4 ms·

> sociopath with a bat fetish who assaults the poor and the mentally ill > padded cell where he belongs Times change, and the heroes of yesteryear become the

> sociopath with a bat fetish who assaults the poor and the mentally ill > padded cell where he belongs Times change, and the heroes of yesteryear become the villains of tomorrow. Seems to me there's a quote about that. In a just society, he wouldn't have turned out the way he did to begin with. You know, because Gotham, and his world, wouldn't be fucked up the way it is. > We shouldn't want police to be Batman. We shouldn't just accept the premise that the cops just have to "crack a few eggs" now and then. That's just conceding to authoritarianism. We shouldn't want Batman, no. But nobody here is arguing that police should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because, hell, they felt like it. That's not what's meant by "cracking a few eggs". The argument is that mandatory strict adherence to every possible law at all times, is possibly not the best way to combat crime perpetrated by criminals who by definition are disregarding the law.

krapp 4y ago
>In a just society, he wouldn't have turned out the way he did to begin with. You know, because Gotham, and his world, wouldn't be fucked up the way it is. Except... Gotham being what it is, Bruce Wayne isn't the only person to have lost loved ones, even parents, to criminal violence. Other people learn to deal with it and move on with their lives. It seems to be just Batman and the Joker who feel society owes them a blood debt for the pain it caused them. > But nobody here is arguing that police should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because, hell, they felt like it. That's not what's meant by "cracking a few eggs". OK, but that is essentially what the idiom it seems to be drawing from means - "if you want to make an omlette, you have to crack a few eggs," implies breaking the law and/or people to get something done. It's just a prosaic way of saying the ends justify the means. And anyway, for the most part, police do do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because, hell, they feel like it. And QI lets them get away with it. >The argument is that mandatory strict adherence to every possible law at all times, is possibly not the best way to combat crime perpetrated by criminals who by definition are disregarding the law. If mandatory strict adherence to every possible law at all times makes it impossible for the police to fight crime, then maybe the problem is there are too many laws, and they're too strict. Because remember, the police don't chase criminals, they chase suspects assumed innocent until proven guilty by a court. We're not even talking about high speed chases, crimes committed in undercover work, property damage, shooting dogs, no-knock warrants or any of the extralegal things police do that put the public in danger for the ostensible greater public good. We're talking about a Facebook parody. The police could have just, you know, had it flagged or something. But they chose violence because the police always choose violence. Maybe when they're obviously wrong, they for pay for it.
- mtrower 4y ago
  > It seems to be just Batman and the Joker who feel society owes them a blood debt for the pain it caused them. This seems to be going a bit off the rails, I guess I'll just say the Batman I'm familiar with seems to be different from yours, and leave it at that. > If mandatory strict adherence to every possible law at all times makes it impossible for the police to fight crime, then maybe the problem is there are too many laws, and they're too strict. Because remember, the police don't chase criminals, they chase suspects assumed innocent until proven guilty by a court. Possibly. I definitely feel there are too many laws, and many seem arbitrary and/or too strict. > But they chose violence because the police always choose violence. I guess I missed the part where they beat him into submission. I had thought they just arrested him. And, maybe he didn't deserve to be arrested. I don't know. I do think what he did shouldn't really be morally defensible, but that's a different argument that's been debated into the ground elsewhere in this thread. > for the most part, police do do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because, hell, they feel like it. > police always choose violence. I'm afraid this is where any meaningful discourse probably ends. I can't say I really get along well with most officers, but this is also not what I've seen out of most officers. You get some definite assholes, and some bigots. But words like most and always seem pretty far out of line.

krapp 4y ago

>In a just society, he wouldn't have turned out the way he did to begin with. You know, because Gotham, and his world, wouldn't be fucked up the way it is. Except... Gotham being what it is, Bruce Wayne isn't the only person to have lost loved ones, even parents, to criminal violence. Other people learn to deal with it and move on with their lives. It seems to be just Batman and the Joker who feel society owes them a blood debt for the pain it caused them. > But nobody here is arguing that police should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because, hell, they felt like it. That's not what's meant by "cracking a few eggs". OK, but that is essentially what the idiom it seems to be drawing from means - "if you want to make an omlette, you have to crack a few eggs," implies breaking the law and/or people to get something done. It's just a prosaic way of saying the ends justify the means. And anyway, for the most part, police do do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because, hell, they feel like it. And QI lets them get away with it. >The argument is that mandatory strict adherence to every possible law at all times, is possibly not the best way to combat crime perpetrated by criminals who by definition are disregarding the law. If mandatory strict adherence to every possible law at all times makes it impossible for the police to fight crime, then maybe the problem is there are too many laws, and they're too strict. Because remember, the police don't chase criminals, they chase suspects assumed innocent until proven guilty by a court. We're not even talking about high speed chases, crimes committed in undercover work, property damage, shooting dogs, no-knock warrants or any of the extralegal things police do that put the public in danger for the ostensible greater public good. We're talking about a Facebook parody. The police could have just, you know, had it flagged or something. But they chose violence because the police always choose violence. Maybe when they're obviously wrong, they for pay for it.

mtrower 4y ago
> It seems to be just Batman and the Joker who feel society owes them a blood debt for the pain it caused them. This seems to be going a bit off the rails, I guess I'll just say the Batman I'm familiar with seems to be different from yours, and leave it at that. > If mandatory strict adherence to every possible law at all times makes it impossible for the police to fight crime, then maybe the problem is there are too many laws, and they're too strict. Because remember, the police don't chase criminals, they chase suspects assumed innocent until proven guilty by a court. Possibly. I definitely feel there are too many laws, and many seem arbitrary and/or too strict. > But they chose violence because the police always choose violence. I guess I missed the part where they beat him into submission. I had thought they just arrested him. And, maybe he didn't deserve to be arrested. I don't know. I do think what he did shouldn't really be morally defensible, but that's a different argument that's been debated into the ground elsewhere in this thread. > for the most part, police do do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because, hell, they feel like it. > police always choose violence. I'm afraid this is where any meaningful discourse probably ends. I can't say I really get along well with most officers, but this is also not what I've seen out of most officers. You get some definite assholes, and some bigots. But words like most and always seem pretty far out of line.