02-10-2022, 07:53 PM
(02-10-2022, 07:32 PM)treee Wrote: I'm calling into question whether the societal cost in minimized by the policy.
Fine, then just say that instead of trying to make it about you being accused of being uninformed as to this practice.
Quote:There is what you call the "emotional" component; The cost of an innocent life. But there are other costs like the literal cost to the taxpayers, the cost against the trust of the public with the state.
What from your expertise can dispell the assertion that the societal cost is not higher with the policy than some other alternative?
If the past two years are any indication, as well as this thread, I can do nothing to dispel this perception. You all have your narrative, you all blindly accept it and you all refuse to hear any opinion to the contrary. I said literally years ago that we would start seeing a huge crime spike. I was met with guffaws from the usual suspects. Then, when it couldn't be ignored anymore it became, "I know murder and violent crime is way up, but all crime isn't up." Now, as it continues to progressively worsen by the week, I'm getting the, "Dems support law enforcement and we have to do something about this crime spike!"
Be honest, you don't want to listen to people with expertise. You want to run with your preferred narrative, and you'll continue to do so until your told the narrative has changed, just like the Dems and "defund the police" or the Dems and mask mandates. if you really wanted expertise then all of this could have been nipped in the bud long ago, but you don't so you got what you got. If you want to double down, that's fine, just don't expect me to buy into it or not call it out.
EDIT: I looked back on this and it comes off far more accusatory of you then I intended. My goal was to speak generically, and I obviously did not achieve that goal. To be clear, my point is about people in that position in general, not specific to you.
