Originally Posted by armedoldhippy
"the cop chooses the immoral one" what utter bullshit! cops (good ones) look the other way/turn people loose every fucking day.
Although my post actually wasn't directed at you, armedoldhippy, I am compelled by truth to address your arguments.
First, that quote above, actually proves the immorality of cops.
You say cops look the other way and turn people loose.
Obviously, they don't "look the other way" with regards to everyone. If they did, the US wouldn't traditionally be the country in the world with the highest incarceration rate as a percentage of the population, would it? So, you have to admit they turn some loose and book others.
So you say those that "look the other way" as to some people, but put others behind bars are the "good" cops.
I say they are bad cops because they are selectively enforcing the "law," when they are supposed to be doing so equally, fairly and without regard to their collar's particular status.
How again do you justify the morality of someone who plays legislator, judge and jury in his own little private game of "L'etat; C'est Moi" just because he happens to have a badge?
Your argument seems to be based on "well, since he doesn't arrest everyone, he's acting morally." So, for you, it's ok for a cop to arrest, impoverish, imprison and destroy a man's family for, say growing pot, if the cop "turned the other way" when, say, the nephew of a fellow cop did the same thing.
For you it's ok for a cop to do so because he let some other pot grower off the hook and turned the other way because that grower happened to have served in the same military unit as him, was the member of the same "fraternal lodge," church or political party, or donated to the "Policeman's Benevolent Society," or for some other arbitrary justification - none of which are permitted by "law" - instead of doing what he's supposed to be doing: enforcing the law equally and fairly against all.
I mean, my God, did you ever think that's exactly the reason why Wall Street crooks who just happen to be CEOs don't get prosecuted for the crimes they've committed - despite destroying perhaps millions of lives?
In short, your argument is morally, legally and logically untenable.
You say: "you are smearing good people for having the same job as some who are assholes."
I say: No I'm not, I'm just shining the light of truth on what they ALL do.
You say: "if we did not have LEO, the movie "Purge" would be reality."
I say: I haven't seen the movie. But, let me guess, its a fictional story of how the world will go to hell in a hand basket if there's no government. Did I guess correctly? I thought so. I didn't even look up a review, armedoldhippy. Then, how did I know that's what the movie was about? Because there's so damn many movies following the same agenda. Who do you think finances these movies? Did you ever think it was the same interests that Smedley Butler outed in "War Is A Racket"?
Now I ask you, what proof do you have that such a calamity would befall the world without the bloodsucking parasites some call government? None - that's what you have. No proof whatsoever.
Why no proof? Because government has been controlling people's lives for all of recorded history. Therefore, no one knows what will happen if there were no house slaves (cops) to do the bidding of government (who are just extremely rich people), because it is literally unprecedented. Well, maybe not unprecedented, but certainly not recorded by his-story (history). Why not recorded? Well, when it is government that is writing history, it makes sense they would omit such information if it would show a much better alternative to what they've been offering the world's people for thousands of years.
You say: "what a fucking dimwit...
You support your argument that the absence of cops would be horrible for the world by pointing me to some propaganda flick (that you apparently think is plausible), and you call me the dimwit.
I won't stoop to your level by calling you names like those you've hurled in my direction. I'll just say the Lakota have a saying "one finger pointed out - three fingers pointed back at you."