Look Out! She's Got A Hello Kitty lunchbox!

[-Bob-]

I agree that the girl deserved a lesson. But the cops were not only retarded to do what they did, they were also complete assholes. Very unprofessional. I don't know if it counts as 'excessive force' since I wasn't there and don't know enough about the situation. But it sure as hell seems like the police were just using the thing as a pacifier, which if fucking ugly. It makes the cop just as much of a spoiled brat as the little girl.

Just to put this in perspective: what do you think of a parent that uses a taser (of police weapon caliber) to keep their kids in line? Maybe all those soccer moms should all go out and buy one in case their 'tweens' get out of hand.

As for the girl, she may or may not have learned her lesson. Probably the 'punishment' will backfire and she will turn into an even bigger bitch, as Max pointed out. Which makes the whole thing all the more idiotic.

I don't think the cops deserve the crucifixion that is surely coming to them, but if I was their boss I definitely punish them a little. No access to the drug stash for a month, at least.

Xev-

As for delegation of authority, its only the best we can do at the moment. Those of us who are finely tuned to justice and capable of bringing it must suffer, but on the other hand we escape the complete paranoia and chaos that would ensue if it were everyone's responsibility to issue their own brand of justice.

 

[§outh§tar]

If an officer came into your home and kicked your cat for playing with yarn I bet you would all be rationalizing about how that cat was way out of control with swatting at that yarn like that.

What if you voluntarily gave the cops your pussy? Would you be peeved if they banged it?

Tasering that young girl was a disproportionate use of force compared to the genuine threat that she presented to the cops.

The tasering was not necessarily in response to any 'threat'. What are cops for? Law and order. What was the tasering supposed to bring? Law and order.

Does law and order discriminate by age? Oh wait, kids don't get the death penalty under some morons idea of morality and humanity.. But still. Does it?

 

[Mystech]

Does law and order discriminate by age? Oh wait, kids don't get the death penalty under some morons idea of morality and humanity.. But still. Does it?

As you pointed out, yes, it does indeed. And rightly so, I should say.

 

[§outh§tar]

As you pointed out, yes, it does indeed. And rightly so, I should say.

For justice, which is blind in scope, to be partial in range, is for justice to lose its meaning.

If justice cannot discriminate on sex, or religion, or ethnicity, then it only logically follows that being arbitrary when it comes to age reeks of an unjust double standard.

Tazer the girl till she bleeds out of the eyes. Why? Because law and order needed to be preserved. It seems beyond argument to me that this is the job of the cops, to preserve law and order. How they are to go about doing their job if we continue to have arbitrary scruples like this, I do not know.

/* Holds breath and waits for "What if it was your kid they tasered?"

I'm Debble's advocate today.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I wish more people were familiar with animal training.
I've said it before, but humans know dogs better than they know themselves.
There's just unbridled logic when it comes to the training and breeding of dogs.
When it comes to humans, we have no idea.
Even though all the exact same principals apply.
The behaviour of all animals is sculpted by punishment and reward. An animal goes through life gradually getting a feel for behaviours which are rewarding and behaviours which aren't, and once it gets the gist of it it sides with the rewarding behaviours as much as possible. A perfect dog has had it clearly defined which behaviours are good and which are bad. A badly behaved dog hasn't been adequately rewarded for being good or adequately punished for being bad. It's found more pleasure in being bad. Which is entirely someone's fault.

Not tasering children who throw hysterics is encouraging them to do that more in the future. Just because she wasn't a threat doesn't mean anything. If she's doing anything resembling something we don't want her to be doing in the future, taser her, humiliate her, whatever, make her associate that behaviour with negativity so she doesn't do it in the future. It's important we don't let her get away with it.
"She aint hurtin nobody" isn't good enough. We don't want her acting that way, she probably wouldn't want to be the kind of person who acts that way, it's authorities(preferably her parents, but whatever's clever) responsibility to help her become the kind of person she should be.
There's only one way to do it. Clearly define favourable and unfavourable behaviour to her through positive and negative reinforcement.
Reasoning with her won't do shit. Fully established well developed human beings who are equal reason with eachother. That's what reasoning is for, nothing else.

Little girls should be systematically destroyed until only strong little girls remain

If the world wanted strong girls that is how we would have to go about it.
But no, it's a little more complicated.
Training and breeding work on similar principals.
You favour what you want and discourage what you don't want.
You can't ignore this, or you'll have undesirable behaviour and undesirable individuals.
Everyone here is constantly complaining about undesirable behaviour and undesirable individuals, everyone. Thats basically the theme of the forums.
And yet, no one is willing to address the problems in the only way you can, the way we as a species have learned to address them through trial and error with domestic animals for thousands of years.
Everyone is like "man what the hell is wrong with people? god I mean, fuck, they're just out of control", meanwhile being fully aware of how to correct problems in individuals and populations of individuals. I'd say we're experts, it's our trademark as a species.
Humanity won't mess around when it comes to problems with dogs or cattle or crops or whatever, they suddenly become efficient genius' and correct the problem in no time, living up to our reputation as masters of our domain.
But then turn into fumbling morons when it comes to our own kind.
We just watch shrugging while humanity goes out of control, when thats our area of expertise, almost by definition. Training, breeding, harnessing control of the direction of living organisms and nature in general. Making it whatever we want.
Why the fuck can't we look at ourselves?

 

[Mystech]

If justice cannot discriminate on sex, or religion, or ethnicity, then it only logically follows that being arbitrary when it comes to age reeks of an unjust double standard.

I assure you that for those of us who can understand that there is a distinction between acceptable behavior for a child and an adult, that this is not a problem.

 

[§outh§tar]

I assure you that for those of us who can understand that there is a distinction between acceptable behavior for a child and an adult, that this is not a problem.

I'll be back later but:

Are you then sanctioning the girl's conduct as this so-called "acceptable behavior for a child"?

And then you beg the question. Who in Congress distinguishes between acceptable behavior for a child and for an adult? Where is the line crossed? Is this not the SAME arbitrary dealing? Who will arbitrarily distinguish to what extent upbringing etc are to blame - for a child, and for an adult?

Instead of opening up a new box of problems to be haggled over indeterminately, we can sweep the whole thing under the carpet and step on it. Taser indiscriminately, for law and order is indiscriminate. No double standard there, justice is served.

 

[§outh§tar]

Dr Lou,

There are more cunning ways to trick women into doing what you want. You don't always have to slap them around even though - as you say - that is the right thing to do.

 

[Xev]

"If the world wanted strong girls that is how we would have to go about it"

Not to segue, but the world doesn't happen to need strongth in women so much as in men.
Which makes perfect sense.
A strong man may generally possess whatever woman he wanted. The strong by their own volition, the weak ones because they had no choice.
Whereas a strong woman may expend her strength on surviving, prospering and caring for her offspring. Beyond whatever rigors of selecting a male, she need not exert herself in order to possess him.

So it is less necessary for a woman to be strong than it is for a man.
And now-adays, it is even detrimental for her.

But of course, tasering someone is not an efficiant eugenic measure.
Whether or not she learns her lesson, she can still reproduce.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Not to segue, but the world doesn't happen to need strongth in women so much as in men.

Yeah thats what I meant, but it didn't come out as clear as it could have.
I should have said "If we wanted strong girls that would be the way to go about it, but we don't".

Meaning, the culling of undesirable behaviours and traits is correct, he's spot on there even though he's trying to mock, but physical weakness in girls isn't particularly undesirable.
Mental and emotional weakness, such as being hysterical, is.
Nobody finds that attractive. Nobody wants to see simple primitive people losing control of themselves. So, lets put a stop to it. We can do it, it's what we do.

 

[Xev]

"Mental and emotional weakness, such as being hysterical, is."

Judging by the relationships my male associates enter into, I would disagree.
Mental and emotional weakness seems to be attractive to men in general.
Certainly they will complain, but more in joke and they certainly will abide by it.

There is a minority of men who would admit to being attracted to a woman who could, say, kill without mercy.
And of that minority, a great number are likely degenerates.
Even of the Viking men who dreamed of Valkyrie to scour the battlefield, I submit that a majority were more drawn to their nurturing than to their ferocity.
Which is more or less as it ought to be.
Not that women are weak.
But mental weakness, or the feign of mental weakness, can be desierable.

Unless you meant undesireable on another level.

Nobody wants to see simple primitive people losing control of themselves

Please consider the popularity of MTV....

 

[Mystech]

And then you beg the question. Who in Congress distinguishes between acceptable behavior for a child and for an adult? Where is the line crossed? Is this not the SAME arbitrary dealing?

Believe it or not, this problem has already been solved by hundreds of years of legal precedent, and thousands throughout western civilization. If the idea of what might reasonably constitute behavior which one might expect from a barely pubescent child, then perhaps it's time to scoot away from the computer and begin once more directly interacting with other human beings. It's certainly a gray-area sort of matter, but then many things in the legal arena are. The idea is what is reasonably expectable from a 13 year old girl? A disturbingly large number of people involved in this thread don't seem to be able to answer that in any satisfactorily coherent manner.

As for you, Dr. Lou, I see you've fallen back on your own bizarre philosophical core, again. Your own narrow mindedness on the subject of social interaction and policies of society as derived from dog breeding is, as ever, worthy of a good belly laugh, and a brief moment of unease as I find myself wondering if you're serious, or just trolling again. Oh well, to a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail. . . and to a man who only seems to know dog breeding? Well, I guess that's Dr. Lou.

Your suggestion that society be ruled through classical conditioning of it's members is intriguing at least, I only wish that Heinlen, or Orwell were still around to write of the sheer horror and madness of the idea. Really the best I suppose I can do for you is to point out that a human has no master with some perfect vision of what he ought to be, certainly none with enough credibility and vision that we should suspend critical thinking and active creative criticism in favor of his hard handed beatings when we've gone astray. You say that what you want is stronger people, but it sounds to me that what you'd like is for man to be more like cattle.

Again, as for the specific topic of this thread, do you honestly think that there's any force in this world (outside the strict and unethical use of force) that can shut up a young teenage girl in the throws of hysteria? If you think there may be then I can tell without even asking that you didn't grow up with any little sisters, and likely haven't got a daughter. Young girls throw outrageous fits, it's simply part of the human condition. Sure we'd like to slap them to shut them up sometimes, but especially if we're supposed to be doing a job, and the pint-sized squirt is no danger, there's simply no justification for such crass violence.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Xev
I just know that hysterical people give me the shits, and behave in a way which is blatantly detrimental for survival.
Like mothers who completely lose their shit when they can't find one of their children, and run around screaming really loud and not doing anything to aid in the retrieval of the child.
The police might be asking questions and they just can't gather themselves to answer or be of any help. What good does that do?
Nothing has that affect on me, and it never will.

Not long ago I saw a dog get a fishing lure stuck in it's lip the owner went nuts and was wrestling with the dog screaming "sit!!!! sit!!! arrrghh!!!" which predictably made the dog panic and struggle. I had to calm them both down, and once I'd done this I could cut the lure off with pliers and push the hooks through with no serious injury.
If I wasn't there this guy would have wrassled around with the dog untill they were both near death from exhaustion and the hooks had torn large wads of flesh off the dog.
I just can't see people like this guy as equals. People like me should be in control of people like them. For the good of everyone.

I don't mind a girl who cries or is frightened or whatever, just as long as it doesn't consume them.
I think the line is where they actually become a hindrance to you helping them. Needing help isn't particularly unattractive, it might even be slightly attractive as you're more reassured that they'll want you around.
The knight in shining armour doesn't mind saving the princess from the dragon, but does mind being kicked in the groin and having his hair pulled out by her while she's screaming uncontrollably on his shoulder.
I really don't think any guy favours the irrational out of control hysterics of crazy women.
They certainly seem to tolerate it, but there'd be other traits that they're favouring.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

You say that what you want is stronger people, but it sounds to me that what you'd like is for man to be more like cattle.

Yes.
But humans. Dogs, cattle... they're bred well, and outstanding individuals are produced.
Humans have alot of potential. But poor breeding practices inhibit outstanding individuals from being produced.
These practices are worsening steadily through political correctness and liberalism, and the outstanding individuals history has seen will become ancient history, and history will be all that we have.

I only wish that Heinlen, or Orwell were still around to write of the sheer horror and madness of the idea.

Really? You wish they were? Well they're not and never will be again because of the dysgenics and lack of effective discipline you endorse.

That "underwear outside of the pants" or whatever song with that standup comedian(who's strangely a liberal, didn't follow through with his reasoning I suppose) makes a great point.
If bill gates wasn't stuffed in his locker with his underpants wedged up his ass he never would have developed the drive to take over the world with computers.
We want to do away with everything unpleasant but seem to forget it was those unpleasant things which crafted this species. Kindness and tolerance and faggotry doesn't produce shit. Or thats exactly what it produces.
Everything great is a flower on the end of a stem of blood sweat and tears.
That's the way it is.

Again, as for the specific topic of this thread, do you honestly think that there's any force in this world (outside the strict and unethical use of force) that can shut up a young teenage girl in the throws of hysteria? If you think there may be then I can tell without even asking that you didn't grow up with any little sisters, and likely haven't got a daughter. Young girls throw outrageous fits, it's simply part of the human condition. Sure we'd like to slap them to shut them up sometimes, but especially if we're supposed to be doing a job, and the pint-sized squirt is no danger, there's simply no justification for such crass violence.

My big sister used to go into hysterics and beat me, untill she tried it one day when I was 10 or so and I kicked her really hard in the stomach and winded her. She never tried again. Nor does she hold any ill will. She actually apologised on the day I kicked her as soon as she stopped crying.
This aversion you people have for "crass violence" is so insignificant and petty in the big scheme of things. Avoiding violence at all costs is a laughably pathetic "goal" to have for the human race.
It's not that big of a deal to be hurt. If it changes you for the better, which it often does, it's worth it.
I may have saved my sister from years of domestic abuse from her husband.
I got her a swift one in the guts while she was still developing as a human being.
If I never kicked her and she went on finding her hysterical rampages to be beneficial, it would have been concreted into the adult animal she became, and then when she wouldn't be able to help herself from hysterically flying off the wall at her husband he would have beat her. But she'd be programmed by my lack of retaliation to try it anyway, she'd know no other way, and she'd keep losing it and he'd keep beating her.

The way you guys think is driven by such basic things.
"tasers hurt. Don't taser or she will be hurt. Hurt is bad"
You're too emotionally attached to the welfare of people. You've placed your immediate self preservation instincts onto all people, so you will always opt to give others what you would prefer to have.
Your empathy is overstated to a ridiculous degree.
You see everyone as your self, so if I was hanging out with you and I said "lets go make fun of that wierd looking guy" you'd say "ahh no, lets give him a dollar instead".
You just can't be a person because in your world there is one person with many bodies and it's you, but humans are social animals, by their very nature they interact with different people, not themselves.
Frankly, you're a corrupted animal with a strange mental disorder.

 

[Mystech]

Hmm, and if anyone needed any proof that Dr. Lou is really nothing but a perennial troll, there you go.

 

[mountainhare]

Avoiding violence at all costs is a laughably pathetic "goal" to have for the human race.

Agreed.

Idle thought: MMMMM, I need one of those tasers.

 

[Xev]

"Hmm, and if anyone needed any proof that Dr. Lou is really nothing but a perennial troll, there you go."

He sounds like Jack London on PCP.
But I fail to see how calling him a 'troll' and leaving it at that is an adequete rebuttel.

Dr. Lou Natic:

Like mothers who completely lose their shit when they can't find one of their children, and run around screaming really loud and not doing anything to aid in the retrieval of the child.

They are encouraged to do so.

I really don't think any guy favours the irrational out of control hysterics of crazy women.

I don't believe it's out of control.
It may seem to be, but I've seen too many women flip out at their boyfriend until he gives in on some issue or another, then become perfectly peaceful.
Perhaps that is my own bias. I cannot honestly comprehend allowing oneself to act that pathetic.
But this is irrelevent.

Mystech:

Really the best I suppose I can do for you is to point out that a human has no master with some perfect vision of what he ought to be, certainly none with enough credibility and vision that we should suspend critical thinking and active creative criticism

But we don't need to!
It's not a matter of irrationally delegating authority to whoever asserts he is worthy of it. It's a matter of letting nature take its course.

Look, we're not talking about people who are logical and creative.
We're talking about people who are weak-willed and out of control.

You say that what you want is stronger people, but it sounds to me that what you'd like is for man to be more like cattle.

Aren't people like cattle?
You're making the mistake of assuming that all people are equal.

It would be destructive insanity to treat a genius like Goethe as a sire-dog.
But it is equally ridiculous to treat a common man with an IQ of 100 the same as you would treat a Goethe.

Now on the level of government, the democratic fiction can work.
But it might be more beneficial to use positive eugenic measures.
It might even be essential. Are you familiar with Malthus?

-Bob-

As for delegation of authority, its only the best we can do at the moment. Those of us who are finely tuned to justice and capable of bringing it must suffer, but on the other hand we escape the complete paranoia and chaos that would ensue if it were everyone's responsibility to issue their own brand of justice.

Well that is true, and it is why we progress to Leviathan.
It's just the simple stupidity of treating the weak just as one treats the strong.

 

[§outh§tar]

If the idea of what might reasonably constitute behavior which one might expect from a barely pubescent child, then perhaps it's time to scoot away from the computer and begin once more directly interacting with other human beings.

Not sure that statement makes sense (maybe you left something out?).

Oh, and did I mention children from cultures with superior moral systems, such as many in Africa and Asia, are for a lack of a better word.. more cultured? Why not use them as the standard of "reasonable behavior" to expect from a child?

If we say it is because they are from a different social system, then we must too acknowledge that people from Compton and Brooklyn are conditioned differently and must therefore be held to different social standards. But of course, this does not happen. Therefore saying her behavior is within so-called "reasonable" limits for her age is rather arbitrary and unsupported given the wide range of behaviors evidenced in children over the globe, and even in the country.

 

[mountainhare]

Tazer the girl till she bleeds out of the eyes. Why? Because law and order needed to be preserved. It seems beyond argument to me that this is the job of the cops, to preserve law and order. How they are to go about doing their job if we continue to have arbitrary scruples like this, I do not know.

LOL. You've changed quite a bit over the past year, Southstar.

However, I agree. Mainly because I can't stand shrieking, loud, obnoxious little kids. Keep them in a cage if they act like that.

/* Holds breath and waits for "What if it was your kid they tasered?"

Ha, yeah, tired old argument. The obvious answer is that I wouldn't have raised an obnoxious little shit.

 

[Neildo]

The people cheering the cops aren't grinning because some weak slut got what she deserved. They're cheering because some fuckwit with power issues beat up on a little kid.

Well those aren't the reasons why I'm for the cops doing what they did. I'm for it because it was the right thing to do in the given situation. Tasers aren't as bad as people think they are. It's not an over use of force. It did exactly what it was meant to do, subdue the girl in a harmless manner. Heck, pepper spray is worse. Try and think of any other way to calm a raging girl and they will either not work or they actually WILL be excessive in force. Getting zapped was the least harmful of any action to be taken against her in a successful manner.

- N