ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
I mean, it's not great, but have you seen any top-level "DAE the outgroup are evil hypocrites?"
To start with, does an analogous top-level post come to your mind?
If "OP has to know this offends the local circlejerk, so he must be consciously baiting"
If it's just about offending the local circlejerk, why did you call it "not great"?
(...and either way, the Gabbard thing seems rather interesting and was new to me, so I don't think you can argue this is just bait.)
I dunno, it's kinda hard to have a discussion based on the post. Best I could do is something like "this kinda reminds me of..." the way functor did, which is essentially completely separate from the top-level post.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
This is reminiscent of the Obama era.
Obama campaigned on a paradigm shift from Bush and the forever wars in the middle east.
And, for that matter, of the Bush era, as Bush himself campaigned on a humble foreign policy, and no nation building, to contrast himself from Clinton.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
You're going to keep posting stuff like this at the top level, and when you finally get another mod warning, you're going to act like you're being targeted for your political views, aren't you?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4hr ago
First, the car is both the weapon and the means of transportation. The chef could easily drop the knife and then charge the police officer which, while they definitely should not do, would not be deadly force and not deserve death, even if it does deserve harsh punishment.
The car being the means of transportation is irrelevant. Like I said in the other post, there is no right to escape from cops, so she's not entitled to use the most efficient means of escape possible. From there it follows she could just get out of the car and make a run for it, the same way the chef could drop the knife. So choosing to escape by means of driving at an agent is roughly equivalent to charging at them with a knife
and not deserve death
This is a completely dishonest framing. Nothing short of an execution-style shooting implies that a death is "deserved".
Second, the police officer has a legitimate means of stopping the chef by physically blocking the door. Because people can stop people, but people cannot stop vehicles.
I can agree that detaining a suspect by standing in front of a car might be a bad idea, but I don't see how it nullifies the suspect's free will, or the agent's right to self-defense.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6hr ago
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15hr ago
When Moloch has already sunk his teeth deep into the former norm, when the line is being trampled every day by millions of people, the calculus is completely different.
I don't know about that. Immigration under Biden was out of control, people here were saying even Trump won't be able to do much about it, but his policies fixed it practically overnight. The teeth might still be sunk deep, but you at least don't have millions more trampling the line each day.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
16hr ago
It seems very hard for me to picture how a given illegal immigrant, individually, is doing any kind of "harm" to anyone at all.
Which just shows the folly of analyzing harm exclusively on an individual level. If a counterfeiter prints $1000 per month in fake money, his individual impact on the economy will be basically nil. If the government decided that throwing their ass in prison would cause more harm than he's causing the US economy, and as a result every American resident starts printing their own $1000 every month, this would result in total economic chaos. Many laws serve to guide collective, rather than individual, action towards a more beneficial trajectory, and I don't see a reason to suddenly stop and carve out an exception for immigration.
yes, the person the cops were trying to arrest chose to try to flee with a motor vehicle (resp. with the wire/handcuffs), but the cops previously chose to position themselves in the way of the car such that fleeing would entail driving the car at them, resp. chose to attach the wire.
Like I said, this is not a valid analogy. The reason they'd be wrong in the "attaching the wire" scenario is because they had the chance to restrain the suspect and chose to forgo it in favor of putting themselves in danger, not because they put themselves in harm's way in an attempt to restrain them. The latter is a completely normal part of police work. If it was somehow wrong, the police wouldn't be allowed to attempt to restrain any armed suspect.
If you barge into a restaurant kitchen and the chef is holding a knife and you dive underneath him, he is not threatening you with the knife. You threatened yourself
That would be a great argument, if she was just driving her car, minding her own business, they jumped out in front of her, and shot her. When the car is stopped, and she's surrounded by cops trying to detain her, the correct analogy is the police busting into a kitchen because the Chef is a suspect, and him charging at the only exit, which is blocked by an armed police officer, while holding a knife.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I think you’re conflating “made a bad choice” with “escalating.” She didn’t make the options life or death,
The officer didn't. Just standing in front of a stopped car is not a life and death situation, even civillians are allowed to do it, and any driver charging at one, would be found guilty of some sort of a crime. She's the one who made it a lot closer to life and death, which is why she was the one escalating.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I made no mention of a right to escape.
I'm saying the only way your argument makes sense is if there was such a right.
I’m just observing that it’s silly to unnecessarily make an escape attempt put your life at risk then hide behind fear for your life when an easy to anticipate behavior occurs.
By that logic arresting any armed suspect would be "silly" because you'd be putting yourself in the same situation when someone has a gun, and you want detain them.
...people pretty obviously have a right to not be shot by police unless they've in some sense 'deserved it' or some other interest is served to ameliorate a certain rate of accidents. A "right to life" ring a bell?
You're the one that said "I think framing it purely as 'X right exists [and trumps everything]' and leaving it at that is not a helpful framing, because especially when talking about law enforcement various "rights" come into conflict with each other all the time", so right off thr bat you've originally argued against your case, which was my point.
My case rests on a specific right (one to escape), NOT existing. If the suspect does not escape, by means of charging at an officer with a deadly weapon, at no point is their life in danger, so framing the discussion as a "right to life" id completely absurd.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
If a right like that existing wouldn't make the argument clear cut, doesn't make that my case, which depends on such a right not existing, even stronger?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
The "non-central fallacy" is a pretty dubious construct to start with, but in any case: no it's not. You can apply the same reasoning to the convoluted contraption from his scenario: handcuffs are not a deadly weapon, and neither is a wire, but they become one when the wire is wrapped around your neck. A car, by itself, is not a deadly weapon, but a car driving at someone is. There's a reason why they became so popular with Muslim terrorists.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
The police always travel in pairs, and instead of normal handcuffs they carry one cuff with a long thin wire dangling off them. When a police officer cuffs someone it doesn't directly restrain them in any way, but the police officer ties the wire around their own neck.
Uh... sure, if the officer had the perfect opportunity to restrain a suspect, but instead chose to arm them with a deadly weapon, the use of which completely depends on the officer willingly exposing himself to it through a series of convoluted steps, I'd say any pretense of feeling threatened is illegitimate.
I fail to see how this is a useful analogy for a case where the suspect is already in possession of a deadly weapon, prior to restraint.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Also imagine if the roles were reversed. If instead a normal guy was trying to get away from some anti-ICE protestors and got gotten, I'm sure the enemy would be all over it calling the driver an evil nazi and whatever.
We already had that. In Charlottesville.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I'll take a wild guess and say it's random chance, and the mean of the population has the highest chance of manifesting in the individual.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
There is no "right to escape from cops", and if she doesn't escape, she won't be putting anyone's life in danger, so she's the one escalating.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Part of the bargain we make with the state is that the violence is structured, measured, constrained, fair, etc. right?
Which means you shouldn't be roughed up for shits and giggles, not that the cops should let you run away or attack them.
Presumably he stands in front of the car to make it less likely she’ll drive away, but the stakes are now higher than they probably needed to be, right?
No, why?
(that is 0 at some schools including this one and, bizarrely, 50 at others)
What's bizarre about it? <=50% points is a failing grade in every European country I've been in.
The essay deserved an F
Not according to the grading criteria for the assignment. And if yes, just barely.
The rule being selectively enforced here is "Undergraduates should be able to do undergraduate-level work". It isn't the specific rubric.
What's the evidence that this rule even exists? I can probably pull out a specific rule for the school that prohibits academic fraud, if you admit there isn't one here, you're admitting the cases aren't analogous.
When the F student isn't politically sympathetic, most Motteposters do.
Most motteposters are in favor of high standards. Failing a particular student a teacher doesn't like, but otherwise keeping the low standards isn't particularly popular.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
A fundamentally righteous but rarely-enforced rule was enforced against an obviously-guilty member of a protected group
This is the similarity you're failing to show between the cases. As per the other thread the grading criteria for the assignment do not warrant a 0. Yes, it's a bad essay, but the criteria provided by the professor explicitly allows bad essays. Please show how there were similar rules that actually allow for the penalized conduct in this case.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
...you know, if someone I had less faith in the good faith of had said that, I would have dismissed it.
That's very flattering. Also kudos for reassessing.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
To be fair, you are going to bizarre lengths to imply that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons, as well as to refuse to state that directly, or to deny it. Just stating your beliefs plainly would probably dispell any suspicion about your luminosity levels.
Sure! For example a long time ago I heard of a case where the police was executing an arrest warrant, but got the wrong address. The owner thought he's being burgled and opened fire, and luckily for him, he managed to survive the whole ordeal that resulted from that. He got taken to court, where it was indeed determined that he was justified in shooting.
More options
Context Copy link