Often, people try justify high pay for management positions by pointing out the responsibilities that comes with such a position. If that's the case, then it only makes sense to place blame on management when things go sideways. If not, then what exactly is the value that management adds to the company that justifies their high pay?
It's the same thing when people talk about the "risk" of owning a business. At the same time, those same people will advocate dodging accountability for business owners.
If there's no threat of liquidation, fines, bankruptcy... what's the risk? If the fed can't come into your home and take your furniture... what's the risk? Because those workers end up homeless in the case of failure. And the owners just go back to their mansions like nothing happened?
I disagree, it's 100% true. Often conversations about business owners and executives will be derailed to address the "risk" they face, that being the reasoning we should cut them some slack.
In those cases, it quite literally happens in the same breath. Arguing business owners take on risk, and then immediately countering saying we should not hold them accountable.
It's a similar thing you see to the police. When a LEO shoots someone without due cause, people will decry to cut them some slack because their jobs are very risky. I mean, they could die. But there's not very much risk if you shoot someone the first chance you get - before any danger even prevents itself, right? And there's not very much risk if you cannot face jail time for such an action, right?
In order to use this "risk" argument you need to be harsher on the perpetrators. People usually do the opposite when they make such an argument, thereby deconstructing their own argument without realizing it.
>In those cases, it quite literally happens in the same breath.
Perhaps you could show some examples, then. What you describe is completely foreign to my own experience.
>When a LEO shoots someone without due cause
No, that is not when the argument is brought out. Often, however, it's brought out to highlight that there was, in fact, due cause that was not obvious to critics.
>But there's not very much risk if you shoot someone the first chance you get
They don't actually do this, in any remotely ordinary circumstance.
They do shoot people who threaten them - because someone with a knife standing several meters away, who doesn't care about the risk of getting shot, can seriously injure you before you can get off a clear shot with a gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill).
>And there's not very much risk if you cannot face jail time for such an action, right?
If you ignore the risk of physical injury or death (also noting that some criminals also carry firearms), then yes, there is not very much risk.
>People usually do the opposite when they make such an argument
You are still not providing anything that resembles evidence.
You're missing the point, the LEO argument is just an example of this phenomenon. I'm not here to actually arguing for or against hypothetical law enforcement crimes. I can't, by the way - I was very careful not to mention any specific circumstances purely so we wouldn't go down this rabbit hole. I know how tempted people get.
> If you ignore the risk of physical injury or death
I didn't. It's really going over your head here.
> evidence
... of what? The phenomenon that people will often talk about risk while also using that definition of risk as justification for why slack should be given? I just did, in two different ways.
But it's a real phenomenon and you can find literally infinite examples. I don't know why you're fighting me on this, to me this is painfully obvious.
People say the same thing about the military. Risky, risking their lives, heros, yadda yadda yadda therefore look past some small crimes. These arguments eat themselves from the inside out.
> I didn't. It's really going over your head here.
You think you didn't, but you did. Again: police don't just shoot people preemptively. They do so when there is a risk of injury or death.
You might not believe their threat assessment is reasonable; but you are not the one trained to understand these situations, and you have presumably not had to negotiate them yourself.
Nobody is saying that the police should be excused for shooting people because they're in a job where they could get shot at. They're saying the police should be excused for shooting people because they had a real reason to believe that the person who was shot would otherwise shoot them first. (Or charge at them with a knife from within 6 metres or so, etc.)
This is not done for the purpose of killing - that is just a frequent consequence of the standard practice to minimize the chance of being the victim. Anything else would be irresponsible.
> I just did, in two different ways.
No, you didn't. You described some forms of argument. You gave no reason to believe that anyone actually presents such arguments.
> I don't know why you're fighting me on this, to me this is painfully obvious.
Because to me, the opposite is painfully obvious. I can recall "literally infinite" examples of people telling me that the discourse worked the way you describe, me looking into it, and me promptly finding that the other person was simply mistaken.
> I was very careful not to mention any specific circumstances purely so we wouldn't go down this rabbit hole.
Which is another way to say that you did not provide evidence.
> Again: police don't just shoot people preemptively. They do so when there is a risk of injury or death.
They most certainly do, otherwise there wouldn't be trials and some cops in jail. Well, there are, so some do. And when those "some" do, then people will defend them via risk. Which DOESN'T WORK if you eliminate risk by preemptive murder.
> Nobody is saying that the police should be excused for shooting people because they're in a job where they could get shot at.
Many, many, many people do say this. They say almost exactly this. There's many examples, I won't list any however because I don't think it matters and I don't want to give you any fuel for a tirade.
> You gave no reason to believe that anyone actually presents such arguments.
How the actual fuck do you expect me to do this? I've talked to people in my life, I've been on Twitter. Hell, I live in Texas and BOTH my parents are Trumpies - I've heard MUCH more insane arguments. For fuck's sake, I've heard arguments on how vaccines cause autism. Not just small little arguments too - many real people I actually know.
You're really, truly, with your entire heart, telling me you've never heard an argument like this? Really? Okay. If that's the case then okay. You win. Jesus Christ talk about difficult.
