My friend was robbed by 2 police officers and put through a huge ordeal. It only ended when the chief of police stepped in and gave him his money back, stating that they police officers were wrong and that they would be punished. Yet my friend still sees these police officers driving around doing whatever they want; in fact, not only is he unsure that they were actually punished, but he overheard the officers insisting that what they did to my friend was "fair" and "just".
How should I respond to this? What should I tell my friend to make him feel better? How can I tell him to trust the police when even I am unsure whether they can adequately protect us?
As I showed earlier, Pam does not believe that she did the right thing and apologized to you directly. As far as transparency in handling what remains to come in this situation, that's not for me to decide. I will, however, push for some degree of transparency here because I personally believe that it will help bring the community and moderators closer together.
Yes, I used an ad-hominem attack. Guilty as charged.
Guilty once again of an ad-hominem attack. That paragraph is there for the same purpose as what I presume to be the purpose of every one of your posts on this forum.
----- Your last paragraph is not worth responding to.
The many words that I said earlier can be distilled to this:
> It is not true that police officers are to citizens as EM mods are to EM users.
I see that you already agree with me here so I won't defend the statement further. Your entire thread is based on the premise of using this analogy to do what? Raise the issue of trust between EM users and EM mods? When your analogy for users and mods doesn't even apply to the people you're talking about, I think I have all the logical right to call you out on using an irrelevant (red herring) analogy.
As I showed earlier, Pam does not believe that she did the right thing and apologized to you directly. As far as transparency in handling what remains to come in this situation, that's not for me to decide. I will, however, push for some degree of transparency here because I personally believe that it will help bring the community and moderators closer together.
Here's some hard evidence that invalidates your last statement and the only part of your paragraph that could be considered "evidence."
Pam explicitly states that she believes that her actions were wrong. She gives her own opinion afterward, but does not condone her actions. The above post is an apology in the most genuine and professional way possible. She even directly apologizes to you. For a supposed betrayal of trust she's done quite a bit, even through that post alone, to earn it back. You are refusing to see anything but red and, in my opinion, trying to cause drama for the sake of drama.
We've established that they were in the wrong for moderating their own report against you. No one is denying you this. In light of this, I'm going to make a statement about what I think your current agenda is and you can agree or disagree with me. *You would like Anna and Pam to face some sort of concrete discipline for their misconduct in this situation and you would like the details of the discipline to be public, as you feel that the policies that the team abides by should be transparent.*
Can we agree on the emphasized part of the last paragraph?
You also proceed not only to attack me as a person but my motives behind making such posts. Regardless of how crappy of a person I am or how crappy my intent is, it bears no relevance on the validity of my argument.
You then continue to strawman my claiming that I'm trivializing the work police do (which is also a red herring, since that's not even remotely relevant to the issue at hand). You also implement several non sequitur in this manner, suggesting that the questions the post are asking are somehow irrelevant based on my alleged trivialization of police officers.
There's a lot more garbage that I can rip apart, but frankly I'm not willing to allocate any more of my time on a bigot who can't see the shortsightedness of their own fallacies. Why don't you take a step back, read the post again, ask what themes the post is pushing for, and try using some literary analysis techniques you learned in 2nd grade. And GTFO of my thread.
Okay Cody, I'll give you one last chance to prove that your reading comprehension skills exceed that of a third grader.
This was a analogy based on the theme of trust - The dilemma one faces when when those tasked with uphold the law (or the rules) are the very ones who break it and/or take advantage of it. Although it's fair to point out that what Pam and Anna did was in ways much worse; they not only abused their power, but they colluded together and abused the system to hand out a violation to a user they disliked.
Here's why nearly everything you said is garbage (since you were too lazy to understand how those logical fallacies applied to your post). Your argument that we shouldn't compare police officers to moderators is a mischaracterization of the intent of the analogy - that when the community's trust has been betrayed and that trust hasn't been earned back because there's no transparency of in regards to the punishment AND the offenders still insist that they were in the right.
You make several failed attempts at this - you somehow attempt to claim that the analogy is invalid because the stakes for police officers & their communities differ from the stakes of the EM community and the mods. While that statement in a vacuum is true, that's not the argument or the theme of the post. Furthermore, you attempt to call on me to defend this fact, when I need not - since this is not what I'm arguing.
Furthermore, you attempt to characterize AND trivialize my argument. Nobody is suggesting that Pam & Anna SHOULDN'T get a punishment that fits the crime - the OP instead calls to question your presumption of "the punishment fits the crime" - how can the agree with you if we don't know what that punishment is? This, I remind you, is on top of the fact that Pam and Anna still insist that they are in the right.
he knows that his analogy doesn't apply here. i've called him out on it and the only thing he can do now is attempt to discredit what i said, and he's not even able to do that. until you can refute the "argument" line in my previous post then my point still stands. your not-so-thinly veiled attempts at slandering specific moderators are incredibly childish and your attempt to have an "intellectual" discussion with me shows your inability to function at a level expected of the most basic of american high school graduates.
tl;dr stop tryharding and pretending like you're just trolling me because all it's doing is making you look like an uneducated baboon
IRONIC SINCE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ THE HOT TOPIC OF THE DAY, NOR ANY OF ITS SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION POSTS.
ANYWAY YOU ONLY GET 2 TRIES CODY. SORRY, I JUST HAVE TO ASSUME THE REST OF YOUR POST IS IN LINE WITH THE PREVIOUS POSTS YOU MADE - GARBAGE. I'M INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING THIS WITH A REAL MOD, NOT THEIR MONKEY WHO FLINGS AS MUCH FECAL MATTER AS POSSIBLE IN A POST.
you might want to work on both your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. argument from ignorance implies, from both sources that i've looked up (including the wikipedia article), that i am asserting something to be true because we cannot prove whether it is true or false. the only assertion i made in the post that you quoted was that "evidence without analysis does not make an argument" which is empirically true. an argument is defined as such by the oxford english dictionary:
"A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong"
i'll go ahead and assume that you are trying to persuade others that i am wrong. if that is your aim, then your attempt to discredit what i said by accusing me of logical fallacies without reasoning is not an argument at all because it lacks both concrete reasons and persuasion.
for the record, my original argument is that you cannot make a valid comparison between epicmafia moderators and police and my reasoning was in the original post. what is your argument?
NO, WALRUS JUST LINKED THE LOGICAL FALLACIES THAT, IRONICALLY, APPLIED TO THE VARIOUS PARTS OF YOUR FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT.
ALMOST NOTHING YOU SAID WAS RELEVANT TO ANYTHING WALRUS IS TALKING ABOUT. IN ESSENCE, YOUR REPLY WAS SO GARBAGE THAT IT DESERVED NO ANALYSIS - AS IT FAILED TO ADDRESS ANYTHING.
if you're trying to get a rise out of me by linking me to logical fallacies on wikipedia then i'm afraid you have a long ways to go. you spent a long time looking up fallacies to quote in my face but spent no time actually analyzing how they applied to what i said. evidence without analysis does not make an argument.
you've spun up a pretty nice straw man argument. unfortunately it's just that. the team that presides over this website cannot, and should not, be compared to police officers whose jobs are to protect peoples' lives.
when highly trained officers take actions that jeopardize the integrity of their post and cause unnecessary risk to citizens' well-beings then they will receive harsh discipline. when an epicmafia moderator (someone who has invested far less into her position compared to the police officer) misuses a bit of her internet power she is also disciplined. it is wrong, however, to believe that the discipline in the latter case should be on the same level as the discipline in the former case. discipline is situational and should only be as severe as the misconduct warrants.
if you want continue to trivialize police officers by bringing them down to our level by all means that is your prerogative but i just think that it's disgusting to make a straw man argument out of a job that men and women have sacrificed their lives for just so you can feel good about yourself on the internet.
NO APPARENTLY YOUR WORDS ARE INVALID IF YOU TALK IN WALRUS VOICE. THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE SO I'M HOPING THAT IF A MOD WERE TO SOMEHOW STUMBLE UPON THIS, THE CAN'T MAKE ANY MORE RIDICULOUS EXCUSES FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO READ/UNDERSTAND/COMPREHEND BASIC PRINCIPLES.
