Yeah it’s hard to stay consistent when warped logic is applied to different scenarios. I’ll spell it out for you, Mr. White.
If a murderer uses a hammer to murder, you don’t ban hammers, you go after the murderer. So then why when the wealthy use the police as a tool, you try to ban police, instead of going after the wealthy?
breh you asked what we do if a man hits me on the head with a hammer
my genuine immediate reaction would be to wrestle the hammer out of control of the man
but for some reason you think that my first reaction, being in imminent danger of immediate injury and death, is to start canvassing the neighborhood? gathering signatures to ban hammers from the local Lowes or something? meanwhile the guy with the hammer still has his hammer and is beating the shit out of me. i actually would not do that.
i’m being quite consistent where you are being quite silly 😛
edit: also no one said “instead” but you. pardon me for not taking this seriously i just don’t care (about your messed up hypothetical; i care deeply about institutional violence)
I’m not asking for your emotional or instinctive response to the situation, I’m asking you who you hold accountable. Your response seems to hold a tool (hammer/cop) instead of the thing that used it to hurt you(criminal/wealthy).
Yes, you don’t care, I get it. You can’t engage with serious shit so why the fuck are you responding? There will always be another tool, always be another way to hurt people, stop fucking focusing on the tool and go after the person using it. So exhausting trying to teach morons unwilling to learn.
yeah grabbing the hammer is a remarkably wise plan as far as self defense in this hypothetical
Wonderful, then you’d agree we should get rid of all hammers then too right? Clearly it’s the fault of the tool, not the one wielding it.
Yeah it’s hard to stay consistent when warped logic is applied to different scenarios. I’ll spell it out for you, Mr. White.
If a murderer uses a hammer to murder, you don’t ban hammers, you go after the murderer. So then why when the wealthy use the police as a tool, you try to ban police, instead of going after the wealthy?
breh you asked what we do if a man hits me on the head with a hammer
my genuine immediate reaction would be to wrestle the hammer out of control of the man
but for some reason you think that my first reaction, being in imminent danger of immediate injury and death, is to start canvassing the neighborhood? gathering signatures to ban hammers from the local Lowes or something? meanwhile the guy with the hammer still has his hammer and is beating the shit out of me. i actually would not do that.
i’m being quite consistent where you are being quite silly 😛
edit: also no one said “instead” but you. pardon me for not taking this seriously i just don’t care (about your messed up hypothetical; i care deeply about institutional violence)
I’m not asking for your emotional or instinctive response to the situation, I’m asking you who you hold accountable. Your response seems to hold a tool (hammer/cop) instead of the thing that used it to hurt you(criminal/wealthy).
Yes, you don’t care, I get it. You can’t engage with serious shit so why the fuck are you responding? There will always be another tool, always be another way to hurt people, stop fucking focusing on the tool and go after the person using it. So exhausting trying to teach morons unwilling to learn.