3 ms·
First, my very point is that when you have only suspicion, you must be extra skeptical of speculation and innuendo, not less. Second, it is against the HN guid
by Hnrobert42 4y ago
First, my very point is that when you have only suspicion, you must be extra skeptical of speculation and innuendo, not less.
Second, it is against the HN guidelines to accuse others of not reading the article.
Because, third, I did read that your quoted paragraph. I took it to mean, they believe but are not sure. As in “[he] could not confirm…”
Sadly, I struggle with your other points as they as suffer the same issues as the article. E.g., again, this was not a bicycle training, have the officers been formally charged? was the accused officer the trainer or a participant?
- newaccount74 4y agoIf you just look at the facts quoted from the coroners report, without looking at the circumstances, it sure sounds like this person was beaten to death. It does not sound like a training accident.
- braingenious 4y agoYou’ll notice that on HN it is pretty common to see people pop into the comments about anything police-related with “Well actually there is no empirical logical reason to disbelieve the notion that the police are the arbiters of truth. You sir are doing a fallacy of the most egregious degree! In fact you are violating the very covenant of the guidelines upon which this very website is founded by arguing in such a noxious manner! I know this because my herculean intellect tells me so, as I do not even have opinions but only the zen mastery of Truth Itself!” I haven’t quite figured out why there are so many staunchly pro-police people on a site where a lot of posters seem to lean kind of libertarian, but it’s an interesting and kind of amusing phenomenon.
- fknorangesite 4y ago> I haven’t quite figured out why there are so many staunchly pro-police people on a site where a lot of posters seem to lean kind of libertarian An old joke: a libertarian is just a conservative who likes to smoke weed.
- rendall 4y agoYou don't think that a possible explanation for GP's post is principled disagreement that the article makes a good case, rather than necessarily ardent pro-cop bias?
- braingenious 4y agoI did not make any comment about the GP’s post in particular. I made a comment about a funny phenomenon of posting on HN in general. I specifically brought up posters using highfalutin’ fancy speech to cover an ardent pro-cop bias. There are some posters that will use their perceived skill at language to do somersaults of logic in order to eventually land at “the police are the arbiters of truth” or something similar. The primary tactic is to use high school debate club language to put words in other people’s mouths in an attempt to discredit any view that doesn’t align with their premise of “the police are arbiters of truth.” Do you think that that phenomenon does not exist?
- rendall 4y ago> There are some posters that will use their perceived skill at language to do somersaults of logic... I can agree that some people try to reason using language skills rather than reasoning from first principles
- braingenious 4y agoI’m glad that we agree about the phenomenon I’ve described. Happy to clear that up! It is indeed weird how people use that trick to attempt to stamp out any detractors to the idea that the police are perfect stewards of truth.
- rendall 4y agoI don't see that phenomena about cop boot-lickers on HN in particular more than anywhere else, but I'm sure it happens here sometimes too. I also didn't think it was a well-written article, though. The fellow's injuries do not seem accidental if the article reported them accurately, but the connection to the rape case was pretty tenuous. It could be that, or something else that got him killed, or the article just got some facts wrong. The article didn't really give me confidence.
- heavyset_go 4y agoIt's because libertarians actually love the police and government when they're doing things that they like, like enforcing capitalism with violence, kidnapping and death.
- viridian 4y ago>it is pretty common to see people pop into the comments about anything police-related with “Well actually there is no empirical logical reason to disbelieve the notion that the police are the arbiters of truth. It's not just for police, HN is overwhelmingly a very pro-empirical community, much like the population it represents. One of the biggest weaknesses empiricists have as a mass movement is that they are extremely easily manipulated, so long as you are able to control the flow of information (which the police usually do). A positivist must, by his or her principles, serve to bolster support for any likely genocidal dictator, murderer, what have you, until the bodies are actually found.