Check out this thread:
http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/thread/103097.aspx


Look at Nathan and NonAbsolute's responses. They want to torture the policeguy. That's how they intend to make the world better. Apply pain to people who act badly. Not realizing that the policeguy thinks in the exact same way.

Freedomainradio focusses on creating compassion for victims, which is good obviously. But they can't go further. You find that nobody picks up on what's going wrong with Nathan and NonAbsolute. If Freedomainradio remains at the point of 'get bad people out of your life', but cannot go further, they will not be all that they can be. If you can start with the premise that all are inherently natural and good, then you have a mindset that can radiate far stronger, to change the world.

Hey Nielsio,

have you heard of this book? Acceptance and Commitment Therapy?

Quote:

Book Description Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a new approach to psychotherapy that rethinks even our most basic assumptions of mental well-being. Starting with the assumption that the normal condition of human existence is suffering and struggle, ACT works by first encouraging individuals to accept their lives as they are in the here and now. This acceptance is an antidote to the problem of avoidance, which ACT views as among the greatest risk factors for unnecessary suffering and poor mental health. The process of ACT includes help for individuals to identify a set of core values, a personal set of objectives that matter to them personally. The therapy then encourages the individual to commit to behavior that furthers these values despite potentially painful emotional obstacles. Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life offers a five-step plan for coping with painful emotions such as anxiety and depression. It teaches you how to learn life-enhancing behavior strategies that work to further the goals you value most. You’ll learn to engage with and overcome painful thoughts and feelings with step-by-step acceptance and mindfulness-based techniques. You’ll find out how to let go of control, and develop compassion and flexibility. The realization that painful feelings cannot be controlled will open you to the possibility of fully emotional living. Once present, engaged, and aware, you can begin to build new lives for yourself filled with significance and meaning. This book is not about overcoming pain or fighting emotions; it’s about embracing life and feeling everything it has to offer. In this way, it offers a way out of suffering by choosing to life a life based on what matters most.

it's very Buddhist like. the friend who recommended it (and gave it) to me said that the thread on LM about 'beyond forgiveness and condemnation' reminded him of it




yeah, somebody like Nathan is obviously quite frustrated and bitter and this is one of the targets he can use to vent his anger

Personally my opinion is that it would be a fair procedure to put a counter on every policeman's taser and at the end of each work day check it's usage and use the same taser on a policeman same amount of times with same duration, regardless if it was used legitimately or no. Just to make sure that policemen understand: tasers are given them to be used instead of guns, so they must be used only in situation where the gun would have been used. This would help those sick individuals see the pain they are causing to the people.

I guess, I'm not forgiving person, either.

One more quick comment about taser situation... For some reasons people get agitated about torturing people in overseas prisons, but why is it not possible for them to see that cops torture people right here, in front of everybody?

[quote="Nielsio"]

fourvoicechord wrote:

Dylboz wrote: Nielsio wrote: I don't understand the question. What do you mean by 'should'. By way of clarification: Myself, I think that that police officer "should" that is, ought, by right, to suffer these consequences: 1. Loss of employment 2. Broad publication of his aggressive act so that the chances of his ever being hired again as a public servant (sic) or as a private policeman or security guard will be reduced. 3. He should be compelled to either or pay his victim a monetary sum, or else perform restitution, probably in a term of indetured servitude to his victim. I don't think he should be tasered himself, or beaten or subject to any other cruel or unusual punishment. Scott So the state should fire him and the state should mandate reparations (by force)? The state is the one who trained him to do exactly these things and the state arbitration is a violent monopolist with no legitimacy whatsoever. So these shoulds make no sense to me.

I don't understand why my "shoulds" don't make sense to you. Is the meaning of the word "should" in my statements above not perfectly clear? If it is, please explain where you are having trouble.

My statement about what should happen to the cop was not about whether or not the state does anything, or whether the state is illegitimate. Ideally, all of the above sanctions which I suggested would be effected by free individuals operating in a stateless society. But since we in America do not have a stateless society, I wouldn't object to the state effecting these sanctions against him. The problem remains of what (short-range) justice can be offered now to the guy who was tasered, and that was what I was addressing.

If there is no anarchic legal system to implement this, what other alternative is there?

In this particular matter, it doesn't seem illegitimate to me if the state fires and punishes one of its own--he voluntarily signed up to be a cop, didn't he? The illegitimacy of the state using coercion on everyone else who doesn't work for or have voluntary agreements with the state doesn't apply here.

Scott

So, then...nothing? Is that really it, our choice is all or nothing, and since you just said all -complete freedom in the absence of a state- is not going to happen, then we get...NOTHING? I'd prefer that this guy gets fired so that a the very least, he can't do this again under the guise of legitimacy and authority (however illegitimate it may be) that the state affords him as it's agent. I'm not sure how that's "silly."