A police officer explains why cops are a--h#&#$. And fails miserably.

[phill4paul]

Whoa is me, you just don't understand the stress we work under, everyone is a potential enemy out to get me, blargh, blargh, blargh.....




Editor's note: This post was originally published on Quora in response to the question, "Why do police officers come across as arrogant?" We have reprinted this answer with the permission of its author, former police officer Justin Freeman.
Because they have different priorities than you do.

Humans, like most everything else in the universe, seek to maintain a sense of equilibrium in things. This is true for not just matters of physiology, but for social interactions, as well. Think about the interactions you have on a daily basis: In most all of them, you enter an interaction with at least a neutral mindset and perhaps even an assumption of goodwill.

When one wakes up next to their partner, they don't harbor an innate suspicion about the partner's motives — they assume that the partner is as goodwilled as they were when they fell asleep, and their interactions proceed founded on this assumption.

Or think about your interactions at work. Absent narcissism or self-deprecation, when you go into a job, you default to considering your peers as more or less equal. Of course, as time wears on you begin to categorize people, but those initial interactions will be civil and respectful, because that's what's expected - that is the silent understanding wrought by the norms of your workplace.

Now, think about the workday of a police officer. Her job assignments consist, primarily, of being dispatched to successive 911 calls. When someone calls 911 for police service, there is a tacit admission by the caller that the situation at hand has deteriorated beyond his or her control, and police are needed in order to bring the situation back under control. That is the unstated assumption that the officer has going into each situation — not that a social equilibrium needs to be maintained, but that a situation needs to be quickly and efficiently brought back under control.

Further than this, when she gets to the scene of many to most of these 911 calls, she encounters people who seek to frustrate her endeavors. She talks to witnesses who lie in circles about not seeing anything. She talks to suspects who lie about where they'd just been or what they were just doing. She talks to drunk people who can't coordinate themselves and won't remember what she said in ten minutes' time. She talks to addicts who try to conceal the fact that they're high even though involuntary tics have consumed their body. She talks to grade school kids and teenagers who have been conditioned to mistrust or despise police. She talks to people who lie about their identity because they have warrants or because they just want to frustrate her. She talks to people who act nervous and take too long to answer simple questions, raising her suspicions. She talks to people who have drugs, guns, knives, and any manner of other contraband hidden in their residence, in their vehicle, or on their person.

Now consider that the officer is doing this many times per shift — 10, 20, maybe more — encounters every day. She will quickly learn that, in order to get anything accomplished with these liars and obstructionists, she is going to have to employ tactics that in any other field would be unacceptable. She is going to have to be blunt, brusque and curt. She's going to have to call bluffs and smokescreens and BS. She's going to have to interrupt rambling, circular explanations. She's going to have to look people in the eye and say, "We both know that you're lying to me right now."

And through it all, she will begin to develop the opposite assumption from the freshly roused partner and the guy at the water cooler — work interactions are not among peers, and people are likely not worthy of implicit trust.

Now, you, who I will assume is a normal, everyday citizen, comes into contact with this police officer. Even though she can probably surmise that you're not a frequent flyer, she doesn't know you and doesn't enter into interpersonal contact with the same assumptions you do. Additionally, if she's in uniform it's possible she has a task at hand she's focused on. Until you are a known quantity, you may be treated coolly and humorlessly.

Now, let's take a step back. You, the partner and/or co-worker, interprets the response of this police officer through the lens of your expectations, and judge her to be arrogant. I mean, after all, she's acting all distant and aloof and snobby, right? However, your assessment is based on your interaction in a vacuum, and likely doesn't factor in much of anything I just said. That doesn't mean either one of you is "wrong." You're coming from different places.

In closing, I'd bid you to be forgiving. This officer cannot afford to give people the benefit of the doubt, because there are only so many people you can relax your guard around in her line of work before she gets herself or someone else hurt or killed. Be gracious to her, for her burden is great.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-simple-explanation-for-why-cops-seem-arrogant-2014-5#ixzz3277nOcM5

[Anti Federalist]

A perfect explanation as to why her (nice little politically correct tone there) job should not exist.

Term limits for cops.

Volunteer cops.

Career cops, because all they see are "drunks, dope addicts and wrecks" are, within 5 years time, too cynical, jaded and corrupt to be worth a shit, and worse, have adopted a war footing against us.


This officer cannot afford to give people the benefit of the doubt, because there are only so many people you can relax your guard around in her line of work before she gets herself or someone else hurt or killed.

There it is, right from the horse's mouth.

You get no "benefit of doubt"...you are a scumbag and the cop will kill you if twitch funny.

Do Not Call Cops.

Ever.

For anything.

They are not there to help.

[SeanTX]

This commenter has anti-police folks all figured out:



jamesxxxxxxxxxxxx
on May 12, 1:41 PM said:
@KJal:
Look how many thumbs down you get for a normal story about cops.

The cynical losers on this site can't handle that other people legitimately have more power than them.

Cops seem arrogant because they have much greater power than you - and by law effectively dominate almost every situation they are in. This is going to naturally feel arrogant to us.

The American public are actually most arrogant and cynical - unable to grasp the requirements of the officer's job in the maintenance of moral order.

Many Americans reject all authority outright as a challenge to their ego, hence so many guns, so much madness. Also - a lot of good music and innovation come out of this as well.

Most cops are exactly the same as other people - they are just doing their job.

They have to put up with a***holes like the commenters on this board all day - every day . No wonder they are in a bad mood.

[otherone]

http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1326024129156_715975.png

[CPUd]

He is right on one thing though, people should stop lying to the police.

[kcchiefs6465]

The toils of a fascist.

It just breaks your heart.

[Anti Federalist]

Posted a comment:

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-simple-explanation-for-why-cops-seem-arrogant-2014-5?pundits_only=0&comments_page=1#comment-53794c4c6bb3f7a376a345f9

" This officer cannot afford to give people the benefit of the doubt, because there are only so many people you can relax your guard around in her line of work before she gets herself or someone else hurt or killed."

There you have it, right from the horse's mouth. You deserve no benefit of the doubt, and if you twitch funny, you are liable to be shot.

Do not call cops. They are not there to help. They are there to enforce the law as they see it. I review every single day, news reports of the wrong people, unarmed people and pets being shot, beaten, SWATted, tased and dragged off to prison.

That's what cops do, that is their job, their training has put them on a war footing with us, the people, and if you are perceived as a "threat" or a "hostile" you will be killed.

You are ten times more likely to be killed by cop than by a terrorist.

Do not call cops.

[Anti Federalist]

The toils of a fascist.

It just breaks your heart.

"See what you awful people make me do? O', how I suffer in the day to day performance of my patriotic duty." - Hauptsturmführer Friendly

[tod evans]

And Boobus laps this pablum of the toe of the stormtroopers boot.....

[phill4paul]

A perfect explanation as to why her (nice little politically correct tone there) job should not exist.

Term limits for cops.

Volunteer cops.

Career cops, because all they see are "drunks, dope addicts and wrecks" are, within 5 years time, too cynical, jaded and corrupt to be worth a shit, and worse, have adopted a war footing against us.



There it is, right from the horse's mouth.

You get no "benefit of doubt"...you are a scumbag and the cop will kill you if twitch funny.

Do Not Call Cops.

Ever.

For anything.

They are not there to help.

"From the horses mouth." Indeed. That is what caught my attention when I read the article. Those of us who have been cognizant of this attitude have been speaking against it for as long as we have been aware. Humans seemingly cannot be trusted with the power that being a member of a police force brings. Therefore, none should be trusted with it.

[TheGrinch]

May be good points if not for "arrogance" in itself being at the bottom of list of complaints about the current state of police.

You want to be arrogant and cocky, go ahead if it means you stop the real abuses.

[Henry Rogue]

Further than this, when she gets to the scene of many to most of these 911 calls, she encounters people who seek to frustrate her endeavors. She talks to witnesses who lie in circles about not seeing anything. She talks to suspects who lie about where they'd just been or what they were just doing. She talks to drunk people who can't coordinate themselves and won't remember what she said in ten minutes' time. She talks to addicts who try to conceal the fact that they're high even though involuntary tics have consumed their body. She talks to grade school kids and teenagers who have been conditioned to mistrust or despise police. She talks to people who lie about their identity because they have warrants or because they just want to frustrate her. She talks to people who act nervous and take too long to answer simple questions, raising her suspicions. She talks to people who have drugs, guns, knives, and any manner of other contraband hidden in their residence, in their vehicle, or on their person.
Maybe those kids and others mistrust and despise her because cops lie and like this lady, blame everyone else for her being an asshole.

[Henry Rogue]

May be good points if not for "arrogance" in itself being at the bottom of list of complaints about the current state of police.

You want to be arrogant and cocky, go ahead if it means you stop the real abuses.
Their arrogance feeds their abusive behavior. Could one be humble and abusive?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You are ten times more likely to be killed by cop than by a terrorist.

Do not call cops.

You have probably seen this research. It indicates that--excluding Sept. 11--500 people in the U.S. died from terrorist attacks between 1970-2000.

http://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/announcements/BackgroundReport_10YearsSince9_11.pdf


You're more likely to drown in your bathtub.

And the DO NOT CALL THE POLICE advice can't be repeated enough. Sound piece of advice if there ever was one.

[RJB]

Why are they A-holes? Besides the fact that profession attracts them, the real reason is they can get away with it.

Most people would love to tell a disrespectful client to FO. Most people would love to hit someone who gives them a hard time when there is trouble in their personal life. However most people can't, cops can.

Add to the fact they get off on handcuffing other men, tasing, shooting... it's a dangerous combo.

When I was a firefighter, a lot of us were adrenal junkies, but we believed in helping people. A lot of cops are sociopaths who are adrenal junkies. There were two vol. firefighters who were training to be deputies in the county jail. The two were bragging about how they would get to handcuff people in a couple days. They were going on for a few minutes and the other firefighters were looking away disgusted. I finally had enough and asked, "What kind of "man" fantasizes about handcuffing other men?" The whole station erupted in laughter and the two cop wannabes shut up.

But the answer is they are sociopaths without a leash.

[Anti Federalist]

You have probably seen this research. It indicates that--excluding Sept. 11--500 people in the U.S. died from terrorist attacks between 1970-2000.

http://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/announcements/BackgroundReport_10YearsSince9_11.pdf


You're more likely to drown in your bathtub.

And the DO NOT CALL THE POLICE advice can't be repeated enough. Sound piece of advice if there ever was one.

The ratio used to be eight to one, I raised it to ten to one, but I still think that is being conservative.

[CaptUSA]

This is actually a pretty honest look into the mind of the police. This is why the problems we have exist. Up until that last paragraph, I agreed with nearly every word.

It was like this author worked really hard to identify the cause of the problem, but then just suggested we all just accept that problem. Nothing about trying to stop what's causing the problem.

The increase in reliance on a external source to solve people's answer leads to this class of people. It's the way the police state grows itself. Because the problem just keeps getting worse and worse.

[kcchiefs6465]

This is actually a pretty honest look into the mind of the police. This is why the problems we have exist. Up until that last paragraph, I agreed with nearly every word.

It was like this author worked really hard to identify the cause of the problem, but then just suggested we all just accept that problem. Nothing about trying to stop what's causing the problem.

The increase in reliance on a external source to solve people's answer leads to this class of people. It's the way the police state grows itself. Because the problem just keeps getting worse and worse.
Someone who believes they have the authority, or even moral duty to stop someone, go through their pockets, person, or property, and cage them for a substance is so far gone I cannot even imagine their thought process. To speak of 'contraband' and miss the obvious analogy of this being a police state, while then advocating for an understanding (from the people being oppressed) of their superior demeanor and disrespectful tone, while missing the obvious concept that what they are harassing people for (and subsequently putting their lives in danger for) are not usually crimes, takes a particularly dense, brainwashed, or sociopathic jackboot.

I understand what you are saying. I don't think the world understands what he is saying.

[pcosmar]

— not that a social equilibrium needs to be maintained, but that a situation needs to be quickly and efficiently brought back under control.

AND THERE IT IS.

Police are Control.. Enforcers of Control.

Further proof that Police (the very concept of police) should not exist in a free society.

The idea that common (honest) men need to be controlled is an Elitist Authoritarian position.

Do not Call them. Do not support them.. and do everything in your power to eliminate them from society.
They are a Pox.

[Henry Rogue]

This is actually a pretty honest look into the mind of the police. This is why the problems we have exist. Up until that last paragraph, I agreed with nearly every word.

It was like this author worked really hard to identify the cause of the problem, but then just suggested we all just accept that problem. Nothing about trying to stop what's causing the problem.

The increase in reliance on a external source to solve people's answer leads to this class of people. It's the way the police state grows itself. Because the problem just keeps getting worse and worse.
Not I, I see an article full of excuses, blaming everyone else for her behavior. Put it in the perspective of a relationship and Dr. Phil would have brow beat her and made a remark about her thought process that would have elicited the laughter of the audience. Her behavior comes from unchecked power.

[CaptUSA]

Not I, I see an article full of excuses, blaming everyone else for her behavior. Put it in the prospective of a relationship and Dr. Phil would have brow beat her and made a remark about her thought process that would have elicited the laughter of the audience. Her behavior comes from unchecked power.

Oh, I didn't say I agreed with it as a justification. Just that I agreed with a police officer being honest about the way they see things. If you viewed the world through the lens that they do, then it is easy to predict their behavior. They are the enforcers of the ruling class.

[Henry Rogue]

What's funny about this article is that it is nothing new. I read a very similar article about two and a half decades ago in a Reader's Digest. Probably the last time I ever read one of those rags. The cop was going on about the dangers he faced everytime he pulled someone over and that they should except his force with a pleasant and respectful attitude. Be nice to your master when he violates you, he only doing his job.

[fisharmor]

Not I, I see an article full of excuses, blaming everyone else for her behavior.

Every single excuse they use was already put to test.

I encourage everybody to be able to recite these by number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

I had two cops actually recite the reason for principle 4 almost word for word at me last month.

[Henry Rogue]

Every single excuse they use was already put to test.

I encourage everybody to be able to recite these by number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

I had two cops actually recite the reason for principle 4 almost word for word at me last month.
Lyrics from "Rain on the Scarecrow".

He said John it's just my job and I hope you understand
Hey calling it your job ol' hoss sure don't make it right

[KCIndy]

Wow.

Getting access to the deepest thoughts of a statist is...

NAUSEATING.



Further than this, when she gets to the scene of many to most of these 911 calls, she encounters people who seek to frustrate her endeavors. She talks to witnesses who lie in circles about not seeing anything. She talks to suspects who lie about where they'd just been or what they were just doing. She talks to drunk people who can't coordinate themselves and won't remember what she said in ten minutes' time. She talks to addicts who try to conceal the fact that they're high even though involuntary tics have consumed their body. She talks to grade school kids and teenagers who have been conditioned to mistrust or despise police. She talks to people who lie about their identity because they have warrants or because they just want to frustrate her. She talks to people who act nervous and take too long to answer simple questions, raising her suspicions. She talks to people who have drugs, guns, knives, and any manner of other contraband hidden in their residence, in their vehicle, or on their person.


So...

Of everything listed above, of all the "social horrors" imagined by this officer, can someone - anyone - tell me WHICH ONE OF THESE ALLEGED "CRIMES" ACTUALLY INVOLVES A VICTIM???

Everything listed is nothing more than a Thought Crime or Crime Against the State. Nothing in that list has done anything to hurt anyone. A guy has a knife - or drugs - in his pocket? Other than upsetting the State, what's the crime? A person is lying to the cop? The cops are sanctioned by the state to lie to everyone else. A person is high on drugs? Who is he hurting other than perhaps himself?

Someone can be walking along, minding his own business, only to be confronted by an aggressive, overbearing thug who is going to assume the person is guilty until he can prove his innocence on the spot. And if the cop doesn't like the answers given? The guy is locked into iron manacles and thrown into a steel cage, likely after a good roughing up.

And cops wonder why people dislike them? C'mon. It's easy to understand.

It isn't uncommon for people to be afraid of monsters.

[heavenlyboy34]

AND THERE IT IS.

Police are Control.. Enforcers of Control.

Further proof that Police (the very concept of police) should not exist in a free society.

The idea that common (honest) men need to be controlled is an Elitist Authoritarian position.

Do not Call them. Do not support them.. and do everything in your power to eliminate them from society.
They are a Pox.
Yup. But Boobus Americanus wants a "safe" society-not a free one. As long as Boobus continues to comprise the vast majority of the population, it will remain this way.

[pcosmar]

Yup. But Boobus Americanus wants a "safe" society-not a free one. As long as Boobus continues to comprise the vast majority of the population, it will remain this way.

I would post a picture of flag waving patriotic crowds,, but I don't want to "Godwin" the thread.

[Christian Liberty]

This commenter has anti-police folks all figured out:

OK, so on the one hand this commentator (Not you Sean, the person you are quoting) says that cops are "exactly the same as other people" but on the other hand, the commentator doesn't realize that he's contradicting himself when he says the police have more power than everyone else.

Does this person even see their hypocrisy? I doubt it. Indoctrination runs deep indeed.

[Christian Liberty]

Why are they A-holes? Besides the fact that profession attracts them, the real reason is they can get away with it.

Most people would love to tell a disrespectful client to FO. Most people would love to hit someone who gives them a hard time when there is trouble in their personal life. However most people can't, cops can.

Add to the fact they get off on handcuffing other men, tasing, shooting... it's a dangerous combo.

When I was a firefighter, a lot of us were adrenal junkies, but we believed in helping people. A lot of cops are sociopaths who are adrenal junkies. There were two vol. firefighters who were training to be deputies in the county jail. The two were bragging about how they would get to handcuff people in a couple days. They were going on for a few minutes and the other firefighters were looking away disgusted. I finally had enough and asked, "What kind of "man" fantasizes about handcuffing other men?" The whole station erupted in laughter and the two cop wannabes shut up.

But the answer is they are sociopaths without a leash.

LOL! Great post, and so true. A person who abuses his authority with the power of the State behind him disgusts me far more than a common street murderer.

[Anti Federalist]

I would post a picture of flag waving patriotic crowds,, but I don't want to "Godwin" the thread.

Allow me, brother...

http://images.smh.com.au/2013/04/20/4207656/art-boston-thanks-620x349.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Yup. But Boobus Americanus wants a "safe" society-not a free one. As long as Boobus continues to comprise the vast majority of the population, it will remain this way.

Quite right...which is one of the reasons why I post the Dead Dog Daily stories.

My hope is that the thousands of readers and lurkers here every day that look but do not comment, come to the realization that having tens of thousands of hut hutting, amped up cops looking to kick ass, running amok every day are, in fact, making them less safe.

[Christian Liberty]

Allow me, brother...

http://images.smh.com.au/2013/04/20/4207656/art-boston-thanks-620x349.jpg

Yes, thank you very much for creating a system where you aren't actually obligated to do anything useful and yet you get paid off the backs of hard working Americans to imprison some of these same people who pay your paycheck for doing something that offended your god (the US government) yet did not actually threaten anyone else.

And, to those few police who may be well-intentioned, if you were downright offended by the above, or if you think you deserve "thanks" at even the same level as a free market entrepaneur who provides services voluntarily to those who willingly pay for them, your good intentions are misplaced at best and non-existent at worst. Christians in the police force need to return to their first love and stop serving two masters, which is exactly what they do when they enforce random edicts of the State even when non-cooperation does not harm anyone. See Matthew 25:46, and stop being like the Gentiles. Repent.

[Henry Rogue]

Check this out.
http://www.policedefense.org/blog/

How the LELDF Helped Me Save A Good Man From a Lifetime In Prison

[Anti Federalist]

But...but...but, Romans 13!


Yes, thank you very much for creating a system where you aren't actually obligated to do anything useful and yet you get paid off the backs of hard working Americans to imprison some of these same people who pay your paycheck for doing something that offended your god (the US government) yet did not actually threaten anyone else.

And, to those few police who may be well-intentioned, if you were downright offended by the above, or if you think you deserve "thanks" at even the same level as a free market entrepaneur who provides services voluntarily to those who willingly pay for them, your good intentions are misplaced at best and non-existent at worst. Christians in the police force need to return to their first love and stop serving two masters, which is exactly what they do when they enforce random edicts of the State even when non-cooperation does not harm anyone. See Matthew 25:46, and stop being like the Gentiles. Repent.

[kcchiefs6465]

But...but...but, Romans 13!
smGDh.

[tod evans]

Lyrics from "Rain on the Scarecrow".


He said John it's just my job and I hope you understand
Hey calling it your job ol' hoss sure don't make it right

For those who haven't heard........Or those who are appreciative;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joNzRzZhR2Y&feature=kp

[Anti Federalist]

For those who haven't heard........Or those who are appreciative;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joNzRzZhR2Y&feature=kp


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV2jvngnvqg

Well we're waiting here in Allentown
For the Pennsylvania we never found
For the promises our teachers gave
If we worked hard
If we behaved.

Every child had a pretty good shot
To get at least as far as their old man got.
but something happened on the way to that place
They threw an American flag in our face, oh oh oh.

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/iX3yF2R.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkg24rXvvss

Now I drive my Downeaster Alexa
More and more miles from shore every year
Since they tell me I can't sell no stripers
And there's no luck in swordfishing here

I was a bayman like my father was before
Can't make a living as a bayman anymore
There ain't much future for a man who works the sea
But there ain't no island left for islanders like me

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Hey calling it your job ol' hoss sure don't make it right


I never caught that line from the Scarecrow song. I remember it from the movie Cool Hand Luke.

The Mellencamp song Lonely Ol' Night was also inspired from a line in another Paul Newman movie, Hud.

Wonder if he has some others?

[Christian Liberty]

But...but...but, Romans 13!

I believe Paul knew what he was talking about when he wrote Romans 13, but I don't think there are very many Christians who know what Paul was talking about when he wrote Romans 13.

Think about the society Paul lived in. Think about the culture he was in. Think about how Jesus handled tax collectors in that society. Jesus agreed with the religious leaders at that time that tax collectors were sinners and that the agents of the Roman government were oppressive. The point at which he disagreed was not the sinfulness of these people, but the way that sinners should be treated in general. Paul, too, grew up under that same oppressive Roman government. Paul knew it was evil every bit as much as any other Jew during that time period. I'd say even more so in the light of Romans 12:18, which doesn't allow for aggression.

I like this blog post by C Jay Engel about Romans 13: http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/philosophy/the-obligatory-post-on-romans-13/ . You may find one or two points you don't agree with, but I think the posts shows that you can deal with Romans 13 in such a way that has a high regard for the infallibility of the Bible without reading a bunch of statist nonsense into the text that isn't there. C Jay is my favorite blogger on the internet that I am currently familiar with.

[Christian Liberty]

smGDh.
At the risk of sounding stupid, what does that abbreviation mean?

[kcchiefs6465]

At the risk of sounding stupid, what does that abbreviation mean?
SMH is an abbreviation for 'shaking my head.'

[Anti Federalist]

I believe Paul knew what he was talking about when he wrote Romans 13, but I don't think there are very many Christians who know what Paul was talking about when he wrote Romans 13.

Think about the society Paul lived in. Think about the culture he was in. Think about how Jesus handled tax collectors in that society. Jesus agreed with the religious leaders at that time that tax collectors were sinners and that the agents of the Roman government were oppressive. The point at which he disagreed was not the sinfulness of these people, but the way that sinners should be treated in general. Paul, too, grew up under that same oppressive Roman government. Paul knew it was evil every bit as much as any other Jew during that time period. I'd say even more so in the light of Romans 12:18, which doesn't allow for aggression.

I like this blog post by C Jay Engel about Romans 13: http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/philosophy/the-obligatory-post-on-romans-13/ . You may find one or two points you don't agree with, but I think the posts shows that you can deal with Romans 13 in such a way that has a high regard for the infallibility of the Bible without reading a bunch of statist nonsense into the text that isn't there. C Jay is my favorite blogger on the internet that I am currently familiar with.

I'll take a look, thanks.

Personally, I think Paul was full of shit.


3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

That verse is bullshit today, just as much as it was then. Innocent people of all sorts have much to fear and are routinely oppressed by government.

Furthermore, Paul is a hypocrite.

If he truly believed that one should always submit to authority because it is God's will, then he never should have escaped from the "authorities" in Damascus.

The other disciples were right to be wary of him.

[Christian Liberty]

I'll take a look, thanks.

Personally, I think Paul was full of shit.



That verse is bullshit today, just as much as it was then. Innocent people of all sorts have much to fear and are routinely oppressed by government.

Furthermore, Paul is a hypocrite.

If he truly believed that one should always submit to authority because it is God's will, then he never should have escaped from the "authorities" in Damascus.

The other disciples were right to be wary of him.

Is what Paul said in Romans 13:1-7 really much different than what Peter said in 1 Peter 2:13-17?

You take Paul's fleeing from the Roman government as proof that Paul was full of crap. I take that very same thing as proof that Paul does not mean what he is generally taken to mean at face value. Erowe1's posts on this topic have been very helpful to me, and one of the points that he gets at is that Paul deliberately writes the passage in such a way that the Roman spies who were inevitably reading his letter would interpret it differently (in a much more pro-state way) than his actual audience would interpret it. Keep in mind that, for all the NUMEROUS tyrannies of the US government, you can still theoretically and in practice often "bad-mouth" them without getting arrested. That wasn't the case in Rome. Paul had to be subtle. Not only did he have to be subtle, but his subtlety was consistent with what he was actually teaching in that passage. Be careful when deciding to disobey the State, because it could tarnish your witness before the world, and the State carries a big sword that it can use against you. It doesn't bear it in vain, if the State tries to kill you it will probably succeed, so be careful.

Now, I understand that if you take Romans 13 all by itself, without the rest of the Bible, the passage seems to be an endorsement for statism. But in the cultural context and in the context of the rest of the Bible, I don't think it was. I'd say the same about 1 Peter 2 (which God may have ensured was in scripture JUST so people couldn't do the "its just Paul" thing with a straight face:))

[otherone]

But...but...but, Romans 13!

How convenient for the State that it's people choose a lamb as their role model?

http://scpeanutgallery.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lamb-of-god-stained-glass.jpg

[pcosmar]

Is what Paul said in Romans 13:1-7 really much different than what Peter said in 1 Peter 2:13-17?


Except that this is the United States of America.. WE have no King. We have no Authorities. We have a Constitution. At least we are not supposed to have rulers,, and anyone who claims authority over another human has usurped that authority.

Our Founders were wise and God fearing Men. They put limits on Government and gave authority to the people.
WE are the authority,, Each man a King. This is what makes us different from every other country ever formed.

They knew where rulers really come from.


Luke 4:5-7

5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

[pcosmar]

How convenient for the State that it's people choose a lamb as their role model?


He was a lamb for that purpose.. and that purpose is long past.

He will return as a Lion. And as King.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3184/2538937394_320f18ac00_b.jpg

[Cissy]

I believe Paul knew what he was talking about when he wrote Romans 13, but I don't think there are very many Christians who know what Paul was talking about when he wrote Romans 13.

Think about the society Paul lived in. Think about the culture he was in. Think about how Jesus handled tax collectors in that society. Jesus agreed with the religious leaders at that time that tax collectors were sinners and that the agents of the Roman government were oppressive. The point at which he disagreed was not the sinfulness of these people, but the way that sinners should be treated in general. Paul, too, grew up under that same oppressive Roman government. Paul knew it was evil every bit as much as any other Jew during that time period. I'd say even more so in the light of Romans 12:18, which doesn't allow for aggression.

I like this blog post by C Jay Engel about Romans 13: http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/philosophy/the-obligatory-post-on-romans-13/ . You may find one or two points you don't agree with, but I think the posts shows that you can deal with Romans 13 in such a way that has a high regard for the infallibility of the Bible without reading a bunch of statist nonsense into the text that isn't there. C Jay is my favorite blogger on the internet that I am currently familiar with.

Thanks for the link. Reading.

[Christian Liberty]

Except that this is the United States of America.. WE have no King. We have no Authorities. We have a Constitution. At least we are not supposed to have rulers,, and anyone who claims authority over another human has usurped that authority.

Our Founders were wise and God fearing Men. They put limits on Government and gave authority to the people.
WE are the authority,, Each man a King. This is what makes us different from every other country ever formed.

They knew where rulers really come from.


Luke 4:5-7

OK, I hear you, but I don't see how this changes my point... which was that Paul actually did know what he was talking about, that he wasn't full of crap, and that its actually people that take the verses out of the context of the rest of the Bible that are full of crap.

Thanks for the link. Reading.

Your welcome. I just want to advise AF and those who are of his persuasion, please DO NOT use the "Paul is full of crap" argument on any non-libertarian evangelical or fundamentalist Christian. If you can't argue it any other way, leave it to people like C Jay to convince them, because you'll completely turn them off to our positions if they think they have to diminish the inerrancy of scripture in order to support liberty.

[pcosmar]

, and that its actually people that take the verses out of the context of the rest of the Bible that are full of crap.



Actually I try to keep Paul in context. He was a Pharisee,, Steeped and trained all his life in the LAW. Even though he was saved on the road to Damascus,, he was what he was.
Just as many today raised in Churches and in errors may still be believers,,and yet not understand some simple truths.

The only purpose of the LAW was to prove that no one could keep it.. ever.. (Until Christ, and he alone)

Satan runs the Governments of this world. He was cast to this earth,, he walks to and fro,, and he gives power to whom he wills. It is in his hand to do so.
Paul did not understand this. Or at least it seems he did not when he wrote that.

[Christian Liberty]

Actually I try to keep Paul in context. He was a Pharisee,, Steeped and trained all his life in the LAW. Even though he was saved on the road to Damascus,, he was what he was.
Just as many today raised in Churches and in errors may still be believers,,and yet not understand some simple truths.

The only purpose of the LAW was to prove that no one could keep it.. ever.. (Until Christ, and he alone)

Satan runs the Governments of this world. He was cast to this earth,, he walks to and fro,, and he gives power to whom he wills. It is in his hand to do so.
Paul did not understand this. Or at least it seems he did not when he wrote that.


In contrast to this is 2 Timothy 3:16. ALL scripture is God breathed, including Romans 13. I simply don't believe Paul was saying what most people think he was saying. Paul understood that the Roman government was evil.

[phill4paul]

AAAaaand another religion forum bleed over...SMDH.

[pcosmar]

AAAaaand another religion forum bleed over...SMDH.

Sorry bout that,, it is unintentional.. but my politics and my faith are intertwined.

I oppose evil,, even when it takes physical form.

[pcosmar]

If that is the case than I damn well will report. There is a forum for it. Keep it there. And to make the point clear in every post I make I will specifically state that I want NO religious discussion in that thread. If you can't self-regulate.

Back on track then.
Police should NOT exist. The very concept of Police should not exist in a free society.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

[ClydeCoulter]

Back on track then.
Police should NOT exist. The very concept of Police should not exist in a free society.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

And that brings us back to a post by @SeanTX made about a comment on the article,


The cynical losers on this site can't handle that other people legitimately have more power than them.

No, they should not have more power. They have the same authority as anyone else, otherwise the people could not authorize it. Their power is that they are paid to do it continuously as opposed to having to work as a teacher, or carpenter and watch their backs and those of other at the same time.

[phill4paul]

Back on track then.
Police should NOT exist. The very concept of Police should not exist in a free society.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Thank you for posting that. I agree with it and that treatise should be disseminated by everyone on this forum.

And for the record my comment to FF was not directed towards you. I just don't want to see every post on this site turn into a religious discussion. That is all. I hope that we can find some agreement on this.

[Nirvikalpa]

All first-responders (fire and EMS) do that and more, and most of us remember our oaths and still manage to treat people with respect - especially those people who tend to not get any respect from society (and especially cops). This includes the drug-addicted, prostitutes and strippers, those with mental disorders, gang members... etc, etc, who were even described in the above article.

They're under stress - I get it. So are surgeons, nurses, financial advisors, CEOs, bricklayers, mechanics, stay-at-home moms & dads, and nearly everyone else out there. Stop making excuses for their behavior. People see the same or worse than they do.

[phill4paul]

All first-responders (fire and EMS) do that and more, and most of us remember our oaths and still manage to treat people with respect - especially those people who tend to not get any respect from society (and especially cops). This includes the drug-addicted, prostitutes and strippers, those with mental disorders, gang members... etc, etc, who were even described in the above article.

They're under stress - I get it. So are surgeons, nurses, financial advisors, CEOs, bricklayers, mechanics, stay-at-home moms & dads, and nearly everyone else out there. Stop making excuses for their behavior. People see the same or worse than they do.

Amazing that first responders don't have to resort to tasers on every call. Hell, y'all should be outfitted in Type III body armor and carry HK's. I've known first responders. I've heard the stories they tell. A damn site worse daily than most cops could claim in a lifetime. Funny how you seem to be able to work through it and cops cannot.

[osan]

Good grief... my masochism is waxing, so I guess I will open the can a wee bit.


Think about the interactions you have on a daily basis:

IOW, oh how lucky is the mundane who, unlike the po' po' noble cop, has life on a silver platter.

Snipped set up for later whinging.


Now, think about the workday of a police officer.

I'd rather be set on fire.


Her job assignments

Oh sweet Jesus... what in hell is this crap? OK, so I'm supposed to take as credible the writings of someone who doesn't even know the proper third-person pronoun in what is presumably his first language?


but that a situation needs to be quickly and efficiently brought back under control.

Note the glaring omission of "properly".


...she encounters people who seek to frustrate her endeavors.

"She" gwyne start up crying now?


She talks to witnesses who lie in circles about not seeing anything.

And this is a problem because... ??? The tacit implications here, of course, are several including that what cops do is inherently benign, inherently right, inherently authoritative, and that they are entitled to cooperation.


She talks to suspects who lie about where they'd just been or what they were just doing. She talks to drunk people who can't coordinate themselves and won't remember what she said in ten minutes' time. She talks to addicts who try to conceal the fact that they're high even though involuntary tics have consumed their body.

Oh, the humanity!


She talks to grade school kids and teenagers who have been conditioned to mistrust or despise police.

And of course we all know there is no legitimate basis for their mistrust. None at tall, so move along people...


She talks to people who act nervous and take too long to answer simple questions

Well, that cinches it... they MUST be guilty.


raising her suspicions.

Yes, because she is profoundly psychopathological.


She talks to people who have drugs, guns, knives, and any manner of other contraband hidden in their residence, in their vehicle, or on their person.

So now guns and knives are universally contraband?


Now consider that the officer is doing this many times per shift — 10, 20, maybe more — encounters every day. She will quickly learn that, in order to get anything accomplished with these liars and obstructionists, she is going to have to employ tactics that in any other field would be unacceptable.

Holy shit... the money shot. Note how people minding their own business, perhaps unwilling to get involved due to fright, or who are otherwise acting within the limits of their rights are "obstructionists", painting them with such cheap innuendo as criminals. And "she" (God I hate that usage... it is SO shamefully ignorant), as the "real victim" in all this, is forced to do these unacceptable things. It sounds a bit like rape.


She is going to have to be blunt, brusque and curt. She's going to have to call bluffs and smokescreens and BS. She's going to have to interrupt rambling, circular explanations. She's going to have to look people in the eye and say, "We both know that you're lying to me right now."

And if she keeps that shit up, she's going to have to get shot sooner or later.


And through it all, she will begin to develop the opposite assumption from the freshly roused partner and the guy at the water cooler — work interactions are not among peers, and people are likely not worthy of implicit trust.


I have news for this pantywaist: NOBODY strange to you is worthy of implicit trust. That doesn't mean I go around shooting everyone with whom I come into contact, but sometimes that is precisely what cops do - and they skate just about every time.


Now, let's take a step back. You, the partner and/or co-worker, interprets the response of this police officer through the lens of your expectations, and judge her to be arrogant.

And dangerously deranged, and posing a very real threat to my life, limb, and property. There's a LOT of precedent for this.


I mean, after all, she's acting all distant and aloof and snobby, right? However, your assessment is based on your interaction in a vacuum, and likely doesn't factor in much of anything I just said. That doesn't mean either one of you is "wrong." You're coming from different places.



Oh no no no... I'm not wrong. "She" is wrong. "She" is a lunatic with a badge, gun, and very nearly zero accountability.


In closing, I'd bid you to be forgiving.

And minimally intelligent adults bid you take your whiny bullshit and go screw yourself with it.



This officer cannot afford to give people the benefit of the doubt, because there are only so many people you can relax your guard around in her line of work before she gets herself or someone else hurt or killed. Be gracious to her, for her burden is great.
For pity's sake, what a load. I bet "she" was all teary-eyed when "she" wrote this. Girly-man cop. <--- Department of Redundancy Department.

[Christian Liberty]

I pretended like the word "she" was intended for mockery. Made it easier to read:p

[phill4paul]

Good grief... my masochism is waxing, so I guess I will open the can a wee bit.



IOW, oh how lucky is the mundane who, unlike the po' po' noble cop, has life on a silver platter.

Snipped set up for later whinging.



I'd rather be set on fire.



Oh sweet Jesus... what in hell is this crap? OK, so I'm supposed to take as credible the writings of someone who doesn't even know the proper third-person pronoun in what is presumably his first language?



Note the glaring omission of "properly".



"She" gwyne start up crying now?



And this is a problem because... ??? The tacit implication here, of course, are several including that what cops do is inherently benign, inherently right, inherenty authoritative, and that they are entitled to honest cooperation.



Oh, the humanity!



And of course we all know there is no legitimate basis for their mistrust. None at tall, so move along people...



Well that cinches it... they MUST be guilty.



Yes, because she is profoundly psychopathological.



So now guns and knives are universally contraband?



Holy shit... the money shot. Note how people minding their own business, perhaps unwilling to get involved due to fright, or who are otherwise acting within the limits of their rights are "obstructionists", painting them with such cheap innuendo as criminals at heart. And "she" (God I hate that usage... it is SO shamefully ignorant) is, of course and as the "real victim" in all this, forced to do these unacceptable things. It sounds a bit like rape.



and if she keeps that shit up, she's going to have to get shot sooner or later.

And through it all, she will begin to develop the opposite assumption from the freshly roused partner and the guy at the water cooler — work interactions are not among peers, and people are likely not worthy of implicit trust.




And dangerously deranged, and posing a very real threat to my life, limb, and property. There's a LOT of precedent for this.



Oh no no no... I'm not wrong. "She" is wrong. "She" is a lunatic with a badge, gun, and very nearly zero accountability.



And minimally intelligent adults bid you take your whiny bullshit and go screw yourself with it.




For pity's sake, what a load. Be "she" was all teary-eyed when "she" wrote this. Girly-man cop. <--- Department of Redundancy Department.


Take a bow and I will throw roses at your feet. Well done.

[pcosmar]

I pretended like the word "she" was intended for mockery. Made it easier to read:p

No,, The man (and I use that word loosely) was using "she".. likely as a tool for sympathy.

And I agree with Osan.

and if she keeps that shit up, she's going to have to get shot sooner or later.

It is getting to the point that it would be wise to just shoot first at any contact with these criminals.

[jtap]

...
This officer cannot afford to give people the benefit of the doubt...

Presumed guilty at first contact; sounds like a great reason to never be in contact.

2505

[phill4paul]

Presumed guilty at first contact; sounds like a great reason to never be in contact.

2505

"Innocent until proven guilty"

http://media.giphy.com/media/vVOzj1yQ1LScE/giphy.gif

http://media1.giphy.com/media/q4BOGFShEXcCk/giphy.gif

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/165650/laughing-o.gif

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1660106/larry-david-laughter-o.gif

[PaulConventionWV]

Is assuming the feminine a new thing now? I've been seeing more of this lately and it irks the hell out of me, not because I despise women, but because it's an obvious attempt to "sway the balance" toward the feminine in order to be politically correct.

[PaulConventionWV]

"See what you awful people make me do? O', how I suffer in the day to day performance of my patriotic duty." - Hauptsturmführer Friendly

Freundlich, in case you were looking for the German equivalent of friendly.

[Nirvikalpa]

Is assuming the feminine a new thing now? I've been seeing more of this lately and it irks the hell out of me, not because I despise women, but because it's an obvious attempt to "sway the balance" toward the feminine in order to be politically correct.

I don't know if it's as much to be "politically correct," as it is to sway the reader towards sympathy/empathy that it may not grasp with using masculine words (as they've been used for years and hatred towards cops has only increased).

[PaulConventionWV]

I'll take a look, thanks.

Personally, I think Paul was full of shit.



That verse is bullshit today, just as much as it was then. Innocent people of all sorts have much to fear and are routinely oppressed by government.

Furthermore, Paul is a hypocrite.

If he truly believed that one should always submit to authority because it is God's will, then he never should have escaped from the "authorities" in Damascus.

The other disciples were right to be wary of him.

The fact that he escaped authorities in Damascus leads me to believe he did NOT mean submit to all authority. Doing what is right is not necessarily doing what government tells you to do.

[Philhelm]

But...but...but, Romans 13!

"Suffer not the government to exist."
-Philhelm 1:1

[CaptUSA]

I don't know if it's as much to be "politically correct," as it is to sway the reader towards sympathy/empathy that it may not grasp with using masculine words (as they've been used for years and hatred towards cops has only increased).Agreed. Kinda like putting lipstick on a pig, amirite?

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't know if it's as much to be "politically correct," as it is to sway the reader towards sympathy/empathy that it may not grasp with using masculine words (as they've been used for years and hatred towards cops has only increased).

I honestly don't see the difference. Using the masculine for a long time is completely independent of the rise in hatred toward cops. Assuming the masculine and hatred toward cops are mutually exclusive concepts.

Also, it feels kinda funny having a conversation with the person who has my post in her sig even though she now knows it was obvious sarcasm. Not that I particularly care what you do, but it makes you look ridiculous.

[AuH20]

I agree with the premise of this article. Law enforcement is a position riddled with negativity. With that said, this reality still doesn't excuse an officer from suspending their thought process and indiscriminately lashing out at every citizen that they come across.

[Nirvikalpa]

I honestly don't see the difference. Using the masculine for a long time is completely independent of the rise in hatred toward cops. Assuming the masculine and hatred toward cops are mutually exclusive concepts.

Also, it feels kinda funny having a conversation with the person who has my post in her sig even though she now knows it was obvious sarcasm. Not that I particularly care what you do, but it makes you look ridiculous.

You sure do bring it up a lot - probably because you know it makes yourself look ridiculous. You're free to have whatever thoughts you want, and to make whatever ridiculous comments you want (as truth or as sarcasm - so long as Bryan sees it fits within the guidelines of his website), and I am free to quote them for their ridiculousness. If I do look ridiculous... that's fine.

You're also free to not engage the person you see as ridiculous into ridiculous conversations, or to reply to my posts :)

[osan]

Freundlich, in case you were looking for the German equivalent of friendly.

Ja ja, aber er is nicht freundlich. Er ist pure Scheißdreck und sehr gefährlich.

[osan]

I don't know if it's as much to be "politically correct," as it is to sway the reader towards sympathy/empathy that it may not grasp with using masculine words (as they've been used for years and hatred towards cops has only increased).

I'd have to differ with you on this.

Firstly, "he" is the proper third-person pronoun. If you are not referring to a specific person of the feminine persuasion, the proper or noun is "he". Secondly, it is NOT of masculine gender. English no longer has the character of noun-gender, which was lost centuries ago. Just about the only remnant of noun declension left to English is "whom", indicating the genitive case. There is no such thing as accusative, nominative, dative, locative, instrumental, and so on in English, though there used to be, save the lowly genitive fragment of "whom", which within another generation will also be gone, I am sad to say.

Thirdly, he is either powerfully ignorant (I vote that up) or he is disingenuous in his use of "she" (I vote that up, too). If you wan t credibility, try beginning with proper language usage. Either this donk is ignorant such that he has no credibility, or he is not forthright and fails equally. Either way, he is a dick.

[pcosmar]

Either way, he is a dick.

I actually looked him up.. and I will agree with your assessment.

[Nirvikalpa]

I'd have to differ with you on this.

Firstly, "he" is the proper third-person pronoun. If you are not referring to a specific person of the feminine persuasion, the proper or noun is "he". Secondly, it is NOT of masculine gender. English no longer has the character of noun-gender, which was lost centuries ago. Just about the only remnant of noun declension left to English is "whom", indicating the genitive case. There is no such thing as accusative, nominative, dative, locative, instrumental, and so on in English, though there used to be, save the lowly genitive fragment of "whom", which within another generation will also be gone, I am sad to say.

Thirdly, he is either powerfully ignorant (I vote that up) or he is disingenuous in his use of "she" (I vote that up, too). If you wan t credibility, try beginning with proper language usage. Either this donk is ignorant such that he has no credibility, or he is not forthright and fails equally. Either way, he is a dick.

I agree with you... except he is not reaching out to English scholars; he is reaching out to the typical American idiot.

[pcosmar]

I agree with you... except he is not reaching out to English scholars; he is reaching out to the typical American idiot.


Justin Freeman
Public Safety at Missouri State University; former pastor and police officer

He has has some "education".

And is posting this, (and other Crap) in Quora

Sign up to read Quora.
Quora is your best source for knowledge.

[fisharmor]

Firstly, "he" is the proper third-person pronoun. If you are not referring to a specific person of the feminine persuasion, the proper or noun is "he". Secondly, it is NOT of masculine gender. English no longer has the character of noun-gender, which was lost centuries ago.
I think the issue is that people don't realize that gender doesn't mean what they've been programmed to think it means.
It's a feature of grammar and does not say anything about the sex of the subject. Of course, that's the reason why it's used now: because everyone wants to avoid talking about the sex of individuals. But gender - the grammatical (correct) use of gender - also doesn't address how particular words self-identify (the ostensible purpose of using it instead of sex when referring to people) so the word has been horribly misappropriated.

When we use "he" for an unknown sex subject we are using gender in its correct sense and making no judgment call on the subject at all, any more than Germans are when they refer to foreskins with feminine gender.


Just about the only remnant of noun declension left to English is "whom", indicating the genitive case.
'Whom' is used for objects as opposed to subjects. Genitive implies possessive. How is it associated with genitive?

[Christian Liberty]

No,, The man (and I use that word loosely) was using "she".. likely as a tool for sympathy.


Yes, I'm aware. I was mostly joking.



And I agree with Osan.


It is getting to the point that it would be wise to just shoot first at any contact with these criminals.

I don't recommend it, but I see your point. I don't think that would really help though, after all you'd just end up in jail for life or being executed. It would take a lot for that to be worthwhile, but it could happen.

"Suffer not the government to exist."
-Philhelm 1:1

Try 1 Samuel 8:7.

[osan]

I agree with you... except he is not reaching out to English scholars; he is reaching out to the typical American idiot.


There, my dear, you are on the money. And I suppose he has met with some success... much to my chagrin.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ja ja, aber er is nicht freundlich. Er ist pure Scheißdreck und sehr gefährlich.

Ja, ich mach nur Spaß.

[PaulConventionWV]

You sure do bring it up a lot - probably because you know it makes yourself look ridiculous. You're free to have whatever thoughts you want, and to make whatever ridiculous comments you want (as truth or as sarcasm - so long as Bryan sees it fits within the guidelines of his website), and I am free to quote them for their ridiculousness. If I do look ridiculous... that's fine.

You're also free to not engage the person you see as ridiculous into ridiculous conversations, or to reply to my posts :)

I simply don't understand why you would ridicule something that wasn't meant to be serious in the first place. It's very odd.

And for the record, I'm honestly not offended by it, it's just that it's a cheap shot you use in place of a real argument. Anyone who posts other people's posts in their sigs is using dirty tactics to lure a response and then call out the subject of the ridicule for being insecure about it. Suddenly, just because you put it in your sig, I'm protesting because I don't like the exposure, not just because I disagree with your characterization of what I said.

I'm actually just responding to point out your low-down tactics. I don't think what I said is ridiculous at all.

[PaulConventionWV]

I agree with you... except he is not reaching out to English scholars; he is reaching out to the typical American idiot.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_uujKuJMI

I've seen this used in scholarly books, too. It's not just him.

[Philhelm]

I think the issue is that people don't realize that gender doesn't mean what they've been programmed to think it means.
It's a feature of grammar and does not say anything about the sex of the subject. Of course, that's the reason why it's used now: because everyone wants to avoid talking about the sex of individuals. But gender - the grammatical (correct) use of gender - also doesn't address how particular words self-identify (the ostensible purpose of using it instead of sex when referring to people) so the word has been horribly misappropriated.

When we use "he" for an unknown sex subject we are using gender in its correct sense and making no judgment call on the subject at all, any more than Germans are when they refer to foreskins with feminine gender.


'Whom' is used for objects as opposed to subjects. Genitive implies possessive. How is it associated with genitive?

I'm confused. Someone needs to post a picture of the Genderbread Person for clarification.

[pcosmar]

I'm confused. Someone needs to post a picture of the Genderbread Person for clarification.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1342634523/29143_398936127756_604702756_4724739_1592028_n.jpg

[RickyJ]

The simple reason police have a bad reputation is because they have earned it. I know of very few people who don't think lowly of cops. They do not serve and protect us, that is for sure.

[osan]

I think the issue is that people don't realize that gender doesn't mean what they've been programmed to think it means.
It's a feature of grammar and does not say anything about the sex of the subject.

This is 100% correct and I categorically refuse to use "gender" in the incorrect manner. I will probably die as the last human on earth to have held out on this.

One of the things that irk me is when the nincompoops refer to "transgender" in lieu of "transexual", which itself is a misnomer that became popular with all the psycho-babble bullshit about sex being a psychological phenomenon and not one of genetic anatomy. What ass-scratching idiocy. You can slice and dice your parts all you want - you are STILL a man or a woman. If you want to play opposite sex, that's OK with me, but do not think you are fooling anyone with an IQ >= to that of a boiled turnip by attempting to justify it with the claim that you are actually of the other sex. Nobody with a nominally functioning brain is buying it. This goes to the fact that such people feel in their heart of hearts that what they are doing is fucked up, so they have to come up with synthetic justifications, which I find quite droll give that these are usually the same people who go on endlessly about how anything they do is OK and doesn't need to be justified. But I greatly digress.


Of course, that's the reason why it's used now: because everyone wants to avoid talking about the sex of individuals. But gender - the grammatical (correct) use of gender - also doesn't address how particular words self-identify (the ostensible purpose of using it instead of sex when referring to people) so the word has been horribly misappropriated.

Agreed. The abuse of language is one of the key tools of modern tyrants.


When we use "he" for an unknown sex subject we are using gender in its correct sense and making no judgment call on the subject at all, any more than Germans are when they refer to foreskins with feminine gender.

And German is a great example of this because there is little rhyme or reason to the gender of a noun, which was one of the things I truly disliked about the language - the only thing, in fact, and I was almost native fluent in my teens.

Why is "heaven" masculine, while "dress" is neuter and "danger" is feminine? Makes my head hurt to this day to think about it.



'Whom' is used for objects as opposed to subjects. Genitive implies possessive. How is it associated with genitive?

Don't ask me - that is what I recall... hold on, let me look it up...

OK, feh... friggin' memory ain't what it once was... it's dative or objective, depending on usage. My bad. I would have sworn it was genitive, FTW. I'm not immediately seeing dative, but then again I was never a grammar expert, save in the design of programming languages, and those grammars are infinitely simpler and easier than those of the spoken tongues.

[Anti Federalist]

bump