Are Police for the most part good or bad?

[Xmara]

I’ll join back in this argument later. I’m on mobile and my internet connection is crap.

[Emulation White]

Law enforcement is inherently biased, it is a moral precedent applied universally, that is bias against those it punishes. Societies are capable of creating order without a third party, this is demonstrable by pre-law enforcement communities. We don't need to stop people from harming others on a systematic macro scale. There is no benefit to punishing as many "criminals" as we can; that is a waste of time, resources and genetic material. Societies can stabilize themselves, generally speaking.

In the absence of a justice system, that criminal is not going to get rehabbed, he is going to get killed.

I assume this an ethical point, I typically am not one to debate ethics and morals, but I appreciate the engagement so I will make an effort, bear with me. Hmm, but for those who are sent to prison, it further alienates them from society and I can confidently tell you prison hardens some types, helps them with networking and learning new skills applicable to their lifestyle. It also very difficult on the loved ones of the person. Ethically, I see the cycle as oscillating suffering between all parties involved, not to mention the tax payer who is financing the whole theatre of it.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

We need police, but we need police reform, and to end civil asset forfeiture abuse.

I keep seeing this "we NEED police". Why do we need police? There is no demonstrable benefit to slightly lower rates of violence. The police only damage natural gene pools by eliminating individuals with different traits and destroying people's self-responsibility and autonomy. Law enforcement is possibly the most unnecessary apparatus ever created.

Well, people deserve a basic form of protection against violent scumbags. If the gene pool suffers (and it probably won't), so be it.

[Emulation White]

It is absolutely not, please look this over if you feel inclined and we will go from there.

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/in ... evolution/

Oh joy, a “race realist” site.

I implore you to not be an idealogical soldier and instead be as detached and objective whilst analyzing the information as possible, please.

[Kernen]

The eugenics rant has really put a damper on what would otherwise be a fascinating conversation about individual guarantees of liberty and policing.

[Emulation White]

Yes, I am. It is a detriment. All that money could be put into education, economic development, etc. "Crime" also solves itself, the most anti-social types would most likely keep decreasing their presence in the gene pool because of their behavior. Whereas the rest would be diluted by being able to mix freely with "non-criminal" type people, thus benefiting society by giving birth to a population with a wider and more dynamic cognitive and genetic spectrum. Something biology loves is natural diversity, which is why evolution always seeks to have as much genetic variety in given populations as possible.

You know, in Sicily after WWII, the Mafia had a self propagating effect.

I'm not against that. My position isn't that my theory would eliminate "crime". If anything I just want to blur the lines, so we can have more diversity of physical bodies (criminals have more testosterone and less inclined to sexual disfunction as a result) and more cognitive diversity (more dynamic people who have the ability to see the world through a wider spectrum)

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Police are good, yes. If you don't have the political capital to change poverty or other reasons leading to crime, the more police, the better.

[Kowani]

You know, in Sicily after WWII, the Mafia had a self propagating effect.

I'm not against that. My position isn't that my theory would eliminate "crime". If anything I just want to blur the lines, so we can have more diversity of physical bodies (criminals have more testosterone and less inclined to sexual disfunction as a result) and more cognitive diversity (more dynamic people who have the ability to see the world through a wider spectrum)

Ignoring the point that neither cognitive diversity nor physical diversity are inherently good for a moment, that’s a terrible position for a society.

[Emulation White]

I keep seeing this "we NEED police". Why do we need police? There is no demonstrable benefit to slightly lower rates of violence. The police only damage natural gene pools by eliminating individuals with different traits and destroying people's self-responsibility and autonomy. Law enforcement is possibly the most unnecessary apparatus ever created.

Well, people deserve a basic form of protection against violent scumbags. If the gene pool suffers (and it probably won't), so be it.

A scientifically erroneous conclusion from an arbitrary moral perspective. So my counter is why do need a government financed apparatus for that? You could just find like minded individuals like yourself to enforce your morality if you are so committed to virulent hatred of naturally occuring types of humans.

[Emulation White]

The eugenics rant has really put a damper on what would otherwise be a fascinating conversation about individual guarantees of liberty and policing.

Nobody is inhibiting that discussion, do not blame me or anyone else for that.

[Scomagia]

The eugenics rant has really put a damper on what would otherwise be a fascinating conversation about individual guarantees of liberty and policing.

Yup. It's very sad.

Incidentally, for anyone who is curious, here's a Reddit post with a good takedown of the man behind that garbage site: https://www.reddit.com/r/badscience/com ... =post_body

Can we get back to police, now?

[Emulation White]

I'm not against that. My position isn't that my theory would eliminate "crime". If anything I just want to blur the lines, so we can have more diversity of physical bodies (criminals have more testosterone and less inclined to sexual disfunction as a result) and more cognitive diversity (more dynamic people who have the ability to see the world through a wider spectrum)

Ignoring the point that neither cognitive diversity nor physical diversity are inherently good for a moment, that’s a terrible position for a society.

That is objectively incorrect, please watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU

It is not terrible, it is only terrible to you.

[Kernen]

The eugenics rant has really put a damper on what would otherwise be a fascinating conversation about individual guarantees of liberty and policing.

Nobody is inhibiting that discussion, do not blame me or anyone else for that.

People go after the low hanging fruit. Your arguments are scraping the leaf litter. You are to blame.

[Andsed]

Well, people deserve a basic form of protection against violent scumbags. If the gene pool suffers (and it probably won't), so be it.

A scientifically erroneous conclusion from an arbitrary moral perspective. So my counter is why do need a government financed apparatus for that? You could just find like minded individuals like yourself to enforce your morality if you are so committed to virulent hatred of naturally occuring types of humans.

1, Vigilante justice is not a good idea despite what comics say.

2. Are you trying to suggest that it is okay for people to murder and steal and generally harm others? Because it seems like you are.

[Kowani]

Ignoring the point that neither cognitive diversity nor physical diversity are inherently good for a moment, that’s a terrible position for a society.

That is objectively incorrect, please watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU

It is not terrible, it is only terrible to you.

What I’m getting is you committing the naturalistic fallacy.

[Emulation White]

The eugenics rant has really put a damper on what would otherwise be a fascinating conversation about individual guarantees of liberty and policing.

Yup. It's very sad.

Incidentally, for anyone who is curious, here's a Reddit post with a good takedown of the man behind that garbage site: https://www.reddit.com/r/badscience/com ... =post_body

Can we get back to police, now?

Not a takedown at all. Anthropologists are not geneticists, along with other glaring errors in this smear. Too much idealogy and intellectual cowardice from you.

[Geneviev]

Well, people deserve a basic form of protection against violent scumbags. If the gene pool suffers (and it probably won't), so be it.

A scientifically erroneous conclusion from an arbitrary moral perspective. So my counter is why do need a government financed apparatus for that? You could just find like minded individuals like yourself to enforce your morality if you are so committed to virulent hatred of naturally occuring types of humans.

1. It's not "natural," as you claim.
2. Preventing crime protects people, which is the moral thing to do. If it is done by the government, there will be actual order to the enforcement.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Well, people deserve a basic form of protection against violent scumbags. If the gene pool suffers (and it probably won't), so be it.

A scientifically erroneous conclusion from an arbitrary moral perspective. So my counter is why do need a government financed apparatus for that? You could just find like minded individuals like yourself to enforce your morality if you are so committed to virulent hatred of naturally occuring types of humans.

My group would have insufficient funding to investigate crimes and punish criminals. What would I even do with captured criminals? Not every crime is worthy of a death sentence.

[Emulation White]

Nobody is inhibiting that discussion, do not blame me or anyone else for that.

People go after the low hanging fruit. Your arguments are scraping the leaf litter. You are to blame.

Honestly, scientific ramifications of societal initives is not low hanging fruit. Take responsibility for not being able to havd the discussion you want, that is on you and you alone.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I suspect I'm the inspiration for this thread, so you already know what I think: bad. Police are around to deprive you of your rights and to enforce the states view on the public. You don't join the police force because you have a love of protecting people, you join it because you like the power and authority it gives you over the average citizen.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I suspect I'm the inspiration for this thread, so you already know what I think: bad. Police are around to deprive you of your rights and to enforce the states view on the public. You don't join the police force because you have a love of protecting people, you join it because you like the power and authority it gives you over the average citizen.

I'm very libertarian, but some type of force must exist to capture and bring criminals to justice.

[Kernen]

People go after the low hanging fruit. Your arguments are scraping the leaf litter. You are to blame.

Honestly, scientific ramifications of societal initives is not low hanging fruit. Take responsibility for not being able to havd the discussion you want, that is on you and you alone.

Your arguments are debunked supremacist dog whistling. That is low hanging fruit.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I suspect I'm the inspiration for this thread, so you already know what I think: bad. Police are around to deprive you of your rights and to enforce the states view on the public. You don't join the police force because you have a love of protecting people, you join it because you like the power and authority it gives you over the average citizen.

I'm very libertarian, but some type of force must exist to capture and bring criminals to justice.

Why?

[Scomagia]

I suspect I'm the inspiration for this thread, so you already know what I think: bad. Police are around to deprive you of your rights and to enforce the states view on the public. You don't join the police force because you have a love of protecting people, you join it because you like the power and authority it gives you over the average citizen.

You there! Stop! I need to see your sources!

But seriously, I would like to see some sources. That's an awfully strong assertion to give without evidence.

[Emulation White]

That is objectively incorrect, please watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU

It is not terrible, it is only terrible to you.

What I’m getting is you committing the naturalistic fallacy.

No, my intention is not to revere any sort of abstract "natural order", it is to analyze the lessons evolution gives divorced from human arrogance, bias and hubris and weigh the cost and benefit of them.