faith in the police? not round here please. [Archive]

View Full Version : faith in the police? not round here please.

jumpy

06-30-06, 08:54 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/5132370.stm

can you believe it?
'Laughing at police'
But Mr Foster said he was appalled by what he was told by the officers.
"They said: 'If they haven't got a helmet on, we can't pursue them. We can't risk a law suit. We'd get sued if they fell off and hurt themselves,'" said Mr Foster.
"I can't believe it, to tell the truth, because all the bike thieves know that, so that's what they do and they're laughing at the police. They've found a loophole in the law that means they can do exactly what they want."

crime doesn't pay... well it didn't used to, I'm not so sure now :damn:

Skybird

06-30-06, 09:36 AM

As long as it is put down in rules and laws, it is okay. :dead:

TteFAboB

06-30-06, 09:41 AM

Get them a union card so they can participate in the Thieve's Guild Course for a Safe Robbery.

We also need some NGO to help them get bail insurance, you never know when you're getting caught these days, better safe than sorry.

tycho102

06-30-06, 12:15 PM

We've just about got the same problem over here.

Honestly, the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org) would cure a lot of our problems, this one included. It would rattle the entire special interests and pandering system, we'd have cops well funded and less corruption; meaning the cops could actually be trusted to do their jobs well. So when you've got a guy breaking the law, the cops are actually authorized to enforce the law, because the politicans passed the law in the interest of actually being willing to enforce the law.

I don't know what you all need to do over there. Maybe a Guy Fawkes job on the weekend when no one is working. Just enough to rattle the fillings in their teeth and get them back to "policing by consent".

Kurushio

06-30-06, 01:01 PM

We need a Judge Dredd like figure who just zaps criminal scum away....yeah...as if. :roll:

STEED

06-30-06, 01:21 PM

SUBMAN1

06-30-06, 02:35 PM

I'm really worried about Europe. I mean, if you have an intruder in your home, you can even protect yourself overthere. This one just goes to show you that the police can't help you and you have to protect yourself! And to top it off, the criminals have weapons and the normal person can't! Add in here that even if you do protect yourself, you'll end up going to jail just for doing so.

The bad part is, is America far behind? Right now, if someone comes into my home, I have to shoot enough times to make sure he is dead, because if he survives, I might get sued for shooting him!

I like the fact that everyone has so many worries about terrorists and everything. To me, terrorists pale in comparrison to what we are doing to ourselves! Its just nuts. I am studying law right now (done with sys admin stuff!) to see if I can make a difference in this area.

-S

PS. And you wonder why I keep Hydrashock ammo in my gun at home?

Bort

06-30-06, 06:53 PM

We need a Judge Dredd like figure who just zaps criminal scum away....yeah...as if. :roll:
Hah, the only law enforcement professional I trust is this guy...
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/robocop.jpeg

CB..

06-30-06, 07:10 PM

i had a motor cycle nicked a while ago---reported it to the police---and a few days later i got a phone call to tell me it had been discovered--
Great i thought--(wondering what state it was now in:dead: )

the nice police lady then informed me it was in a garage on a housing estate on the other side of town--exactly where the police had discovered it--and i should get over there and pick it up---

some what astounded---i realised that what i was going to have to do was STEAL my own motorcycle back

gee guys thanks--knowing the garage was in was an extremely rough area--and should the thieves be attendant on this garage when i arrived i was liable to have some issues--possibly resulting in serious injury--thieves don't take kindly to you turning up on their door-step and stealing stuff back off them--anyhuw thats what i did--

they'd wrecked the thing any huw--so i even had to push it back home--

they'll persue me till hell freezes over for a parking ticket tho--which is nice---

SUBMAN1

06-30-06, 08:02 PM

Skybird

07-01-06, 04:12 AM

The bad part is, is America far behind? Right now, if someone comes into my home, I have to shoot enough times to make sure he is dead, because if he survives, I might get sued for shooting him!
Same in Germany. My father is is sports gunner and for some years was member of the police sports club in Berlin, which was public - you could get access to it's training facilcities even if you were no policeman (my father is classical musician, no policeman). He became friends with a Kriminalkommissar who once told him in secret that if he ever would confront a robber, a thief or whomever in his appartment and cannot make him freezing by simply threatening him with his firearms, so that he needed to shoot at him, he should make sure that he a.) kill him for sure and b.) makes sure he doe not kill him with the first bullet, which would be suspicious to be an intended kill and thus could be followed by an examination for murder and c.) that he does not need too many bullets for this would be rated as excessive use of force and could have legal consequences as well. And if he only shoots and injures the man he needs to expect to be sued for "Körperverletzung" (physical injuring?) and "attack with a lethal weapon.":dead:I got injured myself by a knife last year in a street assault out of the blue. I defended myself and while completly disabling him I unfortunately could not avoid to injure that sucker quite severly, and he was motionless. Although his lawyer later withdraw the case, initially I got charged for physical violance (Körperverletzung), which even was legally suspect becasue at that tim,e he trialed the case he was under charges by the police himself! (seems to be a grey area in German laws, but I do not know) Man, you lawyers and idiots - that guy tried to put a knife into my poor belly, I have a 6 cm-long scar on my right side from a 2 cm deep cut when he tried to stab me! Obviously some people would expect me to accept being stabbed down and die in my blood.Accepting to be a victim is a virtue. Weakness is a virtue. Strength is elitary - it needs to be condemned. We are all a happy family, Western society is great, reasonable and tolerant. Death to anyone who casts the shadow of a doubt about this paradise.Perverted thinking stinks.

STEED

07-01-06, 04:31 AM

It's a well known fact that the British Police will not go into areas which are known trouble spots full of yob gangs or chavs. And who can blame them, give them full body armour and some APC's and good back up, that's what I say.

Kapitan

07-01-06, 05:49 AM

I have recently been involved in a case and to my horror the judge was totaly bias, he through out all of my evedence because he said i cannot support the bad charecter application.

The person i know for sure is totaly innocent but because the judge said we wont accept any of your evedence he has had to now change to guilty and get a lesser charge, despite the fact he never did anything in the first place.

British law is so bias these days im ashamed to say i live here.

Iku-turso

07-01-06, 06:02 AM

I'm really worried about Europe. I mean, if you have an intruder in your home, you can even protect yourself overthere.

I dont know about other european countries but in Finland you can,and i surely will.

Kapitan

07-01-06, 06:31 AM

There was an inncident in england where a man who was attempting to rob a house cut himself badly on his intended victims fence and sued and you know what he won ! the burgaler won !!!!!

Any anus who comes on my land will get shot but thing is il get done for it doesnt matter if he was coming to kill me id still get done.

CB..

07-01-06, 06:48 AM

yes they really do need to seperate the attacker from the victim--if by defending your self you can be in law labelled as the attacker then this illustrates the insane flaw in the laws (and in some ways society it self) interpretation of violence--and is precisely why the attacker is so often able to manipulate the ordinary person into becoming a "victim" simply by using the knowledge that if he/she defends him/herself then they them selves become the criminal--there-by making any possible morality impossible--

society acts very much as if it were schizophrenic and confused about violence-- as if it can't quite make up it's mind wether it likes it or not--
it's an unspoken vibe that often pervails that we would rather not have any more victims--rather than that we would rather not have any more violence---

no body likes victims---but we all kinda want to be Bruce Willis--

time for some joined up thinking--violence is still "cool" there are obvious reasons why this is--right back to the roots of mankind--the biggest most violent ape got to be boss--not that much has changed maybe it's about time it did?:hmm:
to the kids on the street this is the basic twist--we assume folks are intelligent enough to see past this--but they are allso intelligent to realise that violence or the threat of violence often gets them where they want to go--

and they quite rightly find the fact that the victim can be prosecuted for the very crime that is being perpertrated against them-
like Christmas and their birthday rolled into one---it's a bully mentality---and the law plays right along with it--and that is not a co-incidence IMO

it is as if the crime is to be attacked--and even then it is only a crime if the victim chooses to press charges---

so by that logic being attacked is only a crime if you are a "p*ssy"---that's the grass roots message this sends out loud and clear--
it feeds off those whose desire is to abide by the law-- it makes you a victim for attempting to abide by the law--it gives you no other option--

only when violence is considered a crime without question (within the confines of available evidence) will attitudes change--
if for example a person is witnessed being attacked on lets say CCTV cameras--then after some basic investigation the person seen attacking the other would be prosecuted as having commited a crime---full stop--the victim doesn't enter into it--either it is a crime to physically assault another person or it isn't--

when you are given a speeding ticket for exceeding the speed limit on a motorway--(having been caught on a speed camera)
no one asks the rest of the drivers on that stretch of road wether they minded you exceeding the speed limit--asking them if they as law abiding drivers want to press charges--

same thing should be done with violent incidents--the victim should not even have to appear in court
it should be a arbitary as a parking ticket--you hit some one -you broke the law--it can get more complicated than this--but only if we want to fudge the issues--if the violence is the crime--then this gives the victim back their self respect

then the victim can know on whose side the law really is--and they cease to be victims
it's societyand the law that makes ordinary law abiding citizens into victims--one minute they are walking their dog--the next they're a victim--what happenned?
a bit fuddled perhaps?

precisely

STEED

07-01-06, 12:16 PM

Once again for the U.K the stinking corrupt E.U. has given us the human right's act, which Tony Blair put his signature too. And is now regretting it, I here old David cameron leader of the Conservative party, said he would scrap it, just two problems first the conservatives must get elected at the next general election, the second point I would like to see how the hell can he scrap it, while we are in the E.U. good luck David cameron.

CB..

07-01-06, 01:03 PM

i kinda think the problem goes a bit deeper than just which party happens to be in power---

i reckon the police, lawyers and all concerned partys in authority should be made to sit down and try to write a leaflet describing in detail and exactly what a member of the public should be expected to do when confronted with a violent assault--(not some idiotic victim support wishy washy sticky plaster for after the event --but what you are supposed to do whilst the attack is actually happening )
i think once the waste paper bin is crammed to the full with rejected drafts they will finally start to see the size of the problem-

STEED

07-01-06, 01:10 PM

If a intruder entered my home, I know the law will back the intruder, so if I am going down I am going to take the son of a bitch with me.

SUBMAN1

07-01-06, 02:36 PM

The bad part is, is America far behind? Right now, if someone comes into my home, I have to shoot enough times to make sure he is dead, because if he survives, I might get sued for shooting him! Same in Germany. My father is is sports gunner and for some years was member of the police sports club in Berlin, which was public - you could get access to it's training facilcities even if you were no policeman (my father is classical musician, no policeman). He became friends with a Kriminalkommissar who once told him in secret that if he ever would confront a robber, a thief or whomever in his appartment and cannot make him freezing by simply threatening him with his firearms, so that he needed to shoot at him, he should make sure that he a.) kill him for sure and b.) makes sure he doe not kill him with the first bullet, which would be suspicious to be an intended kill and thus could be followed by an examination for murder and c.) that he does not need too many bullets for this would be rated as excessive use of force and could have legal consequences as well. And if he only shoots and injures the man he needs to expect to be sued for "Körperverletzung" (physical injuring?) and "attack with a lethal weapon.":dead:I got injured myself by a knife last year in a street assault out of the blue. I defended myself and while completly disabling him I unfortunately could not avoid to injure that sucker quite severly, and he was motionless. Although his lawyer later withdraw the case, initially I got charged for physical violance (Körperverletzung), which even was legally suspect becasue at that tim,e he trialed the case he was under charges by the police himself! (seems to be a grey area in German laws, but I do not know) Man, you lawyers and idiots - that guy tried to put a knife into my poor belly, I have a 6 cm-long scar on my right side from a 2 cm deep cut when he tried to stab me! Obviously some people would expect me to accept being stabbed down and die in my blood.Accepting to be a victim is a virtue. Weakness is a virtue. Strength is elitary - it needs to be condemned. We are all a happy family, Western society is great, reasonable and tolerant. Death to anyone who casts the shadow of a doubt about this paradise.Perverted thinking stinks.

Thats terrible! It is understandable though because people who like to be victims can't stand people that are able to defend themselves (Its a phycology thing) and would rather die than give up their victim status. Problem is, these people seem to be the very people speaking the loudest to get their laws passed since people that can defend themselves don't give these thoughts a second thought.

What really needs to happen is that criminals should be held to and give up all their rights during the commision of a crime with intent to harm. Its the only way to fix what is broken.

-S

CB..

07-01-06, 03:20 PM

scandium

07-01-06, 03:30 PM

Skybird

07-01-06, 04:05 PM

Thats terrible! It is understandable though because people who like to be victims can't stand people that are able to defend themselves (Its a phycology thing) and would rather die than give up their victim status. Problem is, these people seem to be the very people speaking the loudest to get their laws passed since people that can defend themselves don't give these thoughts a second thought.

What really needs to happen is that criminals should be held to and give up all their rights during the commision of a crime with intent to harm. Its the only way to fix what is broken.

-S

There are two ways people deal with recogniozing they are inferior , compared to something. First possebility, they try to improve themselves so that they become competitive again, or gain the abilities and qualities they are lacking. second possebility, they try to bring down the better ones to their own mediocre misery and declare it a virtue to make the lesser standard the better one. Unfortunately, eurppean policies on antional and international levels are basing on the second "solution", as does the recipes and strategies of the political left in general. Speak out the word "elite" in Germany, and you get slapped for the rest of the day.

Let's be solidaric in our mediocrity. It makes living so much more a fulfilled experience. Equality for all! :dead:

scandium

07-01-06, 04:16 PM

Unfortunately, eurppean policies on antional and international levels are basing on the second "solution", as does the recipes and strategies of the political left in general.

Which left-wing recipes and strategies would those be Skybird? Specifically I mean. This is what Wiki says about "Left-wing issues" and I'm curious as to which of these general left-wing ideas you take issue with:

"The far left has historically opposed the concentration of wealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth) and power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28sociology%29), especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally controlled them. As such, the left often works to eliminate high levels of inequality. Outside the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), which lacked a historical ruling class or nobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility), this often included at the most basic level demands for democratisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratisation) of the political system and land reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform) in agricultural areas.

With the spread of the industrial revolution, left-wing politics became concerned with the conditions and rights of large numbers of workers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers) in factories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factories) and of lower classes in general. Social democracy or socialism, the welfare state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state), or trade unionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) have been specific models of socieity which leftists believe will advance the interests of the poor. In modern times the left also criticized what it perceives as the exploitative nature of globalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization), as in global economic integration, through the rise of sweatshops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshops) and the race to the bottom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom), and has sought to promote fair trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade).

As civil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights) and human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) rights gained more attention during the twentieth century, the left allied itself with advocates of racial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial) and gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender) equality, and cultural tolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance). It has also been opposed to some forms of aggressive nationalism, such as imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism) and offensive war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War), which have been seen as a vehicle to advance the interests of corporatism.

Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary to advance the interests of the poor and middle class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class), often in the pursuit of Keynesian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian) ideals.

Advocacy of government or social intervention in the market puts those on the left at odds with advocates of the free market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market) as well as corporations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations) (who oppose democratic control of the markets but not necessarily all control) if they see their interests threatened.

Many on the Left describe themselves as "progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism)", a term that arose from their self-identification as the side of social progress and openness to change.

Left-wing positions on social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social) issues, such as opposition to social hierarchy and authority over moral behaviour, strict adherence to tradition, and monoculturalism, may make them allies with right wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_wing) advocates of "individual freedom", though their solutions are very different.

The above strands of left wing thought come in many forms, and individuals who support some of the objectives of one of the above stands will not necessarily support all of the others. At the level of practical political policy, there are endless variations in the means that left wing thinkers advocate to achieve their basic aims, and they sometimes argue with each other as much as with the right."

TteFAboB

07-01-06, 04:28 PM

Skybird

07-01-06, 04:35 PM

The left's policies is the policies I see implemented by the left in the present reality if I just open my eyes. Judging them by deeds, not words, of course.

scandium

07-01-06, 04:37 PM

Once again, Scandium comes out of his alienated cave to spin the wheel of illusion.

It's impossible to communicate with those who live in a fantasy world, next Skybird will answer him, but Scandium will not believe a word he says, he cannot even consider believing his partners are in fact partners-in-crime.

Who wants Popcorn?

WTF are you talking about? Your habit of responding to everything I post, and in the third person no less, with some kind of ad hominem is becoming very tiresome and here, as usual, I have no idea what you're even talking about.

scandium

07-01-06, 04:41 PM

The left's policies is the policies I see implemented by the left in the present reality if I just open my eyes. Judging them by deeds, not words, of course.

Alright so which deeds? What is the left doing, specifically, to contribute to this problem? You're "opening your eyes" comment is out of place, given that you know I don't live in Europe and that I am, therefore, asking you as a European for what it is that you see happening there because of left-wing deeds.

TteFAboB

07-01-06, 05:16 PM

Oh, I'm no longer in your ignore list? Very well then, I will provide you with a worthful response. :up: The third-person I took from the football comentators.

Nice link to wikipedia, but if you want to compete, I can do better:

We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people.
We believe that socialism USA will be built according to the traditions, history, culture and conditions of the United States. Thus, it will be different from any other socialist society in the world. It will be uniquely American.
What will be the goals of our socialist society?

A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness.
An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.
Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent.The advocates and ideologues of capitalism hold that such goals are utopian; that human beings are inherently selfish and evil. Others argue that these goals can be fully realized under capitalism.
We are confident, however, that such goals can be realized, but only through a socialist society.

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/

As you can see, it is very easy to put nice words on paper that appeal only to the emotional, but fail to gain any attention from the cool reasonable mind, for example:

"The far left has historically opposed the concentration of wealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth) and power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28sociology%29), especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally controlled them. As such, the left often works to eliminate high levels of inequality. Outside the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), which lacked a historical ruling class or nobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility), this often included at the most basic level demands for democratisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratisation) of the political system and land reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform) in agricultural areas.

How does the left works to eliminate high levels of inequality by demanding a land reform? Will the land be reformed by convincing people to resign their own lands voluntarily or will they be taken by force? Depending on this choice, this general left-wing idea becomes completely objectionable.

Specifying:

As civil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights) and human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) rights gained more attention during the twentieth century, the left allied itself with advocates of racial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial) and gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender) equality, and cultural tolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance)(...)

That left-wing-built public school in Berlim for Muslim immigrants not only advocates gender inequality by remembering the students their daddies can beat their wives as much as they want as to say otherwise would be intolerant to their culture, but the segregation of the pupils created racial conflicts with the rest of the population. If the paragraph quoted above means this kind of policy is the general left-wing idea, then it is completely objectionable. Perhaps the Author excluded German and French politicians from his abstraction.

Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary to advance the interests of the poor and middle class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class), often in the pursuit of Keynesian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian) ideals.

Generic. If the means are not agreed upon, then to some the intervention could mean mass forced abortions. The simplicity of this articles is glaring, apparently Anarchists are excluded from the spectre. Someone should add an apology to the Anarcho group or at least explain why they are not good enough to be considered one of the different left-wing groups, perhaps the idea of abolishing the government and it's capability of social intervention is a reactionary idea, sorry Anarchists, you are almost nobody according to the Author, insignificant, irrelevant, there's some tolerance and respect for you.

Advocacy of government or social intervention in the market puts those on the left at odds with advocates of the free market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market) as well as corporations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations) (who oppose democratic control of the markets but not necessarily all control) if they see their interests threatened.

Back to the real world. How did corporations ended up in there? I suppose the Ford Foundation and George Soros will not appreaciate it. If democratic control of the markets means transferring internal economic policy to the EU, this idea is completely objectionable.

Left-wing positions on social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social) issues, such as opposition to social hierarchy and authority over moral behaviour, strict adherence to tradition, and monoculturalism, may make them allies with right wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_wing) advocates of "individual freedom", though their solutions are very different.

I don't see anything to possibly oppose here, such a generic and confusing paragraph it is. It's impossible to specify on this one unless the Author does the favour of also being more specific.

So, there you go, unless you are ignoring the entire European left-wing and all their actions, you won't find anything to take an issue with, since you can't take an issue from nothing.

Skybird

07-01-06, 05:32 PM

You are right, Scandium.

Next.

scandium

07-01-06, 06:03 PM

Oh, I'm no longer in your ignore list? Very well then, I will provide you with a worthful response. Provided you can be civil and not have to resort to ad hominem.

Nice link to wikipedia, but if you want to compete, I can do better:

We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people.
We believe that socialism USA will be built according to the traditions, history, culture and conditions of the United States. Thus, it will be different from any other socialist society in the world. It will be uniquely American.
What will be the goals of our socialist society?
A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness.
An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.
Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent.The advocates and ideologues of capitalism hold that such goals are utopian; that human beings are inherently selfish and evil. Others argue that these goals can be fully realized under capitalism.
We are confident, however, that such goals can be realized, but only through a socialist society.
http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/

Communism is an extreme left-wing ideology that no more defines the broad left-wing spectrum than does Fascism define the right-wing spectrum.

As you can see, it is very easy to put nice words on paper that appeal only to the emotional, but fail to gain any attention from the cool reasonable mind, for example:

"The far left has historically opposed the concentration of wealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth) and power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28sociology%29), especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally controlled them. As such, the left often works to eliminate high levels of inequality. Outside the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), which lacked a historical ruling class or nobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility), this often included at the most basic level demands for democratisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratisation) of the political system and land reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform) in agricultural areas.

How does the left works to eliminate high levels of inequality by demanding a land reform? Will the land be reformed by convincing people to resign their own lands voluntarily or will they be taken by force? Depending on this choice, this general left-wing idea becomes completely objectionable.
That would depend upon how the land was obtained in the first place. If they were initially obtained through force, coercion, or deception then I see nothing wrong with using the state's monopoly on force to re-appropriatre and redistribute them.

Specifying:

As civil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights) and human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) rights gained more attention during the twentieth century, the left allied itself with advocates of racial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial) and gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender) equality, and cultural tolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance)(...)
That left-wing-built public school in Berlim for Muslim immigrants not only advocates gender inequality by remembering the students their daddies can beat their wives as much as they want as to say otherwise would be intolerant to their culture, but the segregation of the pupils created racial conflicts with the rest of the population. If the paragraph quoted above means this kind of policy is the general left-wing idea, then it is completely objectionable. Perhaps the Author excluded German and French politicians from his abstraction.
Since the left is generally both in favour of secularism and gender equality then such a school violates two central tenets of its ideology and is thus completely counter to it. Segregating minorities into ghettoes is also incompatible with left-wing ideology (and as a counterpoint to prove this I would point to the civil rights movement in the US in the 60s, a progressive movement, that successfully sought to empower and integrate the black minority). Therefore no, the example you give is not the kind of policy that is the general left-wing idea.

Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary to advance the interests of the poor and middle class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class), often in the pursuit of Keynesian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian) ideals.
Generic. If the means are not agreed upon, then to some the intervention could mean mass forced abortions. The simplicity of this articles is glaring, apparently Anarchists are excluded from the spectre. Someone should add an apology to the Anarcho group or at least explain why they are not good enough to be considered one of the different left-wing groups, perhaps the idea of abolishing the government and it's capability of social intervention is a reactionary idea, sorry Anarchists, you are almost nobody according to the Author, insignificant, irrelevant, there's some tolerance and respect for you.
Forced abortions would run counter to the left-wing pillar that is personal liberty (which is why the "pro-choice" movement has alligned itself with the "left"). As to anarchists, they are excluded by definition because they favour no government while left-wing ideology concerns itself with how to govern.

[Advocacy of government or social intervention in the market puts those on the left at odds with advocates of the free market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market) as well as corporations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations) (who oppose democratic control of the markets but not necessarily all control) if they see their interests threatened.
Back to the real world. How did corporations ended up in there? I suppose the Ford Foundation and George Soros will not appreaciate it. If democratic control of the markets means transferring internal economic policy to the EU, this idea is completely objectionable.
Because personal and corporate liberty and well-being are not only not the same thing, but often at odds with each other. And concerning these two entities left-wing ideology attempts to put the person's liberty and well-being ahead of the corporations. The energy corporation, for instance, may favour complete deregulation and independence to maximize its profits, its well-being, while the individual who lives in the town that its coal plant is in has a vested interested, for their own well-being, of seeing certain restrictions placed on this corporation (for instance, restrictions governing emissions and what not).

Left-wing positions on social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social) issues, such as opposition to social hierarchy and authority over moral behaviour, strict adherence to tradition, and monoculturalism, may make them allies with right wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_wing) advocates of "individual freedom", though their solutions are very different.
I don't see anything to possibly oppose here, such a generic and confusing paragraph it is. It's impossible to specify on this one unless the Author does the favour of also being more specific.

So, there you go, unless you are ignoring the entire European left-wing and all their actions, you won't find anything to take an issue with, since you can't take an issue from nothing.
Which actions specifically? Skybird had initially posted about his distaste of left-wing recipes and strategies, so in response I posted that par of its ideology which is generally agreed upon by all left-wing movements (by the way: note the plural; there are many left-wing ideologies and much disagreement among them, so it is even simplistic and inaccurate to try and lump them all together as though they moved in lockstep), and I invited him to list examples of where these "strategies and recipies" contribute to the problem being discussed in this thread. So far he hasn't bitten; perhaps because it is much easier to blame something as abstract as "the left" for all of societies problems than to discuss how specific actions lead to specific undesirable consequences.

TteFAboB

07-01-06, 07:47 PM

The whole Left-Right spectrum is absurdly generic in today's world.

If Fascism is to the right of communism it is still to the left of liberalism, the central point (I HAD to say it) is, afterall, defining the center.

That would depend upon how the land was obtained in the first place. If they were initially obtained through force, coercion, or deception then I see nothing wrong with using the state's monopoly on force to re-appropriatre and redistribute them.

We can't and won't get past the generical. Had I specified Pol Pot, you would have said otherwise. It is important to define if re-appropriation and redistribution involves hanging a kulak every 100 meters.

But then there's also the end. What's the purpose of the redistribution? Is the goal collective farms or mini-individual lots? Again there's a difference between setting up a mini-farmer that will take care of his mini-land, grow his mini-crop and survive eating this mini-production, and a collective farm where people work through force, under coercion and deception by the state's monopoly on propaganda.

Since the left is generally both in favour of secularism and gender equality then such a school violates two central tenets of its ideology and is thus completely counter to it. Segregating minorities into ghettoes is also incompatible with left-wing ideology (and as a counterpoint to prove this I would point to the civil rights movement in the US in the 60s, a progressive movement, that successfully sought to empower and integrate the black minority). Therefore no, the example you give is not the kind of policy that is the general left-wing idea.

Exactly. One thing is speech and words, another thing is the reality. And it seems the reality is beyond the reach of that article. Because I dare you to call the heretics by the name, I assure you, I can bet the answer with you, you will hear that the heretic is you, or that you are a traitor. To give merit where merit due, we fall into the part of the article where it says the left-wing fights among each other, that couldn't be more real in a situation like this.

Forced abortions would run counter to the left-wing pillar that is personal liberty (which is why the "pro-choice" movement has alligned itself with the "left"). As to anarchists, they are excluded by definition because they favour no government while left-wing ideology concerns itself with how to govern.

Like in the above, who is going to tell that to the Chinese Communist? "Herrro, Mr. Maoist, you now traitor, bad, bad you, no Mao, you no Mao anymore".

Because personal and corporate liberty and well-being are not only not the same thing, but often at odds with each other. And concerning these two entities left-wing ideology attempts to put the person's liberty and well-being ahead of the corporations. The energy corporation, for instance, may favour complete deregulation and independence to maximize its profits, its well-being, while the individual who lives in the town that its coal plant is in has a vested interested, for their own well-being, of seeing certain restrictions placed on this corporation (for instance, restrictions governing emissions and what not).

But this door can easily suit any wing, you can fit an entire airplane through it. It's not really exclusive to any ideology.

Which actions specifically? Skybird had initially posted about his distaste of left-wing recipes and strategies, so in response I posted that par of its ideology which is generally agreed upon by all left-wing movements (by the way: note the plural; there are many left-wing ideologies and much disagreement among them, so it is even simplistic and inaccurate to try and lump them all together as though they moved in lockstep), and I invited him to list examples of where these "strategies and recipies" contribute to the problem being discussed in this thread. So far he hasn't bitten; perhaps because it is much easier to blame something as abstract as "the left" for all of societies problems than to discuss how specific actions lead to specific undesirable consequences.

It's certainly less exhaustive. Who wants to sit here and list every distasteful action of the left, the lefts, the left-wing, "the left" in Europe?

If I know Skybird, I'll say he's not refering to any abstract "left" at all, but he probably has a very well defined list of politicians on his mind. Take the entire German Green Party for example, I don't know 100% of the affiliated members of this party, but I still don't know any Green who could escape my distaste. The same goes for the Nazi party, I don't know any exception in there. Put on the list the Dutch pedophile Party, the Italian Communist Party, a few more entire parties out there and then start listing individual politicians.

Being specific on this thread then, how could the left-wing contribute to such problem? By stuffing ideology where ideology is not welcome. Would the Italian Mafia have been defeated if the fight was guided by ideology? No, because of the politicians and other ideological figures involved, if the actions of the police and the state were guided by an ideology then the Mafia would've been instrumentalized instead by the stronger ideology against the opposing one, not that such a thing wasn't attempted. I suppose Skybird is refering to higher things though, those things above police and criminal work. I'm not venturing there, I don't want to climb the Everest.

scandium

07-01-06, 11:21 PM

The whole Left-Right spectrum is absurdly generic in today's world.

If Fascism is to the right of communism it is still to the left of liberalism, the central point (I HAD to say it) is, afterall, defining the center.
Well, we're straying a bit off topic here, but at any rate Fascism is not to the left of Liberalism. As far as the political spectrum goes, fascism and communism, even though they superficially look similar, actually represent the opposite endpoints.

National Socialism, for instance, (as one example of a fascist movement, though not the only one to ever exist) had little to do with "socialism". One of the defining characterstics, economically, of the Nazi government was their incestuous relationship with corporate interests: if you wanted to do business in the Reich then you paid the appropriate bribes for the priveledge. In return officials granted you certain priveledges, such as a slave class of labour drawn among the camp inmates. Beyond that you could do what you pleased, and over the slave underclass the corporations had absolute power (in many cases, to the point of life or death).

At the other extreme, under Communist system there is no such thing as corporate power or influence because the state controls, completely, the mechanics of production and distribution of goods and services which under capitalist systems (including ones with fascism as their political system) is left to the market to varying extents.

Where these two ideologies are similar is in the lack of personal freedom that tends to accompany them, though this is because of the concentration of power and corruption that ensues and not due to any ideological basis.

It's certainly less exhaustive. Who wants to sit here and list every distasteful action of the left, the lefts, the left-wing, "the left" in Europe?

If I know Skybird, I'll say he's not refering to any abstract "left" at all, but he probably has a very well defined list of politicians on his mind. Take the entire German Green Party for example, I don't know 100% of the affiliated members of this party, but I still don't know any Green who could escape my distaste. The same goes for the Nazi party, I don't know any exception in there. Put on the list the Dutch pedophile Party, the Italian Communist Party, a few more entire parties out there and then start listing individual politicians.

The Nazi party was a fascist party, and therefore at the opposite end of the political spectrum (the extreme right-wing end of the political spectrum). I'm not familiar with the German Green party but the Italian Communist party would likely occupy a spot on the fringe end of the spectrum (the left side this time). As to the pedophile party in Holland, well I'm not really sure what point you could make with that since pedophillia is generally regarded as criminal and pathological, and is not part of the political spectrum anywhere else (or even in Holland where these people are properly dismissed as fringe whackjobs).

I suppose it comes down to this: are we talking mainstream left-wing politics or the fringe? Personally I'm more interested in the mainstream and assumed that was what Skybird referred to, since the fringe side of either ideology that you seem concerned with is neither terribly interesting nor particularly powerful (fascism having reached its peak of popularity back in the 1930s, and communism having largely collapsed almost everywhere since the fall of the USSR).

On topic I was thinking, when I posed my question to Skybird, of how our Conservative government had attacked the Liberals in their campaign as being soft on crime and proposed some new legislation of their own to remedy this "problem". I was therefore wondering if the left-wing governments in Europe had recently enacted legislation that could be considered as being soft on crime. Skybird doesn't seem interested in putting his money where his mouth is though. :D

CB..

07-02-06, 02:43 AM

kiwi_2005

07-03-06, 10:18 PM

By law in NZ we are not allowed to shoot anyone. If someone entered my home bent on stealing or killing me i am not allowed to shoot this person. I am allowed to beat them up but not allowed to kill them. Recently a father of 3 shot and killed a burglar who was standing in his lounge with a knife, so he got out his 22 rifle and shot him. He was dragged through the courts hounded by the media and made out to look like the crimmal while the dead victims family were all fussed over. Its total maddness some of the laws in our country, we are very lienent on criminals, another incident where a prisoner jumps the walls of one of our major prisons broke both his legs and claimed for ACC (accident compensation) and recieved $55000.:nope:
Although im yet to meet someone that would not shot a burglar. Oh well if i can't shoot the crim i do have a baseball bat and a nasty looking American Pitbull who is actually a real sook but they wont know that. :lol:

Skybird

07-04-06, 04:18 AM

As a matter fo fact most people still prefer not to change their minds and start learn newu things as long as they do not sit at the receiving edge of a real big pain they have to suffer. All too often people do not see the flaws in their accting as long as the pain is not bigger than what they can bear.

VipertheSniper

07-04-06, 10:05 AM

By law in NZ we are not allowed to shoot anyone. If someone entered my home bent on stealing or killing me i am not allowed to shoot this person. I am allowed to beat them up but not allowed to kill them. Recently a father of 3 shot and killed a burglar who was standing in his lounge with a knife, so he got out his 22 rifle and shot him. He was dragged through the courts hounded by the media and made out to look like the crimmal while the dead victims family were all fussed over.

You see disabling the threat doesn't necesserily mean to kill the threat. And I guess stealing something doesn't get you the death penalty either, so I'd say this was a) self-justice and b) excessive use of force.

My weapon of choice would be a taser-gun. Unless he gets a heart-attack, something you can't know and thus I think can not be held accountable for, I guess you'd be on the save side. He's unconscious, you call the police, he gets locked up, end of story.

jumpy

07-04-06, 10:27 AM

^^
Plus you get the added bonus of watching your would be assilant soiling their underware. Might be a bit of a downer if there is leakage onto your carpet however... I think I'll stop there :eek:

VipertheSniper

07-04-06, 11:15 AM

^^
Plus you get the added bonus of watching your would be assilant soiling their underware. Might be a bit of a downer if there is leakage onto your carpet however... I think I'll stop there :eek:

I'd gladly take that risk.

Oberon

07-05-06, 02:09 PM

I dunno bout you guys, but I quite like The Police....they made some good songs :up:

SUBMAN1

07-05-06, 04:41 PM

I believe he means the people who "like to be victims". Since I've never met anyone who enjoyed being a victim of violent crime I'll take his word on that ;)
ditto; the phrase people who like to be victims is an oxymoron
there is no such animal
-there are tho- attackers who like to believe
that their victims like to be victimised

plenty of those around...

You are missing the pychological perspective in that they may not like being victims, but that they would rather die a victim than give up their victim status. Frued I beleive first coined this form of reasoning.

-S