You're viewing part of a thread.
Maybe so, maybe not so but, whatever it is, its a hell of lot more than just trusting that crime didn't exist, don't you think?
I’m not sure where anyone suggested that people had to trust that crime doesn’t exist.
Its one of the major themes of the thread you're replying to.
It's one of the major themes of the source that you linked.
The many stories, past and present, that demonstrate how anarchy works have been suppressed and distorted because of the revolutionary conclusions we might draw from them. We can live in a society with no bosses, masters, politicians, or bureaucrats; a society with no judges, no police, and no criminals, no rich or poor; a society free of sexism, homophobia, and transphobia; a society in which the wounds from centuries of enslavement, colonialism, and genocide are finally allowed to heal. The only things stopping us are the prisons, programming, and paychecks of the powerful, as well as our own lack of faith in ourselves.
Every society is going to have some criminals. Lack of access to things people need to survive is a major reason for commission of crimes, but it is not the only reason. Plenty of people do illegal things just because they feel like it. Some people are pathological liars. If a society cannot deal with those, it will eventually fail. Obviously crime will go down by (throwing a number out) a factor of at least five once the magical socialist utopia is in place, but to argue that it will entirely disappear is hopelessly naive.
Again, I'm not sure why you think anyone is saying that crime won't exist or that people won't have to deal with criminals.
You know, its almost, almost as if you're making up a position no one is taking and then arguing against that instead.
Well, I say almost.....
maybe if i make this short enough you'll actually read the whole thing
a society with no judges, no police, and no criminals
how
Oh, I read the whole thing. I'm just dodging and evading in the same way you do. Turns out, you find your behaviour quite annoying too.
I'm not sure why you think I have to answer for an ideology to your satisfaction or I have to abandon any agreement I might have with it.
What is it about you that makes you think thr only options are the police, exactly as we have them now, or we just have to trust crime won't exist?
Why do you have to pretend these are the only two options?
"Just because I don't fully understand my own ideology doesn't mean you shouldn't agree with me"?
That's the argument you're going with?
Also please show me where I said "the police exactly as we have them now". The police exactly as we have them now fucking suck, but you seem to think they should be abolished rather than reformed, and I'm still waiting for you to tell me how, why, and what they should be replaced with.
Haha, sure, if thats what you need it to be. You figured it out. Its actually that I don't understand what I'm talking about and not that your debatebro crap doesn't work on me.
So, just to confirm, you're saying that there are only two options for dealing with crime.
A) We have the police exactly as they are now
B) We pretend crime doesn't exist
And me asking questions about this false dichotomy you're trying to force here is because I, not you, don't understand a problem here?
I just need to check thats what's going on here and that you're OK with that being your position. If its not, please feel free to let me know.
I hope you can understand that I'm hardly going to have an open conversation with someone who won't even admit that a third option can exist here.
So, just to confirm, you’re saying that there are only two options for dealing with crime.
A) We have the police exactly as they are now
B) We pretend crime doesn’t exist
You are literally replying to a comment explaining that I do not believe that! Here is what I said again, since you clearly didn't read it the first time:
The police exactly as we have them now fucking suck, but you seem to think they should be abolished rather than reformed, and I’m still waiting for you to tell me how, why, and what they should be replaced with.
What is it with leftists and never reading past the first sentence?
I have repeatedly explained that I am open to the possibility of a third option, and repeatedly asked you what it is. You have yet to do anything other than stall the conversation and deliberately misrepresent my position. I am forced to conclude that you have no argument to present and are simply trolling.
If this is not the case, let me know. If it is the case, just make one more comment not answering the goddamn question so I can finally block you with a clean conscience.
The problem is that I did read it and, as such, I know that (the police) "fucking suck" doesn't mean that you've accepted that something other than what we have now could exist, in the same capacity. Its actually, specifically that I did read it and saw that you once again evaded backing down from a silly false dichotomy you attempted to defend.
More so, you've decided that my argument is proving something, rather than what it actually was "calling out someone else's false dichotomy and the false need for a state" ,one that you seemed fine with. Thats why you've had to attempt to change the conversation and then claim me to be a troll for point out invalid arguments. If you cared, you'd Google it and it wouldn't take two seconds to find communial restorative justice where the focus in on restitution for the victim and not punishment of the offender.
As it is, you're just mad that I won't play your game. I've come accorss people like you before and I won't be going along with those cheap tricks.
Please, block away. The less bad faith debatebros I come into contact with, the better. Honestly, you'll be doing me a favour and you don't need to announce it. All you had to do was actually climb down from an invalid argument and you refused, claiming me to be the problem. But no, you had to claim saying the correct situation is bad is the same thing as that.
Yeah, you won't be missed and you shouldn't threaten people with a good time.