> But why would you hypothetically remove bad actions from just the police?
Because the person I'm responding to is claiming that police kill more civilians than civilians kill police, with the implication that it's because police are corrupt.
I used a hypothetical scenario to point out that this doesn't follow, because the same would be true even if there were no police corruption.
> By the exact same argument, if you removed all bad actions from everyone who isn’t a police officer, then of course you’d expect police to kill more people.
Not clear what your point is here.
> In the original comment, before all the ridiculous hypothesizing, the actual world is what was being discussed.
Yes, some times people use thought experiments to highlight facts about the real world.
I guess it’s not clear what you mean by “police corruption.” If “removing police corruption” just means “removing the possibility of any bad action by any police officer,” then you get right back to my previous comment.
To me, “removing police corruption” would mean having a mechanism of legal accountability for police officers. It wouldn’t mean police officers wouldn’t still abuse and murder people, it would just mean that they would usually be investigated and punished for doing it.
Because the person I'm responding to is claiming that police kill more civilians than civilians kill police, with the implication that it's because police are corrupt.
I used a hypothetical scenario to point out that this doesn't follow, because the same would be true even if there were no police corruption.
> By the exact same argument, if you removed all bad actions from everyone who isn’t a police officer, then of course you’d expect police to kill more people.
Not clear what your point is here.
> In the original comment, before all the ridiculous hypothesizing, the actual world is what was being discussed.
Yes, some times people use thought experiments to highlight facts about the real world.