301–310 of 353 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to have a moral compass when nothing ever challenges it.
I'm susceptible as the next man, but I'm pretty damn sure I will never go around killing drug traffickers or users with the justification of improving my country or something abstract like that. It wouldn't be the same if, for instance, they posed a direct physical threat to me or my close ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem very sure and I can't think of why you imagine this would work. Give everyone a license to kill, give everyone a gun, and after that you think everything would just sort itself out? Do you believe that only the right people will survive and then everything will be fine? Absolutely no risk of a violent degradation into chaos, looting, riots?
Feels like you are missing the sarcasm.. ..I hope.
Reminds me of a conversation of I had with a Cameroonian recently. He said: "I don't understand how these drug dealers and criminals can get away with so much in your country [I'm from South Africa]. Where I'm from the soldiers will take you to the bush and execute you. That's how they brought peace to my country. The military kidnapped all the criminals and drug dealers and killed them". I don't have any way to veri…
So, an armed faction took out another factions or group of factions out of the picture in the most simple and grotesque way, by kidnapping (instead of public apprehension) and summary execution (instead of prosecution with a trial that gives the culprits the chance to defend themselves). This armed faction has been called "the military"? And the murderous cleansing - "peace"? And after all this someone actually seriously considers them and their deeds as an example worth following? I find this kind of thinking comparable to any of the doctrines promoting mass murdering in the name of solving something and the individuals advocating such methods to be a danger to the general public!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem very sure and I can't think of why you imagine this would work. Give everyone a license to kill, give everyone a gun, and after that you think everything would just sort itself out? Do you believe that only the right people will survive and then everything will be fine? Absolutely no risk of a violent degradation into chaos, looting, riots?
I've never liked using /sarcasm tags, but I have to concede they are sometimes necessary. Unbelievable as I find it, some people really do think that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the current example? Of course they weren't all criminals. Many of them were, though, you know, from prior arrests/crimes. Like this recent "victim" (or angel as some would have us believe): sex offender, arrest history, felon, gun in pocket, struggling against police trying to keep him on the ground, reaching for gun. But no, he's portrayed as some beloved member of the community and family man. Five kids, bu…
If the police showed respect for the lives and rights of the people in the community that they are policing, there would be far fewer people resisting and disrespecting them.
Hypocrites in powerful positions are more dangerous than even incompetent leaders. There is no way this guy does not have a history of drug use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Society. Society is responsible. The fact that people in the richest country in the world are still having this debate is appalling to Canadians and Western Europeans. Americans will be the last on this ship, but part of living in a prosperous 21st century society means giving up some liberty (in the form of taxes, limited access to guns, suffering additional government bureaucracy) for the knowledge that getting sic…
> appalling to Canadians and Western Europeans Having lived in Vancouver's downtown east side, and spent time in the neighbourhoods of various Western European cities that have high addict and homeless populations, I find your moral superiority breathtaking.
These addicts and homeless have access to: * 3 meals a day at various food banks * Safe injection sites to decrease disease risk as a result of intravenous drug use * Universal health care for when any of the above fails * A sympathetic and protective police force that ensures people do not hurt themselves or others.
As a result I've never felt unsafe living there like I do when I wander through San Francisco.
Is the system perfect? No. The legacy of conservative governments meant that mental health assistance budgets were severely cut, and so there are a lot of people on the street that really need more government help, not less.
And let's not even get into the fact that Vancouver has most of the homeless population of Canada because it's the only city in the country where you can be homeless through the winter and not die from exposure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the current example? Of course they weren't all criminals. Many of them were, though, you know, from prior arrests/crimes. Like this recent "victim" (or angel as some would have us believe): sex offender, arrest history, felon, gun in pocket, struggling against police trying to keep him on the ground, reaching for gun. But no, he's portrayed as some beloved member of the community and family man. Five kids, bu…
I agree. I lived for a bit in downtown Detroit. People seriously need to visit the hood before they talk about the police.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mexico could do with a President like that.
Yeah, fighting the cartels directly has worked like a charm so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War#Casualties
Which is not to say that actually fighting against the cartels would actually produce good results.
Even more frightening is how widely supported Duterte and his death squads are in the Philippines. He has strong ties to the Davao Death Squad which operated whilst he was mayor of Davao City, and the Philippino public largely supports the executions.
I think that's the most concerning part of this (and other concerning but slightly less insane potential leaders around the world) - that the public can be so easily convinced that this is a reasonable choice. Is it that the craziest plans standout against the two regular options? Or that the regular options hedge their bets and don't appear to adequately address issues concerning the masses?