In recent years, dozens of officers worked more than 1,000 hours of overtime annually. Experts say these levels of extra work can lead to accidents and poor decision making in use of force situations.
Your failure to imagine a successful alternative doesn’t mean that the person you’re talking to is ignorant.
Your imagination seems to only go as far as ‘the prison doors open and anarchy occurs’. There are many alternatives to changing people’s behavior that isn’t simply locking them into boxes for decades at a time.
Nobody is saying that justice shouldn’t be done, only that the current system is not just and doesn’t improve the people that are put into it.
Why should this person need to use their imagination to legitimize someone else’s argument, especially one so absurd? OP should make their own argument.
Person A: The Police and prisons should be abolished.
This is a person making a point. What they’re talking about is pretty obvious from the text.
Person B: "If you’re making wild suggestions, you should probably care about the effects it will have"
This is a person making an implication. They never define what ‘the effects’ are, they simply hanging an implication. What they mean is left up to the imagination of the reader.
Person B again: "You’re either being hyperbolic or you’re willfully ignorant about what would happen if we did that, neither of which help your case"
Once again, they’re not actually saying anything. They’re not saying “what would happen if we did that” they’re implying the the Person A is hyperbolic or willfully ignorant for believing… something. Something that they won’t actually define.
Again, this isn’t a point, this is the person implying something but never actually saying what it is.
This is a shitty conversational tactic where the person never has to take a position that can be argued against but can appear, to the ignorant, as if they are actually saying something cynical and intelligent.
I’m replying to the most obvious reading of the implication which is “If you abolish the police and prisons then there will just be criminals everywhere”.
But, because of this shitty conversational tactic, of not actually stating their position, Person B can simply come back and say “Oh I didn’t mean that” and move the goalposts elsewhere.
Why should this person need to use their imagination to legitimize someone else’s argument, especially one so absurd? OP should make their own argument.
It is that person who’s arguments are left to the imagination. Since they never actually say what they mean.
The first person in the conversion was pretty explicit about their position.
Person A: The Police and prisons should be abolished.
This isn’t a “point” it’s just an empty statement devoid of any reason or logic.
Person B: “If you’re making wild suggestions, you should probably care about the effects it will have”
This is a person making an implication. They never define what ‘the effects’ are, they simply hanging an implication.
It’s pretty damned obvious what will happen if you abolish all enforcement of the law, people will engage in more crime because there will be little to no consequences for said crime. This is basic reasoning that doesn’t require fantastical leaps of the imagination to figure out like Person A’s statement does. We can use history as our guide for this as this has happened numerous times in places where the government has collapsed. Places like Somolia where roving gangs controlled local territories with lots of blood and violence. What historical reference can you give where all laws were abolished and something good happened?
This is a shitty conversational tactic where the person never has to take a position that can be argued against but can appear, to the ignorant, as if they are actually saying something cynical and intelligent.
This sound like a description of Person A’s statement to me.
I love how you can write a book length comment on all the reasons why it’s wrong to argue against you and the OP but have yet to give a single actual argument for why your position makes any sense or will improve anything for anyone but criminals. You can’t even describe basic concepts like how any of this would work. Even OP stated “I don’t care what happens next” meaning they’ve given their “point” zero thought or consideration. You two are absolutely ridiculous.
You’re either being hyperbolic or you’re willfully ignorant about what would happen if we did that, neither of which help your case
Your failure to imagine a successful alternative doesn’t mean that the person you’re talking to is ignorant.
Your imagination seems to only go as far as ‘the prison doors open and anarchy occurs’. There are many alternatives to changing people’s behavior that isn’t simply locking them into boxes for decades at a time.
Nobody is saying that justice shouldn’t be done, only that the current system is not just and doesn’t improve the people that are put into it.
Why should this person need to use their imagination to legitimize someone else’s argument, especially one so absurd? OP should make their own argument.
This is a person making a point. What they’re talking about is pretty obvious from the text.
This is a person making an implication. They never define what ‘the effects’ are, they simply hanging an implication. What they mean is left up to the imagination of the reader.
Once again, they’re not actually saying anything. They’re not saying “what would happen if we did that” they’re implying the the Person A is hyperbolic or willfully ignorant for believing… something. Something that they won’t actually define.
Again, this isn’t a point, this is the person implying something but never actually saying what it is.
This is a shitty conversational tactic where the person never has to take a position that can be argued against but can appear, to the ignorant, as if they are actually saying something cynical and intelligent.
I’m replying to the most obvious reading of the implication which is “If you abolish the police and prisons then there will just be criminals everywhere”.
But, because of this shitty conversational tactic, of not actually stating their position, Person B can simply come back and say “Oh I didn’t mean that” and move the goalposts elsewhere.
It is that person who’s arguments are left to the imagination. Since they never actually say what they mean.
The first person in the conversion was pretty explicit about their position.
This isn’t a “point” it’s just an empty statement devoid of any reason or logic.
It’s pretty damned obvious what will happen if you abolish all enforcement of the law, people will engage in more crime because there will be little to no consequences for said crime. This is basic reasoning that doesn’t require fantastical leaps of the imagination to figure out like Person A’s statement does. We can use history as our guide for this as this has happened numerous times in places where the government has collapsed. Places like Somolia where roving gangs controlled local territories with lots of blood and violence. What historical reference can you give where all laws were abolished and something good happened?
This sound like a description of Person A’s statement to me.
I love how you can write a book length comment on all the reasons why it’s wrong to argue against you and the OP but have yet to give a single actual argument for why your position makes any sense or will improve anything for anyone but criminals. You can’t even describe basic concepts like how any of this would work. Even OP stated “I don’t care what happens next” meaning they’ve given their “point” zero thought or consideration. You two are absolutely ridiculous.
Don’t get angry. Abolition is a good thing. It helps you. Instead, try to envision what the goal is. What do you think I’d like to achieve?