[Hitch]

Originally Posted by taustin

Then you just want to punish people you agree have nothing wrong.



Not really. First, there's a difference between protesting and rioting, the former being legal, the latter being a very serious crime. Second, the point the protesters want to make is that it is all policemen, because there is an institutional corruption. Those who do not violently violate people's rights tolerate those who do, even though they are legally obligated to arrest corrupt cops, too. Whether you agree with them or not, they are making an entirely different point. Amazon agrees that most employees are not stealing from them.

You missed my point. I'm not talking about whether the protesters are rioting, or marching, or wearing tutus. I'm talking about logic. I'm talking about a person, persons, or corporation, viewing the actions of X% of a given group, as something that has to be addressed. If the results of the marches, riots, yadda, in Ferguson, are something like a major change to the Grand Jury system, nationwide, OR, cameras on cops, OR, any other systemic change, then ALL the cops will be affected by (arguably) the actions of a few. THAT was my point.

Not whether or not a riot is the same thing as a march. It boggles me that anyone would read what I wrote and think that this was the argument I was making. It's a LOGIC ARGUMENT.

Also, any extra time the cops spend dealing with protestors (or rioters) is on the clock, because the police have a very influential union. So your example actually supports me, not you.

Let's try this a different way, and then I'll give up, because it's obvious to me that you don't see my point:

1. Amazon contracted employees--let's say a small number--steal from Amazon warehouses. These thieves are a subset of the major set, "all Amazon contract employees," that committed these acts.
1b. Two cops in the US are involved in purportedly racially-charged deaths of black men. This is a subset of the major set "all policepersons in America" that committed these two acts.
2. Investigations are held (presumably, by Amazon as well as by two grand juries). In this case, the various Grand Juries are one set, and Amazon is the equivalent set.
3. In Ferguson, NY, and elsewhere, people are dissatisfied with the results, and protest, asking for different methodologies, policing, etc., to achieve the results that they want. Regardless of the fact that only a subset committed the acts that sparked the protests, the protestors want things done to, for, etc., the ENTIRE set of Police Officers, to prevent further bad acts happening to men of color--not merely the subset.
3b . At Amazon, Amazon is dissatisfied with the results, and looks to institute different methodologies, policing, etc., to achieve the results that THEY want. Regardless of the fact that only a subset committed the acts that sparked the theft investigations, Amazon want things done to, for, etc., the ENTIRE set of contract employees, to prevent further theft--not merely the subset.
4. Certainly, some things will come out of this, due to the protests, the President, and the AG, that will affect all police, as a whole. This may be cop-cams; it might be differing Grand Jury systems--but I think it's safe to say that there will be consequences that will affect the police, NATIONWIDE. The entire SET is affected by this.
4a. Amazon institutes anti-theft policies and practices that affect the contract employees, as a WHOLE. The entire SET is affected by this.

Neither the sets of "all the police" nor "all the Amazon contract employees" were involved in what sparked the consequences. Nonetheless, the emotional involvement in the protests makes people think that it's perfectly justified and okay. You've argued that point quite eloquently, yes? That the behavior of the police subset, affecting the major set, "all police," is okay, but that this same logic does not apply to Amazon's situation? Why--because the police-protests are emotionally charged, but the Amazon employees are just a tired argument on a message board?

But logically: what, exactly, is the difference between the two? That the dispute is "constitutional?" You seem to think I'm talking about whether or not rioting is constitutional, and I'm not. I wasn't talking--at ALL--about the protests, the protestors, what they've done, what they haven't done. I'm simply talking about the logic and psychology of how perception alters logical processes. How what's sauce for the goose (the police who aren't racists, or involved in racially-charged situations, or whom have never hurt nor damaged nor shot anyone) isn't, apparently, sauce for the gander (the rest of the Amazon employees that didn't steal anything).

Peaceful protest is constitutionally protected. Rioting is not. When you equate them, as you do, with "marching/rioting," you are being either dishonest, or clueless. They are not.

There are no constitutional issues in the Amazon lawsuit. Neither Amazon's right to search employees as they leave, nor the employees' expectation to get paid for the time that take, is a constitutional issue. Peaceful protest is a constitutional issue. Rioting is a criminal offense.

Three entirely different issues.

The word I'm thinking of is "straw man." As in, you are attributing to me a position I have never claimed, and do not agree with. Riots should be suppressed by any means necessary, and I do mean any means. The difference between riots, insurrection and armed revolt are more semantics than anything else. Violent crime is never acceptable.

As I said, it's a logic argument. Now I'm thinking straw man. I've made precisely zero argument about riots versus protests. You missed my point entirely. You obviously believe that the protests are completely justified, even though they've been sparked by the actions of a few. I'm simply saying that just because you are emotionally engaged in what's happened, does not, from a logic standpoint, make the behaviors different. The relative importance of one issue, and the relative "unimportance" (nationwide, it seems) of the two issues doesn't change the facts.

I'm surprised, in fact, that you would think that I would make any such argument. I'm not talking about whether or not rioting, versus marching, is legal or not. I'm simply talking about the LOGIC. Because, while one is hopelessly emotionally-charged, the situations are the SAME. The sets, subsets, actions thereupon, etc., are identical.

Speaking of making one's point: you've made mine. You became so instantly distressed when I mentioned the protests that you misread my post, and attributed to ME actions, discussions, intent, etc., that I never said. Nor implied. Not even REMOTELY. I didn't equate "rioting" with marching. I was simply talking about the LOGIC, which, it seems, was utterly lost in the aether.

No, it's not, not even a little bit, and it's very dishonest of you to claim it is. A sure sign that you have nothing to dispute what I've actually said. Next bullet point on the "how to argue on the internet" is to call me a Nazi.

I wasn't at all dishonest. You attributed to me an entire argument that I never made. Had I known it would be so grossly misconstrued, I would have prefaced it with "logic argument," to make it clear. The next thing I know, someone here will be calling me a racist, just because I tried to make a point by using something that is prominently featured in the headlines. So let me be clear: I was saying precisely NOTHING about the marchers, rioters, etc.; I was simply talking about how ascribing consequences to the members of a SET, based on the actions of some subset of the set, is commonplace. (Just like: all travelers are not terrorists, but all travelers are subjected to scrutiny, BECAUSE, some teeny subset of travelers ARE terrorists, or would-be terrorists).

Now: since that seemed to put people so utterly out of whack, let's not discuss Ferguson, et al, any further. Quite honestly, I thought that the logic comparison was going to be instantly obvious, and I'm rather surprised that it wasn't. Hopefully, having now BELABORED it to death, what I was trying to say is clear.

Hitch