Your comment: “Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. "
Yeah… We fundamentally don’t agree with each other. I don’t see a point to continuing the discussion. Good chat though!
I don’t disagree. My point is the discussion should be stated in a way that is less “shocking” than defund the police. While the goal is to gain traction with the shock value, at this point the narrative needs to be switched to a more nuanced and accurate description.
Also, apologies for being pedantic, but paramedics are already semi-medical personnel. It literally means alongside medic(cal). In truth, we should be also deploying nursing and medical staff into the outside environment that are supported by paramedics. Currently, the problem is cost and public interest isn’t there.
Sure!
Disarming: Social studies have shown that it’s difficult to walk back changes to the social contract. We already have a society to reliant and accepting of guns to send police unarmed. Right now in the Cal Bay area you are very likely to be shot just for stopping someone who is stealing a catalytic converter. It makes no sense to have a deterent factor that can’t actually deter behavior. De-arming would need to be combined or following stricter gun laws and significant cultural shifts. That said, reviewing and revising the arming strategies is something that should occur. That is of course, unless you aren’t trying to prevent a potentially substantial rise is polics officer deaths.
Defunding: Removing funding without removing work load really just doesn’t work logistically. This has led to breakdowns in everything from the airline to the railroad industry. I’m sure there is a way to better allocate funding, but simply removing it is a problem. Alternatively, may US children had (or have) terrible times in the US school system. Should we defund it as a corrective measure? How does that help?
But I am curious, how do you believe these approaches would help the situation? How do you suggest they get implemented?
Hmm, maybe you are right. However, Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a biologist and mathematician who was considered the “Father of modern genetics”. However, he lied about his findings. We now know his numbers were fudged (sometimes heavily so) to create statistical findings that matched his assertions. This was likely done because there were other factors at play that he did not have enough information to know, but did not want to have the lingeriering unknowns destroy his support for genetics. And this is one of the reasons we now understand genetics.
If your argument is right, are you saying he was wrong? If so, how do you think the situation should have been handled? Further, why did the stratagy work so well? Are you suggesting this is an effective but immortal strategy? Was the father of genetics and a Catholic friar immortal?
I disagree with points four and five. The rest seem accurate though. Alternatively, cut the budget to fund a seperate but collaborate group for mental health and/or non violent incedent responses. Have police provide backup but have clear rules of engagement, and procecute when the rules are violated.
The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance. Essentially, one group has been found to manipulate stats. However, the focus is on the other group’s manipulation rather than accuracy across the board. This ends up working as a form of oppression through bias enforcement of the social contract. Not saying you are going that, just pointing out a possible bases for the other person’s comments.
In turn, insurance being tied to healthcare is the main reason why US citizens associate government funded health care with freeloaders. Essentially, at one point it meant you were not working in a society that greatly needed workers. I mean, there was also underline racism in only certain groups being selected for said jobs, but that’s an American standard.
I find it funny that you cite that the company is publicly traded as the reason it is following these dangerous paths, but also call it “rigged against shareholders.” I think you mean that it is the company and CEOs job to generate real sustainable growth rather than burn credibility for temporary add ad revenue. However, it is still funny given that most shareholders don’t understand or care why this is a bad move and would be pushing for the ads if they are not already.