Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:Gary, first of all, stay away from commenting on anything in America since you don't know a damned thing about this country. Secondly, you appear to favor a nanny government that tells its citizens how to live their lives right down to when and how often to go to the bathroom. Good luck, my friend.

You didn't answer my question.

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Gary, first of all, stay away from commenting on anything in America since you don't know a damned thing about this country. Secondly, you appear to favor a nanny government that tells its citizens how to live their lives right down to when and how often to go to the bathroom. Good luck, my friend.

You didn't answer my question.

I'm sorry, but you seemed to ramble on. Could you ask your specific question again?

Sure. No problem. My question was:

What is your stance on fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens in the US who fail to comply with police demands? Do you think that is an example of "totalitarianism"?

Thanks.

Gary Childress wrote:Sure. No problem. My question was: What is your stance on fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens in the US who fail to comply with police demands? Do you think that is an example of "totalitarianism"? Thanks.

Lethal force should only be used to address an immediate threat of violence and only as a last resort. Unfortunately, people getting shot often present such a threat. It is always a mistake not to comply with police demands. If the cop is doing something wrong, take it up later with the chief of police, the mayor or your attorney. None of this has anything to do with totalitarianism.

Bob need a good slapping.

It's good he doesn't live round here because I'd slap his little face so hard, he'd know he'd been well and truly plastered.

Bob is the sort of scum that hates himself, hates American, and paradoxically anyone he thinks threatens his narrow minded blinkered view of the sad world of his own construction that he has built around himself.\

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Bob need a good slapping.

It's good he doesn't live round here because I'd slap his little face so hard, he'd know he'd been well and truly plastered.

Bob is the sort of scum that hates himself, hates American, and paradoxically anyone he thinks threatens his narrow minded blinkered view of the sad world of his own construction that he has built around himself.\

You're just a fucking limey twit, no ifs, ands or buts.

bobevenson wrote:
The bill stipulates that models must obtain a medical certificate stating that their health, “assessed in particular in terms of body mass index, is compatible with the practise of the (modelling) profession”.
[/b][/size]

An excellent and long awaited law to protect vulnerable women from the jackles of the fashion industry. And generally good news for women who feel under pressure to conform to unhealthy standards of beauty.

ANd here's why

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:Sure. No problem. My question was: What is your stance on fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens in the US who fail to comply with police demands? Do you think that is an example of "totalitarianism"? Thanks.

Lethal force should only be used to address an immediate threat of violence and only as a last resort. Unfortunately, people getting shot often present such a threat. It is always a mistake not to comply with police demands. If the cop is doing something wrong, take it up later with the chief of police, the mayor or your attorney. None of this has anything to do with totalitarianism.

I am sorry but that is where I'm in disagreement, Bob. I don't see how one can condone the lethal use of force against unarmed citizens (even if they are resisting arrest) but then get upset when a country passes a law that seems to infringe on the right of businesses to abuse their influence. In the former case lethal force is being literally used on citizens but the latter case it is not. I don't know how else one can define totalitarianism in any meaningful sense if one is going to look the other way in what seem to be extreme cases but get all bent out of shape when something trivial like regulating the fashion industry comes up.

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:Sure. No problem. My question was: What is your stance on fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens in the US who fail to comply with police demands? Do you think that is an example of "totalitarianism"? Thanks.

Lethal force should only be used to address an immediate threat of violence and only as a last resort. Unfortunately, people getting shot often present such a threat. It is always a mistake not to comply with police demands. If the cop is doing something wrong, take it up later with the chief of police, the mayor or your attorney. None of this has anything to do with totalitarianism.

I am sorry but that is where I'm in disagreement, Bob. I don't see how one can condone the lethal use of force against unarmed citizens (even if they are resisting arrest) but then get upset when a country passes a law that seems to infringe on the right of businesses to abuse their influence. In the former case lethal force is being literally used on citizens but the latter case it is not. I don't know how else one can define totalitarianism in any meaningful sense if one is going to look the other way in what seem to be extreme cases but get all bent out of shape when something trivial like regulating the fashion industry comes up.

Bob thinks that driving on the left is totalitarianism. Or driving on the right, for that matter.

... Or making it illegal to shoot who you want.

Many Americans have a very poorly nuanced sense of irony but being lectured on totalitarianism by the citizen of a country whose secret police are monitoring every word we exchange on this subject is exquisite.

Obvious Leo wrote:Many Americans have a very poorly nuanced sense of irony but being lectured on totalitarianism by the citizen of a country whose secret police are monitoring every word we exchange on this subject is exquisite.

Oblivious, when people talk about you being "down under," they must be talking about your fucking head.

Is that it, Bob? Is that your best shot? Why don't you address the point I made? Your spies are looking over my shoulder at every move I make in cyberspace and yet you've got the nerve to speak of totalitarianism in a country which is taking steps to protect some of its vulnerable citizens from harm and predatory conduct.

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:Sure. No problem. My question was: What is your stance on fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens in the US who fail to comply with police demands? Do you think that is an example of "totalitarianism"? Thanks.

Lethal force should only be used to address an immediate threat of violence and only as a last resort. Unfortunately, people getting shot often present such a threat. It is always a mistake not to comply with police demands. If the cop is doing something wrong, take it up later with the chief of police, the mayor or your attorney. None of this has anything to do with totalitarianism.

I am sorry but that is where I'm in disagreement, Bob. I don't see how one can condone the lethal use of force against unarmed citizens (even if they are resisting arrest) but then get upset when a country passes a law that seems to infringe on the right of businesses to abuse their influence. In the former case lethal force is being literally used on citizens but the latter case it is not. I don't know how else one can define totalitarianism in any meaningful sense if one is going to look the other way in what seem to be extreme cases but get all bent out of shape when something trivial like regulating the fashion industry comes up.

The use of lethal force should only be used as a last resort in face of imminent danger involving life or limb. When you say "unarmed citizens," you probably mean not having a gun. But how about a knife, tire iron, or being on top of a police officer and about to smash his head into the concrete? However, you're far out of your depth when you try to equate any of this with your so-called "businesses abusing their influence." You socialist dopes run to the government for advice on everything, including how to run your own lives, while the rest of us wouldn't ask the government for the time of day for fear of getting the wrong answer.

Do you not regard the protection of its citizenry as a legitimate role of government, Bob?