this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
565 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18645 readers
3583 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Bout damn time

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Seriously. The recent story of just how many people have died from the cops 'giving them something to calm them down' is insane. If you're not my doctor, you don't get to dose me with anything.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

And that number was just the cases voluntarily reported or with legal cases that the AP could find.

Since we have literally zero reporting requirements at a federal level for police departments, it could be 10-100x as many deaths.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Cops job isn't to protect you or I. It's to protect the people who pay them and their interests. It's just a government sanctioned gang and anyone who believes otherwise either isn't paying attention or is one of the people who pay them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

We do pay for them in taxes

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No true Scotsman fallacy. You can't actually make the argument, which is why you realize you have to go straight to a logical fallacy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

...are you responding to the wrong comment, or do you not know what the no true Scotsman fallacy is lol

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Neither. No true Scotsman (in this case someone not paying the police) would miss that they are a sanctioned gang. I guess I should also point out that it was coupled with an ad hominem as well, accusing them possibly not paying attention.

Pick your logic fallacy, I guess. Either way, they've made no actual argument and just preemptively attacked anyone who disagrees with them.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

But there was no attack. There was no argument. Unless I'm completely mistaken, the thread was just a discussion of police in our society and you jumped in calling someone out and attempted to dismantle an argument that was never even made.

If we want to go with just pointing out fallacies for whatever reason, I guess I'll go ahead and throw strawman out there?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

I wouldn't just go tossing out fallacies like that. Those are unwarranted assumptions. Next thing you know, you are just going to assume people are racist. It's a slippery slope.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're really trying to claim that they didn't make the argument that the cops are just a "sanctioned gang"?

Lol they explicitly made the point and then defended if by using to logical fallacies.

Of course, it seems you know i'm right which is why you've moved away from accusing me of not knowing what the fallacy is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

They...are just a sanctioned gang lol. Maybe you just aren't paying attention?