5 ms·

You complain about being downvoted, but your entire post is just calling the post "obviously and overt nonsense" and claiming it is a lie, without making any at

by Latty 6y ago

You complain about being downvoted, but your entire post is just calling the post "obviously and overt nonsense" and claiming it is a lie, without making any attempt to explain why. Not exactly a helpful post.

throwaway894345 6y ago
There’s nothing to refute; the parent didn’t support their own claim. How can I prove a negative? Anyway, it’s overt ideological propaganda; I don’t owe a substantial response.
JoeSmithson 6y ago
Wikipedia defines the police as "a constituted body of persons empowered by a state, with the aim to enforce the law, to ensure the safety, health and possessions of citizens, and to prevent crime and civil disorder". If you are claiming that the police are in fact, "a force which exists to terrorize working class people in order to force them to work for minimum wage" then I think the burden of proof is on you.
- Latty 6y ago
  This is a very weird argument. No one is talking about the definition of the term, they are talking about the implementation as it exists in the US right now. This is like saying that just because the DPRK has "democratic" in the name, it must be a democratic nation.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  You're misusing the concept of "burden of proof" as a rhetorical attack. The parent is not asserting the root comment to be true with no proof - they're pointing out why the response was bad. Upon whom the burden of proof lies has no bearing on that.
monksy 6y ago
For the individual to make a claim that: "They are a force which exists to terrorize working class people in order to force them to work for minimum wage. They are an investment by the ruling class which allows them to maintain their profits on marginalized workers." Is just over the top absurdist. It's easily debunked by asking someone making above minimal wage "are you being forced to work by the police?" Will they bust down your door and address you for failure to accept employment at minimum wage?
- Latty 6y ago
  I'm not saying I agree with the argument necessarily, but your counter-argument here is obviously flawed: oppressed peoples can't speak their mind freely, and may not have the information to be able to understand their situation fully. To claim that just because you ask someone "are you being oppressed" and they say "no", that they are therefore not being oppressed seems naive at best.
  - monksy 6y ago
    > oppressed peoples can't speak their mind freely They can't? The government is arresting these people for speaking? If so we have a 1st amendment violation. Private corporations? That's an issue between the person and the corporation. We don't have rights protecting speech there and protecting that agreement [staying employeed]. However, the private insitution do not have the right to imprison someone over speech they do not like. > may not have the information to be able to understand their situation fully Are you talking about the education about this? The federal system has a minimum amount of education guaranteed per person. Typically most of the economy is run by people who have the education and skills. As an individual you do have the right to congregate with others and speak with each others about situations. Creating a union is legal. (Although that's an annoyingly controversial practice) > To claim that just because you ask someone "are you being oppressed" and they say "no", that they are therefore not being oppressed seems naive at best. That is your judgment and evaluation of the situation. Why should we believe this guy Latty on the internet about a third party's situation?
  - throwaway894345 6y ago

by Latty 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago

There’s nothing to refute; the parent didn’t support their own claim. How can I prove a negative? Anyway, it’s overt ideological propaganda; I don’t owe a substantial response.

JoeSmithson 6y ago

Wikipedia defines the police as "a constituted body of persons empowered by a state, with the aim to enforce the law, to ensure the safety, health and possessions of citizens, and to prevent crime and civil disorder". If you are claiming that the police are in fact, "a force which exists to terrorize working class people in order to force them to work for minimum wage" then I think the burden of proof is on you.

Latty 6y ago
This is a very weird argument. No one is talking about the definition of the term, they are talking about the implementation as it exists in the US right now. This is like saying that just because the DPRK has "democratic" in the name, it must be a democratic nation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
happytoexplain 6y ago
You're misusing the concept of "burden of proof" as a rhetorical attack. The parent is not asserting the root comment to be true with no proof - they're pointing out why the response was bad. Upon whom the burden of proof lies has no bearing on that.

monksy 6y ago

For the individual to make a claim that: "They are a force which exists to terrorize working class people in order to force them to work for minimum wage. They are an investment by the ruling class which allows them to maintain their profits on marginalized workers." Is just over the top absurdist. It's easily debunked by asking someone making above minimal wage "are you being forced to work by the police?" Will they bust down your door and address you for failure to accept employment at minimum wage?

Latty 6y ago
I'm not saying I agree with the argument necessarily, but your counter-argument here is obviously flawed: oppressed peoples can't speak their mind freely, and may not have the information to be able to understand their situation fully. To claim that just because you ask someone "are you being oppressed" and they say "no", that they are therefore not being oppressed seems naive at best.
- monksy 6y ago
  > oppressed peoples can't speak their mind freely They can't? The government is arresting these people for speaking? If so we have a 1st amendment violation. Private corporations? That's an issue between the person and the corporation. We don't have rights protecting speech there and protecting that agreement [staying employeed]. However, the private insitution do not have the right to imprison someone over speech they do not like. > may not have the information to be able to understand their situation fully Are you talking about the education about this? The federal system has a minimum amount of education guaranteed per person. Typically most of the economy is run by people who have the education and skills. As an individual you do have the right to congregate with others and speak with each others about situations. Creating a union is legal. (Although that's an annoyingly controversial practice) > To claim that just because you ask someone "are you being oppressed" and they say "no", that they are therefore not being oppressed seems naive at best. That is your judgment and evaluation of the situation. Why should we believe this guy Latty on the internet about a third party's situation?
- throwaway894345 6y ago