Looter murders retired police captain

[Derec]

Man, it is almost like the mourning of a slain retired officer was just a guise to mourn corporations. Post 34 and who is talking about the slain retired officer?

Is is not. It's just that this is a discussion forum. Things that are more controversial get talked about more, things everybody agrees on get mentioned but not talked about further. So, I am glad we are no longer talking about the murdered retired captain. That means that even Jarhyn thinks that was an evil act. But Jarhyn also thinks it's fine to destroy businesses he personally disapproves of, so we keep discussing that.

 

[Derec]

But I wonder how they feel about prosecuting all the other terrible acts we have seen committed these past few weeks: widespread police brutality, and suppression of first amendment rights.

Police brutality should be prosecuted. I just don't think it's as widespread as you think it is. When a police officer defends himself or others against violent criminals, that is not police brutality even if it results in an injured or dead perp.

I am not sure what suppression of 1st Amendment rights you have in mind. 1st Amendment rights extend to looting and burning businesses Jarhyn doesn't approve of.

And I don't need to wonder, I already know how they feel about the injustices and evil, exploitative acts that have been smouldering for decades at the hands of banks who refused to invest in locally owned businesses so that the community was deprived of a stake in its own existence;

Banks invest in a lot of "locally owned businesses". But banks are businesses, they won't invest unless they think they will get their money back. Which is why you need to present a business plan when you go to a bank with a business loan and convince the loan officer to loan you some of their money. What's wrong with that? Should banks be forced to give away money to all and sundry under mafia-like threats of arson by violent activists?

how they feel about the corporate entities that came in, instead, and parasitized the community just as the banks did: they celebrate these things.

You think "corporate entities" are evil and should be looted and burned down. Got you.
Except your view is incompatible with a civilized society. You don't get to destroy a business just because you disapprove of it. What happened in Tulsa 100 years ago would be justified under your perverse world view - an angry mob disapproved of certain businesses and decided to destroy them with violence.

 

[Jarhyn]

Man, it is almost like the mourning of a slain retired officer was just a guise to mourn corporations. Post 34 and who is talking about the slain retired officer?

Is is not. It's just that this is a discussion forum. Things that are more controversial get talked about more, things everybody agrees on get mentioned but not talked about further. So, I am glad we are no longer talking about the murdered retired captain. That means that even Jarhyn thinks that was an evil act.

If you want to talk about something else, start a new thread about that thing then, without trying to falsely advertise the content of the discussion.

/Thread

 

[Derec]

giving to various non threatening charities?

Why would anybody give money to threatening charities?

 

[Derec]

If you want to talk about something else, start a new thread about that thing then, without trying to falsely advertise the content of the discussion.

Thread drift happens all the time on here. You are welcome to stop posting to it.

 

[Derec]

Similarly, we can see the differences here. But you want to say "all attacks are bad". Sometimes something has to be done, and things are already too fucked up for ethics to even be involved.

Target is not Nazis or the Japanese. They are not raping anybody, neither in the ass or the face. So spare me these idiotic comparisons just to justify destructive actions by the violent rioters.

And what's more, the person who did it will see justice, without doubt.

We don't know that. He hasn't been convicted yet.

Will the police officer who tried to kill my friend, a peaceful protester, with a CS canister see justice?

Not familiar with that case. Do you have a link to more information? Specificially, what is your evidence that the cop tried to kill (implies intent) your friend? Especially when CS "gas" is non-lethal.

Will the pig who shot out the reporter's eye see justice?

Was that the rubber bullet one? What would be "justice" in this case? It certainly differs based on what actually happened, including intent. Was she targeted or hit by a stray rubber bullet? Big difference!

Will any of the cops who rushed a protest line to drag a vocal protestor and beat him with sticks?

Sometimes physical force is necessary. What was that protestor[sic] doing at the time?

But don't for a second think you can label the looting of the Target or the Wells Fargo banks in the same vein.

Yes you can. Same with the looting of stores at Lenox Square in Atlanta.

Same with the looting of the FedEx truck, that resulted in one of the looters getting crushed to death - I say it's his own damn fault for being there and neither the driver nor FedEx should have neither criminal nor civil liability even though the family already hired a lawyer.

These thugs who just take what isn't theirs have received WAY TOO MUCH leeway in recent weeks. Police should have been more aggressive against them from the beginning. Should have left the kid gloves at the precinct.

Take your apologia for greedy wealth-sucking parasitic corporations and shove it.

Regular people own pieces of corporations, not just wealthy people.
And regular people work for those corporations and benefit by having these corporations offer goods and services in their neighborhoods.
Moreover, regular people send and receive packages via FedEx. Who gives Barry Perkins and his cohorts the right to steal these packages out of the back of a FedEx truck? Just because FedEx is a "corporation" does not justify looting and arson!

If we want to talk about Moral, the moral thing would have been to donate local branches in poor communities to prevent the exportation of wealth, but it's literally illegal to do that. It's illegal for a corporate entity to do what is better for the community over what is good for "the shareholders".

Shareholders are owners of a business. Why should they "donate" parts of their business to somebody else? If you have a business should you be forced to "donate" it to somebody because they threaten to loot it and burn it down? That's called extortion and has precious little to do with morality!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Jarhyn doesn't mourn Target or Wells Fargo getting looted. It was obviously inevitable.

When gays get thrown from roofs by ISIL, Jarhyn doesn't mourn them either. It was obviously inevitable.

Corporations aren't human beings. They are amoral legal entities that exist to perform a legal function or fulfill a purpose under the direction of human beings.

Destroying a corporate asset is not the same as destroying the corporation. Even if it was, 'killing' a corporation has none of the moral dimensions of killing a human being. Comparing them isn't even apples and oranges, it's apples and equations.

Note that it appears that Target was targeted because they were trying to do something about crime. Good for the community, bad for the criminals. Is it any wonder the criminals took advantage of the situation?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Police brutality should be prosecuted. I just don't think it's as widespread as you think it is. When a police officer defends himself or others against violent criminals, that is not police brutality even if it results in an injured or dead perp.

It does appear that retaliation against those who hurt cops is common, but it's normally just a matter of making them suffer a bit. The officers involved rarely intend to do more than rough them up a bit. It does become hard to distinguish between the legitimate use of force to subdue and going beyond that, though.

This time it was clear cut--they already had him subdued, but usually the line is hard to define because of the use of deception by the bad guys. (For example, Michael Brown using raised arms to advance on the cop. False surrender.) There's also the problem that all too often the guys are sufficiently strung out on drugs that they're not going to surrender, period.

 

[Metaphor]

<ridiculous, perverted, perverting, self-serving, immoral screed snipped>

Oh. With that cut out, I guess there's nothing left to respond to.

 

[laughing dog]

Jarhyn doesn't mourn Target or Wells Fargo getting looted. It was obviously inevitable.

When gays get thrown from roofs by ISIL, Jarhyn doesn't mourn them either. It was obviously inevitable.

Corporations aren't human beings. They are amoral legal entities that exist to perform a legal function or fulfill a purpose under the direction of human beings.

Destroying a corporate asset is not the same as destroying the corporation. Even if it was, 'killing' a corporation has none of the moral dimensions of killing a human being. Comparing them isn't even apples and oranges, it's apples and equations.

That does not excuse Jarhyn's indifference to immoral acts by appealing to the 'inevitability' of them.

It may once one understands many people see a distinct difference between a corporation and person so that actions that are immoral against a person are not necessarily viewed as immoral when done against a corporation. So, it would be conceivable that an action viewed as "inevitable" against a person would be seen as immoral but moral when done against a corporation.

 

[Metaphor]

That does not excuse Jarhyn's indifference to immoral acts by appealing to the 'inevitability' of them.

It may once one understands many people see a distinct difference between a corporation and person so that actions that are immoral against a person are not necessarily viewed as immoral when done against a corporation. So, it would be conceivable that an action viewed as "inevitable" against a person would be seen as immoral but moral when done against a corporation.

People own corporations. Destroying the property of a corporation is destroying (likely many) people's property. Looting a store is stealing from people.

Now, I consider non-state actors stealing from people and destroying property that does not belong to them to be engaging in immoral acts. But, I'm a nutjob like that, you know?

 

[laughing dog]

That does not excuse Jarhyn's indifference to immoral acts by appealing to the 'inevitability' of them.

It may once one understands many people see a distinct difference between a corporation and person so that actions that are immoral against a person are not necessarily viewed as immoral when done against a corporation. So, it would be conceivable that an action viewed as "inevitable" against a person would be seen as immoral but moral when done against a corporation.

People own corporations. Destroying the property of a corporation is destroying (likely many) people's property. Looting a store is stealing from people.

Now, I consider non-state actors stealing from people and destroying property that does not belong to them to be engaging in immoral acts. But, I'm a nutjob like that, you know?

i tried to explain the difference. Everyone is entitled to their moral beliefs.

 

[Toni]

People own corporations. Destroying the property of a corporation is destroying (likely many) people's property. Looting a store is stealing from people.

Now, I consider non-state actors stealing from people and destroying property that does not belong to them to be engaging in immoral acts. But, I'm a nutjob like that, you know?

i tried to explain the difference. Everyone is entitled to their moral beliefs.

Face it: Some people will see Harriet Tubman as a thief and insurrectionist.

 

[Jarhyn]

People own corporations. Destroying the property of a corporation is destroying (likely many) people's property. Looting a store is stealing from people.

Now, I consider non-state actors stealing from people and destroying property that does not belong to them to be engaging in immoral acts. But, I'm a nutjob like that, you know?

i tried to explain the difference. Everyone is entitled to their moral beliefs.

Personally, I don't care who the actor is. I consider people blocking any access to the resources they need to live for good lives on the basis that they didn't already have those resources to be a fundamentally unethical act.

I consider the exportation of those resources because people were systematically deprived of any opportunities to acquire the means of production to be a fundamentally unethical act.

I consider drug wars and enforcement of laws designed to make them socially immobile to be fundamentally unethical, especially in their selective enforcement against people of color.

This isn't screed. It's principles. It's the principle that says I have a right to subvert, destroy, and cut off the thumb that holds people down. They never stopped trying to own black people. They just changed the model of how they did it. They fuzzed the edges a bit. But it's still there if you have the bravery to see it. But my bet is on cowardice and continued willful blindness from the "very fine people".

 

[Metaphor]

People own corporations. Destroying the property of a corporation is destroying (likely many) people's property. Looting a store is stealing from people.

Now, I consider non-state actors stealing from people and destroying property that does not belong to them to be engaging in immoral acts. But, I'm a nutjob like that, you know?

i tried to explain the difference. Everyone is entitled to their moral beliefs.

Face it: Some people will see Harriet Tubman as a thief and insurrectionist.

Yep. Target and Wells Fargo own black slaves.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS AND TYRANTS."*



* Oh wait, did you say Black people did this? Oh, never mind.

 

[Derec]

Personally, I don't care who the actor is. I consider people blocking any access to the resources they need to live for good lives on the basis that they didn't already have those resources to be a fundamentally unethical act.

So basically, you advocate theft.

I consider the exportation of those resources

Exportation of those resources? What do you mean?

because people were systematically deprived of any opportunities to acquire the means of production to be a fundamentally unethical act.

How are these people being deprived of opportunities to acquire means of production? Please be specific.

I consider drug wars and enforcement of laws designed to make them socially immobile to be fundamentally unethical, especially in their selective enforcement against people of color.

I agree that the war on drugs is bad. I disagree that drug laws are selectively enforced against so-called "people of color".
But how does the drug war justify looting from Target or setting Wells Fargo on fire?

This isn't screed. It's principles.

Walter Sobchak said, "say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, but at least it's an ethos".
Having principles is no good if those principles are rotten. Then sticking to them makes you bad.

It's the principle that says I have a right to subvert, destroy, and cut off the thumb that holds people down.

And you get to decide that something or somebody "holds people down" and thus you give yourself the licence to destroy whatever and whomever you think needs to destroyed! Nice ethos!

They never stopped trying to own black people.

That is an outrageous accusation. Prove it!

They just changed the model of how they did it. They fuzzed the edges a bit. But it's still there if you have the bravery to see it. But my bet is on cowardice and continued willful blindness from the "very fine people".

Not even close.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So basically, you advocate theft.


Exportation of those resources? What do you mean?

because people were systematically deprived of any opportunities to acquire the means of production to be a fundamentally unethical act.

How are these people being deprived of opportunities to acquire means of production? Please be specific.

I consider drug wars and enforcement of laws designed to make them socially immobile to be fundamentally unethical, especially in their selective enforcement against people of color.

I agree that the war on drugs is bad. I disagree that drug laws are selectively enforced against so-called "people of color".
But how does the drug war justify looting from Target or setting Wells Fargo on fire?

This isn't screed. It's principles.

Walter Sobchak said, "say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, but at least it's an ethos".
Having principles is no good if those principles are rotten. Then sticking to them makes you bad.

It's the principle that says I have a right to subvert, destroy, and cut off the thumb that holds people down.

And you get to decide that something or somebody "holds people down" and thus you give yourself the licence to destroy whatever and whomever you think needs to destroyed! Nice ethos!

They never stopped trying to own black people.

That is an outrageous accusation. Prove it!

They just changed the model of how they did it. They fuzzed the edges a bit. But it's still there if you have the bravery to see it. But my bet is on cowardice and continued willful blindness from the "very fine people".

Not even close.

Wow, you just tried to argue against the American Revolution.

 

[laughing dog]

Face it: Some people will see Harriet Tubman as a thief and insurrectionist.

Yep. Target and Wells Fargo own black slaves.

Ah, so moral principles are relative to the context.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS AND TYRANTS."*



* Oh wait, did you say Black people did this? Oh, never mind.

Man, that pose reminds me of Wendy Davis when the GOP was busy making her a martyr.

Look at me, I'm so righteous with my big boy gun. I'm protecting America from Antifa. I don't see them, but I know they'll show up some time... and I'll be ready. *big boy*