|
|
Post by Haseen on Nov 12, 2011 5:11:25 GMT -5
I'd still have to hold the cops responsible, because they could have gone to the media about the quota problems, especially if planting drugs has become common enough for them to even consider it. Any real journalist would be all over that story. Also, it's not worth ruining lots of other people's lives, month after month, just to hold onto your own job. At least not unless you're a sociopath.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Nov 12, 2011 5:11:50 GMT -5
Well..... even after reading the thread linked to me by LHM... I STILL have to kind of agree with Lithp's stance on the cops not being held 100% responsible. I know what the police did was terrible, but if their LIVLIHOOD depended on them meeting that quota, and if they had families to support, if they weren't meeting their quota's, some of them might have figured that they had no choice BUT to do what they did. That does not mean that they will continue to engage in that form of behavior once the quota BS is gone. At the very least, suspend them without pay, review their FULL performance records, and if there is ADDITIONAL evidence of corruption outside of the filling quota crap, THEN kick their asses to the curb. But if it was done to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table for their families, then can you really, truly fault them? Has NOBODY else in here gone and done something that went against your own moral code because you felt you had no other choice if you were going to be able to keep your family fed and sheltered? *Shrug* That's just my take on it... and I know I'm probably going to get at least a little flack for my opinion, but keep in mind a saying my dad loves to quote: Opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one. If we were talking about something minor, then MAYBE the "doing it to keep a job" excuse would fly. However we're talking about a narcotics bust. This wasn't people unjustly getting a hundred dollar parking fine, we're talking about people going to prison, potentially for very long periods, with all that that involves. And in that case, no, I don't think the "just keeping a roof over our heads" thing is a valid excuse, not when you're doing something that destroys innocent people, their livlihoods and families. If you want to discuss it further, I'm happy to, but we should probably go back to the other thread, or start a new one. Meh. I still disagree with you, and I think there are methods of fixing the situation if people thought hard enough about it without forcing TOO many people who were simply desperate out of their jobs due to a crap BS rule. But really what's the point? Discussing it won't make it happen anyway, and at this point it would be like beating a dead horse to my mind. Then again, I know next to nothing about American law and cops, so I don't know what sort of system they'd have in place to investigate corruption in the force. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 12, 2011 5:16:20 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm pretty burnt-out on that argument. The most I have to say is, "I'd prefer the sociopath who at least thinks twice about being a sociopath."
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 12, 2011 7:26:34 GMT -5
Ask a direct question that parses with basic conventions of grammar and syntax and I'll answer it. It parses just fine, now answer the fucking question. And before you try and claim shit about English, be aware that I'm a goddamn grammar nazi. If I consider it to be up to snuff it's probably up to snuff. And really, what does the comment about "supporting police planting drugs on innocent civilians" have to do with anything, other than being an antagonistic prick? If you can prove that it's pertinent to the discussion at hand you'll be in the clear, free of any wrong-doing. Provided you also provide proof that whoever it was you were talking about there supports police planting drugs on people. I would accept a quote with a direct link as proof. If both of these conditions are met you'll be fine. If not you get to meet Mr. Don't Be a Dick. A. I still don't understand the question. I have twice now said I'll answer it if he rephrases. He has prefered to whine about why he shouldn't have to rather than simply do so, which suggests to me he's more interested in an argument than an answer to whatever it is he thinks he's asking. B. He opened the door to things people have said in other threads with the "Especially the one who expects someone to "prove" to him that 1+1=2. " bit. If he's going to drag in irrelevencies from other threads in an attempt to smear me, it seems only fair to bring up stupid stuff he said in other threads. This thread is about corrupt cops, and lithp has demonstrated elsewhere, in the "cops planting drugs" thread, for example, that he thinks corruption is ok, so long as the cops in question were stressed, or something. As such, seems cogent to bring it up here. C. As to evidence of his views, he's repeated them here, or you can go to the link I already supplied. Would you like me to post it again? Also, and this is a direct question, since lithp started with the personal attacks and the dragging in of irrelevencies, why is it that I am getting mod threats, on the public forum, while he isn't? Since I assume this counts as official mod interaction now, not merely you expressing your personal opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 12, 2011 10:37:15 GMT -5
My take on anonymous sources and journalistic integrity is that it depends on which part of the news it is. Obviously anonymous sources if treated carefully are very important for politcal stories. However they are less useful for your science reporting or car guide etc. This one makes sense to me. Anonymous sources in journalism are essential when dealing with sensitive issues. And if the media can prove it has integrity and is honest by reporting on stories were anonymity isn't necessary, then I will be inclined to believe their anonymous stories. I also believe that a fair bit of the reason there often isn't good citations is they haven't really caught on to the whole internet thing yet which allows you to easily cite, until a print journal. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 12, 2011 17:08:07 GMT -5
LHM, he asked you what, if anything, what you had just said had to do with the topic of citations. In other words, how does Lithp's somewhat overly-generous opinions on forgiving police misconduct relate to his opinion that anonymous sources are always bullshit?
Your prior stated opinions, that even otherwise self evident mathematical concepts require proof, seems a tough incongruous with your opinion of anonymous sources. That was what Lithp was referring to.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 12, 2011 18:35:24 GMT -5
You should never use an anonymous source if you could use a named source. You should always try to get your anonymous sources to go on the record, if you can't see a good enough reason for their anonymity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 12, 2011 22:17:13 GMT -5
I have restated it a few times, I just didn't make a TL;DR post saying, "Here's what I meant in chapters" full of detailed explanations & flashing neon key words.
Because it was a simple sentence. "What does that have to do with what we're talking about?" Really, it doesn't get much more simple than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Nov 13, 2011 1:06:37 GMT -5
It parses just fine, now answer the fucking question. And before you try and claim shit about English, be aware that I'm a goddamn grammar nazi. If I consider it to be up to snuff it's probably up to snuff. And really, what does the comment about "supporting police planting drugs on innocent civilians" have to do with anything, other than being an antagonistic prick? If you can prove that it's pertinent to the discussion at hand you'll be in the clear, free of any wrong-doing. Provided you also provide proof that whoever it was you were talking about there supports police planting drugs on people. I would accept a quote with a direct link as proof. If both of these conditions are met you'll be fine. If not you get to meet Mr. Don't Be a Dick. A. I still don't understand the question. I have twice now said I'll answer it if he rephrases. He has prefered to whine about why he shouldn't have to rather than simply do so, which suggests to me he's more interested in an argument than an answer to whatever it is he thinks he's asking. Your request was regarding grammar. His grammar is perfectly acceptable. "I don't understand what you mean." would have been perfectly acceptable from the beginning. His comment about you being a guy that demands 1+1=2 is perfectly valid, as you were demanding evidence of something yet did not give evidence yourself. I'm still not convinced that it was relevant to the conversation at-hand. How is "I want citations" in any way related to someone supporting police planting drugs on people? Not just forgiving them due to extenuating circumstances, outright supporting. Reposting it would be a good start, especially if you quote the specific place he expresses support of police planting drugs. Given your posting history and past behavior I have reason to believe you hold malicious intent with your current behavior. Lithp bringing up your demand for evidence of a basic mathematical concept while you are refusing to provide citations for your claims is very much relevant. Hypocrisy is not exactly a positive character trait and just further convinces me that you do not harbor good intentions while posting on these forums. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 13, 2011 6:48:57 GMT -5
I provided citations about the whole 1+1 thing. Ages ago. Its dead. Its certainly not relevent to anything in this thread. The only person with malicious intent is the guy following me around various threads posting stupid shit after every other post I make. If you're looking for people with malicious intent, I suggest you check out F&B and the people who post massive screeds of bile every time anyone has an opinion slightly at variance to their own. fstdt.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=pg&thread=10072&post=345471Unfortuneately, you might need to read a large chunk of that thread, but lithp's position is very clear by the end, to wit, that police who plant drugs on people and arrest them should not face any meaningful repercutions for the actions. Protecting corrupt police from prosecution is pretty supportive, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 13, 2011 7:33:13 GMT -5
What about the part where I say they should be punished if the system remains the same or if it's clear they'd reoffend? I'd say that's pretty unsupportive of me.
Also, I'd like you to prove this "I'm being stalked" bullshit or stop saying it, that sound reasonable to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 13, 2011 7:38:39 GMT -5
well since nappy is telling him he's being a bad boy clearly signifies a threat from a mod. even tnough said mod is just telling him to stop being a dick
ironbite-but no clearly we're the ones at fault here
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 13, 2011 16:17:08 GMT -5
I provided citations about the whole 1+1 thing. Ages ago. Its dead. Its certainly not relevent to anything in this thread. The only person with malicious intent is the guy following me around various threads posting stupid shit after every other post I make. You completely missed the point, as usual, LHM. Try actually reading Napoleon's post. Or better yet, let me spell it out for you. It isn't that you didn't provide citations for the 1+1 thing. It's that you demanded citations for 1+1=2. This, combined with your current behavior here, makes you a hypocrite. |
|
