Current Affairs George Floyd and Minneapolis Unrest

[JobForTheMoyes]

In total 992 people were fatally shot by police in 2018. In a nation of more than 300 million, that is not actually that high a number.

Of course, one is always one too many, but it is not like the yank coppers are running around like Judge Dredd.

 

[Pettifogger]

I'm not really sure I can't put it more simply...

Statement:
The truth is that most are justified (assuming the correct course of legal investigation fine), which means the dumb proclamations about police murdering people with regularity likely isn't true. (No it doesn't).
Statement....

Statement 2:
Once again, one can acknowledge the truth about one thing without taking away from another truth.

If statement 2 is correct, and let's assume it is; it can be both true that most killings are justified (i.e. within the law) and also be true that police murdering people with regularity is also true.

I quite honestly appreciate the explanation. My position is that there is a lot of rhetoric about cops murdering people (especially black people) commonly/with regularity/they can murder us with no punishment, etc. So I suppose it depends on the specific statement.

My position is that this happens very rarely (and because someone will raise it if I don't, "very rarely" is still unacceptable). So when people make broad proclamations about how police are allowed to murder black men in the streets, or how black men are commonly murdered by the police - I take the position that is untrue. But i'll grant you the caveat that I used the term "regularly" so depending on how we define that, I'll concede your point is legitimate.

In 2019 there were 9 unarmed black men killed by the police. Those weren't all murders, but even if so, I wouldn't call such slayings "common." Certainly less common than officers being killed. But this is getting in the weeds. My original point is that there is hyperbolic rhetoric that is untrue, and I think it's unhelpful.

 

[Prevenger17]

Stinks of low grade trolling tbh.

I don't think so tbh. I think he's genuinely a bootlicking clown

 

[RaleighBlue]

A bootlicking insult from someone who believes government is the answer to all ills

I genuinely LOL'd

Pretty sure socialism doesn't believe government is the answer to all ills for one.

For two, I've never seen Prev take that particular stance, and I've been around a fair bit...

How would you define a strawman argument?

First, it's true (Prev is a proponent of government solutions to societal ills).

Second, using a true retort to a laughably false claim (on the same topic) certainly isn't how strawman arguments are typically employed in my experience. In yours?

It's yet another deflection from someone who loves to drive-by post. Sit around, pounce in some non-substantive manner, scurry away. A lot of that around here.

Glad to hear you've become a libertarian in the last 90 seconds in order to win an argument. Hope it sticks.

Ok, so that's not what you said.

You said Prev believes the government is the answer to all ills. This is not what socialism is, what Prev seems to support (or indeed what I support), or in any way how any of this has been framed. Until you arrived to explain how socialists think and argued against that.

That is literally what a strawman argument is.

I can see you lack the nuance to pick up that socialism belives in MORE government than libertarianism, but that is not the same thing as believing ALL governmental intrusion is good- especially when you'll find socialists largely on the side of liberal social policies - the opposite of government interference. Just as libertarianism isn't ACTUAL anarchy, because the people that want it are too scared to give up their privilege in their weird survivalist fantasies.

I'm using the actual words you typed. Because what you did was the definition of a strawman.

 

[Pettifogger]

You know exactly what you said and why people find your choice of words repulsive.

Of course the police have the right to defend themselves if their lives are directly threatened, but to say the person they may be forced to kill probably "deserved it" is repugnant. None of these situations are clear cut and various factors come into play (Mental health is a massive one.)

Stinks of low grade trolling tbh.

Pittsburgh, who is the one who intentionally mischaracterized my statement, endorsed this garbage. Certainly repugnant.

But yes, people threatening/doing deadly harm to others deserve it when they're killed. That's not trolling.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I quite honestly appreciate the explanation. My position is that there is a lot of rhetoric about cops murdering people (especially black people) commonly/with regularity/they can murder us with no punishment, etc. So I suppose it depends on the specific statement.

My position is that this happens very rarely (and because someone will raise it if I don't, "very rarely" is still unacceptable). So when people make broad proclamations about how police are allowed to murder black men in the streets, or how black men are commonly murdered by the police - I take the position that is untrue. But i'll grant you the caveat that I used the term "regularly" so depending on how we define that, I'll concede your point is legitimate.

In 2019 there were 9 unarmed black men killed by the police. Those weren't all murders, but even if so, I wouldn't call such slayings "common." Certainly less common than officers being killed. But this is getting in the weeds. My original point is that there is hyperbolic rhetoric that is untrue, and I think it's unhelpful.

Does simply being armed automatically justify lethal force in America? Genuine question. I don't know the US legal system particularly well.

 

[Pettifogger]

That is literally what a strawman argument is.

I'm using the actual words you typed. Because what you did was the definition of a strawman.

Neither of these things are true.

Prev - you're a bootlicker (presumably because I told the truth about the police or something)
Me - considering your big government leanings, this is funny

If anything, this is an ad hominem attack on Prev, which I'm ok with

 

[Pettifogger]

Does simply being armed automatically justify lethal force in America? Genuine question. I don't know the US legal system particularly well.

No, and fair point.

But it's used a lot by those opposing police brutality, and it's probably one of the few statistical shortcuts we can use to look at shootings that are inherently suspect.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Neither of these things are true.

Prev - you're a bootlicker (presumably because I told the truth about the police or something)
Me - considering your big government leanings, this is funny

If anything, this is an ad hominem attack on Prev, which I'm ok with

I quoted your words. You literally said the words someone who believes government is the answer to all ills and then followed it up with: First, it's true (Prev is a proponent of government solutions to societal ills).

No one has proposed an autocracy here afaik, except perhaps Trump in his less lucid moments.

Jesus Christ.

We're through the rabbithole people.

 

[Pettifogger]

I quoted your words. You literally said the words someone who believes government is the answer to all ills and then followed it up with: First, it's true (Prev is a proponent of government solutions to societal ills).

No one has proposed an autocracy here afaik, except perhaps Trump in his less lucid moments.

Jesus Christ.

We're through the rabbithole people.

This isn't a refutation of anything I said. You can repeatedly claim "I'm using your words against you" but that doesn't make your conclusion follow from the premise you're providing.

 

[Prevenger17]

Ok, so that's not what you said.

You said Prev believes the government is the answer to all ills. This is not what socialism is, what Prev seems to support (or indeed what I support), or in any way how any of this has been framed. Until you arrived to explain how socialists think and argued against that.

That is literally what a strawman argument is.

I can see you lack the nuance to pick up that socialism belives in MORE government than libertarianism, but that is not the same thing as believing ALL governmental intrusion is good- especially when you'll find socialists largely on the side of liberal social policies - the opposite of government interference. Just as libertarianism isn't ACTUAL anarchy, because the people that want it are too scared to give up their privilege in their weird survivalist fantasies.

I'm using the actual words you typed. Because what you did was the definition of a strawman.

Thanks for hopping in there mate, but I really wouldn't want to see you wasting too much time writing reasoned responses to his nonsense. Just shake your head ruefully and ask him if everything is alright with his meal

 

[Alan Whittle]

[QUOTE="Pettifogger, post: 7843177, member:

But yes, people threatening/doing deadly harm to others deserve it when they're killed. That's not trolling.
[/QUOTE]
Does that include unarmed people threatening “deadly harm” ?

 

[Kenshin]

I quite honestly appreciate the explanation. My position is that there is a lot of rhetoric about cops murdering people (especially black people) commonly/with regularity/they can murder us with no punishment, etc. So I suppose it depends on the specific statement.

My position is that this happens very rarely (and because someone will raise it if I don't, "very rarely" is still unacceptable). So when people make broad proclamations about how police are allowed to murder black men in the streets, or how black men are commonly murdered by the police - I take the position that is untrue. But i'll grant you the caveat that I used the term "regularly" so depending on how we define that, I'll concede your point is legitimate.

In 2019 there were 9 unarmed black men killed by the police. Those weren't all murders, but even if so, I wouldn't call such slayings "common." Certainly less common than officers being killed. But this is getting in the weeds. My original point is that there is hyperbolic rhetoric that is untrue, and I think it's unhelpful.

Shouldn't happen at all.

Other western countries don't have a track record of their police killing black Americans or using more force based in colour of skin.

 

[Jebus_lives]

No, and fair point.

But it's used a lot by those opposing police brutality, and it's probably one of the few statistical shortcuts we can use to look at shootings that are inherently suspect.

Always problematic.

The stat that always seems to be presented is the deaths per million. Of which black deaths are disproportionately higher.

 

[Pettifogger]

[QUOTE="Pettifogger, post: 7843177, member:

But yes, people threatening/doing deadly harm to others deserve it when they're killed. That's not trolling.

Does that include unarmed people threatening “deadly harm” ?
[/QUOTE]

Eh, be more specific.

If a guy is standing there saying I have a gun and I'll shoot, and he reaches for his waistband, it's hard to say it's not "deserved." It sucks - right? It's not something anyone wants. But there are consequences that follow poor decisions, so assuming we're using "deserved" in that sense, yes.

I'm sure some will get tripped up over the semantics here. But if we switch to "justified" - then yes.