A Maryland police officer was convicted on Friday of charges that he joined a mob’s Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and hurled a smoke bomb and other objects at police officers guarding a tunnel entrance.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden heard two days of trial testimony without a jury this week before he found Montgomery County Police Officer Justin Lee guilty of two felonies and three misdemeanors. The judge, who also acquitted Lee of two other misdemeanors, is scheduled to sentence him on Nov. 22.
Lee, 26, ignited and threw a smoke bomb into the tunnel entrance on the Capitol’s Lower West Terrace, where a mob of rioters attacked a group of outnumbered police officers. The device struck a police officer’s riot shield and filled the mouth of the tunnel with a large plume of smoke, prosecutors said.
Our discussion aside, I want to let you in on a rhetorical tip because this is the kind of shit I study: Analogies are frankly terrible to use in a debate/argument. They are more useful in non-controversial things where there is not strong often emotionally-charged disagreement, such as a classroom to help explain a concept. Best just to avoid them in general because at their core, analogies are pretty much never 1:1, and thus will be scrutinized and nitpicked to oblivion.
The problem isn’t that I disagree with Lions or T-Rexes being inherently bad… It’s that even if all police were as feral as a lion, it still doesn’t make sense because a lion would go for the most vulnerable, wounded prey and not the hippo or rhino lol.
Moreover the premise of the analogy itself just does not apply to the circumstance at hand, and helps me convey why all cops != feral cats.
… Do you understand how this is the classic logical fallacy that is circular reasoning? When there are clear examples of police coming to your aid and NOT acting like feral cats and in fact can act like good domesticated house cats, then I reveal the exception. And if there is merely one exception, then not ALL cops are feral cats, or bastards.
So please explain how Eugene Goodman, specifically, is a bastard.
for someone who studies this kind of shit you seem to miss the point of the analogy consistently even when i said the same thing without the analogy.
so I’ll try to go another level in stripping the premise:
your question: cop sometimes help, how help bastard
my answer:
as to your last request, he’s a cop. that’s how.
Okay now let’s distill it down to a specific individual within the group and not be coy about it: How, specifically, is Eugene Goodman — besides the
color of his skinI mean the title of his profession make him a bastard? How does the individual who comes to aid your mother from a rapist and does NO HARM to you or your family at any point from here until forever and treats you with decency — how is that person whose title remains cop, specifically and with detail, behaving as a bastard?Your rhetoric is thus far identical to that used by racist bigots. Guilt by association, Generalization fallacy, etc.
if you can’t tell a difference between a race and an occupation idk what to tell you. here’s a couple more “bigoted” statements:
all billionaires are immoral
all murderers are bastards
all venture capitalists can go fuck themselves
wow I’m such a racist
TIL I can act like a bigot and use generalization and guilty-by-association fallacies if it’s something people can choose: Name, Gender, Career, Religion, Region.
Fascinating…
Think about it. Your logic is circular.
You make the claim that all cops are bastards, then I ask how a specific cop is a bastard and you just refer circularly to the original premise that all cops are bastards. Newsflash: You never provided proof to the original premise and clearly struggle to demonstrate bastard-behavior of a specific individual within the set.
If you cannot show bastard-like behavior of a specific cop, then it must be true that NOT all cops are bastards after all. Your desperate attempt to deflect this shows how cornered your argument is.
it’s your logic that is faulty. not surprising for a guy who doesn’t understand how metaphors work, but no, choosing a career is not like choosing a name. one has to do with what you do for a living, and the other has no bearing on anything.
if you cannot find something that does not mean it MUST NOT exist. you should really brush up on your if-then statements there.
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION! if you cannot show bastard-like behavior of a specific kkk member, then “it must be true that NOT all” kkk members “are bastards after all”.
just fyi guilt by association is only a fallacy if the association doesn’t inform the guilt.
The thing is, I’m not challenging you on your assertion for the KKK.
If, for example, we decide to focus on the KKK or better yet just plain Murderers… If you said as you mentioned earlier, “All Murderers are Bastards,” and for some reason I challenged you on that saying, “Okay… Can you prove to me why this murderer is a bastard, specifically?” You’d be able to point to a behavior of… Well, murder.
If you go with the KKK, well we can fairly surmise that most if not all KKK members are bastards. I’m not really in disagreement… Especially since the actual overarching GOAL of the institution that is the KKK is inherently bastard-like. And if we scrutinized individual members of that group, we’d likely find them all to be bastards. (side note but while Eugene Goodman stood against fascism, I’m sure KKK members were in that January 6th crowd).
But with Law Enforcement, that’s a bit different, isn’t it? After all, the essence of law enforcement itself is not ostensibly wrong like it is self-evident with the KKK — yes?
… So ultimately, when I challenge you on, “What makes THIS cop SPECIFICALLY a BASTARD?” — you should be able to point to a specific behavior.
Thus far, you cannot. So generalizing the population when selecting specific individuals within that population yields no findings of bastard-like qualities… Well, then perhaps our claim of all is logically unfounded.
no, it’s not a bit different that is my point, oh my god why are analogies so hard for you
no it’s not different. in both cases I’m talking about an organization whose main purpose is oppression. you’re disagreeing with one of them, but that doesn’t make my point inconsistent. a specific cop is a bastard because they’re a cop the same way a specific kkk member is a bastard because they’re in the kkk.
If they’re not different then why is it so hard for you to pinpoint a bastard behavior of a cop without just invoking a circular reasoning fallacy?
lmao wtf says who? You? Who made you the arbiter of truth?
So allow me to go way back to an earlier comment to a point you then deflected: In what magical society do you seek to live in where your participation does not necessitate some sort of accountability for laws established in said Democracy…? What is this Utopian society? Show me. In your dreams? Okay, cool.
It’s honestly just a fucking shit argument, if I’m honest. Do yourself a favor and get a book on fallacies to improve your arguments. Discrete logic might also be beneficial.
Because look, there are valid reasons to be disgusted by police culture and I sure as shit don’t have blue lives matter stickers, but these SHIT over-generalizing tropes are doing you no favors to advance change in your cause… Unless your goal is to just complain on a message board and substantively do nothing. Logic dictates MCAB; not ACAB. After all, countless comments show you deflecting showing a sample of the population being a bastard.
If LEO by extension of a Democracy is a form of oppression, then lawless survival-of-the-fittest winner-take-all is the definition of freedom? Think that through. If you want analogies, last I checked a parent’s main purpose wasn’t OpPrEsSiOn because they set limits and enforced rules of the house… Jesus. This is so profoundly amateur and 2edgy4me.