The Statist Quo

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Again you misrepresent (lie?) about what actually happened. The police did try and help him.

Not a hypothetical, we know exactly what happened when people without the proper equipment got in the water. One died and one needed rescued by a boat. Do you think more passersby going in would have improved those figures?

I haven't misrepresented anything. First you accuse me of poetic licence (a lie), and then misrepresent my argument.

It is a hypothetical. We do know what happened when a man went into the water: people helped him out. They would have done the exact same had he a teenager in his arms. Or, having taking your advice, they would have done nothing and let two men drown because it wasn't safe.

If believe it was a man in a canoe who rescued the officer. Describe in your hypothetical how you drag a police officer with a teenager (who by many accounts didn't want rescued) m arms on to a canoe?

All of which is irrelevant anyway as the premise of your entire OP that this was the fault, directly or indirectly, of statism is still total bunk.

This was a tragic accident caused by drug use and inadequate mental health care.

a reply to: ScepticScot

If believe it was a man in a canoe who rescued the officer. Describe in your hypothetical how you drag a police officer with a teenager (who by many accounts didn't want rescued) m arms on to a canoe?

All of which is irrelevant anyway as the premise of your entire OP that this was the fault, directly or indirectly, of statism is still total bunk.

This was a tragic accident caused by drug use and inadequate mental health care.

Again a strawman, one you've been repeating even despite my objections. It's an analogy. I'm painting a picture of the human condition under statism. Your sophistry and every argument you've made was bunk.

Again, it is about what caused the inaction of the spectators, who watched, frozen in their abject trust of their government officials, as a man died right in front of them. You do not have to confront that question if you want, but just know you aren't even touching my argument, let alone refuting it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sophistry...yes there we go. The LesMis greatest hits collection gets broken out again.

I have seen nothing in your posts that even remotely convinced me that you even have an argument to refute.

Kid takes drugs has mental breakdown and goes into a river where he refused to be rescued. A tragic event that offers us no insight the evils or otherwise of statism and it's supposed affect on people.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Sophistry...yes there we go. The LesMis greatest hits collection gets broken out again.

I have seen nothing in your posts that even remotely convinced me that you even have an argument to refute.

Kid takes drugs has mental breakdown and goes into a river where he refused to be rescued. A tragic event that offers us no insight the evils or otherwise of statism and it's supposed affect on people.

Hey, if the shoe fits. The entire ScepticScot library is full of it.

You won't even touch the argument, which I made explicit in the OP for the selective reader. You've misrepresented it and danced around it but that's about it. There is still a chance if you wish to shed your sophistical mindset for some real thinking.