alt Hacker NewsYes, you did admit that, by implication. To replay what exactly happened in this conversation.
Person A: It's almost not worth commenting on the irony of someone using the name "rationalist" failing to understand basic concepts like "covering up a crime is also a crime".
Reduced: "you do not understand that covering up a crime is also a crime".
You: I did not say or imply that.
Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise.
Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value. What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing. So, if what I'm saying sounds stupid or obvious... uh, okay, reflect on that.
Regardless, you're missing the forest for the trees here. You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier.
The ACAB viewpoint comes from the preposition that policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice. Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice.
It's sort of how all jesters are silly. To be a jester, you must be silly, so by definition of a jester all jesters are silly.
Sorry, I rarely look at usernames and assumed you were the same person as earlier.
> Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise.
> Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal.
The first implication is reasonable. It also assumes facts not in evidence, however I will say this: I do understand that covering up a crime is criminal in places where I am familiar with the law. I am not familiar with laws everywhere. I will also say this: a cop covering up a crime of another cop is bad, thus that person would be considered a bad cop. I think we can both agree on that last statement.
The second implication is a bad take. That assumes that all cops are covering up crimes. I posit that not every cop has done that, but an unknown percentage somewhere better 0 and 100, have.
> I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value.
Based on your second implication, I believe that statement to be incorrect.
> What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing.
I would say that is more applicable to you.
> You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier.
Please reread the HN Guidelines.
> policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice
I am open to agreeing with this, because some percentage greater than 0 but less than 100, is.
> Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice.
Again, no, please stop. Somewhere your thought process is broken. You do not appear to have a strong concept of causal relationships.
It is impossible to have a reasonable argument with a person who cannot reason, therefore I will not continue this discussion with you (with someone else, sure).