serves the people (as it would make less sense to ask for thanks from his boss) and the people are the ones paying him (ignoring the middle men), but you interpreted the same words (as I understand it), as serving the thieves who give him his paycheck and that he needs to thank the victims of the thievery. It shows the difference in belief of who is actually being served, which is kind of the crux of the matter. I interpreted the words at face value. A cop serves his superior officer, who serves his superior, etc. If you want to test this, tell a cop to slap his captain (or any superior officer) and see who serves who. I'm only here trying to point out the wolf in sheep's clothing that's trying to appear as a sheep in wolfs clothing. 2 3
Carl Green Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 So while Carl Bartelt complains about police-officers being on the dole, he doesn't see just how many people are on the dole. I bet you don't know what I see about you, though. 2 2
implodewithmaiayan Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I'll admit, I'm not fully sold on peaceful parenting, but I'm still researching. That being said, in my household, spanking rarely happens (maybe once or twice a year for egregious offenses). Now as for stopping kids from spanking children in public, its still legal in my state. You can even use an object (such as a switch, wooden spoon, belt, etc) as long as it doesn't leave marks. I do inform parents, however, if they're going to spank, its best to do so with an open hand on a clothed bottom. Why do you assault your child?
thebeardslastcall Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 You make some fair points MMX2010, I'll have to think about this some more. I could discuss some of your points some more, but I see that's where I went wrong in this thread. Instead of accepting TheFuzz's answer that he was satisfied with his position I felt the need to challenge it and drove focus away from what he may be willing to work on, that is far more important, which is peaceful parenting. I did learn some things from this "derailment", but I do apologize if I've helped drive him away from learning more about peaceful parenting. Hopefully he's still lurking and open to learning more even though some of us put him in the "hot seat". If he loves his kids (which I assume he does since he was here) I hope he'll push past these discomforts and hostilities and continue studying the topic.
Molly Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Wow, this topic really went off the rails; such a shame. TheFuzz I hope you will find something useful in this and not be chased off the boards. You deserve to be here and could be a valuable part of the whole conversation, no different from anyone else. I'm going to just leave some peaceful parenting resources here for you TheFuzz. All of these have been great tools for me to become a more peaceful parent, and overcoming the personal obstacles that come from not be parented peacefully myself. "Philosophical Parenting" Separate Freedomain Radio Podcast Feed (Stef's "Bomb in the "Brain" series can be found here and on youtube) "Parent Effectiveness Training" Book/Audiobook "Peaceful Parent: Happy Kids" Book/Website from AhaParenting.com, Dr. Laura Markham "Love and Logic" Books/Podcasts "The Science of Parenting" Book 2
jpahmad Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Does anyone else here think TheFuzz made the "just leave then" argument? It seemed pretty clear to me. MMX2010 seems to think that he didn't, or that he was just trying to probe Carl or something. I don't see it that way, but if I missed something I am willing to apologize. I have no problem that TheFuzz is a cop. I have a problem that he hits his kids, but, I was willing to take the time to expose him to peaceful parenting philosophy. But, when he replied to Carl with the seemingly "just leave" argument, I figured that he was trolling and not sincerely curious about anything on this forum other than beating his chest and telling us how he is such a "good cop." If I misinterpreted this interaction, please let me know because I certainly don't want to discourage people like him. Remember, I was excited about the interaction until he made that reply to Carl.
SamuelS Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Oh, he definitely made the just leave argument. I think MMX is wise to remember that the most important thing here is that there's a possibility of our interactions improving his parenting of his daughter. If we can focus on that, and not chase him off in the process, wouldn't that be far better than arguing about the roads? I don't think I can interact w this fella without being triggered and I really don't care to test or work on that, it looks like a few others in this thread might want to think about that...because others already seem eager and able to help.
MMX2010 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Does anyone else here think TheFuzz made the "just leave then" argument? It seemed pretty clear to me. MMX2010 seems to think that he didn't, or that he was just trying to probe Carl or something. You have to read Carl's first post, then TheFuzz's reply to Carl, then Carl's reply to TheFuzz, then TheFuzz's ultimate reply to Carl. Carl began with emotionally manipulative language and insults - (and I'm not the only one who called Carl out for these insults). Carl continued with the emotionally manipulative baiting by asking, "What do you do when someone threatens you? Smile at them? I sure don't!" And so TheFuzz replied, "Of course I smile at them. :D" He replied this way because: (1) he's a cop, and as a cop, he expects everyone to realize that he gets threatened all the time, and professional courtesy demands that he respond with amusement every single time, and (2) because amusedly smiling at people who use emotionally manipulative language is the most effective way to troll them, trigger them, and get them to either apologize or escalate. Carl chose escalation. ---------------------- The question, "If you don't like living in a country whose policeman can arrest you for taking drugs, why don't you just leave?", was twisted into, "If you don't like living in a country that has laws, then why don't you just leave?" The second interpretation, (the strawman), was used to accuse TheFuzz of "not really being a libertarian". But the simplest interpretation was that he was responding to Carl Bartelt's repeated concerns that he'd be arrested for drug possession.
MMX2010 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Oh, he definitely made the just leave argument. I think MMX is wise to remember that the most important thing here is that there's a possibility of our interactions improving his parenting of his daughter. If we can focus on that, and not chase him off in the process, wouldn't that be far better than arguing about the roads? I don't care whether it's possible for your interactions to improve the parenting of his daughter. I care whether they're the highest possible way of improving the parenting of his daughter.
MMX2010 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 You make some fair points MMX2010, I'll have to think about this some more. I could discuss some of your points some more, but I see that's where I went wrong in this thread. Instead of accepting TheFuzz's answer that he was satisfied with his position I felt the need to challenge it and drove focus away from what he may be willing to work on, that is far more important, which is peaceful parenting. I did learn some things from this "derailment", but I do apologize if I've helped drive him away from learning more about peaceful parenting. Hopefully he's still lurking and open to learning more even though some of us put him in the "hot seat". If he loves his kids (which I assume he does since he was here) I hope he'll push past these discomforts and hostilities and continue studying the topic. It is absolutely unfair to assume that TheFuzz's departure from this discussion would be caused primarily by his non-love for his children. Saying that kind of thing in person to a father or mother is likely to get you physically assaulted, and it has no place in an anonymous message board where you don't face the threat of serious retaliation for making such comments. It is far more likely that TheFuzz's departure from this discussion would be primarily caused by his frustration with either the downvotes, the moderated posts (which interrupt the flow of discussion), the fact that he's limited to two posts per day, or all of the above. I'm disappointed enough that members of FDR are upvoted for avoiding a discussion of peaceful parenting, but you tremendously added to my disappointment by wielding TheFuzz's (supposed) lack-of-love for his daughter against him.
Merrifield Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I interpreted the words at face value. A cop serves his superior officer, who serves his superior, etc. If you want to test this, tell a cop to slap his captain (or any superior officer) and see who serves who. I'm only here trying to point out the wolf in sheep's clothing that's trying to appear as a sheep in wolfs clothing. A wolf snarls at the door.A sheep cowers in the corner. Between them is a sheepdog. The post I made at 6:26 AM just made through the moderator at about 6pm. How can anyone keep up?
Recommended Posts