• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's Not That Complicated

A

AmNat

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
7,677
Reaction score
2,065
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In general, conflicts have two sides. There may be more, there may be complicated details regarding why a conflict exists, there may be lots of nuance, but the essence of a conflict is that two sides have a problem with each other. Non-neutral third parties usually align with one or the other, though they may have reservations or their own problems with the side they support.

The news of late is essentially about the conflict between police and criminals. Conservatives generally support the police, while liberals generally support the criminals. Yes there is nuance, conservatives don't agree with everything every policeman does and liberals don't agree with everything every criminal does. But as a general matter, it's clear who's on who's side.
 
AmNat said:
In general, conflicts have two sides. There may be more, there may be complicated details regarding why a conflict exists, there may be lots of nuance, but the essence of a conflict is that two sides have a problem with each other. Non-neutral third parties usually align with one or the other, though they may have reservations or their own problems with the side they support.

The news of late is essentially about the conflict between police and criminals. Conservatives generally support the police, while liberals generally support the criminals. Yes there is nuance, conservatives don't agree with everything every policeman does and liberals don't agree with everything every criminal does. But as a general matter, it's clear who's on who's side.
Click to expand...

Another equally justified way of looking at it is: conservatives support racists and liberals support black citizens.
 
AmNat said:
In general, conflicts have two sides. There may be more, there may be complicated details regarding why a conflict exists, there may be lots of nuance, but the essence of a conflict is that two sides have a problem with each other. Non-neutral third parties usually align with one or the other, though they may have reservations or their own problems with the side they support.

The news of late is essentially about the conflict between police and criminals. Conservatives generally support the police, while liberals generally support the criminals. Yes there is nuance, conservatives don't agree with everything every policeman does and liberals don't agree with everything every criminal does. But as a general matter, it's clear who's on who's side.
Click to expand...

Was George Floyd a criminal in your opinion?
 
Superfly said:
Could also be that conservatives support dirty cops and liberals support the victims of those dirty cops.
Click to expand...

Or that conservatives support violence and liberals support justice.
 
AmNat said:
In general, conflicts have two sides. There may be more, there may be complicated details regarding why a conflict exists, there may be lots of nuance, but the essence of a conflict is that two sides have a problem with each other. Non-neutral third parties usually align with one or the other, though they may have reservations or their own problems with the side they support.

The news of late is essentially about the conflict between police and criminals. Conservatives generally support the police, while liberals generally support the criminals. Yes there is nuance, conservatives don't agree with everything every policeman does and liberals don't agree with everything every criminal does. But as a general matter, it's clear who's on who's side.
Click to expand...

Conservatives only support state and local cops, if they're doing things they approval of. If they're enforcing something like stay at home orders or if they're federal cops, not so much.
 
Conservatives just support conservatives...criminal or not.

RTR4FOZ3-2.jpg
 
HumblePi said:
Was George Floyd a criminal in your opinion?
Click to expand...

He was in my opinion likely guilty of counterfeiting, public drunkenness, and resisting arrest.

He should have been escorted to a jail cell and treated with respect for his humanity and charged/tried in the criminal justice system, not roughed up and killed by some ham-fisted policeman.
 
Variant said:
He was in my opinion likely guilty of counterfeiting, public drunkenness, and resisting arrest.

He should have been escorted to a jail cell and treated with respect for his humanity and charged/tried in the criminal justice system, not roughed up and killed by some ham-fisted policeman.
Click to expand...

The argument that Gelrge Floyd may have been under the influence is a moot point. George Floyd wasn't confrontational, didn't seem to be violent or resisting arrest. He was in handcuffs. As far as the $20 bill, it may or it may not have been counterfeit and if it was, does that make him an actual counterfeiter? I passed a counterfeit $10 at the toll on the Whitestone Bridge in New York. I didn't know it was counterfeit until I was pulling away from the toll booth. I didn't realize it at the time but I knew that phony bill was in my car. It's a long story about how I came in possession of a fake $10 bill. Nevertheless, I am not a counterfeiter and I wasn't aware I passed it off to a toll bridge officer. But what if I was stopped for that and handcuffed and thrown on my stomach to the pavement and a cop put his knee on my neck until I died? Oh, that's just a fairy-tale because I'm an older white woman and no cop(s) would ever do that to me, right?

That's my point. He protested because perhaps he didn't believe he committed a crime and even if he had passed off a phony $20 bill, was it worth killing him because of it? Incidentally, if I was a professional counterfeiter, I would be printing and selling $100 or $50 dollar bills, not $20's. Most counterfeiters don't take the risk of using their own phony bills, they sell them to street junkies and alcoholics.
 
HumblePi said:
The argument that Gelrge Floyd may have been under the influence is a moot point. George Floyd wasn't confrontational, didn't seem to be violent or resisting arrest. He was in handcuffs. As far as the $20 bill, it may or it may not have been counterfeit and if it was, does that make him an actual counterfeiter? I passed a counterfeit $10 at the toll on the Whitestone Bridge in New York. I didn't know it was counterfeit until I was pulling away from the toll booth. I didn't realize it at the time but I knew that phony bill was in my car. It's a long story about how I came in possession of a fake $10 bill. Nevertheless, I am not a counterfeiter and I wasn't aware I passed it off to a toll bridge officer. But what if I was stopped for that and handcuffed and thrown on my stomach to the pavement and a cop put his knee on my neck until I died? Oh, that's just a fairy-tale because I'm an older white woman and no cop(s) would ever do that to me, right?

That's my point. He protested because perhaps he didn't believe he committed a crime and even if he had passed off a phony $20 bill, was it worth killing him because of it? Incidentally, if I was a professional counterfeiter, I would be printing and passing $100 or $50 dollar bills, not $20's.
Click to expand...

In this case he got the cops called on him for not returning the cigarettes that he bought with what the cashier thought was a counterfeit bill.

But the key point, and really the only point:

was it worth killing him because of it?
Click to expand...

No, obviously not.
 
AmNat said:
In general, conflicts have two sides. There may be more, there may be complicated details regarding why a conflict exists, there may be lots of nuance, but the essence of a conflict is that two sides have a problem with each other. Non-neutral third parties usually align with one or the other, though they may have reservations or their own problems with the side they support.

The news of late is essentially about the conflict between police and criminals. Conservatives generally support the police, while liberals generally support the criminals. Yes there is nuance, conservatives don't agree with everything every policeman does and liberals don't agree with everything every criminal does. But as a general matter, it's clear who's on who's side.
Click to expand...

Oh gee, what can I possibly say about this. Here we are seeing one of the most complicated and confusing situations this country ever experienced. And you manage to squeeze it into 2 simple boxes.

You would like to think its police vs criminals. Actually there are all kinds of protesters, with only one thing in common -- they hate what is happening in this country. The excessive lockdowns, the insane Wall Street and corporate bailouts. I think racism and police brutality is mostly an excuse to unleash the built up rage.
 
AmNat said:
In general, conflicts have two sides. There may be more, there may be complicated details regarding why a conflict exists, there may be lots of nuance, but the essence of a conflict is that two sides have a problem with each other. Non-neutral third parties usually align with one or the other, though they may have reservations or their own problems with the side they support.

The news of late is essentially about the conflict between police and criminals. Conservatives generally support the police, while liberals generally support the criminals. Yes there is nuance, conservatives don't agree with everything every policeman does and liberals don't agree with everything every criminal does. But as a general matter, it's clear who's on who's side.
Click to expand...
What’s clear is where your head is.
BBB91BAB-EFA7-4E05-91DA-84FD527A5A25.jpg
 
Variant said:
He was in my opinion likely guilty of counterfeiting, public drunkenness, and resisting arrest.

He should have been escorted to a jail cell and treated with respect for his humanity and charged/tried in the criminal justice system, not roughed up and killed by some ham-fisted policeman.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't get in the police van. That's why it turned physical. That doesn't excuse the excessive force. But there had to be some kind of force.
 
Variant said:
He was in my opinion likely guilty of counterfeiting, public drunkenness, and resisting arrest.

He should have been escorted to a jail cell and treated with respect for his humanity and charged/tried in the criminal justice system, not roughed up and killed by some ham-fisted policeman.
Click to expand...
We'll never know what Floyd was guilty of because he’ll never have his day in court.
 
Good4Nothin said:
He wouldn't get in the police van. That's why it turned physical. That doesn't excuse the excessive force. But there had to be some kind of force.
Click to expand...
Why the equivocation? Factually, the only issue at hand is Chauvin and the other former police officers actions.
 
conservatives lost any claim to the moral high ground when they fell over the rails bonkers in love with a spray painted amoral fool.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Why the equivocation? Factually, the only issue at hand is Chauvin and the other former police officers actions.
Click to expand...

Someone said that Floyd was not resisting arrest, so there should not have been any force. But he resisted getting out of the car, being handcuffed, and refused to get in the police van. So force was needed. But police should know how to be forceful without killing people. They should know someone could have heart disease or something that makes them easy to kill.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Oh gee, what can I possibly say about this. Here we are seeing one of the most complicated and confusing situations this country ever experienced. And you manage to squeeze it into 2 simple boxes.

You would like to think its police vs criminals. Actually there are all kinds of protesters, with only one thing in common -- they hate what is happening in this country. The excessive lockdowns, the insane Wall Street and corporate bailouts. I think racism and police brutality is mostly an excuse to unleash the built up rage.
Click to expand...

I really don''t see anything to indicate the riots are about the lockdowns. Perhaps the increased unemployment has swelled the ranks of rioters, but that seems to be it.

In any case, conservative support for police and liberal support for criminals are both longstanding.
 
AmNat said:
I really don''t see anything to indicate the riots are about the lockdowns. Perhaps the increased unemployment has swelled the ranks of rioters, but that seems to be it.

In any case, conservative support for police and liberal support for criminals are both longstanding.
Click to expand...

Conservatives like those who punch down on people in positions of weakness and vulnerability. They prefer the bully, the "winner".

Liberals are for those in positions of weakness and vulnerability trying to punch up. They prefer the underdog.

Conservatives value strength. "Might makes right". That's what ultimately matters.

Liberals values justice.
 
ataraxia said:
Liberals are for those in positions of weakness and vulnerability trying to punch up. They prefer the underdog.
Click to expand...

Indeed. This is why liberalism is incompatible with peace. Liberals will always seek to undermine order in the name of supporting the little guy. Since the left can't admit to being in charge (since then it would no longer be the underdog), it has to invent more and more monsters to slay.

Conservatives value strength. "Might makes right". That's what ultimately matters.
Click to expand...

"Might makes right" is the only formula capable of sustaining civilized order. The ultimate reason why anything belongs to anyone is because it does. If this principle is not accepted the outcome will be bloodshed.

Liberals values justice.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Mao's Red Guards, for instance, killed twenty million people while pursuing social justice. They make American liberals look like chumps.
 
AmNat said:
Indeed. This is why liberalism is incompatible with peace. Liberals will always seek to undermine order in the name of supporting the little guy. Since the left can't admit to being in charge (since then it would no longer be the underdog), it has to invent more and more monsters to slay.



"Might makes right" is the only formula capable of sustaining civilized order. The ultimate reason why anything belongs to anyone is because it does. If this principle is not accepted the outcome will be bloodshed.



Indeed. Mao's Red Guards, for instance, killed twenty million people while pursuing social justice. They make American liberals look like chumps.
Click to expand...

So how is your idea of civilization different than the jungle? Might makes right. There is no idea of justice or society watching out for those in positions of weakness or vulnerability. There is complete natural freedom: for the strong to eat the weak for lunch, with no one to interfere. Survival of the fittest.

So that's what you think civilization and law, order, and justice are all about?
 
ataraxia said:
So how is your idea of civilization different than the jungle? Might makes right. There is no idea of justice or society watching out for those in positions of weakness or vulnerability. There is complete natural freedom: for the strong to eat the weak for lunch, with no one to interfere. Survival of the fittest.

So that's what you think civilization and law, order, and justice are all about?
Click to expand...

That is just completely wrong. No idea of society watching out for the weak and vulnerable. Just about ALL mammals and ALL birds devotedly care for their offspring while they are helpless. That is just too obvious to have to mention.

Beyond that, most species of higher animals live in social groups. They cooperate and follow rules, and it is not all about who is physically stronger.

I am so tired of hearing hearing this kind of misinformation, that our species is the only one capable of altruism and empathy. We are mammals, so we have a natural instinct to protect the vulnerable. But so do all the other mammals.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Someone said that Floyd was not resisting arrest, so there should not have been any force. But he resisted getting out of the car, being handcuffed, and refused to get in the police van. So force was needed. But police should know how to be forceful without killing people. They should know someone could have heart disease or something that makes them easy to kill.
Click to expand...

It's on video. There were four of them. He wasn't resisting. And the four of them failed to get him in the van. No amount of excuses can change what happened before our eyes.
 
Good4Nothin said:
That is just completely wrong. No idea of society watching out for the weak and vulnerable. Just about ALL mammals and ALL birds devotedly care for their offspring while they are helpless. That is just too obvious to have to mention.

Beyond that, most species of higher animals live in social groups. They cooperate and follow rules, and it is not all about who is physically stronger.

I am so tired of hearing hearing this kind of misinformation, that our species is the only one capable of altruism and empathy. We are mammals, so we have a natural instinct to protect the vulnerable. But so do all the other mammals.
Click to expand...

So why have any system of law or justice? Just do what comes naturally, right?

Lions are mammals. The male lions kill and eat lion cubs of other males so they can mate with the females. They also will kill any male cubs they may feel may threaten their superiority. That's how things work in nature. That's natural freedom.

Becoming King: Why So Few Male Lions Survive to Adulthood | Live Science

Chimpanzees are mammals. One tribe can attack another and kill their members to expand their territory. It's all natural.

I am sure you can see how we as mammals display similar behaviors in our history and our societies. It's all natural. Is it OK to just leave it all naturally free like that and let nature take its course?
 
Good4Nothin said:
That is just completely wrong. No idea of society watching out for the weak and vulnerable. Just about ALL mammals and ALL birds devotedly care for their offspring while they are helpless. That is just too obvious to have to mention.

Beyond that, most species of higher animals live in social groups. They cooperate and follow rules, and it is not all about who is physically stronger.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that nature is all about cooperating and following rules, and never about who is physically stronger? Or that it's OK to let that happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom