3 ms·
I don't see the claim you have put inside the quotes as being made by IIIIIIIIIIII, therefore your argument seems fake.
by acqq 10y ago
I don't see the claim you have put inside the quotes as being made by IIIIIIIIIIII, therefore your argument seems fake.
- SilasX 10y agoWell, I'm trying to parse it, but as best I can tell, III...'s claim is just "Americans suck at this" combined with implausible claims and explicit rejections of any plausible ones. Somehow, the mere act of evicting someone is evidence of needing to de-escalate more, as if that could somehow avoid needing to ever remove someone. Or even if you did, you could somehow do it both without training and without attacking, since everyone learns how to remove someone without hurting them sometime shortly after the crying and nursing instincts kick in? Or, if the eviction wasn't justified, all police are somehow experts on contract law to the point that they could know this? And then when called on these questionable claims, III... just retreats to, "well look at the stats" (and various other poisoning-the-well unrelated to this specific circumstance). If there's a coherent claim here, I'd appreciate the correction on what that claim is. It's easy to say "someone screwed up here", but III...'s attempt to explain what that was ends up making its own dubious claims.
- IIIIIIIIIIII 10y agoFrom your previous comment, above, that I didn't respond to: > that substantiates your earlier claim that "no one is ever forcibly removed by police and if they needed to be, it wouldn't require training". Fortunately anyone can easily see what I wrote. Your style disgusts me.
- SilasX 10y agoEveryone can see the text. No one can see a plausible diagnosis of what went wrong relative to Germany, since you ruled out the possibility of removing anyone or removal needing training to be done safely.