Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Anyone, even cops, can do good things

It seems to really befuddle the copsuckers, even though it seems very simple to me. That cops are bad, but can sometimes do good, and that people who don't buy into the cult's propaganda can recognize the good acts as good without falling for the cult.

If a cop shoots a guy who is making a credible threat to kill an innocent person, he did a good thing. Just like if (or when) a shoe shine boy shoots an attacker he has done a good thing. Or, the same goes for a serial rapist shooting another bad guy who is in the process of archating, saving an innocent in the process. Or, if one of these examples protects private property from violation. A good act is a good act regardless of who does it or why.

You can be UltraHitler and still, in one situation, do the right thing. Your past and your future have no bearing on what you do in that moment. And I would be grateful to you for doing the right thing.

But, that one moment doesn't excuse all the other bad you have done and will probably continue to do. No, it really doesn't.

Yes, cops can save lives. So can pet store employees, mafioso, bank robbers, grocery store cashiers, and any other person on the planet.

The only advantages cops have in the area of responding to trouble are that they are exempt from the "laws" against gun possession that they help impose on the rest of us, so they are generally prepared- toolwise- to deal with (other) bad guys without worrying that simply showing up with a gun will get them in trouble, and they have a communication network which alerts them to trouble spots. (And that advantage is going away.) Even so, they still manage to avoid doing anything helpful much of the time, and quite often make things much worse than if they had stayed away. Frequently even attacking the innocent when they can't figure out what's going on. Or, if they are just having a bad day and a confused, scared person who has just been violated doesn't comply to absurd orders and demands fast enough.

Cops only appear "necessary" because most others have been legally required to be useless in situations of trouble, and cops are zealous about maintaining this special status for themselves. Stop accepting this situation.

But, just because a person is a cop doesn't mean they can never be good or helpful. Sometimes they are. But when they are, it's not their status as a cop that is to be praised- it is the actions of an individual doing the right thing in spite of being a cop that should be praised. And their helpful action doesn't apply to the cops who weren't there and didn't do the right thing.

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

(Steemit link)


  1. I find two conflations in your article you linked here:

    1) "But, that one moment doesn't excuse all the other bad you have done and will probably continue to do. No, it really doesn't."

    Yet you feel justified in erasing all the good I have done (much of it documented online) because of your conclusion of guilt by association. I have never done the things you mention in either of your articles as "bad."

    2) "And their helpful action doesn't apply to the cops who weren't there and didn't do the right thing."

    But you want to apply the actions of others in the military to me so that you can conclude collective guilt upon us all.

    Your inconsistency shows your emotional bias.

    1. "erasing all the good I have done"

      No, you did that yourself. The occasional right doesn't erase continual wrongs- not even on a one-to-one ratio. It isn't guilt by association to other people, but through your voluntary continuation in belonging to a gang. Yes, really, if you continue to belong to a rape gang after figuring out that's what you belong to, you have become guilty. And if you close your eyes to what the gang is, that's also on you. The only ethical choice is to quit the gang and disassociate yourself from it and its evil actions, while, perhaps, finding ethical ways to continue to do the good things you believe its members do.

      By being a voluntary part of an evil gang (the military) you are putting your stamp of approval on the actions of that gang. You are choosing to be associated with it. Why? For the money? For the status? Neither of those is a good reason. If you feel this association gives you opportunities to do "good" you wouldn't otherwise have, then you should quit the gang and seek voluntary backing to go to the same places and do the same things without the stink of doing it the wrong way.

      My points are not contradictory, but yes, they do show my bias. I am biased for liberty and against slavery. Every time. Sorry if that offends you in some way. Wait, no, I'm not sorry after all. It is what it is.

      As to your point #1- A right can't erase a wrong, unless that right returns the victim of the wrong to his pre-violated state. Have you actually done this for victims of the US military? If so, why do you continue to make the choice to belong to the gang you needed to clean up after?

      And as for point #2- only the one fixing the damage is doing good. Those continuing to violate people aren't absolved because someone in their gang is trying to repair the damage the others continue to do. I guess Oskar Shindler absolved all his fellow gang members' actions, according to your ethics.

      I get it- you want to keep feeling good about your gang membership and your "brothers" in the gang. I can't change your mind. Keep justifying yourself.