Lurker > _RETS_

mario2000 posted...

Give it up. The facts are against you. This is just sad. You're desperately trying to throw in irrelevant gang violence because the subject of white male-committed violence makes you uncomfortable. And if you're that stuck on percentages, you lose again in that department.

https://www.metro.us/news/majority-mass-shootings-committed-white-men

Since 1982, 54 percent of mass shootings (in which three or more fatalities were reported) were committed by white men, according to data from Mother Jones.

How are you not understanding? First of all, black men are way likelier to commit violence against other races and their own race.

Second, 54% of mass shootings are committed by the racial MAJORITY, which is far more than 54% of the population. So like I said, per the population, white men would actually be underrepresented in mass shootings. This really isn't that hard.

The majority of mass shootings are committed by the majority number because there are simply more of them. If blacks or hispanics or asians were the majority, they would commit the majority of mass shootings.

However, per the population, again, whites would be underrepresented. Even without factoring in gang violence.

You simply don't have a valid point and aren't smart enough to realize that.

mario2000 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

mario2000 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

mario2000 posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

mario2000 posted...

Yes or no: Mentally ill white males with easy access to guns are a dangerous demographic

Don't you mean just mentally ill people in general that have easy access to guns are dangerous?

Statisically, no.

You mean how statistically minorities are likelier to perpetrate violent crime against whites than the other way around? Or, Again, how the majority of the oft quoted mass shooting stats is minority gang violence?

You really like to redirect the conversation to minorities whenever the subject of white-perpetrated violence comes up, don't you?

You brought up the statistics, which are not as in your favor as you think they are. There is no redirection. There is correcting your misdirection.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Yes, the majority race commits the most of a lot of things in terms of raw numbers. But as a percentage of the population, white males would be under-represented.

So Again, the stats are not as in your favor as you think they are.

Factor in the gang violence that the left loves to include without mentioning what it is, and there is an even greater disparity.

mario2000 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

mario2000 posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

mario2000 posted...

Yes or no: Mentally ill white males with easy access to guns are a dangerous demographic

Don't you mean just mentally ill people in general that have easy access to guns are dangerous?

Statisically, no.

You mean how statistically minorities are likelier to perpetrate violent crime against whites than the other way around? Or, Again, how the majority of the oft quoted mass shooting stats is minority gang violence?

You really like to redirect the conversation to minorities whenever the subject of white-perpetrated violence comes up, don't you?

You brought up the statistics, which are not as in your favor as you think they are. There is no redirection. There is correcting your misdirection.

mario2000 posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

mario2000 posted...

Yes or no: Mentally ill white males with easy access to guns are a dangerous demographic

Don't you mean just mentally ill people in general that have easy access to guns are dangerous?

Statisically, no.

You mean how statistically minorities are likelier to perpetrate violent crime against whites than the other way around? Or, Again, how the majority of the oft quoted mass shooting stats is minority gang violence?

Talks posted...

i had an anxiety attack while watching the conjuring. It was already coming before watching the movie, but I'm sure the entire crowd just thought I was a big pussy when I walked out. the content of the movie didn't help though

Shame. It's a great movie. Is this common for you if you go see horror movies?

mario2000 posted...

They are not banned on the basis of their religion. The are temporarily banned from certain countries. How about all the other Muslim countries?

You're being disingenuous but whatever, I can still roll with this. How is banning someone on the basis of their country of origin any better?

I'm not equating Muslims with violence, but vetting distinguishes the violent from the peaceful. This isnt hard to understand. Or would you like to be dishonest more and suggest the middle East isn't exceptionally violent?

How so? If a violent Muslim wanted to come here and commit violence, they could just lie and say they're not violent.

I can tell you're a liberal from the incessant virtue signalling.

Careful with that term. You shouldn't handle things if you don't know what they are.

If their country does not have a solid means of monitoring citizens and vetting them via background checks, records, affiliations , etc then it is perfectly reasonable to ban travel from that country until proper systems are in place.

Again, this isn't hard to understand. But you would rather virtue signal and whine about non-existent racism instead of putting in any thought.

8mario2000 posted...

I was equating violence and garbage, not Muslims and garbage. I would support a travel ban on any country that is a violent s*** hole until we can figure out how to best vet their citizens, white brown or otherwise.

But you've already equated Muslims with violence, so...

It is not my job to propose how vetting should be done. There are people more equipped to do that, which is why the ban is being upheld.

If it was your job, how would you do it?

And whether it's your front door or the country, knowing who is coming in and what their intentions are is a reasonable expectation.

Of course. But banning someone solely on the basis of their religion is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Stop pretending to be stupid you liberal hack

I could ask why you keep assuming I'm a liberal, but then again I could let you just keep going and making yourself look biased and silly.

They are not banned on the basis of their religion. The are temporarily banned from certain countries. How about all the other Muslim countries?

I'm not equating Muslims with violence, but vetting distinguishes the violent from the peaceful. This isnt hard to understand. Or would you like to be dishonest more and suggest the middle East isn't exceptionally violent?

I can tell you're a liberal from the incessant virtue signalling.

mario2000 posted...

Because it is a notion that no one is suggesting. The only reason you have an issue with vetting people coming into the country is because Trump is the one doing it and you're a liberal sheep ready to swallow whatever the media gives to you.

Nope. I'm against it because it's wrong. Strawman harder.

You not wanting people prior to shovel garbage through your front door doesn't mean you have a perfectly clean house. It means you don't want to add to the existing issues if it can be prevented.

So you're outright admitting you believe Muslims are garbage. And you're wondering why I called you a racist.

There is nothing wrong with revamping standards for entry from countries that have no meaningful way to vet their citizens, especially when they are countries where the majority religion is responsible for most of the violence on that side of the world.

You still haven't defined how you propose this should be done.

Again, unless you just keep your front door open and don't care who walks into your house, it's best if you shut the f*** up

National borders are a bit different from individual persons' front doors. You tried. See me after class.

I was equating violence and garbage, not Muslims and garbage. I would support a travel ban on any country that is a violent shit hole until we can figure out how to best vet their citizens, white brown or otherwise.

It is not my job to propose how vetting should be done. There are people more equipped to do that, which is why the ban is being upheld.

And whether it's your front door or the country, knowing who is coming in and what their intentions are is a reasonable expectation.

Stop pretending to be stupid you liberal hack

mario2000 posted...

Ah, so you're not pretending to be stupid.

You asked a question, I have a thorough answer, and the answer apparently ruined your worldview so now you're whining about it not mattering. I didn't address you to begin with until you asked a question.

You still haven't addressed how your answer has anything to do with Muslim immigrants ruining the supposedly perfectly peaceful America with their violence.

Because it is a notion that no one is suggesting. The only reason you have an issue with vetting people coming into the country is because Trump is the one doing it and you're a liberal sheep ready to swallow whatever the media gives to you.

You not wanting people prior to shovel garbage through your front door doesn't mean you have a perfectly clean house. It means you don't want to add to the existing issues if it can be prevented.

There is nothing wrong with revamping standards for entry from countries that have no meaningful way to vet their citizens, especially when they are countries where the majority religion is responsible for most of the violence on that side of the world.

Again, unless you just keep your front door open and don't care who walks into your house, it's best if you shut the fuck up

mario2000 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

mario2000 posted...

I responded specifically to a post comparing it to domestic gun violence which used the inflated number, which is what i commented on.

No, you're splitting hairs so you can make some irrelevant point and dodge the topic at hand.

And racist? For what exactly? I said you can't use an inflated number as a condemnation of dangerous white men, like the left likes to do, while ignoring that most of that number is from minorities killing people. It is DISHONEST.

I'm calling you racist because you're getting ultra defensive here and deflecting to minority violence.

And I sure hope you dont lock your doors or check to see who is knocking before you open the door, otherwise you're just another liberal hypocrite.

You ok buddy? You're spouting weird nonsense here. Did I break you?

I'm not deflecting. You asked how the number is a misrepresentation, and i specifically told you that it is used as a big scary number to condemn white violence and push for gun control while ignoring that it is made up of minority gang violence that would not be affected by further gun measures.

It was a point blank answer to your question.
And I'm not splitting hairs. My point was that if that poster was trying to make a point, he should do it without misrepresentation that delegitimizes what may otherwise be a valid point

Why does this matter? Who cares? You're literally yelling at no one.

Ah, so you're not pretending to be stupid.

You asked a question, I have a thorough answer, and the answer apparently ruined your worldview so now you're whining about it not mattering. I didn't address you to begin with until you asked a question.

mario2000 posted...

I responded specifically to a post comparing it to domestic gun violence which used the inflated number, which is what i commented on.

No, you're splitting hairs so you can make some irrelevant point and dodge the topic at hand.

And racist? For what exactly? I said you can't use an inflated number as a condemnation of dangerous white men, like the left likes to do, while ignoring that most of that number is from minorities killing people. It is DISHONEST.

I'm calling you racist because you're getting ultra defensive here and deflecting to minority violence.

And I sure hope you dont lock your doors or check to see who is knocking before you open the door, otherwise you're just another liberal hypocrite.

You ok buddy? You're spouting weird nonsense here. Did I break you?

I'm not deflecting. You asked how the number is a misrepresentation, and i specifically told you that it is used as a big scary number to condemn white violence and push for gun control while ignoring that it is made up of minority gang violence that would not be affected by further gun measures.

It was a point blank answer to your question.
And I'm not splitting hairs. My point was that if that poster was trying to make a point, he should do it without misrepresentation that delegitimizes what may otherwise be a valid point

By the way, if you support gun control (background checks, vetting) you should have no problem with a travel ban on countries in which there are no systems in place to do that for their citizens.

mario2000 posted...

They should be differentiated for the sake of honest argument. Don't act like the inflated mass shooting number is used as a condemnation of white men's propensity to perpetrate mass shootings, when in reality that number is largely minorities.

So the answer is "because I'm racist". Got it

And Islam as a religion is shown daily, worldwide to be extremely violent and incompatible with western nations. Obviously there are peaceful Muslims. But vetting should be done of them trying to enter the country. If a travel ban is necessary in order to install more thorough processes and let countries on the list revise their systems of accounting for their citizens, then so be it.

How do you "vet" someone? Which thorough processes would you use? I see rightists toss out these terms like candy on Halloween, but have trouble specifying exactly what they mean.

If we have a violence issue here, why invite more Violence by not having standards in place?

Because you're assuming someone is going to be violent just because they are Muslim.

You can't use a big scary number to argue for a gun ban while ignoring that the majority of that number is made of populations that the gun ban wouldn't affect.

I believe the topic at hand is the travel ban, not gun bans.

Are you pretending to be stupid?

I responded specifically to a post comparing it to domestic gun violence which used the inflated number, which is what i commented on.

And racist? For what exactly? I said you can't use an inflated number as a condemnation of dangerous white men, like the left likes to do, while ignoring that most of that number is from minorities killing people. It is DISHONEST.

And I sure hope you dont lock your doors or check to see who is knocking before you open the door, otherwise you're just another liberal hypocrite.

mario2000 posted...

Not at all what I said. If you want to argue about gun violence, lumping in gang violence is dishonest and done to inflate the number and fear monger.

OK, I'll humor you.

So we have both mass shooting violence and gang violence, and they need to be differentiated because....reasons.

How does this help the argument that America is supposedly a perfectly peaceful place that will become a violent hellhole if we continue to allow brown Muslims in?

They should be differentiated for the sake of honest argument. Don't act like the inflated mass shooting number is used as a condemnation of white men's propensity to perpetrate mass shootings, when in reality that number is largely minorities.

And Islam as a religion is shown daily, worldwide to be extremely violent and incompatible with western nations. Obviously there are peaceful Muslims. But vetting should be done of them trying to enter the country. If a travel ban is necessary in order to install more thorough processes and let countries on the list revise their systems of accounting for their citizens, then so be it.

If we have a violence issue here, why invite more Violence by not having standards in place?

Additionally, the guy who gave that inflated stat did so to argue in favor of a gun ban, which would have no effect at all on gang violence moreso than it would law abiding citizens.

You can't use a big scary number to argue for a gun ban while ignoring that the majority of that number is made of populations that the gun ban wouldn't affect.

Liberals get real uncomfortable when it's pointed out that a huge chunk of their daily mass shootings number is minorities killing people.

mario2000 posted...

mario2000 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Ryven posted...

319 days later:
Refugees:
0 Attacks
0 Deaths
4 Travel Bans

Americans:
56,863 Shootings
14,335 Deaths
326 Mass Shootings
0 Gun Bans

'murica.

Mass shooting stat is misleading and intentionally done to make people think incidents like Vegas happen every day.

And what exactly would a gun ban do but disarm law abiding citizens?

Dont act stupid.

So a mass shooting needs to be on the level of Vegas for it to be worth worrying about?

Not at all what I said. If you want to argue about gun violence, lumping in gang violence is dishonest and done to inflate the number and fear monger.

mario2000 posted...

How is it misrepresentation?

Because it is used to imply that things like Vegas or San Antonio are rampant and happening daily when in actuality a huge portion of the number is gang violence. It is an inflated number used to fear longer for gun control, which wouldn't do much to stop gang violence anyway.

Obviously 1 situation like Vegas is too many. But there is a more honest way to argue than lumping in Chicago's weekend totals

the OT has bad acting, cringey lines, etc, but it is so engaging and endearing that it is forgiven. The prequels don't have any of the charm or intrigue and are not nearly as pleasant to look at.

The OT is definitely not without its flaws though

Ammonitida posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Ryven posted...

319 days later:
Refugees:
0 Attacks
0 Deaths
4 Travel Bans

Americans:
56,863 Shootings
14,335 Deaths
326 Mass Shootings
0 Gun Bans

'murica.

Mass shooting stat is misleading and intentionally done to make people think incidents like Vegas happen every day.

And what exactly would a gun ban do but disarm law abiding citizens?

Dont act stupid.

Those stats are not only about mass shootings.

Which is why I specifically referred to the mass shooting stat. If there is a point to be made, it can be made without misrepresentation.

Ryven posted...

319 days later:
Refugees:
0 Attacks
0 Deaths
4 Travel Bans

Americans:
56,863 Shootings
14,335 Deaths
326 Mass Shootings
0 Gun Bans

'murica.

Mass shooting stat is misleading and intentionally done to make people think incidents like Vegas happen every day.

And what exactly would a gun ban do but disarm law abiding citizens?

Dont act stupid.

mario2000 posted...

r4X0r posted...

creativerealms posted...

Maybe next time he can ban travel from countries terrorists actually came from. None of the terrorist attacks in America were done by people from any of those countries.

What, so we should let people from places like Somalia pour into the US until things like this start happening here?? That's some remarkably bizarre logic.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/15/truck-bomb-mogadishu-kills-people-somalia

Mogadishu truck bomb: 500 casualties in Somalias worst terrorist attack

It's like I said before. People only oppose it because it's Trump who did it. If Obama did this, he would be held up as a champion of national security. Trump wants to keep terrorism out of the United States, oh he's an idiot. He's a racist, bigoted Islamophobic dolt.

How many mass shootings have happened in America in just this year?

Including or not including gang violence?

At least have an idea of what you're talking about before making a jackass of yourself

The Great Muta 22 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Because SA has been cooperative and has processes in place to account for their citizens

LMAO if you actually believe them. Jesus how big of a hack are you

Processes vs. No processes. Was S.A. on Obama's list?

That has nothing to do with trusting or believing S.A.

You brought up believing SA

The Great Muta 22 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Because SA has been cooperative and has processes in place to account for their citizens

LMAO if you actually believe them. Jesus how big of a hack are you

Processes vs. No processes. Was S.A. on Obama's list?

billcom6 posted...

yes, doesn't mean shes not a lying piece of shit though

If you sign up for a job where you know you represent human garbage you deserve all the hate you get.

Defense attorneys?

hockeybub89 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

CableZL posted...

_RETS_ posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

_RETS_ posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Instead of having me spoon-feed you information, why don't you make a point. I don't see the relevance of that question anyway.

You said he wanted the majority of muslim countries banned and your "proof" of that was the initial ban proposal. So were the majority of Muslim countries on the initial ban?

The proof that he wants all Muslims banned are from his own words. "We need to stop Muslims from entering our countries until we can figure out what is going on"

Cool, then you should have no problem linking that.

This is what he's referencing.

Great, and where is the issue with reviewing immigration vetting standards and narrowing down from there?

But we aren't reviewing the vetting standards of some of the biggest terrorist hotbeds in the world that have committed acts on US soil.

Because SA has been cooperative and has processes in place to account for their citizens.

CableZL posted...

_RETS_ posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

_RETS_ posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Instead of having me spoon-feed you information, why don't you make a point. I don't see the relevance of that question anyway.

You said he wanted the majority of muslim countries banned and your "proof" of that was the initial ban proposal. So were the majority of Muslim countries on the initial ban?

The proof that he wants all Muslims banned are from his own words. "We need to stop Muslims from entering our countries until we can figure out what is going on"

Cool, then you should have no problem linking that.

This is what he's referencing.

Great, and where is the issue with reviewing immigration vetting standards and narrowing down from there?

ChainedRedone posted...

_RETS_ posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Instead of having me spoon-feed you information, why don't you make a point. I don't see the relevance of that question anyway.

You said he wanted the majority of muslim countries banned and your "proof" of that was the initial ban proposal. So were the majority of Muslim countries on the initial ban?

The proof that he wants all Muslims banned are from his own words. "We need to stop Muslims from entering our countries until we can figure out what is going on"

Cool, then you should have no problem linking that.

ChainedRedone posted...

Instead of having me spoon-feed you information, why don't you make a point. I don't see the relevance of that question anyway.

You said he wanted the majority of muslim countries banned and your "proof" of that was the initial ban proposal. So were the majority of Muslim countries on the initial ban?

ChainedRedone posted...

_RETS_ posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

KazumaKiryu posted...

Excellent, hope they add more countries to it too.

you mean like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan or the UAE? you know, the countries that actually fund radical Islamic terrorism?

just kidding, Trump would never ban a country he has business dealings in

It's Obama's list of countries. Does Trump have business dealings in every single majority Muslim country not on the list?

It's a silly copout to say, "Obama did the same thing!" Anyone who isn't braindead realizes he wants the majority of Muslim countries banned. He just had to settle for less because his intentions were unconstitutional.

Proof of anything you just said?

The fact of the initial Muslim ban? Do you really need someone to spoon-feed you the obvious fact that he settled for less because his previous attempts were blocked?

How many countries were on the initial list?

ChainedRedone posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

KazumaKiryu posted...

Excellent, hope they add more countries to it too.

you mean like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan or the UAE? you know, the countries that actually fund radical Islamic terrorism?

just kidding, Trump would never ban a country he has business dealings in

It's Obama's list of countries. Does Trump have business dealings in every single majority Muslim country not on the list?

It's a silly copout to say, "Obama did the same thing!" Anyone who isn't braindead realizes he wants the majority of Muslim countries banned. He just had to settle for less because his intentions were unconstitutional.

Proof of anything you just said?

Giant_Aspirin posted...

KazumaKiryu posted...

Excellent, hope they add more countries to it too.

you mean like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan or the UAE? you know, the countries that actually fund radical Islamic terrorism?

just kidding, Trump would never ban a country he has business dealings in

It's Obama's list of countries. Does Trump have business dealings in every single majority Muslim country not on the list?

Letron_James posted...

Nice

One step closer to having a full blown Fascist government, maybe one Trump cans Mueller and beheads him in Public we can go full blown North Korea

Please explain how this is a step in that direction.

They should have recast the role. The show is about Frank and Robin Wright isn't a good enough actress or interesting enough character to carry it it what should be its best season where everything culminates and crumbles for the Underwoods.

WaffIeElite posted...

Why are the gun-toting lunies so scared of people with brown skin?

You could ask Obama since it is his ban list

I think the real question is why UR knows multiple 5 year old girls with whom he has political discussions.

Tropicalwood posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

_RETS_

In what specific ways do you think Trump resembles this dictator?

He executed a military coup to come to power.

Nope.

Had Muslims killed?

Must have missed that one too.

teepan95 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

People continuing to use the travel ban as a reason of Trump being dictator-like prove themselves ill-equipped to have a reasonable opinion on the matter.

Well it's a good thing the travel ban is just one issue of many.

It delegitimizes other points. Just like BLM using Michael Brown's case undercuts other more valid points.

Tropicalwood posted...

_RETS_

In what specific ways do you think Trump resembles this dictator?

He executed a military coup to come to power.

Nope.

People continuing to use the travel ban as a reason of Trump being dictator-like prove themselves ill-equipped to have a reasonable opinion on the matter.

I think other motorists would have been perfectly justified in dragging this dude out of the wreckage and beating the shit out of him

Zeeak4444 posted...

No worries :*

Zeeak4444 posted...

@southcoast09 posted...

@_RETS_ posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

southcoast09 posted...

Foppe posted...

But more people voted on her.

Nah. The anti trump media "decided" the popular vote. She had dead people voting, illegal aliens were allowed in some places to vote, and loopholes allowed illegals multiple votes.

Trump most likely won the popular vote. Especially among people who work for a living as opposed to sponging off the system.

@southcoast09 you do realize the majority of people on beneficeny programs like welfare are white working class males right?

nah, that would actuallly require some basic research on your part.

White males are the majority of a lot of things since the country is majority white. What percentage of white males are on welfare vs. that of other races?

Those are bloated and exaggerated statistics. The programs DO have preference in minorities over white males.

Since the people who say this stuff are the actual lazy ones I did all the work for you:

https://www.thoughtco.com/who-really-receives-welfare-4126592

Now all you have to do is read.

"Though rates of participation are higher among people of color, it is white people who are the greatest number of recipients when measured by race."

Which is exactly what I said.

Zeeak4444 posted...

southcoast09 posted...

Foppe posted...

But more people voted on her.

Nah. The anti trump media "decided" the popular vote. She had dead people voting, illegal aliens were allowed in some places to vote, and loopholes allowed illegals multiple votes.

Trump most likely won the popular vote. Especially among people who work for a living as opposed to sponging off the system.

@southcoast09 you do realize the majority of people on beneficeny programs like welfare are white working class males right?

nah, that would actuallly require some basic research on your part.

White males are the majority of a lot of things since the country is majority white. What percentage of white males are on welfare vs. that of other races?

FrisbeeDude posted...

_RETS_ posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

If only Zimmerman had been an illegal immigrant, then the left would have accepted the verdict of the jury instead of still crying about it to this day.

Guarantee the same people that are okay with this verdict because the jury knew best are the first ones to bitch about Zimmerman or any cop that is acquitted by the same means.

You're comparing a misfired gun and a freak ricochet to a dude who hunted a kid down while playing superhero...lmao

My point rests solely on the statement that "the jury has all the info and found him not guilty so that's what he is." And I have a feeling the same ones using that defense of this verdict also whined about the Zimmerman verdict or any "not guilty" cop verdict.

darkjedilink posted...

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Guarantee the same people that are okay with this verdict because the jury knew best are the first ones to b**** about Zimmerman or any cop that is acquitted by the same means.

Guarantee the same people that are mad with this verdict because the jury knew best are the first ones to cheer about Zimmerman or any cop that is acquitted by the same means.

Zimmerman didn't break any laws. This guy did.

But you love defending criminals, so of course that doesn't matter to you.

What are you talking about? Where did I defend a criminal?

DifferentialEquation posted...

If only Zimmerman had been an illegal immigrant, then the left would have accepted the verdict of the jury instead of still crying about it to this day.

Guarantee the same people that are okay with this verdict because the jury knew best are the first ones to bitch about Zimmerman or any cop that is acquitted by the same means.

Hexenherz posted...

wtf @ story in OP, how is that even a moral dilemma? How does that even cross someone's mind?
If I'm a police officer and I'm trained to administer some medicine in the case of an overdose, literally the first thing I'm going to do is administer the medicine if I see an overdose, without even thinking about it.

What gives you the right to choose whether someone lives or dies? That's not your job. Your job is to protect people and do what you're trained to do and uphold the law. w t h.

Yeah I said if it was my job i would do it with the understanding that i wouldn't be doing anyone any favors.

If I, as a civilian just stumbled upon it and randomly had Narcan on me, I wouldn't.

In the story he said the cop ended up doing it with some visible apprehension

Dash_Harber posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Maybe so.

How about if the kid is going to go back to them? A Gone Baby Gone type thing

Well there is witnesses, both civilian and police, who witnessed reckless child endangerment, the parents are now known drug abusers, and the child was witnessed in a probably lethal situation, so the chance of that is pretty much impossible.

In this specific real scenario yeah. But in a hypothetical like the plot of Gone Baby Gone. Spoilers for that movie but i was very much against

Casey Affleck's decision

If you have to invent a whole new moral dilemma to explain your choice in the first moral dilemma, it's probably best to rethink your answer.

I'm not inventing anything, just relating a similar situation to the plot of a movie.

I still stand by my original answer in that I don't care if they live or die but I'm not going to actively keep them around.

Dash_Harber posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Maybe so.

How about if the kid is going to go back to them? A Gone Baby Gone type thing

Well there is witnesses, both civilian and police, who witnessed reckless child endangerment, the parents are now known drug abusers, and the child was witnessed in a probably lethal situation, so the chance of that is pretty much impossible.

In this specific real scenario yeah. But in a hypothetical like the plot of Gone Baby Gone. Spoilers for that movie but i was very much against

Casey Affleck's decision