i'm well aware you're not exactly the brightest candle on the cake, and also strongly emotionally involved - but even considering those circumstances clouding your judgement, i'm somewhat disappointed that you apparently weren't able to figure out what came first, the not ignoring of the thread, or my comment regarding his 'contribution', which then triggered his whole rant...

This could have been a solid thread.

RIP

timeline is as follows:

you posted a thread arguing a strawman, santara tossed you a light jab, you came back with a "nice contribution" (subtext: about as much as your OP offered), santara calls out your shitty OP, "you could have just ignored it" (irony)

and as i said, Santara is fervently anti cop for their bad behavior. this was a topic you could have found common ground. instead you start it off with a lack of contribution snarky strawman at general rightwinged NRA narratives.

and you're still friendly firing. "strongly emotionally involved" stuff applies to you as much as anyone. you carry in old conversations and have years long gripes with most users in PARD. I can argue with Icemage in one thread and laugh along with him in agreement in another. same goes for literally ANY poster in pard, even sauci, except you. you, and only you, are a user who is full aggro versus literally everyone in literally every thread on literally ever topic. you're a glasscannon. it would be sad if it wasn't so fuckin funny. old faithful is harder to predict than you.

it's up to anyone here really to bring it back on topic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/fort-worth-texas-shooting-jefferson.html

and since obvious satire apparently triggers a lot of people here into oblivion, let me rephrase something i alluded to earlier in a less triggering way:

wouldn't you agree that, even if it's an entirely unjustified excuse in this particular case, the widespread presence of guns does in fact represent an ever-present threat to law enforcement official in basically any given situation, and that it (alongside terrible training and widespread racism) is a significant cause for the shockingly high number of police killings?

I think it's because the type of people that you WANT to become cops are all focused on going to college after high school.

I knew a kid from high school who became a cop. When I learned that I was thinking to myself ... "damn that's one of the few people who I WOULDN'T have wanted to see become a cop." Dude was an asshole, plain and simple.

But the kids who I thought had the right temperament to become a cop, they all left town to go college. There's something about the badge and the gun that attracts the wrong type of person. And all the stories in the media about cops getting away with murder just inflames the problem.

They say that their motto is 'protect and serve'. Ok well, in that case, maybe what we need to address the problem is a rebranding. Instead of using the words "police" or "cop" we should just call them servants. 17 year old kid, thinking about what he wants to do after high school will be asking himself "do I want to become a servant?"

This post was edited by Kayeto on Oct 14 2019 01:08pm

the irony of your frequent cringy kitchen sink psychology rants is apparently lost on you, but i get a good chuckle out of them every time, so keep it up, kid. not that you needed any encouragement for your obsession...

the words "significant" and "shockingly" make the statement hard to digest. They are relative terms.

Let's just say (for fun) we just take the 3 causes you mentioned (terrible training, widepsread racism, widepsread presence of guns among civilians) and ignored the lesser factors (for the sake of argument). Let's even postulate that all 3 of those causes contribute equally to the situation (each cause represents 33% of the cause of the problem). In that case, would the fact that 33% of the problem is caused by widespread gun ownership make it a "significant cause"? Is 33% a significant cause? I don't know, it's hard to digest the language of that word.

And even if we could digest the language, the numbers I made up are completely fictional and ignore other minor factors. So, in the end, your statement is very difficult to work with. I don't think it represents a path to a productive line of discussion.

it's 'shockingly' high if you compare it to literally every peer country with western style democracies. you might not like the word, but that does not change the facts.
regarding the 'significant' cause, i strongly suspect that you are equally aware of the fact that 'he / she was reaching' / 'they had a gun' / 'i feared for my life' / 'he had an object in his hand' and similar statements are regularly used by police officers to justify their firearm use. just because we don't have a concrete number to put on it does not mean it makes this argument invalid. if you argued in good faith, you'd acknowledge that, but that's quite obviously not your intention here. it's pretty transparent that you're here to nitpick language in order to discredit the the common sense conclusion...

I'm not sure how you could classify them as ironic. i frequently compare and contrast whatever i'm saying about someone else to me.

what is ironic is you forgetting that, with a sig quoting me being very introspective about my own posts.

at least you've joined one club in pard, people entertained by my pseudopsychological rants about you. even though it doesnt take a pile of degrees to realize you're a friendless person in PARD who's clearly trying really hard to make people upset all of the time. any 5th grader could identify your ilk in a matter of minutes, mainly because most 5th grade classes had one kid just like you.

you're a bully.