78 year old resisting eviction shot by Detroit police
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
That in one breath many people are so quick to argue against the inherent selfish and greedy tendencies of our species, and then in the next breath argue that we are failing as a species because of very same characteristics they previously argued against being innate to humans
This is just a discussion. I am interested in understand and listening to other people's perspectives. Points don't always need to be made in a discussion, and it appears you are only suggesting that I am not making points and that I am rambling because you don't agree with my point of view.
Asking questions facilitates a discussion just as much as making points does. Not to mention a question can both be a question and make a point at the same time.
Also, as a recap (points made)
1) Rape is common amongst our species so it using it to try to develop a sarcastic counter argument in answer to my question only strengthens the idea that our species is inherently selfish and greedy in nature
2) That the criteria used to justify abortion is subjective and can also be applied to old people as one could similarly consider them similarly "unwanted DNA" as they are essentially vehicles of DNA transmission
...
No one has yet to answer the question of what we have failed to do as a species other than to argue people "not being good to each other is a failure enough" suggesting that at some point our species had identified "being good to each other" as a some sort of universally accepted goal fundamental to what makes us "human".
Next Point;
What is the difference between someone claiming that not being good to one another constitutes a failure of our species and someone claiming that not being bad to one another constitutes a failure of our species; on what grounds could you argue that one was correct and one was incorrect other than your own opinion?
This is just a discussion. I am interested in understand and listening to other people's perspectives. Points don't always need to be made in a discussion, and it appears you are only suggesting that I am not making points and that I am rambling because you don't agree with my point of view.
Asking questions facilitates a discussion just as much as making points does. Not to mention a question can both be a question and make a point at the same time.
Also, as a recap (points made)
1) Rape is common amongst our species so it using it to try to develop a sarcastic counter argument in answer to my question only strengthens the idea that our species is inherently selfish and greedy in nature
2) That the criteria used to justify abortion is subjective and can also be applied to old people as one could similarly consider them similarly "unwanted DNA" as they are essentially vehicles of DNA transmission
...
No one has yet to answer the question of what we have failed to do as a species other than to argue people "not being good to each other is a failure enough" suggesting that at some point our species had identified "being good to each other" as a some sort of universally accepted goal fundamental to what makes us "human".
Next Point;
What is the difference between someone claiming that not being good to one another constitutes a failure of our species and someone claiming that not being bad to one another constitutes a failure of our species; on what grounds could you argue that one was correct and one was incorrect other than your own opinion?
People argue that selfishness and greed are not inherent but environmental tendencies and I say we fail as a species for fostering that environment.
You are interested in pressing your half baked philosophy on us.
Also, as a recap (points made)
How did you come to the conclusion that rape is common?
Subjective or not it is a huge stretch and a very shallow evaluation of the matter to argue that flushing a fetus (organic matter that has lived no life) is the same as killing "old people" (a living breathing human being with presumably many emotional and intellectual connections with other humans), a term you haven't clearly defined. You haven't even made clear why they deserve death simply for being old. What you're saying is completely ludicrous and moronic.
...
I don't feel that these are real questions or points to answer.
You are interested in pressing your half baked philosophy on us.
Also, as a recap (points made)
How did you come to the conclusion that rape is common?
Subjective or not it is a huge stretch and a very shallow evaluation of the matter to argue that flushing a fetus (organic matter that has lived no life) is the same as killing "old people" (a living breathing human being with presumably many emotional and intellectual connections with other humans), a term you haven't clearly defined. You haven't even made clear why they deserve death simply for being old. What you're saying is completely ludicrous and moronic.
...
I don't feel that these are real questions or points to answer.
I'm not agreeing with everything Mr. Nice Guy has said, but I do believe his original question is a valid one. That being; exactly what has determined that we have failed as a species? To say, "we are not good to one another" is esentially saying that no one is good to another, which is obviously false. Afterall, who is the "we" in question? Everyone? Half of the population? Maybe a quarter?
If I set a goal--beit far-reaching--to get six A's, yet I end up with five A's and one B+, have I really failed? I believe the question is much more philisophical than you might think. Some goals are set with little to no expectation for full achievement, but rather, to raise the bar high enough so that, if we fall just short, the end result is acceptable.
I am not saying we have or have not failed, but I do believe the question is worth asking and should have prompted some legitimate answers since it was not Mr. Nice Guy who suggested one or the other.
As for anything else he said, I have no comment.
If I set a goal--beit far-reaching--to get six A's, yet I end up with five A's and one B+, have I really failed? I believe the question is much more philisophical than you might think. Some goals are set with little to no expectation for full achievement, but rather, to raise the bar high enough so that, if we fall just short, the end result is acceptable.
I am not saying we have or have not failed, but I do believe the question is worth asking and should have prompted some legitimate answers since it was not Mr. Nice Guy who suggested one or the other.
As for anything else he said, I have no comment.
i agree obviously there was excessive force, but what about what started the whole problem??? he barricaded himself inside of an apartment he no longer owns with weapons? how the fuck is this not the problem in the first place? i saw a bunch of people here in minneapolis standing on a porch protesting their eviction...ummm GTFO! you dont own the house, you fucked up, quit wasting the police's time and energy and own up to the fact you didnt hold up your end. yeah i know this is a gangsta ass website and people hate police, but point being, dude fucked up first by not leaving an apartment he no longer owns...
I used to say the same shit years ago; look straight to the root of the problem and place the blame squarely on the person who kicked it off. And to some small degree, yeah, he was wrong and could have avoided everything. But the point is not weather or not the guy was innocent, rather, the manner in which the police carried out their "civil duty". This situation could have been handeled much more descretely..
ie. bring the landlord/police srgt. out and tell the guy "we apologize, you may stay here as long as you want.. pay us when you can." or something along those lines..
ie. bring the landlord/police srgt. out and tell the guy "we apologize, you may stay here as long as you want.. pay us when you can." or something along those lines..
Hey Duke, why dont you run along and play with the kiddies in the open forum, grown ups are trying to discuss....
But Ethereal, i think thats where you go wrong, saying they should give the man time to stay here as long as they want. I think everyone's image of the police as corrupt force, which i agree on plenty of levels, but is still clouding the fact that this man could not make his payments on his house. HE DOES NOT OWN THIS HOUSE. Are you saying because he was willing to barricade himself inside with a weapon this gives him a free pass and he is able to stay and gain this courteous extension on his payments? Oh and why the fuck are the police force apologizing?? You have to remember the owner of those apartments are running a business. So what are you going to tell the manager as to why he doesnt have his money, yet his apartment is occupied.
Also, the greatest question is; say that the landlord does give into this guys demands and let's him stay. well now others hear and see about a 78 year old man essentially being given his demands because he picked up a gun, do you not think this will breed more of the same behavior? Do you think thats good??
But Ethereal, i think thats where you go wrong, saying they should give the man time to stay here as long as they want. I think everyone's image of the police as corrupt force, which i agree on plenty of levels, but is still clouding the fact that this man could not make his payments on his house. HE DOES NOT OWN THIS HOUSE. Are you saying because he was willing to barricade himself inside with a weapon this gives him a free pass and he is able to stay and gain this courteous extension on his payments? Oh and why the fuck are the police force apologizing?? You have to remember the owner of those apartments are running a business. So what are you going to tell the manager as to why he doesnt have his money, yet his apartment is occupied.
Also, the greatest question is; say that the landlord does give into this guys demands and let's him stay. well now others hear and see about a 78 year old man essentially being given his demands because he picked up a gun, do you not think this will breed more of the same behavior? Do you think thats good??
idk where your getting this face paint from? you seem like an intelligent enough of a guy to not jump to childish personal attacks, pretty poor attacks btw, just because i oppose the majority opinion in this thread..
So people that are unable to pay for their dwelling should use threats of violence and weapons to disobey the law, put innocents in harms way and steal from the owners of this apartment complex ? Geez, you really are an infinite abyss of stupidity and ignorance that should exit this thread immediately...
So people that are unable to pay for their dwelling should use threats of violence and weapons to disobey the law, put innocents in harms way and steal from the owners of this apartment complex ? Geez, you really are an infinite abyss of stupidity and ignorance that should exit this thread immediately...
a home is suppose to keep stable, to relax you through a hard days work, to provide you with a storage for the things you want to acquire, to help perfect yourself.
the way to keep your home is to fight for these reasons. to have society acknowledge your worth and your compromise of not being able to build your own. How important is a house to others! Why a home is part of our right in mentioning in our laws?
We all must make housing a priority, not because we can afford it, but because it bring our society to a better way of living from the elements outside. the a mount of stress a family have to deal with, cause health issues and family discourse. The expectancy of a son or daughter doing well because they have a place they can call their own.
Such action by government and banks to take a person home without a replacement is calls for new government and elimination of banks. to Destroy a person home, is destroying a country biggest assets for greatness and well being for others.
Working at the Tenderloin to bring some assurance back to those who've lost homes, shelters, and even just a bed causes more confusion, chaos to society, and like this forum have express hatred and dismissal of order.
Till we can be assured a home all that matters makes a country loose value, pride, respect, and lives.
the way to keep your home is to fight for these reasons. to have society acknowledge your worth and your compromise of not being able to build your own. How important is a house to others! Why a home is part of our right in mentioning in our laws?
We all must make housing a priority, not because we can afford it, but because it bring our society to a better way of living from the elements outside. the a mount of stress a family have to deal with, cause health issues and family discourse. The expectancy of a son or daughter doing well because they have a place they can call their own.
Such action by government and banks to take a person home without a replacement is calls for new government and elimination of banks. to Destroy a person home, is destroying a country biggest assets for greatness and well being for others.
Working at the Tenderloin to bring some assurance back to those who've lost homes, shelters, and even just a bed causes more confusion, chaos to society, and like this forum have express hatred and dismissal of order.
Till we can be assured a home all that matters makes a country loose value, pride, respect, and lives.