4 ms·

I don’t understand. Surely in the ideal world nobody would kill anyone else. I’m not sure that’s very realistic, or even relevant to what we should expect from

by baddox 6y ago

I don’t understand. Surely in the ideal world nobody would kill anyone else. I’m not sure that’s very realistic, or even relevant to what we should expect from police in the real world.

seneca 6y ago
In an ideal world we wouldn't need police at all and we wouldn't be having this conversation. In my example, I was pointing out that if we remove police corruption from the equation, police would still kill some number of civilians. Because of that fact, the parent's post doesn't make much sense.
- baddox 6y ago
  But why would you hypothetically remove bad actions from just the police? I genuinely don’t understand. By the exact same argument, if you removed all bad actions from everyone who isn’t a police officer, then of course you’d expect police to kill more people. In the original comment, before all the ridiculous hypothesizing, the actual world is what was being discussed.
  - seneca 6y ago
    > But why would you hypothetically remove bad actions from just the police? Because the person I'm responding to is claiming that police kill more civilians than civilians kill police, with the implication that it's because police are corrupt. I used a hypothetical scenario to point out that this doesn't follow, because the same would be true even if there were no police corruption. > By the exact same argument, if you removed all bad actions from everyone who isn’t a police officer, then of course you’d expect police to kill more people. Not clear what your point is here. > In the original comment, before all the ridiculous hypothesizing, the actual world is what was being discussed. Yes, some times people use thought experiments to highlight facts about the real world.
    - baddox 6y ago
      I guess it’s not clear what you mean by “police corruption.” If “removing police corruption” just means “removing the possibility of any bad action by any police officer,” then you get right back to my previous comment. To me, “removing police corruption” would mean having a mechanism of legal accountability for police officers. It wouldn’t mean police officers wouldn’t still abuse and murder people, it would just mean that they would usually be investigated and punished for doing it.

by baddox 6y ago

I don’t understand. Surely in the ideal world nobody would kill anyone else. I’m not sure that’s very realistic, or even relevant to what we should expect from police in the real world.

seneca 6y ago

In an ideal world we wouldn't need police at all and we wouldn't be having this conversation. In my example, I was pointing out that if we remove police corruption from the equation, police would still kill some number of civilians. Because of that fact, the parent's post doesn't make much sense.

baddox 6y ago
But why would you hypothetically remove bad actions from just the police? I genuinely don’t understand. By the exact same argument, if you removed all bad actions from everyone who isn’t a police officer, then of course you’d expect police to kill more people. In the original comment, before all the ridiculous hypothesizing, the actual world is what was being discussed.
- seneca 6y ago
  > But why would you hypothetically remove bad actions from just the police? Because the person I'm responding to is claiming that police kill more civilians than civilians kill police, with the implication that it's because police are corrupt. I used a hypothetical scenario to point out that this doesn't follow, because the same would be true even if there were no police corruption. > By the exact same argument, if you removed all bad actions from everyone who isn’t a police officer, then of course you’d expect police to kill more people. Not clear what your point is here. > In the original comment, before all the ridiculous hypothesizing, the actual world is what was being discussed. Yes, some times people use thought experiments to highlight facts about the real world.
  - baddox 6y ago
    I guess it’s not clear what you mean by “police corruption.” If “removing police corruption” just means “removing the possibility of any bad action by any police officer,” then you get right back to my previous comment. To me, “removing police corruption” would mean having a mechanism of legal accountability for police officers. It wouldn’t mean police officers wouldn’t still abuse and murder people, it would just mean that they would usually be investigated and punished for doing it.