|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 22 2021 06:59 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:
[quote]
So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. But we’re not dealing with terrorists, we’re dealing with, generously, suspects. The entire basis for assigning their life less value is a cop deciding he thinks they’re suspicious. In most cases even if they had been tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty we might think the death penalty would be monstrous; here the only judicial procedure they’ve had is a cop looking at them and forming a judgment about whether to shoot them. Kwark (I think rightly) criticized the argument but there’s a peculiar honesty to the “I can picture a family member in this role but not that role “ basis for moral judgments. If you’re forming judgments about police rules of engagement, not on any universalizable moral principle, but on whatever would maximize the wellbeing of yourself and your loved ones, you’d likely be pretty happy with the status quo (at least, if you’re white). I can be relatively confident my family and I will never find ourselves harassed by the police; much harder to say confidently I’ll never be attacked by some random assailant with a knife. If every cop thinks he’s Jack Bauer + Show Spoiler + I think this is a relevant reference? I haven’t seen 24 I might be slightly safer because the benefit (slightly higher chances of shooting criminals before they can stab me) might affect me, and the cost (much higher chance of cops shooting civilians posing no real threat to anyone) almost certainly won’t. It’d be nice if Blue Lives Matter folks would acknowledge this is the tradeoff they’re making. Sure, people are being murdered by cops without any due process, but those people aren’t me or my family! Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with.
I think it is universalizable moral principle to protect members of the public from an aggressor coming at them with a knife. I'd wager that this is standard rules of engagement for virtually every police department around the world. I think people that disagree with this should be willing to admit that if their loved one was in the position of the person about to be stabbed they would still think the police shouldn't shoot.
|
On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb.
I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious.
So your argument is that a nonzero number of people being gunned down for property theft/damage is acceptable until it reaches a certain threshold at which point it becomes unacceptable?
|
On April 22 2021 07:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 06:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing.
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. But we’re not dealing with terrorists, we’re dealing with, generously, suspects. The entire basis for assigning their life less value is a cop deciding he thinks they’re suspicious. In most cases even if they had been tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty we might think the death penalty would be monstrous; here the only judicial procedure they’ve had is a cop looking at them and forming a judgment about whether to shoot them. Kwark (I think rightly) criticized the argument but there’s a peculiar honesty to the “I can picture a family member in this role but not that role “ basis for moral judgments. If you’re forming judgments about police rules of engagement, not on any universalizable moral principle, but on whatever would maximize the wellbeing of yourself and your loved ones, you’d likely be pretty happy with the status quo (at least, if you’re white). I can be relatively confident my family and I will never find ourselves harassed by the police; much harder to say confidently I’ll never be attacked by some random assailant with a knife. If every cop thinks he’s Jack Bauer + Show Spoiler + I think this is a relevant reference? I haven’t seen 24 I might be slightly safer because the benefit (slightly higher chances of shooting criminals before they can stab me) might affect me, and the cost (much higher chance of cops shooting civilians posing no real threat to anyone) almost certainly won’t. It’d be nice if Blue Lives Matter folks would acknowledge this is the tradeoff they’re making. Sure, people are being murdered by cops without any due process, but those people aren’t me or my family! Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with. I think it is universalizable moral principle to protect members of the public from an aggressor coming at them with a knife. I'd wager that this is standard rules of engagement for virtually every police department around the world. It has nothing to do with maximizing the wellbeing of my loved ones.
you’re right, but I think you’ll find most people (outside of the US) don’t believe that stretches so far as to shoot the suspect. And virtually every police department around the world shoots people drastically less frequently.
|
On April 22 2021 07:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 06:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing.
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. But we’re not dealing with terrorists, we’re dealing with, generously, suspects. The entire basis for assigning their life less value is a cop deciding he thinks they’re suspicious. In most cases even if they had been tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty we might think the death penalty would be monstrous; here the only judicial procedure they’ve had is a cop looking at them and forming a judgment about whether to shoot them. Kwark (I think rightly) criticized the argument but there’s a peculiar honesty to the “I can picture a family member in this role but not that role “ basis for moral judgments. If you’re forming judgments about police rules of engagement, not on any universalizable moral principle, but on whatever would maximize the wellbeing of yourself and your loved ones, you’d likely be pretty happy with the status quo (at least, if you’re white). I can be relatively confident my family and I will never find ourselves harassed by the police; much harder to say confidently I’ll never be attacked by some random assailant with a knife. If every cop thinks he’s Jack Bauer + Show Spoiler + I think this is a relevant reference? I haven’t seen 24 I might be slightly safer because the benefit (slightly higher chances of shooting criminals before they can stab me) might affect me, and the cost (much higher chance of cops shooting civilians posing no real threat to anyone) almost certainly won’t. It’d be nice if Blue Lives Matter folks would acknowledge this is the tradeoff they’re making. Sure, people are being murdered by cops without any due process, but those people aren’t me or my family! Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with. I think it is universalizable moral principle to protect members of the public from an aggressor coming at them with a knife. I'd wager that this is standard rules of engagement for virtually every police department around the world. It has nothing to do with maximizing the wellbeing of my loved ones.
Either you mean to say "I think it is [a] universalizable moral principle to protect members of the public by killing an aggressor coming at them with a knife" or you're deliberately massaging the principle to avoid its implications.
Ninja'd by brian
|
On April 22 2021 07:39 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious. Considering 58% of police shootings took place after police responded to a nonviolent incident, yeah, I'm sure there are an abundance of examples out there. https://www.axios.com/police-killings-2020-non-violent-incidents-dd3035a9-3182-43b9-9742-1a5f8786ca6c.html
So no examples to share? As you said, should be an abundance from what you believe, so it probably would have taken less time than to pull up a unrelated link. "Responding to a non-violent incident" literally means nothing, if you think this stuff through.
|
On April 22 2021 07:45 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:39 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious. Considering 58% of police shootings took place after police responded to a nonviolent incident, yeah, I'm sure there are an abundance of examples out there. https://www.axios.com/police-killings-2020-non-violent-incidents-dd3035a9-3182-43b9-9742-1a5f8786ca6c.html So no examples to share? As you said, should be an abundance from what you believe, so it probably would have taken less time than to pull up a unrelated link. "Responding to a non-violent incident" literally means nothing, if you think this stuff through.
I'm not KwarK. It'd be best if you checked who you're replying to.
EDIT: Also, you get to decide what does and doesn't mean something now? You can just handwave away evidence because you feel like it doesn't mean anything? Wow, that's something!
EDIT 2: If you had clicked the link, you'd see how it breaks down "violent" and "non-violent". It's literally the first thing on the screen.
|
this road i don’t actually want to go down - snipped it. sorry thanks.
|
United States44245 Posts
On April 22 2021 07:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 06:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing.
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. But we’re not dealing with terrorists, we’re dealing with, generously, suspects. The entire basis for assigning their life less value is a cop deciding he thinks they’re suspicious. In most cases even if they had been tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty we might think the death penalty would be monstrous; here the only judicial procedure they’ve had is a cop looking at them and forming a judgment about whether to shoot them. Kwark (I think rightly) criticized the argument but there’s a peculiar honesty to the “I can picture a family member in this role but not that role “ basis for moral judgments. If you’re forming judgments about police rules of engagement, not on any universalizable moral principle, but on whatever would maximize the wellbeing of yourself and your loved ones, you’d likely be pretty happy with the status quo (at least, if you’re white). I can be relatively confident my family and I will never find ourselves harassed by the police; much harder to say confidently I’ll never be attacked by some random assailant with a knife. If every cop thinks he’s Jack Bauer + Show Spoiler + I think this is a relevant reference? I haven’t seen 24 I might be slightly safer because the benefit (slightly higher chances of shooting criminals before they can stab me) might affect me, and the cost (much higher chance of cops shooting civilians posing no real threat to anyone) almost certainly won’t. It’d be nice if Blue Lives Matter folks would acknowledge this is the tradeoff they’re making. Sure, people are being murdered by cops without any due process, but those people aren’t me or my family! Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with. I think it is universalizable moral principle to protect members of the public from an aggressor coming at them with a knife. I'd wager that this is standard rules of engagement for virtually every police department around the world. I think people that disagree with this should be willing to admit that if their loved one was in the position of the person about to be stabbed they would still think the police shouldn't shoot.
Why are you placing loved ones in this? Obviously people have a bias towards loved ones and value their lives above others. That does not mean that the state should recognize some lives as more valuable than others, it means that the people are biased.
Lets do a trolley problem. On the one track we have my childhood dog, on the other you. Let’s say I let that trolley hit you. Do you think the state should recognize this as evidence that your life is worth less than that of a dog or do you think the state should consider me biased?
Every individual values their loved ones more highly than the idea of a stranger but we can’t build a justice system around that.
|
On April 22 2021 07:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 06:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing.
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. But we’re not dealing with terrorists, we’re dealing with, generously, suspects. The entire basis for assigning their life less value is a cop deciding he thinks they’re suspicious. In most cases even if they had been tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty we might think the death penalty would be monstrous; here the only judicial procedure they’ve had is a cop looking at them and forming a judgment about whether to shoot them. Kwark (I think rightly) criticized the argument but there’s a peculiar honesty to the “I can picture a family member in this role but not that role “ basis for moral judgments. If you’re forming judgments about police rules of engagement, not on any universalizable moral principle, but on whatever would maximize the wellbeing of yourself and your loved ones, you’d likely be pretty happy with the status quo (at least, if you’re white). I can be relatively confident my family and I will never find ourselves harassed by the police; much harder to say confidently I’ll never be attacked by some random assailant with a knife. If every cop thinks he’s Jack Bauer + Show Spoiler + I think this is a relevant reference? I haven’t seen 24 I might be slightly safer because the benefit (slightly higher chances of shooting criminals before they can stab me) might affect me, and the cost (much higher chance of cops shooting civilians posing no real threat to anyone) almost certainly won’t. It’d be nice if Blue Lives Matter folks would acknowledge this is the tradeoff they’re making. Sure, people are being murdered by cops without any due process, but those people aren’t me or my family! Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with. I think it is universalizable moral principle to protect members of the public from an aggressor coming at them with a knife. I'd wager that this is standard rules of engagement for virtually every police department around the world. I think people that disagree with this should be willing to admit that if their loved one was in the position of the person about to be stabbed they would still think the police shouldn't shoot.
You wouldn't condemn a person to death for stabbing another in the heat of the moment if no cop was present. That's either second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter and they carry far lighter sentences than death. Why upgrade the punishment simply because a cop witnessed the event?
|
On April 22 2021 07:42 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious. So your argument is that a nonzero number of people being gunned down for property theft/damage is acceptable until it reaches a certain threshold at which point it becomes unacceptable?
My argument is literally spelled out exactly in my post. Too often people throw out random nonsense and it is just accepted as if it is reality. Words have meaning. They also have influence on people and how they react to the world. When you spread what charitably can be said is hyperbole, and what I would categorize as make believe, it should be called out. It's becoming so that as long as they target of this is acceptable, it is fine to do so. I think that will become a problem the longer it continues.
|
On April 22 2021 07:49 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. But we’re not dealing with terrorists, we’re dealing with, generously, suspects. The entire basis for assigning their life less value is a cop deciding he thinks they’re suspicious. In most cases even if they had been tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty we might think the death penalty would be monstrous; here the only judicial procedure they’ve had is a cop looking at them and forming a judgment about whether to shoot them. Kwark (I think rightly) criticized the argument but there’s a peculiar honesty to the “I can picture a family member in this role but not that role “ basis for moral judgments. If you’re forming judgments about police rules of engagement, not on any universalizable moral principle, but on whatever would maximize the wellbeing of yourself and your loved ones, you’d likely be pretty happy with the status quo (at least, if you’re white). I can be relatively confident my family and I will never find ourselves harassed by the police; much harder to say confidently I’ll never be attacked by some random assailant with a knife. If every cop thinks he’s Jack Bauer + Show Spoiler + I think this is a relevant reference? I haven’t seen 24 I might be slightly safer because the benefit (slightly higher chances of shooting criminals before they can stab me) might affect me, and the cost (much higher chance of cops shooting civilians posing no real threat to anyone) almost certainly won’t. It’d be nice if Blue Lives Matter folks would acknowledge this is the tradeoff they’re making. Sure, people are being murdered by cops without any due process, but those people aren’t me or my family! Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with. I think it is universalizable moral principle to protect members of the public from an aggressor coming at them with a knife. I'd wager that this is standard rules of engagement for virtually every police department around the world. I think people that disagree with this should be willing to admit that if their loved one was in the position of the person about to be stabbed they would still think the police shouldn't shoot. You wouldn't condemn a person to death for stabbing another in the heat of the moment if no cop was present. That's either second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter and they carry far lighter sentences than death. Why upgrade the punishment simply because a cop witnessed the event?
C'mon this is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
|
On April 22 2021 07:49 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. But we’re not dealing with terrorists, we’re dealing with, generously, suspects. The entire basis for assigning their life less value is a cop deciding he thinks they’re suspicious. In most cases even if they had been tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty we might think the death penalty would be monstrous; here the only judicial procedure they’ve had is a cop looking at them and forming a judgment about whether to shoot them. Kwark (I think rightly) criticized the argument but there’s a peculiar honesty to the “I can picture a family member in this role but not that role “ basis for moral judgments. If you’re forming judgments about police rules of engagement, not on any universalizable moral principle, but on whatever would maximize the wellbeing of yourself and your loved ones, you’d likely be pretty happy with the status quo (at least, if you’re white). I can be relatively confident my family and I will never find ourselves harassed by the police; much harder to say confidently I’ll never be attacked by some random assailant with a knife. If every cop thinks he’s Jack Bauer + Show Spoiler + I think this is a relevant reference? I haven’t seen 24 I might be slightly safer because the benefit (slightly higher chances of shooting criminals before they can stab me) might affect me, and the cost (much higher chance of cops shooting civilians posing no real threat to anyone) almost certainly won’t. It’d be nice if Blue Lives Matter folks would acknowledge this is the tradeoff they’re making. Sure, people are being murdered by cops without any due process, but those people aren’t me or my family! Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with. I think it is universalizable moral principle to protect members of the public from an aggressor coming at them with a knife. I'd wager that this is standard rules of engagement for virtually every police department around the world. I think people that disagree with this should be willing to admit that if their loved one was in the position of the person about to be stabbed they would still think the police shouldn't shoot. You wouldn't condemn a person to death for stabbing another in the heat of the moment if no cop was present. That's either second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter and they carry far lighter sentences than death. Why upgrade the punishment simply because a cop witnessed the event?
Isn't it more about preventing possibly/imminently violent person A to hurt, possibly kill non violent person B by shooting at person A?
E: what a wonderful question to pose.
|
On April 22 2021 07:49 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:42 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious. So your argument is that a nonzero number of people being gunned down for property theft/damage is acceptable until it reaches a certain threshold at which point it becomes unacceptable? My argument is literally spelled out exactly in my post. Too often people throw out random nonsense and it is just accepted as if it is reality. Words have meaning. They also have influence on people and how they react to the world. When you spread what charitably can be said is hyperbole, and what I would categorize as make believe, it should be called out. It's becoming so that as long as they target of this is acceptable, it is fine to do so. I think that will become a problem the longer it continues.
Stop asking people to verify a claim they made. You are interfering with the echo chamber.
|
On April 22 2021 07:49 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:42 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious. So your argument is that a nonzero number of people being gunned down for property theft/damage is acceptable until it reaches a certain threshold at which point it becomes unacceptable? My argument is literally spelled out exactly in my post. Too often people throw out random nonsense and it is just accepted as if it is reality. Words have meaning. They also have influence on people and how they react to the world. When you spread what charitably can be said is hyperbole, and what I would categorize as make believe, it should be called out. It's becoming so that as long as they target of this is acceptable, it is fine to do so. I think that will become a problem the longer it continues.
As someone who mere posts ago used the phrase "literally means nothing" like a hill giant swinging a club after being hit in the face with a color spray, it'd probably be best to not play pretend at being strict with semantics.
On April 22 2021 07:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:49 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:42 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious. So your argument is that a nonzero number of people being gunned down for property theft/damage is acceptable until it reaches a certain threshold at which point it becomes unacceptable? My argument is literally spelled out exactly in my post. Too often people throw out random nonsense and it is just accepted as if it is reality. Words have meaning. They also have influence on people and how they react to the world. When you spread what charitably can be said is hyperbole, and what I would categorize as make believe, it should be called out. It's becoming so that as long as they target of this is acceptable, it is fine to do so. I think that will become a problem the longer it continues. Stop asking people to verify a claim they made. You are interfering with the echo chamber.
Given that this thread has recent pages upon pages of relatively polite disagreements involving these issues so long as they don't involve you or dp, your retreat to the language of "I'm losing in the internet debate club" is as inaccurate as it is predictable.
|
On April 22 2021 07:46 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:45 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:39 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious. Considering 58% of police shootings took place after police responded to a nonviolent incident, yeah, I'm sure there are an abundance of examples out there. https://www.axios.com/police-killings-2020-non-violent-incidents-dd3035a9-3182-43b9-9742-1a5f8786ca6c.html So no examples to share? As you said, should be an abundance from what you believe, so it probably would have taken less time than to pull up a unrelated link. "Responding to a non-violent incident" literally means nothing, if you think this stuff through. I'm not KwarK. It'd be best if you checked who you're replying to. EDIT: Also, you get to decide what does and doesn't mean something now? You can just handwave away evidence because you feel like it doesn't mean anything? Wow, that's something! EDIT 2: If you had clicked the link, you'd see how it breaks down "violent" and "non-violent". It's literally the first thing on the screen.
On April 22 2021 07:47 brian wrote:
can you elaborate how you have come to this conclusion? to me it means cops killed people without reason. seems pertinent to the discussion.
I'll explain what I mean. Why the police responds somewhere doesn't mean anything in regards to what happens when they arrive. They can be called out for a noise complaint. In the course of them being there if they are then engaged in a gun fight, it is no longer 'a non-violent incident' but their initial reasoning for being there remains the same. So, ya, it means squat to me.
|
On April 22 2021 07:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb.
I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. But we’re not dealing with terrorists, we’re dealing with, generously, suspects. The entire basis for assigning their life less value is a cop deciding he thinks they’re suspicious. In most cases even if they had been tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty we might think the death penalty would be monstrous; here the only judicial procedure they’ve had is a cop looking at them and forming a judgment about whether to shoot them. Kwark (I think rightly) criticized the argument but there’s a peculiar honesty to the “I can picture a family member in this role but not that role “ basis for moral judgments. If you’re forming judgments about police rules of engagement, not on any universalizable moral principle, but on whatever would maximize the wellbeing of yourself and your loved ones, you’d likely be pretty happy with the status quo (at least, if you’re white). I can be relatively confident my family and I will never find ourselves harassed by the police; much harder to say confidently I’ll never be attacked by some random assailant with a knife. If every cop thinks he’s Jack Bauer + Show Spoiler + I think this is a relevant reference? I haven’t seen 24 I might be slightly safer because the benefit (slightly higher chances of shooting criminals before they can stab me) might affect me, and the cost (much higher chance of cops shooting civilians posing no real threat to anyone) almost certainly won’t. It’d be nice if Blue Lives Matter folks would acknowledge this is the tradeoff they’re making. Sure, people are being murdered by cops without any due process, but those people aren’t me or my family! Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with. I think it is universalizable moral principle to protect members of the public from an aggressor coming at them with a knife. I'd wager that this is standard rules of engagement for virtually every police department around the world. I think people that disagree with this should be willing to admit that if their loved one was in the position of the person about to be stabbed they would still think the police shouldn't shoot. You wouldn't condemn a person to death for stabbing another in the heat of the moment if no cop was present. That's either second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter and they carry far lighter sentences than death. Why upgrade the punishment simply because a cop witnessed the event? C'mon this is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
In what way do you find this ridiculous? I do not accept that people's lives have different value depending on how a cop was feeling that day. We have a system for delivering justice, we agreed as a society how to deal with criminals. We have a process for a reason and I think it is immoral to not give an individual an opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law when an individual is executed on the basis of a suspicion of about to commit a crime.
|
United States44245 Posts
On April 22 2021 07:45 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:39 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious. Considering 58% of police shootings took place after police responded to a nonviolent incident, yeah, I'm sure there are an abundance of examples out there. https://www.axios.com/police-killings-2020-non-violent-incidents-dd3035a9-3182-43b9-9742-1a5f8786ca6c.html So no examples to share? As you said, should be an abundance from what you believe, so it probably would have taken less time than to pull up a unrelated link. "Responding to a non-violent incident" literally means nothing, if you think this stuff through.
Botham Jean was shot while sitting on his couch in his own apartment by a police officer who claimed she thought he was a burglar. She clearly thought that burglary was a crime for which she was entitled to execute him. She walked free for a few days before someone pointed out that he wasn’t a burglar and that she broke into his apartment (not the other way around) and murdered him, and even then was materially assisted by the police department who deliberately pursued manslaughter rather than murder.
|
On April 22 2021 07:53 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb.
I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. But we’re not dealing with terrorists, we’re dealing with, generously, suspects. The entire basis for assigning their life less value is a cop deciding he thinks they’re suspicious. In most cases even if they had been tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty we might think the death penalty would be monstrous; here the only judicial procedure they’ve had is a cop looking at them and forming a judgment about whether to shoot them. Kwark (I think rightly) criticized the argument but there’s a peculiar honesty to the “I can picture a family member in this role but not that role “ basis for moral judgments. If you’re forming judgments about police rules of engagement, not on any universalizable moral principle, but on whatever would maximize the wellbeing of yourself and your loved ones, you’d likely be pretty happy with the status quo (at least, if you’re white). I can be relatively confident my family and I will never find ourselves harassed by the police; much harder to say confidently I’ll never be attacked by some random assailant with a knife. If every cop thinks he’s Jack Bauer + Show Spoiler + I think this is a relevant reference? I haven’t seen 24 I might be slightly safer because the benefit (slightly higher chances of shooting criminals before they can stab me) might affect me, and the cost (much higher chance of cops shooting civilians posing no real threat to anyone) almost certainly won’t. It’d be nice if Blue Lives Matter folks would acknowledge this is the tradeoff they’re making. Sure, people are being murdered by cops without any due process, but those people aren’t me or my family! Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with. I think it is universalizable moral principle to protect members of the public from an aggressor coming at them with a knife. I'd wager that this is standard rules of engagement for virtually every police department around the world. I think people that disagree with this should be willing to admit that if their loved one was in the position of the person about to be stabbed they would still think the police shouldn't shoot. You wouldn't condemn a person to death for stabbing another in the heat of the moment if no cop was present. That's either second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter and they carry far lighter sentences than death. Why upgrade the punishment simply because a cop witnessed the event? Isn't it more about preventing possibly/imminently violent person A to hurt, possibly kill non violent person B by shooting at person A? E: what a wonderful question to pose.
Yes, this is the core of the issue. I do not think preventative killings are morally defensible and certainly not when the execution is performed by a poorly trained individual that belongs to a group of people famous for being poor at making consistent judgements.
|
On April 22 2021 08:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:45 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:39 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious. Considering 58% of police shootings took place after police responded to a nonviolent incident, yeah, I'm sure there are an abundance of examples out there. https://www.axios.com/police-killings-2020-non-violent-incidents-dd3035a9-3182-43b9-9742-1a5f8786ca6c.html So no examples to share? As you said, should be an abundance from what you believe, so it probably would have taken less time than to pull up a unrelated link. "Responding to a non-violent incident" literally means nothing, if you think this stuff through. Botham Jean was shot while sitting on his couch in his own apartment by a police officer who claimed she thought he was a burglar.
She was there in her official capacity as an officer? Responding to a call? He was stealing a TV? I don't know why I need to make this clear but again, I know plenty of police interactions that have gone wrong, and are directly the fault of the police. You would very rarely find me on the side of the police in a questionable case. That is no way means I agree with statements like what you said. It also doesn't mean I will always fall on the side of those that are shot. The frequency and details are important to discussion though.
|
On April 22 2021 08:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:45 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:39 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious. Considering 58% of police shootings took place after police responded to a nonviolent incident, yeah, I'm sure there are an abundance of examples out there. https://www.axios.com/police-killings-2020-non-violent-incidents-dd3035a9-3182-43b9-9742-1a5f8786ca6c.html So no examples to share? As you said, should be an abundance from what you believe, so it probably would have taken less time than to pull up a unrelated link. "Responding to a non-violent incident" literally means nothing, if you think this stuff through. Botham Jean was shot while sitting on his couch in his own apartment by a police officer who claimed she thought he was a burglar.
I recall listening to that trial, and hearing the police officer state during her testimony that when she suspected something was wrong as she was about to open the door (because the door was ajar), she had already decided to take out the target with her gun. Obviously, that lead to Botham Jean's death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
