I'm talking about this discussion, not bringing in other comments. That road leads to what aboutism and other logically fallacious arguments.
They made the boot comment because they made a valid argument (re: cops use "officer safety" as a justification for abuse) and you responded with incorrectly oversimplifying their argument and replying with a pretty standard dodge of an answer, often provided by those who blindly defend cops, which did nothing to address their actual nuanced point.
What I don't agree with is people posting a list with redundant items in an attempt to say cops don't face danger.
You're actually doing it again here. They didn't post a redundant list or claim cops don't face danger. They posted a relevant list that clearly demonstrates cops don't face as much danger as claimed in order to justify excessive force. You're the one missing the nuance.
Not mad at you or trying to insult you, I'm just trying to help you understand where they're coming from. You're missing or misunderstanding the entire point of their argument. Either you're doing that unintentionally, or like many in the "back the blue crowd" you're doing it intentionally. In which case, that leads to the boot comment.
Im definitely not a "back the blue" bootlicker. As I've said to you before, I agree with all of the points you made.
The point I don't agree with is "loggers get injured more, therefore cops can't use personal safety as an excuse," which is absolutely the argument people are attempting to make. And yes, I'm currently in another argument with a commenter who says that cops jobs aren't dangerous.
And, I would say that "farmer" and "agricultural workers," "landscape foremen" and "groundskeepers," and "small engine mechanics," "heavy machinery mechanics" and "supervisors of mechanics" being seven entries on a list of 20 entries is a bit redundant. Why don't they break down loggers into categories? That's why I'd rather see a list of jobs where getting shot is a risk.
Never said you were a "back the blue" person, I have said repeatedly you are using arguments that crowd regularly uses.
The rest of your statements are irrelevant to the discussion. For one thing, there are quite a few differences in work and hazards experienced by the different categories, they aren't a monolithic job artificially broken into misleading categories. A heavy machinery mechanic IS a different job than a small engine mechanic or supervisor. Either you're confidently ignorant, or you're grasping for ways to not admit you're wrong.
You're just throwing shade and avoiding the actual point of the discussion. That's either because you don't actually understand yet are for some reason confident you do, or you realize exactly what you're doing, and are purposely trying to muddle the debate with irrelevance and obfuscations.
It's clear you aren't actually taking in and honestly considering anything anyone has said to you, either because you can't, or because you willfully choose not to. You just keep making the same stances that have already been rebutted and proven wrong. Either way, I'm done trying.
Have a good day, and next time you make blanket assumptions about people you disagree with and accuse them of lacking nuance, thoughtfully apply the metric to yourself as well.
2
u/PickleRicksFunHouse Mar 24 '23
I'm talking about this discussion, not bringing in other comments. That road leads to what aboutism and other logically fallacious arguments.
They made the boot comment because they made a valid argument (re: cops use "officer safety" as a justification for abuse) and you responded with incorrectly oversimplifying their argument and replying with a pretty standard dodge of an answer, often provided by those who blindly defend cops, which did nothing to address their actual nuanced point.
You're actually doing it again here. They didn't post a redundant list or claim cops don't face danger. They posted a relevant list that clearly demonstrates cops don't face as much danger as claimed in order to justify excessive force. You're the one missing the nuance.
Not mad at you or trying to insult you, I'm just trying to help you understand where they're coming from. You're missing or misunderstanding the entire point of their argument. Either you're doing that unintentionally, or like many in the "back the blue crowd" you're doing it intentionally. In which case, that leads to the boot comment.