www.ditl.org

Tyyr wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Yes it is

You skipped right over the first and primary definition you dumbass.

Hey, good news Tyyr! You discovered today that words might have more than one definition.

Amazing, isn't it?

Solka, you can't claim points by ignoring your own details. It makes you look like even more of a fool then you already do.

It's especially hypocritical after that whole Canadian vs Quebecois debate. You used a word that has multiple meanings yes, but if you are going to apply that word to the US, than the one you chose is not the most accurate description of it by any means. Cults have no political power in the US. Major, world wide, centuries old religions on the other hand do, to the point that they influence the thoughts of the general public, who then affect the government through the democratic system we have.

Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the US has its issues. Our murder rate is higher

Your murder rate is through the roof - hence the comparison I used.

the UK isn't exactly a shining paragon of law and order.

Which I specifically admitted.

your police forces are ridden with low-level corruption and don't even realise it,

Proof please.

Linky

It's a huge great thread, but it makes the point scarily clear. Both KS and SVPD are serving US police.

the executions of 30 to 40 people per year convicted of heinous crimes isn't exactly enough cause to demote someone to third world status.

Actually, it is.

and the degree of control religion seems to have over politics is downright scary.

It's called democracy. People are allowed to vote as they please and for whatever reason they please or even no reason at all over here.

Which changes my point, how, exactly?

Seafort, I don't think SDN counts as a reliable source. Do you have any primary sources by chance?

While I'm not about to get into the middle of this debate, I found this to be a rather shocking story on the NYPD (indeed, I initialy thought that Seafort was linking to this). I've no idea whether the contents of that link are common in other states.

Deepcrush wrote:Seafort, I don't think SDN counts as a reliable source. Do you have any primary sources by chance?

I consider KS as much a reliable primary source on your average US police department as I do Kendall on the Canadian Forces or you on the USMC.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:Seafort, I don't think SDN counts as a reliable source. Do you have any primary sources by chance?

I consider KS as much a reliable primary source on your average US police department as I do Kendall on the Canadian Forces or you on the USMC.

I'm thankful for the compliment, but it seems KS is largely speaking against the talk of corruption. So I have to admit that I'm missing what you're trying to point out.

He argued against the description of it as corruption, but that was why I stated that it isn't recognised. He nonetheless provides solid evidence that US police routinely let off their family members and those of colleagues from speeding tickets purely because of their relationship, to the extent that cards get given out, seemingly willy-nilly, that can be produced in the expectation of being let off. That is corrupt.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Mikey wrote:Wrong from our POV? Absolutely. Backward in their way of thinking to my mind? Sure. But "backward" in the mechanism? Absolutely not.

Agreed 100%. It's not the process I dislike, it's the culture that has been created in the U.S. by these religious cults.

Wait - you specifically said "that aspect of U.S. politics" is backwards, and then when I said it's not the political mechanism you say you're agreed 100%? WTF?

@ Seafort - You're basing your allegations of widespread corruption on the usage of FOP cards? That's like calling a country "disease-ridden" because there's a higher-than-average incidence of the common cold or allergic rhinitis. Yes, it's technically correct, but it hardly speaks to anything with any impact.

BTW, you're right - you didn't mention poverty and homelessness in your original comment, but neither did you mention crime or murder specifically. Interestingly, you say it was murder of which you spoke, but you only said that after seeing the figures that demonstrated some higher crime rates in the U.K.o.G.B.a.N.I. than in the U.S.

BTW, based on your request for accuracy in naming your nation, I've taken to using the acronym "U.K.o.G.B.a.N.I.," which is the initials of the proper name of your nation according to the United Nations, rather than the incorrectly-abbreviated term "United Kingdom."

Mikey wrote:@ Seafort - You're basing your allegations of widespread corruption on the usage of FOP cards? That's like calling a country "disease-ridden" because there's a higher-than-average incidence of the common cold or allergic rhinitis. Yes, it's technically correct, but it hardly speaks to anything with any impact.

Like I said, low-level corruption, but corruption nonetheless. You laugh about it if you want to, but I'll add it to my list of reasons to steer clear.

BTW, you're right - you didn't mention poverty and homelessness in your original comment, but neither did you mention crime or murder specifically. Interestingly, you say it was murder of which you spoke, but you only said that after seeing the figures that demonstrated some higher crime rates in the U.K.o.G.B.a.N.I. than in the U.S.

I'd've though that the analogy I used would make the nature of the criminality I objected to obvious - Londonderry and Belfast in the early 70s.

BTW, based on your request for accuracy in naming your nation, I've taken to using the acronym "U.K.o.G.B.a.N.I.," which is the initials of the proper name of your nation according to the United Nations, rather than the incorrectly-abbreviated term "United Kingdom."

Fair enough. I trust you'll do HMQ the similar honour of using her full title when referring to her.

Captain Seafort wrote:He argued against the description of it as corruption, but that was why I stated that it isn't recognised. He nonetheless provides solid evidence that US police routinely let off their family members and those of colleagues from speeding tickets purely because of their relationship, to the extent that cards get given out, seemingly willy-nilly, that can be produced in the expectation of being let off. That is corrupt.

He didn't provide evidence that I saw so much as his views on the topic. Even then he pointed out that real corruption is rather limited as the issues involved are often minor offenses that remain up to the Officers to decide on vs being sent to court. KS is speaking against what you're saying, not for it.

Captain Seafort wrote:Like I said, low-level corruption, but corruption nonetheless. You laugh about it if you want to, but I'll add it to my list of reasons to steer clear.

You misunderstand. I laugh not because it isn't technically corruption - which it is - but because it's such a benign sort of corruption as to make it an example of practically nothing. It's akin to saying that a particular locality is rife with crime because it has lots of speeding tickets issued, but no felonies.

Captain Seafort wrote:I'd've though that the analogy I used would make the nature of the criminality I objected to obvious - Londonderry and Belfast in the early 70s.

I suppose you would, but even I'm not old enough to have been travelling abroad in the early 70's. I don't even know in which country Londonderry is; and I know nothing of the organic crime rate of Belfast at that time - only of the guerilla/terroristic violence which has plagued that area, and which I would hardly count as being part of the organic crime rate of a municipality.

Captain Seafort wrote:Fair enough. I trust you'll do HMQ the similar honour of using her full title when referring to her.

I don't recall ever referring to her as anything but "HM," but to be fair it is a rather different issue - she isn't my sovereign, after all. In all honesty, I don't know the correct honorifics for addressing the Queen - I suppose I would have, but she cancelled on me the last time she was supposed to come by the house, and I never finished studying.

I think Londonderry is border territory between northern and southern. Hence it's english name is Londonderry, and the Irish refer to it as Derry.

To be fair, I don't know at all how I would correctly address the queen. Great respect for her and all but my generation sort of ignores her a bit.