CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
they are given too much power ...this is why the police are becoming corrept and even disobeying traffic laws..they feel like they can do what they want because they are the police...
*The police are given too much power. What are you referring to? Like the patriot act? Because I smoke weed all the time and cops stop me and my friends sometimes, we always get away scott free by being all "Yes sir, no sir." and not being retarded when they say shit like "I mean you can tell me man I know you're on something, I don't care, I'm not gonna do anything." Yeah they take a lot of liberties with that shit, and I'm pretty sure technically it's entrapment, but it's not serious. The real problem is the laws that they're enforcing, not the people enforcing the laws. Cops are good, in an ideal world. Oh did I say ideal? I meant to say Libertarian.
Difficult for someone who doesn't understand how people can think or say one thing and do another. In other terms, a simpleton. A lot more police than you probably think took the job because they wanted to help people, protect them, or maybe just because they didn't know what else to do and thought police work wasn't the worst. If their job of protecting our civil rights wasn't constantly voted down by the government then they would be our friends, our allies. The guys stopping by to make sure nobody gets trampled in a protest, and making sure nobody gets robbed. It's the legislature people have a problem with.
Police in my opinion are not given to much power. The power they do have is to take down the bad people of today. Everyone thinks that police have a lot of power because they can put metal around your wrist when really, if you say they cant come into your house to look of things, they have to go all the way to a judge and get a warrants just to search a house that might not have any evidence inside it. And when they cuff you, you don't go directly to jail, they are put through trial and in a lot of cases the bad guy gets away because not enough facts prove that person did it.
When you think of people serving the country you think of the Military, the people over seas fighting for freedom. Cops do the same thing with smaller guns. They don't have the power to kill a person in the country unless they are assaulted in any way. Were as to The Military they can go over and kill people to keep others safe. Cops don't have very much power if you think about it.
They also take down the good people of today, consider the innocents which have been executed.
They no long have to go to a judge in Indiana to search a house if certain circumstances are meet and if they enter while those circumstances are not meet then you have no right to defend yourself.
When your cuffed you do go directly to jail, in-till bailed out( and sometimes that is denied). Casey Anthony for example, spent considerable amounts of time in jail before she was found not guilty.
They have the power to deny you your time (aka your life by piecemeal) and your property. While this alone may not be too much, it is still indeed much.
Police can be worst then criminals who says they don't have the power to kill people the police protect police look at the l.a.riots look at most of the crimes commited by police a slap on the rist and there back to work most Americans have no idea what really goes on in that world and don't care as long as they have thier Starbucks in the morning and go to work and come home are glad they don't have to deal with it and then they cry and complain about there to many criminals they don't relize the police are a big part of the problem
They don't have enough power if you ask me. If they had too much power, there would be no crime, and we would also be totally controlled by violence of the law. Since crime still exists, apparently, the police don't just not have too much power, they don't have enough.
Since crime still exists, apparently, the police don't just not have too much power, they don't have enough.
Or, since crime still exists, it could mean that the police is not doing their job correctly. Or,even better, it could be that "better"/"stronger" law enforcement is not what is going to reduce the amount of crime.
Except the very definition of a 'better' police force implies efficiency. Do you really believe that a more overall efficient police force won't stop proportionally more crime? A reformed system that makes some people not turn to crime to survive would help, but what of the criminals that don't commit crime to merely survive? The various gangs and mafias and cartels and chaotically dispersed drug dealers? Do you truly think that an efficient police force isn't the solution to stopping organized crime?
If not, dare tell, what in the world do you think is going to stop crime like that?
So what you're saying is that if the police had too much power, we would be 100% free of crime. People are egotistical by nature, that's a key to survival, otherwise no one would care enough about themselves to live. Many would like to feel in control... If you're thinking that the egotistical urge to be in control would lead to people rebelling against the police in order to take back the power of the common person, then you're absolutely right. But that would be crime in itself, to rebel. Even in North Korea, where the government itself has way too much power, people are sent away for doing crimes, the legitimacy of these crimes being irrelevant. A crime free world, is a complete fairytale. Some people are so psychotic, that no amount of law or governmental intimidation, no matter how morbid, can stop them from doing what they want, committing crimes being no exception.
So what you're saying is that if the police had too much power, we would be 100% free of crime.
I said nothing of the sort. If they had too much power, we would be 100% free from crime... but also dominated by totalitarianism
If you're thinking that...
I'm not thinking that at all, you are. You apparently not only know nothing of what I'm thinking, but you also know nothing of what I said in the first place.
Even in North Korea...
I don't know what you think you're saying about this country, but there is no crime in North Korea, only mistakes. Never has anyone in recent years been jailed in that country for the classic crimes we see in this country. Crime is nonexistent there; people are only jailed when they make mistakes in their jobs. Perhaps you could call them making mistakes the crime of that country, but in comparison to here, it is not crime. Period. To acknowledge it as real crime is to acknowledge their government as a fair and just one, when it's far from it.
A crime free world, is a complete fairytale
It is if you keep saying it is. The only reason real communism and real capitalism don't exist is because people pervert the systems, since the perfect forms of these systems are not suited for humanity at the moment. But it's impossible to say that such concepts as these alongside a crime-free country are impossible in the eventuality of human progression.
Some people are so psychotic...
Now that I've reached the end of your reply, I have to ask... what makes you think the police have too much power when this country has so much organized crime?
I said nothing of the sort. If they had too much power, we would be 100% free from crime... but also dominated by totalitarianism and You apparently not only know nothing of what I'm thinking, but you also know nothing of what I said in the first place.
Well considering the fact that the 1st thing that you did when you replied was build on what I said that you said, I apparently do know what you're saying.
Do you really know what I'm thinking? Apparently you don't, according to your answer. I said "IF you're thinking," notice how the IF in that sentence turns it into a conditional statement.
you could call them making mistakes the crime of that country, but in comparison to here, it is not crime.
Your argument only holds up if the debate said something like... The police is given too much power in the United States. But since it doesn't, and since we can freely bring up any country and their "police" forces in this argument then it must be time for you to actually write an argument that doesn't impose false limitations on others. Just because we live in the United States doesn't automatically mean that this debate is only about the police force in the United States, this is why crime in this debate should be talked about in the standards of the country that the crime occurs in, instead of comparing standards of what crime is in this country to the standards of what crime is in another country to dictate whether we're talking about crime or mistakes. I'm going to emphasize that North Korea is full of crime. Their police force itself is a complete pack of criminals by most if not all standards. Maybe if there was a police force with too much power to govern North Korea, then their police force would be crime free. Rediculous.
You say, "it is if you keep saying it is," I say, "Do you really think that one man has enough power to transform the idea of a crime free world being a fairytale into a reality just by simply cessating the talk of a crime free world being a fairytale?" More fairytales!
I agree with you when you say "The only reason real communism and real capitalism don't exist is because people pervert the systems, since the perfect forms of these systems are not suited for humanity at the moment." I'm also going to add in that you put "perfect" and "humanity" in the same sentence. Not suited for humanity at the moment? Try never instead.
But it's impossible to say that such concepts as these alongside a crime-free country are impossible in the eventuality of human progression."
Anything can be impossible, even if it's impossible possibilities that you're suggesting.
what makes you think the police have too much power when this country has so much organized crime?
Read my other arguments if you're that interested.
Once again, there's no need to limit your view to just this country, there's plenty of other countries that need their ground covered as well.
What you said based on what I said only included 2/3rds of what I said, since the first thing I said involved 'if they had too much power, we would have no crime and be dominated by totalitarianism'. You acted as if I didn't mention totalitarianism. The fact that I mentioned totalitarianism eludes to the idea that don't want them to have too much power, but more power then they currently have, since my starting statement also was that they don't have enough power.
So you insinuated I said something that I did not. Unless you have a disorder of some kind, you cannot say that the way you worded that did not elude to you making an insinuation.
Do you really...
Apparently I know that's what you were thinking because that's what you were insinuating. Since I didn't say what you were insinuating, that's what you were thinking, not me.
...notice how the IF in that sentence turns it into a conditional statement.
Don't act like 'if' is some sort of glorified word in your vocabulary. You thought and insinuated something. You can't take away from that fact by acting like 'if' was more then what you meant it to be in the first place.
Just because we live in the United States doesn't automatically mean that this debate is only about the police force in the United States...
There is no description as to what police force the creator of this debate is referring to. Since he imposed no description upon which police force he was referring to, I have the ability to assume approximately thus: he is just a little daft enough to either use an old browser that will not allow him to make descriptions for his debates, or, he is just a little daft enough to be someone who can just write something on the internet about police and expect everyone to know which police force he's talking about.
I am not clairvoyant. Perhaps he left no description because he meant ALL the police forces in the entire world, but this is unrealistic, because police forces vary greatly. It's imprudent to want to talk about all police forces in the world.
Which is also why I must point out that you are not clairvoyant. If you want to assume that this debate creator is referring to all police forces in the world, then be my guest; that's a very pointless thing to debate because, frankly, police of the whole world is too diverse to have a serious debate about all at once.
Therefore, I assert now that my assumption of this referring to the American police force far more likely then for it to be about all the police forces of the world. People are stupid enough to center their country's police force in one debate without making a description, but you have to be Autistic to right a debate about a thing as diverse about the police of the entire world without writing a description stating that it's about the police of the entire world.
And since the United States has no shortage of idiots who think the world revolves around the United States, it's sensible to assume that he is referring to the United States police force.
The limitations I put on you are not, therefore, entirely false.
So it's your choice now as to stay on the same page with me about the United States police force or try to go off in your own little world and debate about something that is not generalizable such as the police forces of the entire world.
And for the record, the entire presence of North Korea is a crime, to my and many western eyes. But since I wasn't generalizing the entire world like you claim you apparently were, then the idea that North Korea has classic crime, not moral crime, is irrelevant. Some classic crime is immoral, some is not. One thing is for certain: North Korea has no organized crime that opposes the government. They have no crime, period, that involves opposition of humanitarian law as committed by non-government citizens, and therefore, in an objective stance, has no crime. The price it pays for this lack of crime though, is, unfortunately, totalitarianism.
Do you really think that one man has enough power...
No, but humanity won't get past cultural obstacles if you don't believe it can. To say that conquering suffering and imperfection and difficulty is impossible is idiotic, since evolution says differently.
If you're going to assert that evolution is also a fairytale, then we're done talking; I have no time for brainless fools.
Not suited for humanity at the moment? Try never instead.
Ah... I can see that you are, in fact, possibly going to argue that evolution is a fairytale. How ironic.
Anything can be impossible,...
Anything can be possible. You must either be in despair or very narcissistic to not realize this.
Read my other arguments if you're that interested.
Go fuck yourself. If you want to argue with me, argue with me. I will not tolerate you acting like you're so important as to ask me to read other comments of yours that are not tailored to argue against me. If you want to win, do it with your own work.
Once again, there's no need to limit your view to just this country, there's plenty of other countries that need their ground covered as well.
Once again, there's no need to expand your view to beyond a single country; there's just too much diversity of police in the world to make this debate go anywhere beyond frustration.
What you said based on what I said only included 2/3rds of what I said ; You acted as if I didn't mention totalitarianism.
Yes I did, as if it was a crime to do so. You should be a lawmaker, and a police officer. No one would really like you that much.
So you insinuated I said something that I did not.
Really now? That's like saying that the reflection that you see in the mirror is not a reflection of you that you see.
Don't act like 'if' is some sort of glorified word in your vocabulary.
No. There's no need to. Although it sure does change the meaning of the sentence entirely. Imagine the English language without the word "if".
Perhaps he left no description because he meant ALL the police forces in the entire world, but this is unrealistic, because police forces vary greatly. It's imprudent to want to talk about all police forces in the world.
How so? It's very simple and very realistic to talk about them, as long as you leave the cross comparisons out of the discussion.
Which is also why I must point out that you are not clairvoyant. If you want to assume that this debate creator is referring to all police forces in the world, then be my guest; that's a very pointless thing to debate because, frankly, police of the whole world is too diverse to have a serious debate about all at once.
It doesn't matter, even if I wasn't clairvoyant, that's what assumptions are for. If you can't handle the diversity then stay out of the debate and leave that to those of heightened logic who can handle the diversity of talking about the entire world's police forces.
The limitations I put on you are not, therefore, entirely false.
Attempted to put on me would be more correct. Not entirely false? So even you admit there's some falsehood to those limitations. Brilliant insinuation anyways.
So it's your choice now as to stay on the same page with me about the United States police force or try to go off in your own little world and debate about something that is not generalizable such as the police forces of the entire world.
You left out a third option. I could and most certainly will debate about something that may not be easily generalizable but categorizable and manageable, such as the police forces of the entire world. I'd rather stick to the original topic, which is about police, not specifically the police of the US, which seems to be what you're trying to turn this topic into.
Some classic crime is immoral, some is not ; then the idea that North Korea has classic crime, not moral crime, is irrelevant.
Some apples are green, others are red, but they're all still apples.
I can see that you are, in fact, possibly going to argue that evolution is a fairytale. How ironic.
I can see that you were right when you said that you "aren't clairvoyant." I was actually going to argue that evolution leading to a perfect species is a fairytale.
Anything can be possible. You must either be in despair or very narcissistic to not realize this.
Anything can most certainly be possible, even the possibility that all possible things are impossible. What a very narcissistic thing of you to say. Criticism is a reflection of self.
Go fuck yourself. If you want to argue with me, argue with me. I will not tolerate you acting like you're so important as to ask me to read other comments of yours that are not tailored to argue against me. If you want to win, do it with your own work.
So much for being assertive. I won't tolerate you acting like my comments should be tailored for you. Many would say that you are acting a Narcissist at this point. Do it with my own work? It is my own work. I typed all of those comments didn't I?
So you acknowledge that you acted like I didn't mention totalitarianism? If not, you're confusing. If yes, what a way to paint yourself.
Really now? That's like saying that the reflection that you see in the mirror is not a reflection of you that you see.
Does this mean that you believe that I said something I did not? Or does this mean that you truly believe that I only said 2/3rds of what I actually said? Either way, your analogy is scewed, because the way you left some of my words out of my sentence changes it's meaning and insinuates something I do not believe. So if what you said and what I said are a mirror of each other in your eyes, that makes you a psychopath, because they are not a mirror of each other.
No. There's no need to. Although it sure does change the meaning of the sentence entirely. Imagine the English language without the word "if".
Stop eluding your excuse. You insinuated something and you're hiding behind the word 'if' as if you never insinuated anything in the first place, which is fairly shrewd of you.
How so? It's very simple and very realistic to talk about them, as long as you leave the cross comparisons out of the discussion.
It's imprudent considering he left no description stating that this is about world police. Since he didn't do that, that leaves people like you and me meandering about a conversation about nothing in particular. And even if he had left a description about it being about world police, what's the point? He made this a For/Against debate. You cannot generalize the entire world like that! Some people will be 'For' because of North Korea and some people will be 'Against' because of the United States, which forces people to have to run around looking for someone to dispute who's talking about the same country as them.
That's idiotic.
It doesn't matter, even if I wasn't clairvoyant, that's what assumptions are for. If you can't handle the diversity then stay out of the debate and leave that to those of heightened logic who can handle the diversity of talking about the entire world's police forces.
That's you assuming your assumption is right. Where is your proof? Why should I get out of a debate when you can't provide evidence that this is about your train of thought and not mine? Reckoned, I can't prove it's about my train of thought, but you don't see me kicking you out for wanting to argue about diversity among world police.
So even you admit there's some falsehood to those limitations. Brilliant insinuation anyways.
Everything and nothing is true all at once. I can accept this. My falsehoods are false and true at once because you and I are two different people with two different perspectives.
I'd rather stick to the original topic, which is about police, not specifically the police of the US, which seems to be what you're trying to turn this topic into.
There is no description. Considering a debate about world police is almost totally chaotic and manageable by few, how can you convince me this is about your train of thought and not mine?
Some apples are green, others are red, but they're all still apples.
Duh. They still have differences, on the other hand. In flavor, species, texture, grow cycle, and like you said, color. It seems to me like you're favoring one color of apple while I'm trying to look at all apples in general in relation to other equally groups of apples.
I can see that you were right when you said that you "aren't clairvoyant." I was actually going to argue that evolution leading to a perfect species is a fairytale.
I said 'possibly', which is a more defined word then 'if'.
Also, sarcasm is not acknowledged among the internet because there is no tone on the internet. I suspect that you were being sarcastic about your argument over evolution, but you'll have to clarify.
Anything can most certainly be possible, even the possibility that all possible things are impossible. What a very narcissistic thing of you to say. Criticism is a reflection of self.
And of course you wind around your words to get your way.
Your above comment doesn't change the fact that you before asserted that you think certain things are impossible. You didn't say 'possibly impossible' the first time. You made a statement without leeway of malleability, meaning that you mentioning the 'possibility of the impossible' is completely irrelevant... unless you want to point out that your first statement was incorrect.
So much for being assertive. I won't tolerate you acting like my comments should be tailored for you.
Why not? I tailor all of my comments for you. It's only polite. I'm not going to say 'I don't want to argue this point again, so look at such-and-such link to another one of my comments for an answer'.
So, are you saying you want to be rude by asking me to go back and view some other conversation you had with someone else? Because you wrote only 1 comment in this conversation before the one where you referred me to another one of your comments.
Unless you're going to blow my mind by telling me to go back to that one comment of reference in our discussion as opposed to a more likely reference to another comment in another discussion with someone else, then stow it.
I'm only rude to you when you're rude to me.
Many would say that you are acting a Narcissist at this point. Do it with my own work? It is my own work. I typed all of those comments didn't I?
What qualifications do I have for narcissism, sir?
So you acknowledge that you acted like I didn't mention totalitarianism? If not, you're confusing. If yes, what a way to paint yourself.
You mentioned "all or nothing" thinking and me being dull for using that kind of thinking. What do you think this is?
Either way, your analogy is scewed
Not if you misconstrued it from the original meaning. Maybe my vagueness in some areas confuse you.
So if what you said and what I said are a mirror of each other in your eyes, that makes you a psychopath
It's not about what we said, it's about the path taken by our minds. The psychological manuevres within our arguments. I would hope that you are intelligent enough to recognize them, considering how headstrong you are in debate.
Stop eluding your excuse. You insinuated something and you're hiding behind the word 'if' as if you never insinuated anything in the first place, which is fairly shrewd of you.
Hiding behind it the word IF, or using it as a weapon? The latter. It would be treacherous to assume a weapon to be nothing but a hiding spot in war, wouldn't it?
He made this a For/Against debate. You cannot generalize the entire world like that!
You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You can't generalize the entire world like that, but you can categorize it within the debate.
That's idiotic.
Grow up.
That's you assuming your assumption is right. Where is your proof?
I'm still waiting for you to be more specific in another argument. Let's see that first.
The same, difference being you applied it to something it had no sense being applied to.
Maybe my vagueness in some areas confuse you.
Then tell me bluntly what you meant and think instead of asking me to read your mind with this metaphorical shit. It's after midnight for Christ's sake! Do I really have to read Aesop's Fables to understand what you're really saying?
It's not about what we said, it's about the path taken by our minds. The psychological maneuvers within our arguments. I would hope that you are intelligent enough to recognize them, considering how headstrong you are in debate.
I think it's apparent that your mind has taken a totally different direction then mind considering you read one thing I wrote and then thought another thing.
Hiding behind it the word IF, or using it as a weapon? The latter
At least you can admit to your ruthlessness. I'm more honorable in the 'you hit me, I hit you back harder' way.
You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You can't generalize the entire world like that, but you can categorize it within the debate.
I am paying every attention to what you're saying. I'm banking on the fact that the creator made it For/Against. I don't think you're paying attention to what I'm saying.
A single debate by itself is not suppose to be generic. It has title and description capabilities so that it can be specific. Trying to make something generic though using a very specific system is senseless. Are you so malicious as to wish people to have to categorize themselves throughout the debate by running around looking for people to talk to? Or do you suggest this entire debate be dropped and turned into many separate police debate per country people want to talk about? Do you think the people themselves should sift through all of their words and points to manage several different points about several completely different countries around the world?
We have the For/Against category of debates to prevent this.
I wouldn't be complaining about this part in particular if it was Perspective.
Hell, I wouldn't complain about this part in particular even if it were still For/Against.
What annoys me is you imposing your train of thought on this entire debate. We wouldn't have any question of needing to categorize if you weren't so adamantly saying that this is about the world when you have no backup explanation!
Tell me to grow up? You grow up. GIVE ME A REASON THAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT THE WORLD AND NOT A PARTICULAR COUNTRY THE CREATOR HAD IN MIND. Asshole. He posted no description that would relate to either the world or a country in particular, and I gave my reason why I thought it was about a single country in particular! Where is your reply to that behind all of you wishy-washy, senseless metaphors? Stop hiding and twisting and turning and start debating, you coward!
((P.S. I added onto the previous debate reply, likely before you noticed. I accidentally clicked 'Submit' before I was finished replying to everything))
If we were talking in person with this same debate, my tone of voice would be quite calm. No dramatism here my friend.
Then tell me bluntly what you meant and think instead of asking me to read your mind with this metaphorical shit. It's after midnight for Christ's sake! Do I really have to read Aesop's Fables to understand what you're really saying?
Only if you want to.
I think it's apparent that your mind has taken a totally different direction then mind considering you read one thing I wrote and then thought another thing.
How so?
At least you can admit to your ruthlessness. I'm more honorable in the 'you hit me, I hit you back harder' way.
Ahhh, "you hit me, I hit you back harder", those words bleed with ruthlessness.
What annoys me is you imposing your train of thought on this entire debate.
Then you shouldn't be debating... because that's the point of arguing your point in a debate.
GIVE ME A REASON THAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT THE WORLD AND NOT A PARTICULAR COUNTRY THE CREATOR HAD IN MIND.
WOW! You almost broke my computer screen with all capitalization. That was a close one, I sure am relieved. My reason for you is simple, and I'm sticking with it and repeating it once again for you because it seems that you may have missed it. Because the debate starter didn't specifically specify "United States", or Canada, or Turkey, or Atlantis for that matter. So why shouldn't it be about the police forces of the entire world? Sure you think it's too difficult to deal with when generalizing it... but maybe someone like me wants to come in and get really in depth and go far down the ladder of abstraction to the point of absolute specificity. Again if this is too much for you, then don't too it.
Where is your reply to that behind all of you wishy-washy, senseless metaphors? Stop hiding and twisting and turning and start debating, you coward!
If you haven't caught it by now, then you're blind.
Asshole.
That's real mature. And you're telling me to grow up?
The very nature of the comment 'A man out for my heart' is dramatic, at least, if nothing else. If not, explain to me what it's nature was.
Only if you want to.
Smartass. Thanks for being polite and deliberately not speaking a language I understand despite all my efforts to treat you nicely.
How so?
I explained why a few times. You said only 2/3rds of my comment because you insinuated something. I admit, I am suffering slight amnesia since it was late last night, but I remember enough to know that you implied that I said something that I did not.
Ahhh, "you hit me, I hit you back harder", those words bleed with ruthlessness.
At least it's a more polite and fair ruthlessness then running around somebody's words and speaking in a totally different language just to throw them off. The more you seem to admit to not understanding this, the more it seems like you have no code of honor when it comes to this sort of martial art.
Then you shouldn't be debating... because that's the point of arguing your point in a debate.
I'm talking about a different sort of imposing. You impose your train of thought as the entire meaning of the debate, not as merely the correct view. You're not just trying to tell me you're right, you're trying to tell me that everyone that assumes this is about a specific country is not even arguing on the correct debate and instead should go somewhere else just because you think this debate is about what you assume and not what others assume.
My reason for you is simple...
Except it's not simple. You assume this is about the entire world with the only basis being that the title and description are so vague that there is no choice but to assume that it has to be about the entire world.
I think it's about a specific country in consideration for what the writer intended. If the writer intended that this to be something as complex and general as the police of the entire world, why would he purposefully not write a description saying that it was about the whole world? Since such a debate is so complex, it makes far more sense to write a description saying it's about the world then it does to write a description saying it's about the country the writer is from.
Like I said, it's easy to be daft enough to assume the world revolves around your country and therefore not need to write a description referring the debate to your country, but you have to be utterly Autistic to intend a debate to be about as something as complex as the entire world and then not write a description referring that it's about the entire world.
I'd jump to conclusions and claim that this means you're a selfish prick who is applying his own mindset to the entire debate just because the author made a mistake, but perhaps this is not so even though you're intelligent.
So I want you to tell me now, what makes you think the author intended this to be about the world police and not a country he had in mind? If you don't care about what the author may have intended, then admit that, because I only assume things about debates what I think the purpose is of the debate the author applied to it in the first place.
If you haven't caught it by now, then you're blind.
I have caught it now, though it was hard to catch it before now because I have the author in mind when your point doesn't seem to at all.
That's real mature. And you're telling me to grow up?
If you haven't cursed at somebody in frustration just because you're an adult, married man, then I pity you.
Expressing frustration at somebody who insulted you has nothing to do with maturity, especially when it was an unfounded insult.
The very nature of the comment 'A man out for my heart' is dramatic, at least, if nothing else. If not, explain to me what it's nature was.
For one, you seem to have either misread that original quote, or distorted it. The original quote was "A man after my own heart."
For two, thank you for pointing out a minor error that I made. What I really meant to say was, "A man of my own heart."
For three, it was merely a statement made. Should all statements that everyone speak or type out be considered dramatic?
Smartass. Thanks for being polite and deliberately not speaking a language I understand despite all my efforts to treat you nicely.
I'd rather be a smartass, than a dumbass. I appreciate and accept your compliment. Also, last time I checked, I speak English and only English. What language is that you understand again?
I admit, I am suffering slight amnesia since it was late last night, but I remember enough to know that you implied that I said something that I did not.
I got little sleep at all over the past two days, so I can relate.
At least it's a more polite and fair ruthlessness then running around somebody's words and speaking in a totally different language just to throw them off. The more you seem to admit to not understanding this, the more it seems like you have no code of honor when it comes to this sort of martial art.
To be more correct, we're both at an equivalent as far as manners and ruthlessness... except for the excessively LOUD all caps words and the profanity. I have no code of honor? I'm going to ask you, have you ever read the "48 Laws of Power," if you haven't then you should read it, it will reveal a harsh wake up call to you about any code of honor in general. Everyone breaks codes, rules, and ethics to achieve some sort of power in society. The more you don't realize this, the more blind you appear to those around you.
I think it's about a specific country in consideration for what the writer intended.
Allow me to solve this entire issue altogether and send him a message and find out for you what he/she intended.
If you haven't cursed at somebody in frustration just because you're an adult, married man, then I pity you.
I'm 22, unmarried, I have a girlfriend, and I cuss all of the time. I get frustrated at times too. This is why I'm a hypocrite. Everyone is in some way or another. But when you lose your temper in a debate, you lose control. Your ability to think logically and rationally dwindles, because your "fight" or "flight system is in effect, so instead of thinking logically, you're thinking emotionally and all of this obliterates an otherwise wonderful mental excercise... or debate.
For one, you seem to have either misread that original quote, or distorted it.
I tried to quote it from memory and failed slightly is all.
Should all statements that everyone speak or type out be considered dramatic?
No, but the statement 'a man of my own heart' sounds purposefully inserted for a dramatic effect. If not, what was the purpose for stating it?
I'd rather be a smartass, than a dumbass.
Implying I'm a dumbass now or am I just being presumptuous?
Also, last time I checked, I speak English and only English. What language is that you understand again?
When late at night, like now, only blunt English. You speak English in the most subversive, mesmerizing way you can, which frankly puts me at a disadvantage since you seem to only reply to me late at night when I'm tired and not long away from going to sleep.
To be more correct, we're both at an equivalent as far as manners and ruthlessness...
Because you started the cycle. Blah, blah, yes, yes, you can now point out that I'm pointing fingers, but unlike the immature excuse children use to escape punishment, me pointing it out is my declaration that I don't act like a complete jerk to my opponents whom don't deserve it. What about you, on the other hand?
...except for the excessively LOUD all caps words and the profanity.
That was one sentence and a few words. All as an expression of frustration; it did not overstep the amount of rudeness you provided.
I have no code of honor? I'm going to ask you, have you ever read the "48 Laws of Power," if you haven't then you should read it, it will reveal a harsh wake up call to you about any code of honor in general. Everyone breaks codes, rules, and ethics to achieve some sort of power in society. The more you don't realize this, the more blind you appear to those around you.
One book from one person's perspective is not going to change my mind, nor does it necessarily effect all of reality. If you allow yourself to believe that humanity is so bad, then it's always going to stay bad for you. If you see the good and be realistically optimistic, you will always see the good and bad, and make light of the good.
This doesn't go to say that I don't realize that humanity has lots of inherent selfishness, because I do. The difference is that I choose to add to the gene pool in a better way by being better then that. You think I break codes and rules and ethics to achieve what I want? Well, I'm sorry, but I don't. I labor on endlessly and neurotically day and night, night and day, looking over every one of my actions and views and ideas. If I make a mistake that was totally and utterly my fault... I break down.
Which goes to say that I make no horrible mistakes that are entirely my own. I make dumb, random ones, but not important ones; my price for this obsession is my emotional-well being. Thus is why me and my wife have reversed gender roles in the relationship... but that's a different story.
My point is that this book you wrote is wrong, purely by mathematics; there are too many people in the world to categorize them all as being people whom all have the ability to or choose to break rules and codes and ethics for selfish means. I am an example. There are others as examples as well. I know there are many people who do or can, but there will never be a day when my psychology will let me be like that. It is simply impossible by chaos theory.
Allow me to solve this entire issue altogether and send him a message and find out for you what he/she intended.
Perfect idea!
I'm 22, unmarried, I have a girlfriend, and I cuss all of the time. I get frustrated at times too. This is why I'm a hypocrite.
I respect you a lot more now for having the conscious to admit flaw. Mine are completely psychological and physical and I am totally aware of them. How do you do?
But when you lose your temper in a debate, you lose control. Your ability to think logically and rationally dwindles, because your "fight" or "flight system is in effect, so instead of thinking logically, you're thinking emotionally and all of this obliterates an otherwise wonderful mental exercise... or debate.
Since my rational is extremely simple due to my mentality, this simply doesn't happen to me when I debate. I can get angry and emotional and such, but it doesn't change my focus. A lack of sleep after dark, on the other hand, does.
the statement 'a man of my own heart' sounds purposefully inserted for a dramatic effect. If not, what was the purpose for stating it?
To imply that in spite of the cutthroat arguments, I acknowledge our similarities.
Implying I'm a dumbass now or am I just being presumptuous?
When I used the word dumbass, I directed it at no one.
You speak English in the most subversive, mesmerizing way you can, which frankly puts me at a disadvantage since you seem to only reply to me late at night when I'm tired and not long away from going to sleep.
Thank you. I put a lot of effort into being able to use language the way I use it, but it's not my intent to frustrate. The way I use language is at an imperfect stage of development for now.
One book from one person's perspective is not going to change my mind
If that won't, then what will?
Since my rational is extremely simple due to my mentality, this simply doesn't happen to me when I debate. I can get angry and emotional and such, but it doesn't change my focus.
That would be agreed with if the focus of your arguments didn't contrast from intelligent debating to personal attacks, even if you were to gift me with the blame.
To imply that in spite of the cutthroat arguments, I acknowledge our similarities.
Ah... neat. I just might declare you an ally... hrm... and I don't know why.
When I used the word dumbass, I directed it at no one.
As you can see, I am over-emotional. At the very least, at this hour I am.
Thank you. I put a lot of effort into being able to use language the way I use it, but it's not my intent to frustrate. The way I use language is at an imperfect stage of development for now.
Well it does frustrate. Could you please be blunter so I don't have to guess at half of your thoughts from here on out?
If that won't, then what will?
Nothing. I just explained why the book is incorrect, unless the entire thing is riddled with 'maybes' and 'possibles' and 'ifs' so that there is leeway for it's theme to be proven incorrect without the writer looking like an elitist.
It is simply mathematically impossible for everyone in every way no matter what in the entire world to be breakers of rules, codes, and ethics. Mathematical probability will have that at least one out of our six billion people will, at the very least, be the exception to the rule, proving the book wrong. I don't think that there is only one exception to this 'rule' the book points out, because then I would be saying I was the one exception, but I think you get my point anyhow even though I explained it twice.
That would be agreed with if the focus of your arguments didn't contrast from intelligent debating to personal attacks, even if you were to gift me with the blame.
I'm not breaking my normal focus by giving rudeness back to you in at an equal level it was given to me. It's what I would do with anyone whom does insult or confuses me into thinking they insulted me, which you did one of. Can't tell which, frankly. It's late.
Ah... neat. I just might declare you an ally... hrm... and I don't know why.
It's amazing how perspective changes can transform hostility to friendship. This just goes to show that even the worst of enemies can end up becoming the best of friends.
Well it does frustrate. Could you please be blunter so I don't have to guess at half of your thoughts from here on out?
I'm aware of this. Yes I could be blunter. I'll also point out that less is sometimes more. So be prepared for me to take a vague approach in a more appropriate fashion.
Nothing. I just explained why the book is incorrect, unless the entire thing is riddled with 'maybes' and 'possibles' and 'ifs' so that there is leeway for it's theme to be proven incorrect without the writer looking like an elitist.
It is simply mathematically impossible for everyone in every way no matter what in the entire world to be breakers of rules, codes, and ethics. Mathematical probability will have that at least one out of our six billion people will, at the very least, be the exception to the rule, proving the book wrong. I don't think that there is only one exception to this 'rule' the book points out, because then I would be saying I was the one exception, but I think you get my point anyhow even though I explained it twice.
Fascinating. It might be fair to say that this argument challenges every Psychology book in existence. If there was at least one exception to what those text books explain. Would you immediately write them off as false and risk losing an opportunity to gain beneficial knowledge?
It's amazing how perspective changes can transform hostility to friendship. This just goes to show that even the worst of enemies can end up becoming the best of friends.
It happens. Though we're far from 'best friends' quite yet, so please don't hold your breath.
I'm aware of this. Yes I could be blunter. I'll also point out that less is sometimes more. So be prepared for me to take a vague approach in a more appropriate fashion.
I am prepared. I am not totally daft to the understanding of metaphors... it's just annoying when it seems like the only way somebody talks to you. Even if they include a few similes alongside them.
Fascinating. It might be fair to say that this argument challenges every Psychology book in existence. If there was at least one exception to what those text books explain. Would you immediately write them off as false and risk losing an opportunity to gain beneficial knowledge?
No, because I don't necessarily need certain knowledge to learn something new about people; I need only empathy. I didn't need a book to eventually understand you, did I? Neither did you to understand me... if you understand me, I hope. The same goes for anybody I meet. Why read something that generalizes people when I can just attune myself to every individual I know by asking harmless questions and listening to their answers?
And if they don't want to have questions asked, observation is enough, especially the observation involving them not wanting to answer random, harmless questions.
You edited your argument after I disputed it. So I figured I would pay my respects and dispute the rest of your argument. It's only fair.
My falsehoods are false and true at once because you and I are two different people with two different perspectives.
I actually agree with this.
There is no description. Considering a debate about world police is almost totally chaotic and manageable by few, how can you convince me this is about your train of thought and not mine?
There is no description, you're right and all we have to go by is, "The police is given too much power." That's why we should treat that title as the description itself, otherwise we all may as well invent our own descriptions, and debate about something that isn't even fully concrete in meaning. Why on Earth do this? When nobody is even on the same page as far as the meaning of the debate topic, then we really shouldn' even bother debating it, don't you at least agree with that?
They still have differences, on the other hand. In flavor, species, texture, grow cycle, and like you said, color. It seems to me like you're favoring one color of apple while I'm trying to look at all apples in general in relation to other equally groups of apples.
Yes but they're both still apples, and that's the way I'm looking at it at this present time within the given argument that the apple metaphor began with... very much like you.
I said 'possibly', which is a more defined word then 'if'.
Also, sarcasm is not acknowledged among the internet because there is no tone on the internet. I suspect that you were being sarcastic about your argument over evolution, but you'll have to clarify.
By merely using the word sarcasm in reply to a sarcastic comment I made, you've already acknowledged my sarcasm, haven't you?
I tailor all of my comments for you. It's only polite.
I also tailor all of the comments I make for you and that also doesn't mean it should be expected. However the last half of the statement about you being polite still looms in the dark shadows of your crude use of profanity towards me, which really doesn't offend me either way.
So, are you saying you want to be rude by asking me to go back and view some other conversation you had with someone else? Because you wrote only 1 comment in this conversation before the one where you referred me to another one of your comments.
What's rude to one person could be polite to another. I'm really referring to all of the comments I've made at this point. Not just one. If you like puzzles you'll certainly like putting the pieces of this one together.
I'm only rude to you when you're rude to me.
It sure is a vicious cycle isn't it?
What qualifications do I have for narcissism, sir?
I knew it would come to this. I can't pass this up. Enjoy. Everything listed below in bold are directly quoted from you, and everything below listed in italics are the symptoms, or qualifications of Narcissism.
What makes you think I care about your heart?
Lack of empathy.
I will not tolerate you acting like you're so important as to ask me to read other comments of yours that are not tailored to argue against me.If you're going to assert that evolution is also a fairytale, then we're done talking; I have no time for brainless fools.
An exaggerated sense of self-importance
AND
Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
AND
Grandiosity
stay on the same page with me
Requires excessive admiration
Unless you're going to blow my mind by telling me to go back to that one comment of reference in our discussion as opposed to a more likely reference to another comment in another discussion with someone else, then stow it.
Has a sense of entitlement
At least you can admit to your ruthlessness. I'm more honorable in the 'you hit me, I hit you back harder' way.
Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends (especially taking advantage of my words)
What annoys me is you imposing your train of thought on this entire debate.
Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
Fuck you
Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes
When nobody is even on the same page as far as the meaning of the debate topic, then we really shouldn't even bother debating it, don't you at least agree with that?
Perhaps we shouldn't, but that would make all of this writing do to waste.
By merely using the word sarcasm in reply to a sarcastic comment I made, you've already acknowledged my sarcasm, haven't you?
It was late at night; 'acknowledge' wasn't the best word I could have used... more like, 'recognizable'. You can suspect something without recognizing whether it exists or not.
I also tailor all of the comments I make for you and that also doesn't mean it should be expected.
Why? That doesn't seem like common etiquette on this website to you?
However the last half of the statement about you being polite still looms in the dark shadows of your crude use of profanity towards me, which really doesn't offend me either way.
Profanity are mere words to express frustration. If you find them rude, that is how you see them. Words only mean things beyond their purpose based upon opinion. Is me expressing my frustration and irritation really rude? Not generally... unless I use a specific set of words to express it. That is logically based upon only opinion, therefore.
What's rude to one person could be polite to another. I'm really referring to all of the comments I've made at this point. Not just one. If you like puzzles you'll certainly like putting the pieces of this one together.
I like puzzles, but I don't like being treated like less of an equal by someone who seems to think it's not rude to ask somebody to go read a point that may or may not have anything to do with the current argument. When the puzzle is based upon that, I refuse to solve it. The least you could do is be blunt about everything else you say if you don't want to write certain points out.
It sure is a vicious cycle isn't it?
Yup, especially at 3 A.M.
Lack of empathy.
Who is ever empathetic to somebody they feel may be deliberately trying to push their buttons?
An exaggerated sense of self-importance
Except I apply that 'exaggerated sense of self-importance' to you as well since I've already told you I see it as common etiquette. I'm wasn't thinking of just myself when I said that; quite the contrary, the only reason I said it was because I was thinking of you.
Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people
Are you referring to me not wishing to argue anymore if you wanted to argue about evolution not being true? Well... I cannot help but admit that this symptom is on the spot in that statement, at least. Anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is not worthy of debating with, unless it's a debate about something entirely different. To dispute evolution is frankly ignoramus, and since I have yet to meet someone who can argue against evolution well, my belief will stay that way for a while.
Grandiosity
As I just explained, I wasn't only thinking of myself in relation to both of us. This is another nonexistent symptom.
Requires excessive admiration
Right, because it was so narcissistic to ask you to not talk in a tongue I couldn't understand at 3 A.M.
Has a sense of entitlement
Was thinking of common etiquette... which makes me surprised actually; you applied similar symptoms to almost the same chain of thought. We really are thinking on totally different terms therefore if you see that one chain of thought as narcissistic even though based upon my mentality, it is far from it.
Once again: I'm about fairness. I said that chain of thought because it was common etiquette (to me and not you apparently) for someone to write out their whole argument and never refer someone to another comment with someone else. I was on that train of thought because I was never do such a thing to you, since to me, it's rude.
Meaning that any symptoms you apply to that train of thought are nullified, because they have nothing to do with only me and everything to do with everyone in general. I expect to be treated how I treat others. That's utterly fair and not just about the self. Even if it implies entitlement, it doesn't center about me.
Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends (especially taking advantage of my words)
I wouldn't have said that if you weren't guilty of the same.
Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
... You have to explain to me how that statement implies envy of any type from either party. I don't envy you and I certainly don't expect others to envy me. How does that statement make you think envy is involved?
Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes
Expressing frustration with somebody implies only frustration with someone. Some psychologist you are...
You see? You're a narcissist.
The only thing I see is you not understanding what I'm thinking and feeling or even saying. I don't know how you feel and think, but certainly you attempting to act like a psychologist implies you want attention. Perhaps it doesn't, but either way, it's a little insulting.
((P.S. Thank you for replying to the rest of my reply; it's good to know you understand accidents))
THAT RIGHT!! If we didn't have any police then where would the world be right. Every criminal would be free and crime would be everywhere in the world. People would have things stolen, there wouldn't be supreme court and offenders of every kind would be going around hurting people. Police are here to help us! They are not given too much power!
What about things which shouldn't be crimes? Like blacks and whites using the same rest rooms?
In all likely hood, numerous drug laws actually make the world more dangerous. Consider what occurred with alcohol in the united states when they made that illegal.
Police operate though coercion, they threaten your life and your property based on the whims of legislatures and the (possibly false) info available to them; with them you are never safe. While it is better to have a violence monopoly which some accountability to you then some alternatives, there are better situations possible.
They did not create the laws that stated that Whites and Blacks could not use the same restrooms. They just did there job even if it was wrong.
Lets say an intruder in your home and about to kill you. If the cops came and stopped your death, they would not only save your life, they would put that person away before they harmed anyone else. So they make the situation better.
And I never said it is the best circumstance, but its better than most.
Isn't that the problem with them having too much power, they can freely do something that is wrong with impunity?
If accepted that police should not have the power to do something wrong when that wrong thing is not a risk of doing something right, then in doing something wrong they had too much power. Now they currently don't have that particular power, but they do have others. Is it wrong for someone to intrude uninvited upon your property without a warrant or clear sign of present danger? well, in Indiana cops can do that and the only recourse is the court system, your not legally able to defend your self, your property and so forth from the police anymore, but must rather use another branch of the same system for that purpose, which tends to be expensive, time consuming etc and may be something which occurs too late to do much good. That is just one instance of many where cops have to much power.
Sure, sometimes cops can help out, the same as a murder or gangster or any number of other people.
I agree partially with you, sure they slow down crime and make our world safer. We would be in utter animalistic chaos if there were no one out there to regulate what's okay and what's not okay. Notice though, that there are innocent people out there that've been falsely imprisoned for years, no crimes committed. I knew a girl that was molested by a cop, while on duty. Some cops have been known to plant drugs on someone they randomly pulled over, so that they can bust them. It's atrocious that they've gotten away with this too, don't you agree? It's been done before and with this much power, I say the police need to be better monitored with better surveillance, because as long as they're human, they're certainly not perfect.
I agree with you on that point. Yes sometimes cops abuse there power. Without them though the people that have raped, and murdered innocent people have been imprisoned with there help. Not all cops are bad though, some just abuse there power. The cops do not imprison the people. They investigate and find evidence to show the D.A. or they make an arrest. As you said, yes sometimes they lie and plant evidence, but there are more good cops than bad cops.
