3 ms·
Your argument does not rest on most cops being good cops, it stands if some cops are good cops. So why throw in an assertion you can't back up?
by gkop 12y ago
Your argument does not rest on most cops being good cops, it stands if some cops are good cops. So why throw in an assertion you can't back up?
- timv 12y agoYou asserted that it was "dangerous" for him to bandy around such statements. Care to back up that assertion? "Unnecessary" and "dangerous" are quite different.
- sooheon 12y agoThe very blog post which prompted this discussion explains the danger of assuming even impartial investigative intentions of cops, let alone "good" ones.
- baddox 12y agoThe word "dangerous" is not exclusively used to indicate the likelihood of physical injury. It is also widely used to describe the likelihood of any undesirable consequences. The undesirable consequence in this case is a weakening of the argument being presented.
- stonemetal 12y agoHow does it weaken the argument? No one has put forth the idea that it is ok to talk to good cops. Don't talk to cops good, bad, or indifferent in nature.
- dropit_sphere 12y agoOh but he can. See, he's not holding himself to your standard of evidence. That would require mass mindreading, plus the ability to irrevocably demonstrate the authenticity of such. Rather, he's backing up that statement with evidence in the reader's head, counting on most readers to reflect back on their life experience and see if his statement fits. He has faith that it will. In my case, it does: I agree. I'll even upvote him.
- mikeash 12y agoBecause this is an informal conversation, not some nitpicky debate society. Somebody asked a question and I gave my opinion as a response.