Louisiana Police stun father as son died in house fire - Polidicks

-snip-

[QUOTE=deadoon;42760795]True, but even in worlds that have anarchism[/QUOTE] what "worlds" have anarchism? is there a secret commune on mars or something that i haven't been invited to?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42760578]yea i would probably want to kill the dickhead who prevented me from trying to save my child too. it's a reasonable reaction.[/QUOTE] Police officers are there to "Serve and Protect" This officer just saved someone's life. If a fully geared. fireman couldn't go in, neither could a guy wearing normal clothes. According to you saving someone's life is considered a dick move.

This story is one of the saddest things I've heard all week. That being said, arguing about whether or not tazing the father was appropriate? Really? Quit imagining being the father for a moment, and imagine being the cop. One of the firefighters on the scene refuses to go inside because it was too hot. The guy wearing full-body protective gear and who goes into burning buildings FOR A LIVING refuses to do it. The father insists on going in, and isn't listening to reason. If you let him go in, he will die. "But if there's a chance his son will survive - " NO. There is absolutely NO CHANCE. The cop made the right call.

[QUOTE=DatPolishGuy;42760870]Police officers are there to "Serve and Protect" This officer just saved someone's life. If a fully geared. fireman couldn't go in, neither could a guy wearing normal clothes. According to you saving someone's life is considered a dick move.[/QUOTE] yea, "to serve". he didn't really serve the man's will so well when he was preventing him from taking action her felt could have saved his child.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42760938]yea, "to serve". he didn't really serve the man's will so well when he was preventing him from taking action her felt could have saved his child.[/QUOTE] So if someone wants to jump off a bridge the police should just let them because its what they want to do?

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42760962]So if someone wants to jump off a bridge the police should just let them because its what they want to do?[/QUOTE] I don't see why you guys keep throwing these out, yawmwen sticks to his principles he's going to answer yes to all of them no matter how more outlandish you seem to think they sound

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42760992]I don't see why you guys keep throwing these out, yawmwen sticks to his principles he's going to answer yes to all of them no matter how more outlandish you seem to think they sound[/QUOTE] It passes the time I suppose

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42760992]I don't see why you guys keep throwing these out, yawmwen sticks to his principles he's going to answer yes to all of them no matter how more outlandish you seem to think they sound[/QUOTE] cool, so yawmwen, you have two guys, one wants to push the "blow up earth" button, one doesn't want the button to be pushed, whose "will" should be fulfilled?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42760938]yea, "to serve". he didn't really serve the man's will so well when he was preventing him from taking action her felt could have saved his child.[/QUOTE] Would you have preferred the father died?

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;42761026]cool, so yawmwen, you have two guys, one wants to push the "blow up earth" button, one doesn't want the button to be pushed, whose "will" should be fulfilled?[/QUOTE] blowing up the world enforces the will upon others though

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42760962]So if someone wants to jump off a bridge the police should just let them because its what they want to do?[/QUOTE] that's a false dichotomy. the only two options aren't "impose force on another person" and "let them jump off a bridge". in situations where it is possible to do so, the person should be reasoned with or an attempt to persuade them out of a potentially harmful situation should be made(as long as the persuasion is not coercive). but yea if that is going to be the hypothetical dichotomy then they should be allowed to end their own life if the alternative is having their will be subverted by any source of human authority. [QUOTE=Gwoodman;42761026]cool, so yawmwen, you have two guys, one wants to push the "blow up earth" button, one doesn't want the button to be pushed, whose "will" should be fulfilled?[/QUOTE] killing another human being(as would be the case in blowing up the earth) is asserting dominion over other people. it is morally acceptable to use force to prevent one person from asserting dominion over another.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42761064]blowing up the world enforces the will upon others though[/QUOTE] as does not blowing up the world because then you're subjugating dominance over the one who wants to push the button! [editline]5th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42761101]killing another human being(as would be the case in blowing up the earth) is asserting domination over other people. it is morally acceptable to use force to prevent one person from asserting dominion over another.[/QUOTE] but then you're asserting dominance over the person asserting dominance by preventing their assertion of dominance.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42760843]what "worlds" have anarchism? is there a secret commune on mars or something that i haven't been invited to?[/QUOTE] When I say worlds, I refer to all of the books,games and such that are not based in reality.

[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;42761102] but then you're asserting dominance over the person asserting dominance by preventing their assertion of dominance.[/QUOTE] that is not asserting dominion, that is preventing the assertion of dominion.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761122]that is not asserting dominion, that is preventing the assertion of dominion.[/QUOTE] you're preventing the assertion of dominance by asserting dominance.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761122]that is not asserting dominion, that is preventing the assertion of dominion.[/QUOTE] Which you are enforcing, which in itself is asserting control or dominance over them

[QUOTE=deadoon;42761119]When I say worlds, I refer to all of the books,games and such that are not based in reality.[/QUOTE] not any worlds that use the writings of people who identify as anarchists as a reference. anarchism means removing all sources of illegitimate authority in society. all authority imposed must be voluntarily accepted by the individual in order to be legitimate, according to the anarchist.

[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;42761129]you're preventing the assertion of dominance by asserting dominance.[/QUOTE] except this is asserting dominance over someone to stop them from asserting dominance over others, whereas in this case you're asserting dominance over someone to stop them from asserting dominance over themselves which is not right

[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;42761129]you're preventing the assertion of dominance by asserting dominance.[/QUOTE] if you can't understand the difference between the prevention of domination and domination then it's obvious why you are not already an anarchist or libertarian. [QUOTE=deadoon;42761144]Which you are enforcing, which in itself is asserting control or dominance over them[/QUOTE] in no other way than to prevent their own domination of others. is it immoral for a person to shoot somebody who is trying to kill them? [editline]5th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;42761184]except this is asserting dominance over someone to stop them from asserting dominance over others, whereas in this case you're asserting dominance over someone to stop them from asserting dominance over themselves which is not right[/QUOTE] lachz0r explained it better than i did

the problem is your entire argument requires people to agree with you on a codified inherit unwavering system of morality and that's just not how the world works

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761185]if you can't understand the difference between the prevention of domination and domination then it's obvious why you are not already an anarchist or libertarian. [/QUOTE] How is it not dominating someone to prevent them from dominating another person? Isn't controlling another's actions a form of domination? [QUOTE] in no other way than to prevent their own domination of others. is it immoral for a person to shoot somebody who is trying to kill them? [/QUOTE] So you have to create an exception to the rule that it is immoral? No, and nobody would say it is. But in this case it is you shooting a person that is preparing to shoot someone else based on what you said. [QUOTE] lachz0r explained it better than i did[/QUOTE] So you have to be hypocritical and assert dominance over other people that attempt to assert dominance over people, which can end up being an infinite chain of people asserting dominance over other people to prevent others from asserting dominance.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42761245]the problem is your entire argument requires people to agree with you on a codified inherit unwavering system of morality and that's just not how the world works[/QUOTE] humans survived hundreds of thousands of years before systematic dominion of other humans became a thing. so if it's not the way the world works, it's the way the world could work. [QUOTE=deadoon;42761259] So you have to be hypocritical and assert dominance over other people that attempt to assert dominance over people, which can end up being an infinite chain of people asserting dominance over other people to prevent others from asserting dominance.[/QUOTE] not to any reasonable person, no.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761285]humans survived hundreds of thousands of years before systematic dominion of other humans became a thing. [/QUOTE] Are you a time traveler? You know this how?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761285]humans survived hundreds of thousands of years before systematic dominion of other humans became a thing. so if it's not the way the world works, it's the way the world could work.[/QUOTE] HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jesus. even cavemen were asserting dominance over others by killing them. why do you think only the homo sapiens lives on and the other species of the genus homo died off? the roman empire? ottoman empire? europeans in the colonization of america? germans in ww2?

I can't even imagine putting myself in the father's shoes for something like that. I'd probably have done the same, but I can't say I'm not glad that a policeman was there to restrain him even through force. The man may have had the right to throw away his life in an attempt to save his kid, but I'd argue the policeman equally had the right to stop him from effectively committing suicide. There really is no happy ending to a story like this though. By his actions, the policeman ensured that the father will have to live with the death of his son. On the flip of it, if the policeman had not acted than the other son would be without his brother AND his father. I don't think either side should really be blamed for their actions as they were both done with good intentions.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761285]humans survived hundreds of thousands of years before systematic dominion of other humans became a thing. so if it's not the way the world works, it's the way the world could work.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure even hunter-gather tribes had a de facto "leader" regardless I'm not saying "no authority" isn't how the world works, I'm saying "everyone agrees to one single inherit moral code" isn't how.

[QUOTE=Vilusia;42761296]Are you a time traveler? You know this how?[/QUOTE] "So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organisation." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure[/url]

[QUOTE=deadoon;42761259]How is it not dominating someone to prevent them from dominating another person? Isn't controlling another's actions a form of domination? So you have to create an exception to the rule that it is immoral? No, and nobody would say it is. But in this case it is you shooting a person that is preparing to shoot someone else based on what you said. So you have to be hypocritical and assert dominance over other people that attempt to assert dominance over people, which can end up being an infinite chain of people asserting dominance over other people to prevent others from asserting dominance.[/QUOTE] but that's not hypocritical. asserting dominance and preventing others from being dominated are different things

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761334]"So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organisation." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure[/url][/QUOTE] consider the fact that it's wikipedia. also consider the fact that it states "widely argued" meaning it's not an absolute fact.