Florida is set to arm teachers

[Rob Roy]

Are you insinuating every police officer has no desire to protect people?. Be careful, because that blind stereo typing gets interesting when we shift from a faceless organization....

Almost. I'm sure some police officers THINK their highest duty is to protect people, and some (a few) might even be nice guys who are ignorant of what they are REALLY doing .

Police, can't be "protecting people" while at the same time involved in extorting from them. That is two opposing things going at once in the same circumstance, which is a contradiction.

So while sometimes (some) Police protect people in some instances, they ALWAYS participate in extortion, since their pay isn't derived from mutual exchange the way normal people get their pay. Their pay is derived from confiscation and ironically cops enforce the laws which deliver them their pay.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

 

[chiqifella]

If we didnt have cops- private prisons would be empty and retirement check amounts would decline.

 

[Rob Roy]

If we didnt have cops- private prisons would be empty and retirement check amounts would decline.

Yes, instead of cops who extort and enforce all laws, even laws which harm or rob people of their freedom, they could be replaced by private security agencies. A cop, since they face no real market competition is immune from customer feedback. It doesn't matter whether you like their "service" or not they still get paid (with money TAKEN from you)

A private security agent would have to deliver good service, since if they didn't, people would hire another one who demonstrates honesty and provides good service. Those who provide dishonest or lousy service would put themselves out of a job, since they WOULDN'T be immune from customer feedback. Their business would depend on doing a good job, unlike cops today.

That's exactly how grocery stores work today, people chose the one they like or they can grow their own food etc. Security is just another service.

If you are forced to pay a security agent (like how Police are presently paid) they can't possible be providing you security, since at the onset they force you pay them.

Free Market for the win!

 

[chiqifella]

If we didnt have cops suicide rate stats wouldnt be skewed,
we wouldnt have cop killers anymore,
no more black lives ended by cops,
no more police groping women on the roads,
we'd have a clearer view across medians,
no more tax dollars used to pay victims of police abuse,
no more hiding cops to spot on school shooting cams,
and spousal abuse by cops would end even.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

I had hoped you might be able to discuss things as they are rather than presenting some sort of cognitive dissonance based emotional argument to try to rationalize your acceptance of guns being used inappropriately by "authority". Somehow you seem to think that makes it right, because it is normal and therefore "good" when "authority" does it.

Here let me address your silly attempt to make an argument...

I have no problem paying for that which I willingly contract for and use. Forcing people to pay for things they don't use, is a form of slavery though, since it insists that the fruit of your labor is directed by another person who has threatened harm to you if you don't comply. So why do you embrace slavery is the relevant question?

Also, if you are against offensive use of guns, (you're not really) it sure sounds like you are embracing the idea that some people magically have a right to use them offensively and somehow it isn't really the same bad act as if it was you or I doing it.

...and you claim you aren't indoctrinated? Now, who's being funny?

you keep making these vague statements and acting like you're the rational one...you have no problems paying for that which you willingly contract....well then whats your problem. who exactly are you refering to as being slaves? who is forcing people to pay for things they don't use? what is it that people don't use? the society comes as a package deal, if you want to be a member of it, you fund all of it, whether you like it or not. whats so hard to understand about that? if you don't want to participate, withdraw, find a cave, and learn to make candles.
by your definition, EVERYONE on the entire planet is a slave, because everyone on the entire planet pays taxes that get used for something they don't like. so you live on a planet full of slaves. get used to it. i don't really see anyone threatening me, and i'm sure i could bitch about it, and if i put enough effort into it, i might even get them to change something. it does happen from time to time.
as far as my "acceptance of guns being used inappropriately by "authority"....you assume a lot about me and everyone else in these forums. you seem very arrogant to me. you're sitting in the same place i am, doing the same things i do, but you're smarter, and i'm a sheep, because i don't agree with you. and i engage in cognitive dissonance when i express my frustration with someone as intelligent as you being a ridiculous twat.
"Also, if you are against offensive use of guns, (you're not really) it sure sounds like you are embracing the idea that some people magically have a right to use them offensively and somehow it isn't really the same bad act as if it was you or I doing it."

it's not magical, we gave them that "right", along with the badge. it goes with the job of trying to control the more offensive members of our society, to keep them from preying on those weaker than them. to keep the less intelligent from damaging themselves and the people and things around them.
most of the things i've said here are obvious to most adult members of society. they don't usually need to be said, because we all know whats going on. we like things the way they are, in general, and don't really appreciate people pointing out the obvious problems we can't do a lot about, because we're trying to ignore them and have a semi decent life. you seem to think we aren't aware. we are, we just don't care as much as you do.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Yes, instead of cops who extort and enforce all laws, even laws which harm or rob people of their freedom, they could be replaced by private security agencies. A cop, since they face no real market competition is immune from customer feedback. It doesn't matter whether you like their "service" or not they still get paid (with money TAKEN from you)

A private security agent would have to deliver good service, since if they didn't, people would hire another one who demonstrates honesty and provides good service. Those who provide dishonest or lousy service would put themselves out of a job, since they WOULDN'T be immune from customer feedback. Their business would depend on doing a good job, unlike cops today.

That's exactly how grocery stores work today, people chose the one they like or they can grow their own food etc. Security is just another service.

If you are forced to pay a security agent (like how Police are presently paid) they can't possible be providing you security, since at the onset they force you pay them.

Free Market for the win!

so you want to put private companies in charge of public safety........thats called organized crime, extortion, and racketeering.....you either pay or you don't get protected....thats exactly what you're arguing about right now.....

"If you are forced to pay a security agent (like how Police are presently paid) they can't possible be providing you security, since at the onset they force you pay them."
circular argument...the guards force you to pay them if you want their protection...whats the difference?

 

[Rob Roy]

you keep making these vague statements and acting like you're the rational one...you have no problems paying for that which you willingly contract....well then whats your problem. who exactly are you refering to as being slaves? who is forcing people to pay for things they don't use? what is it that people don't use? the society comes as a package deal, if you want to be a member of it, you fund all of it, whether you like it or not. whats so hard to understand about that? if you don't want to participate, withdraw, find a cave, and learn to make candles.
by your definition, EVERYONE on the entire planet is a slave, because everyone on the entire planet pays taxes that get used for something they don't like. so you live on a planet full of slaves. get used to it. i don't really see anyone threatening me, and i'm sure i could bitch about it, and if i put enough effort into it, i might even get them to change something. it does happen from time to time.
as far as my "acceptance of guns being used inappropriately by "authority"....you assume a lot about me and everyone else in these forums. you seem very arrogant to me. you're sitting in the same place i am, doing the same things i do, but you're smarter, and i'm a sheep, because i don't agree with you. and i engage in cognitive dissonance when i express my frustration with someone as intelligent as you being a ridiculous twat.
"Also, if you are against offensive use of guns, (you're not really) it sure sounds like you are embracing the idea that some people magically have a right to use them offensively and somehow it isn't really the same bad act as if it was you or I doing it."

it's not magical, we gave them that "right", along with the badge. it goes with the job of trying to control the more offensive members of our society, to keep them from preying on those weaker than them. to keep the less intelligent from damaging themselves and the people and things around them.
most of the things i've said here are obvious to most adult members of society. they don't usually need to be said, because we all know whats going on. we like things the way they are, in general, and don't really appreciate people pointing out the obvious problems we can't do a lot about, because we're trying to ignore them and have a semi decent life. you seem to think we aren't aware. we are, we just don't care as much as you do.

Can a person delegate a right they do not possess ? No, they cannot.

Do you or any person you know possess the right to take another persons money against their will? No you do not.

Can you aggregate a sum of zeroes (zero rights) and create a positive sum ? No, you cannot, it is impossible.

Can you connect the dots or refute what I just said? No, apparently not.

Seriously, you do not know what a right is and you have confused granted privileges (from "authority" ) with rights.

Yes, I probably am smarter than you are in some areas, and you might be smarter than me in some areas, but that isn't my point. I seriously doubt you are a sheep though, but you do seem to be afraid to breakaway from the herd and consider things as they really are. I hope you can someday.

If you like things the way they are, you should be able to have your life, but you don't end it there. Your methods intervene in others being able to live THEIR lives as they like. THAT, is a problem.

 

[Rob Roy]

so you want to put private companies in charge of public safety........thats called organized crime, extortion, and racketeering.....you either pay or you don't get protected....thats exactly what you're arguing about right now.....

"If you are forced to pay a security agent (like how Police are presently paid) they can't possible be providing you security, since at the onset they force you pay them."
circular argument...the guards force you to pay them if you want their protection...whats the difference?

No, I want to put YOU, in charge of your life and ME in charge of my life. That's how you get to Peace.

I don't mean to insult you, but you are missing some rather obvious things here. You are not alone though, most people have been taught to ignore or not understand the obvious.

If you hire somebody in a peaceful world, presumably that relationship is voluntary, as in both sides desire it. You should have the ability to hire that person, or another or nobody. That is how things should be, with security / policing. You chose, just like you chose where you buy your groceries. Any bad actors in my scenario would quickly be outed and lose any funding, hence any ability to continue to be a bad actor, since customers would leave them in droves.

In the present, you, as an individual are COMPELLED under threat of force to pay for police, whether you want them or not. Even if you DO hire private security, you are STILL forced to pay for Government Police and they will take your home if you do not pay them and kill you if you resist.

You probably have a poor understanding of the built in security measures a true free market has, which would prevent what you think would occur, from occurring. Competition keeps people honest, since customer feedback isn't subjugated in my proposal, where it is virtually nonexistent on the present Policing setup.

I hope that helps clear up any misconceptions as it quite adroitly rebuts your claim of "circular argument"..

 

[Flowki]

Almost. I'm sure some police officers THINK their highest duty is to protect people, and some (a few) might even be nice guys who are ignorant of what they are REALLY doing .

Police, can't be "protecting people" while at the same time involved in extorting from them. That is two opposing things going at once in the same circumstance, which is a contradiction.

So while sometimes (some) Police protect people in some instances, they ALWAYS participate in extortion, since their pay isn't derived from mutual exchange the way normal people get their pay. Their pay is derived from confiscation and ironically cops enforce the laws which deliver them their pay.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

That is flawed logic, I could apply it to your health care system and mine. I never agreed to pay every tax in order to use NHS. They don't need the police to enforce that, like in your country they could just refuse medical care due to black listing, so is that not extortion?. If a loved one was murdered I would seek the police since they are far more equipped than any of us to catch a killer. That does not mean they always will or care like they should but do give example of an affordable alternative, a one that does not exist only in your head. You continue to form opinion on how you think the world should be and then blur that opinion as though it were factual reality.

Insurance works on the same ''extortionate'' principle. You have physical and economical forces. Funny, it's not a bad thing when your house burns down and your covered, right?.

You were born into a society and automatically signed up to that society's way of life. If you think that isn't fair you are subjectively correct.. but are you going to complain about being born, the name you were given, your sex and physical appearance, you had no choice in those either. You are old enough to leave society if you disagree with it. With the views you have that's your only option.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

that's it 100%, you seem to think we don't know what's happening to us, but the fact of the matter is, we do know, and prefer it to the alternative.
i don't agree with any of your conclusions. people are greedy. you put them in charge of your security, they're going to charge you for it, and it's going to get progressively costlier, not cheaper. they would divide up the markets and set prices amongst themselves, so there would be no real competition. you don't want to pay us? fine, we won't protect you.you want to put your self in the hands of an unregulated market based on you trusting a private company to have your best interest at heart....you ARE insane.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

and the whole concept of "rights" is flawed...they're all privileges granted by society....who grant's these rights? who tries to protect them? who can withdraw them? the society that created them....

 

[Fogdog]

What Roy does is show us what the worst possible society would look like. Never in history has there been a society like that. Which means -- throughout history there has never been a people as dumb as Roy.

 

[Amazon Blaze]

This is what I said.

The film and computer gaming industry desensitize the emotional aspects of killing

This is the only part of your reply that that has to do with what I said, the rest is just in your mind, in an attempt to rationalize your inability to comprehend the word Desensitize, even with the help of a dictionary description, you seem to be suffering the same problem as Bogdog. Even the first half of your sentence " Video games do not make killers" is not relevant, to what I said because I did not say that Video games make people killers.

Video games do not make killers or desensitize people to killing

Your attempt to qualify taking your children into the woods and shoot a defenseless animal as a scientific study, is not very good. You have not established a control, to measure your observations against.

I doubt you will understand this point, but I will say it only to show you how ridiculous your response is. First you would have needed to either take your kids into the woods and shot an animal in front of them before they had watched any films or played any video games that included violence in them and then again after they had watching said films and video games and made notes on the changes of heart rate and galvanic skin responses at all 3 events and correlated that information. Or have your children in 2 groups one group watching video games and films and one group not, before taking them into the woods and shooting a defenseless animal for your pleasure, and then measuring their responses as just mentioned. Noticing they know the difference between real life and a computer game, is not the answer to my statement, that Films and computer games desensitize the emotional aspects of killing.

I am getting bored now and as you have dug yourself a very big hole in which you cant escape other than irrational make believe of what you think I have said and seem to only want to believe in studies here are some for your perusal, I am sorry they are in block text, I know it challenges yours, and Bogdogs intellectual abilities, but intelligent people have better attention spans than gnats. A bad assumption on the part of the publishers, that people like yourself would actually want to read this kind of thing, but I expect you will prove their point.

Studies say otherwise.

Here are several studies, from different experts in this field, under the heading below, that do not show otherwise.

If you wish to show me the studies you have read that show the desensitization of violence from violent Computer games and films has no impact on people, please do.

The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704015/

 

[whitebb2727]

This is what I said.


This is the only part of your reply that that has to do with what I said, the rest is just in your mind, in an attempt to rationalize your inability to comprehend the word Desensitize, even with the help of a dictionary description, you seem to be suffering the same problem as Bogdog. Even the first half of your sentence " Video games do not make killers" is not relevant, to what I said because I did not say that Video games make people killers.



Your attempt to qualify taking your children into the woods and shoot a defenseless animal as a scientific study, is not very good. You have not established a control, to measure your observations against.

I doubt you will understand this point, but I will say it only to show you how ridiculous your response is. First you would have needed to either take your kids into the woods and shot an animal in front of them before they had watched any films or played any video games that included violence in them and then again after they had watching said films and video games and made notes on the changes of heart rate and galvanic skin responses at all 3 events and correlated that information. Or have your children in 2 groups one group watching video games and films and one group not, before taking them into the woods and shooting a defenseless animal for your pleasure, and then measuring their responses as just mentioned. Noticing they know the difference between real life and a computer game, is not the answer to my statement, that Films and computer games desensitize the emotional aspects of killing.

I am getting bored now and as you have dug yourself a very big hole in which you cant escape other than irrational make believe of what you think I have said and seem to only want to believe in studies here are some for your perusal, I am sorry they are in block text, I know it challenges yours, and Bogdogs intellectual abilities, but intelligent people have better attention spans than gnats. A bad assumption on the part of the publishers, that people like yourself would actually want to read this kind of thing, but I expect you will prove their point.



Here are several studies, from different experts in this field, under the heading below, that do not show otherwise.

If you wish to show me the studies you have read that show the desensitization of violence from violent Computer games and films has no impact on people, please do.

The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704015/

Blah blah blah. Go ahead and try to back peddle.

 

[Amazon Blaze]

Yet on a thread about "arming teachers instead of enacting rational gun control measures", in the midst of complaints by myself and others who claim rational gun control measure are a solution, you go on and on about how video games desensitize people. I can see the implication. I speak out against this implication because it's a red herring argument used by gun industry advocate/lobbyists. There is no evidence that video games are linked to outrageously high rate of gun homicides in this country

Also you damn well did say video games are part of the problem of gun homicides.

Contrary to your claim, there is no direct evidence video games are a part of the problem.

Again you are going into the realms of fantasy and borderline psychosis. Are you actually able to read something and write it as it actually is, or do you always change it to something completely different. No wonder Michigan med grower said "Never bother to comment on what I actually said" it seems to be common problem with you. While we are discussing these quotes, why do you feel the need to to have them at the bottom of your posts?

The title of this thread is actually .....Florida is set to arm teachers ...Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jimdamick, Feb 28, 2018.

Please show me where that bit "instead of enacting rational gun control" is, apart from in your post and confused mind. Do I need the same magical glasses to see it, or perhaps I need to bury me head in the toilet and huff scrubbing bubbles like your Bogdog avatar.

"in the midst of complaints by myself and others who claim rational gun control measure are a solution, you go on and on about how video games desensitize people"

I am sorry, I did not see the rules that say I have to check with you and your buddies, as to what I can and can not post, and what words I can use, that don't confuse your limited understanding of vocabulary, and your laziness to read someones post, due to your gnat like attention span, when block text is used.

I did not go on and on unless you believe one sentence is going on and on, just like you believe the title of this thread is something different. If I am am guilty of going on and on, so is every other poster on here, about everything, that has been written about, including yourself.

"I speak out against this implication because it's a red herring"

What is this fetish you have with smelly red fish, you have mentioned it millions of times, in all your posts. Everyone one is getting sick of you going on about red smelly fish, don't you have anything else to think about.

"Also you damn well did say video games are part of the problem of gun homicides."

Please don't cry Bogdog, here's your dummy back, that you just spat out. No, again you are still sniffing to many red herrings and scrubbing bubbles in your toilet.

I said and I quote " The film and computer gaming industry de sensitize the emotional aspects of killing"

"Contrary to your claim, there is no direct evidence video games are a part of the problem"

Contrary to your claim there is.

Here are several studies, from different experts in this field, under the heading and web address below. I am excited and looking forward to reading what your psychosis changes this into, don't disappoint me now Perhaps it will be pink flamingos instead of red herrings.

If you wish to show me the studies you have read that show the desensitization of violence from violent Computer games and films having no impact on people, please do.

The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704015/

On a side note, you should seriously seek out some professional help with your problem, its not all psychological, your are probably a Neurophysiological Developmental Delay sufferer as well, which causes problems with understanding and conceptualizing things, like the written word.

 

[Amazon Blaze]

Blah blah blah. Go ahead and try to back peddle.

To quote you "Yeh whatever" Your apology is a little unorthodox but I accept it. I am disappointed you didn't prove the publishers wrong, you may have learned something.

 

[whitebb2727]

To quote you "Yeh whatever" Your apology is a little unorthodox but I accept it. I am disappointed you didn't prove the publishers wrong, you may have learned something.

I didn't apologize. Don't try to twist it that way.

Video games don't add to violence problems nor desensitize people to violence.

I also don't suffer from any cognitive disabilities. I am a veteran that had a job in the military that required intelligence. I also have a college degree.

 

[Amazon Blaze]

I apologize. Don't try to twist it that way.

Its ok, no need to keep apologizing, I accepted it.

Video games don't add to violence problems nor desensitize people to violence.

The several studies from several different psychologists on that link say different.

I also don't suffer from any cognitive disabilities.

So, your just being deliberately obtuse?

I am a veteran that had a job in the military that required intelligence. I also have a college degree.

You must have passed your camouflage course with flying colors, because you seem to be hiding that intelligence very well

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Its ok, no need to keep apologizing, I accepted it.



The several studies from several different psychologists on that link say different.



So, your just being deliberately obtuse?



You must have passed your camouflage course with flying colors, because you seem to be hiding that intelligence very well

Are you that "penny" idiot?

 

[Fogdog]

Again you are going into the realms of fantasy and borderline psychosis. Are you actually able to read something and write it as it actually is, or do you always change it to something completely different. No wonder Michigan med grower said "Never bother to comment on what I actually said" it seems to be common problem with you. While we are discussing these quotes, why do you feel the need to to have them at the bottom of your posts?

The title of this thread is actually .....Florida is set to arm teachers ...Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jimdamick, Feb 28, 2018.

Please show me where that bit "instead of enacting rational gun control" is, apart from in your post and confused mind. Do I need the same magical glasses to see it, or perhaps I need to bury me head in the toilet and huff scrubbing bubbles like your Bogdog avatar.

"in the midst of complaints by myself and others who claim rational gun control measure are a solution, you go on and on about how video games desensitize people"

I am sorry, I did not see the rules that say I have to check with you and your buddies, as to what I can and can not post, and what words I can use, that don't confuse your limited understanding of vocabulary, and your laziness to read someones post, due to your gnat like attention span, when block text is used.

I did not go on and on unless you believe one sentence is going on and on, just like you believe the title of this thread is something different. If I am am guilty of going on and on, so is every other poster on here, about everything, that has been written about, including yourself.

"I speak out against this implication because it's a red herring"

What is this fetish you have with smelly red fish, you have mentioned it millions of times, in all your posts. Everyone one is getting sick of you going on about red smelly fish, don't you have anything else to think about.

"Also you damn well did say video games are part of the problem of gun homicides."

Please don't cry Bogdog, here's your dummy back, that you just spat out. No, again you are still sniffing to many red herrings and scrubbing bubbles in your toilet.

I said and I quote " The film and computer gaming industry de sensitize the emotional aspects of killing"

"Contrary to your claim, there is no direct evidence video games are a part of the problem"

Contrary to your claim there is.

Here are several studies, from different experts in this field, under the heading and web address below. I am excited and looking forward to reading what your psychosis changes this into, don't disappoint me now Perhaps it will be pink flamingos instead of red herrings.

If you wish to show me the studies you have read that show the desensitization of violence from violent Computer games and films having no impact on people, please do.

The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704015/

On a side note, you should seriously seek out some professional help with your problem, its not all psychological, your are probably a Neurophysiological Developmental Delay sufferer as well, which causes problems with understanding and conceptualizing things, like the written word.

Do you want to play article one-upmanship? Too funny that you show yourself to be a poser by diagnosing somebody through an internet blog. There is no confirmation about the accuracy of this hypothesis of a link between video violence and real violence. While I'm sure there is plenty of circular logic permeating the halls of academia on this subject, given the amount of time people have been playing these games, one would think there would be independent verification. Instead what you are quoting is not much more than the equivalent of a psych-professor circle jerk.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/08/28/there-is-still-no-evidence-that-videogames-harm-minors/


Your wall of text and hyperbole was not worth the electrons used to transport it to me -- I treat it and you with the appropriate disdain. I didn't read the whole article you posted either. In fact just a few words and then looked up the name of the researcher. He's made a lot of hay with his studies, papers, and I'm sure, speaking fees. Not criticizing him, I'm sure he's a very good person. The thing is, his theory should have been validated by independent data by now. It has not. Not even close. At best, other researchers find that aggression may have been raised 0.5% due to playing violent video games. As they say, there is a difference between what is measurable (though that is in doubt) and what is important.

You on the other hand are a poser. Or a crank who was kicked out of the profession. Your claim to be able to diagnose somebody based upon disagreeing with you or even what they write over the internet would be quite unprofessional of you, if you were a professional, that is.