Brier cops...
05-05-2009, 11:28 AM
#41
Originally Posted by urBan_dK,May 5 2009, 11:20 AM
Only that I wouldn't want to open myself up to the chance of an "enthusiastic" frisk from a gay officer and that it does make a difference since we are not in an ideal world and the officer's discretion is imperfect.
Your premise was it doesn't make a difference, and that is incorrect in my view.
Your premise was it doesn't make a difference, and that is incorrect in my view.
05-05-2009, 11:55 AM
#42
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,May 5 2009, 11:24 AM
Sorry, but you just aren't being rational. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are saying something that makes sense, but it just doesn't. Apparently you are so scared that a gay guy might touch you that's it's clouding your thinking.
What's your position on women doctors treating male patients, or male doctors treating women patients? Do you similarly assume that their sexual preference is going to completely overwhelm their professional judgement?
What's your position on women doctors treating male patients, or male doctors treating women patients? Do you similarly assume that their sexual preference is going to completely overwhelm their professional judgement?
You've created a straw man with your analogy to doctors. I never said anything about "completely overwhelming professional judgment." In fact, in most cases I'd agree that a frisk would be conducted professionally, gay or not. The chance of an "unprofessional frisk" goes up with a gay officer, no way around it. Conflict of interest. I'd prefer to avoid it.
And I don't have near the problem with doctors, since I do view their position more credibly, and part of their job is to be clinical with everything. Can't say the same for the police. But for things involving "turning and coughing" you can be sure as hell I'd have a male straight doctor. I bet you didn't want a female doctor doing your colonoscopy or a gay dude, am I right? (BTW, rhetorical question)
05-05-2009, 12:03 PM
#43
Originally Posted by s2000Junky,May 5 2009, 11:28 AM
But gay or not, if the officer was gay but didnt think you were cute then he probably wouldnt be very eager to frisk you and wouldnt enjoy it much, just like you wouldnt be to eager to frisk a hippy chick with dreads and hairy legs, I assume of course. lol But if you did manage to land a gay cop and he seemed to enjoy frisking you, couldnt you not help but be a little bit flattered?
05-05-2009, 12:07 PM
#44
Registered User
Originally Posted by urBan_dK,May 5 2009, 12:55 PM
I bet you didn't want a female doctor doing your colonoscopy or a gay dude, am I right? (BTW, rhetorical question)
As to what part of your argument doesn't make sense -- it's the part where you think you have a choice whether the cop frisks you. Or which cop frisks you. Or whether you can guess the sexual preference of the cop who frisks you. And also the implication that nobody can touch anybody else without it becoming sexual.
05-05-2009, 12:08 PM
#45
Originally Posted by urBan_dK,May 5 2009, 11:55 AM
The chance of an "unprofessional frisk" goes up with a gay officer, no way around it. Conflict of interest. I'd prefer to avoid it.
05-05-2009, 12:39 PM
#46
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,May 5 2009, 12:07 PM
I honestly couldn't care less. The anesthesiologist was a woman, the doctor was a man, and I have no idea what their sexual preferences were. In circumstances like that, all I care about is that they are competent.
As to what part of your argument doesn't make sense -- it's the part where you think you have a choice whether the cop frisks you. Or which cop frisks you. Or whether you can guess the sexual preference of the cop who frisks you. And also the implication that nobody can touch anybody else without it becoming sexual.
As to what part of your argument doesn't make sense -- it's the part where you think you have a choice whether the cop frisks you. Or which cop frisks you. Or whether you can guess the sexual preference of the cop who frisks you. And also the implication that nobody can touch anybody else without it becoming sexual.
1. Did I imply there was a choice to be frisked? No. I don't see where I could have said that.
2. Did I imply I could choose who would frisk? I don't think so. I did imply that it brings up more questions in my mind depending on the frisker.
3. Did I imply I could tell the sexual orientation of the frisker? Somewhat jocularly I did, but I didn't mean it seriously. I also can't read the mind of the officer to know whether he is frisking me to get his rocks off or because he really is concerned for his safety.
4. Did I imply touching is always sexual? No, in fact I made a point to say that it wasn't when conducted professionally. The act of frisking, in another circumstance, would be considered inappropriate touching.
05-05-2009, 12:42 PM
#47
Registered User
Originally Posted by urBan_dK,May 5 2009, 12:55 PM
What part of my argument doesn't make sense? I'd like to think I'm rational so show me what I said that isn't...saying I'm "scared of being touched" is ad hominem.
You've created a straw man with your analogy to doctors. I never said anything about "completely overwhelming professional judgment." In fact, in most cases I'd agree that a frisk would be conducted professionally, gay or not. The chance of an "unprofessional frisk" goes up with a gay officer, no way around it. Conflict of interest. I'd prefer to avoid it.
And I don't have near the problem with doctors, since I do view their position more credibly, and part of their job is to be clinical with everything. Can't say the same for the police. But for things involving "turning and coughing" you can be sure as hell I'd have a male straight doctor. I bet you didn't want a female doctor doing your colonoscopy or a gay dude, am I right? (BTW, rhetorical question)
You've created a straw man with your analogy to doctors. I never said anything about "completely overwhelming professional judgment." In fact, in most cases I'd agree that a frisk would be conducted professionally, gay or not. The chance of an "unprofessional frisk" goes up with a gay officer, no way around it. Conflict of interest. I'd prefer to avoid it.
And I don't have near the problem with doctors, since I do view their position more credibly, and part of their job is to be clinical with everything. Can't say the same for the police. But for things involving "turning and coughing" you can be sure as hell I'd have a male straight doctor. I bet you didn't want a female doctor doing your colonoscopy or a gay dude, am I right? (BTW, rhetorical question)
05-05-2009, 12:42 PM
#48
Originally Posted by s2000Junky,May 5 2009, 12:08 PM
I agree and am tracking with you except for this statment. Why do you think this way? My last post was ment for a bit of humor, but I still think gay or not, if your not attractive to a gay male that needs to frisk you, then you got nothing to worry about. I'm not gay, but logic would tell me that just becuase a male is gay, doesnt mean he is now attracted to all males on the planet, thats like saying we are attracted and want to get down the pants of all females from dreadlock lady to the 300 pounders. Sounds like your thoughts on this are fear based to me rather then logical. But dont get me wrong, if I was in the middle of getting frisked by a cop and over heard in the backround an officer joking about this to his partner that this cop was a new cadet and thought he was gay, I'd be very uncomfortable with that, but thats also becuase I know I'm hot
), that doesn't mean there wouldn't be another officer that is. I say again, a majority of frisks conducted by gay officers are entirely appropriate. But why risk it? It makes a difference to me because I perceive there will always be a higher chance of "ulterior motives" with a non-straight officer.
