• 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!

Should government be able to impose a curfew on adults?

Should the government be allowed to impose a curfew on adults?


  • Total voters
    50
No!

I could not muster a stronger no on this if I tried.

Would you just allow the crowd to burn cars and loot stores and homes?
 
QUOTE=lizzie;1063657659]If the people would act like adults rather than apes, there would be no need for it at all. I don't like th dea of curfews, but to think the cops can actually arrest all the nuts out there, when serious rioting and destruction is going on, is naive thinking. Authorities respond to the level of threat. If people cant act in a civilized manner, they don't deserve to be treated as such.[/QUOTE]

One method that over history has proven very effective has been to shoot looters. Of coutse, sometimes you get a Syrian situation or a Tianenmen Square. Both are very embarrassing to those with the responsibility to protect the population.
 
No our government is overstepping it's bounds there. What if people need to get to and from work? I think the police forces need stripped of all this military grade crap. They can't even use it right. Here is something even more alarming, if our military has such a surplus of crap that they give it to small towns to "fight terrorist threats" than don't you think the military needs its funding cut just a wee bit? Just sayin'.
 
Would you just allow the crowd to burn cars and loot stores and homes?

When did I say that? I said the government should not be able to set a curfew. Setting a curfew doesn't stop people from burning cars....
 
Not only do I disagree with the premise of a curfew, but I have never seen any evidence that they lower crime rates. In fact, all the research I have seen shows that they have no real effect on crime at all.
 
I'm not thrilled with it either but if I were a store owner in Ferguson I would be for it. Solid maybe.

Why? Is a five hour (midnight to 5AM) no looting period really that much of a help to your business? When the local gov't/police decide that to protect the folks and to preserve order requires keeping everyone locked down then they gain too much power.
 
When did I say that? I said the government should not be able to set a curfew. Setting a curfew doesn't stop people from burning cars....

You are right. It doesn't. It makes it less probable there will be looting, if the curfew is enforced. You can reduce crowds. But it cannot totally prevent it. Shooting them does. Is that better?
 
Shooting them does. Is that better?

strawman.jpg
 

In other words, curfews are okay under circumstances of civil unrest and local authorities should be relieved of their duties. That is where we began.

PS: shooting looters is a relatively widely accepted method to stop looting. The question is whether it is legitimate to defend or protect property at the expense of the perp. Some societies say yes and others no.
 
In other words, curfews are okay under circumstances of civil unrest

No. Curfews are never ok. The government has no right to lock people in their homes. The government can (and should) strongly advise that all citizens stay in their homes after dark when civil unrest is occurring, however they have no right to punish us for simply leaving our homes. No matter what is going on.
 
Should government be able to impose a curfew on adults?


I say no.Government is the servant of the people not the boss of the people. If a few bad apples are rioting and looting then get the police to arrest those individuals. Government has absolutely no business telling the people when they can and can't leave their homes.

When a mass of adults are acting like children and not like mature adults who respect the law, the safety of others, etc - then yes.

Not only can they - but they should.

The negative here is that adults act like imbeciles. The negative here isn't that the government had no choice but to act in such a way. Maybe you'd think differently if it impacted your life more directly.
 
Yes, anything that keeps the thugs off the streets and away from my precious bikini store.


Why? Is a five hour (midnight to 5AM) no looting period really that much of a help to your business? When the local gov't/police decide that to protect the folks and to preserve order requires keeping everyone locked down then they gain too much power.
 
Yes, anything that keeps the thugs off the streets and away from my precious bikini store.

It keeps everyone out of all the stores (and every other business) for the duration of the curfew yet allows the thugs to do their thing the rest of the day/night. Why not try the novel approach of stopping (using deadly force if required) the thugs/looters and leaving all others free to go about their business/pleasure activities?
 
Apparently its because trying to stop them would escalate the looting, be logistically impossible or mean too much risk for LEO. In LA, for example, a more effective way would be to impose a curfew. During those riots no one was going about their business pleasure activities - day or night.


It keeps everyone out of all the stores (and every other business) for the duration of the curfew yet allows the thugs to do their thing the rest of the day/night. Why not try the novel approach of stopping (using deadly force if required) the thugs/looters and leaving all others free to go about their business/pleasure activities?
 
Because the word animal wasn't used. It was the tone deaf use of the word ape.

Last I checked an ape was an animal... but just for you though...

Is there something wrong with labelling those acting uncivilized and wantonly destroying their society as an ape?
 
Last I checked an ape was an animal... but just for you though...

Is there something wrong with labelling those acting uncivilized and wantonly destroying their society as an ape?

Why not try an experiment? Go to two groups of people rioting and acting civilized. One a mostly white group and another a mostly black group. See which one gets more mad at your use of the term.

If you can understand that, then no further explanation is needed. If you can't understand that, then no further explanation by me will aid you in doing so.
 
Why not try an experiment? Go to two groups of people rioting and acting civilized. One a mostly white group and another a mostly black group. See which one gets more mad at your use of the term.

If you can understand that, then no further explanation is needed. If you can't understand that, then no further explanation by me will aid you in doing so.

That is a fallacious appeal to emotion argument. I would also add that calling a group of black people an animal would be more upsetting than labelling a white group that... but that does not make the analogy wrong. A groups reaction does not dictate its merits. If you can't understand that then I am not sure I can help you further...
 
That is a fallacious appeal to emotion argument. I would also add that calling a group of black people an animal would be more upsetting than labelling a white group that... but that does not make the analogy wrong. A groups reaction does not dictate its merits. If you can't understand that then I am not sure I can help you further...

You have missed the point entirely. Words are entirely about emotion, particularly dealing with the emotions of those who are called those words. Your clinical view that an ape is an animal continues to miss my point. Yes an ape is an animal, so are human beings. But I reacted to Lizzie's use of the word ape. I've never seen or heard of an ape acting like these rioters, but I'm honest enough to acknowledge that there is a racial connotation to the word that could be applied.

As for needing your help, I'll just refer you to your own sig.
 
You have missed the point entirely. Words are entirely about emotion, particularly dealing with the emotions of those who are called those words. Your clinical view that an ape is an animal continues to miss my point. Yes an ape is an animal, so are human beings. But I reacted to Lizzie's use of the word ape. I've never seen or heard of an ape acting like these rioters, but I'm honest enough to acknowledge that there is a racial connotation to the word that could be applied.

As for needing your help, I'll just refer you to your own sig.

No. You are trying to make a point where there is none. Words are also not entirely about emotion. Words are words and how people take them is where emotion is invoked. The point is not how black people will take the term it is that the term represents people acting in an uncivilized manner because apes are uncivilized. That is it. Reading more into it is being defensive. The term itself applies to all rioters and looters.

I can say that a guy is acting like an ape and he can get all made about it or logically equate that term to acting uncivilized and go, hmmm... you are correct.

I think that this is all summed up by my signature and your seemingly utter fail as to why it is attached. :lol:
 
In Ceridian circumstances yes with some limits to address concern. In a situation like Ferguson, they sold be able to approach and identity any person. The problem there isn't with the residents sdo much but the vultures that have come to steal and destroy everything they can. Many of them aren't residents of Ferguson. If they can't protect and serve why have police at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom