(think big…)

Mark Twain said: A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.

I said: Well said.

One thing that I have learned is that it is your life even though every one seems to have an opinion. I don’t think you were asking for anyone’s opinion in your post about whether you should be a cop or whether you would make a good cop. I think it was more about your mother’s reaction to your becoming a cop VS a soldier.

It is your life, do what you want to do as ultimately you answer only to yourself. What is that saying about opinions and ass (.)’s everyone has one? Well in this case what you think and what the Police Academy thinks are the only opinions that matter.

Observing 50% of the police officers on the streets in New Orleans who are out of shape and seem to have intimidation control issues mixed with a tad of racism, I personally would feel better having a moral cop with a brain on the streets.

Premise:
Robert is unfit to be a police officer
Therefor:
If he is accepted into NOPD,
NOPD is flawed.

Premise:
NOPD has one flawed officer
Therefor:
The city is doomed.

There are a few easy ways to support the first premise with facts. Am I mentally incapable? No. I score 130 on IQ tests. Am I pcycologically unfit? Highly improbable. I do not have the authority to make that judgment. I have been depressed on occasion in the past. But when I was I went to a doctor to seek help. Since every person goes through some amount of depression in their life, a person who seeks help reveals they are responsible. Have I been violent without being attacked in the past? No. Am I physically unfit? No. I am active in aerobics, resistant exorcise, don’t smoke and am at my ideal weight. Am I ethically unfit? Highly improbable. I have published thousands of words from the mundane to controversial issues that society hasn’t yet made judgment. Arguing from ignorance proves the argument weak and conclusion improbable. I need not prove the negative. The accuser has the burden of proof, of which they should easily be able, with the vast data base to search from.
M. Anon is using an ad homonym attack which is more evidence that they can’t argue properly. Not liking me is not a reason.

The second premise is logically proven false. It’s a fact we have had flawed officers on our force. The city is not doomed, not even a Cat5 can bring ultimate Doom to a city who refuses to die.
.
.
@Cathy
I’ve actually thought about being a lawyer. Though the pay would be a bit more liberating, I think I’d enjoy the job of an officer more. Since a police officer works for the people, not criminals or the falsely accused, I imagine the connection to the community is more substantial. I have no problem following orders. I imagine the joy of being an officer compared to being a line cook is that when I followed the executive chefs orders, it was because of his opinion. On the force, the Law supersedes any order I’m given, therefor my boss is actually a book, not a person. I’m good with books and my past executives have liked me. The truth is I have nothing to lose in trying, if I am unfit or don’t like it, I can always resign. It’s not like the slavery of the Army.

What you claim is that no conclusions can be made until we reach the end of time. There’s valid reason to believe that to not be true. If you can present an argument that concludes that the laws of phisics are not constant and that universality is false, I will obviously change my mind.

Argue and argument are two different things. I have no quarrel with you brother, but I know we thinking humans can come to legitimate conclusions. Granted, there are things we assume as truisms, such as we are proof of our own existence. But, I can’t debate a person who isn’t sure they exist.

One must beleive that they have objectively exhausted the imformation available, that belief then becomes the catalyst to argue.

I enjoyed reading your editorial on editorials. I see your point and respect your opinion.