WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

1.3K

CHICAGO (CN) — A Cook County judge entered a temporary restraining order against the president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police on Friday night, preventing him from publicly telling officers to refuse to enter their vaccination status in the city's online employee portal or encouraging them to refuse their superiors' orders to do so.

"This instruction to all FOP members to collectively violate the city's lawful vaccine policy amounts to an unlawful strike and work stoppage and exposes the City to an untenable risk of irreparable harm that this court should enjoin," Chicago's lawsuit against the FOP states.

I don't know what this logic fallacy is called but I call it the "Now Look what you did!" argument. It's the allegation that the consequences of one's own poor decisions is somehow the fault of another who had no control over those decisions, but is nevertheless blameworthy through a tortured "but for" test.

Tyrone wouldn't have gone to jail for armed robbery if you had'na called the police. Your pizza wouldn't be screwed up if you had ordered only 2 toppings instead of 4. Timmy wouldv'e passed his test if you hadn't been checking for cheaters. It makes my head hurt just contemplating how someone can follow this sewer pipe of a line of reasoning to reach this conclusion, yet here we are.

>CHICAGO (CN) — A Cook County judge entered a temporary restraining order against the president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police on Friday night, preventing him from publicly telling officers to refuse to enter their vaccination status in the city's online employee portal or encouraging them to refuse their superiors' orders to do so. >"This instruction to all FOP members to collectively violate the city's lawful vaccine policy amounts to an unlawful strike and work stoppage and exposes the City to an untenable risk of irreparable harm that this court should enjoin," Chicago's lawsuit against the FOP states. I don't know what this logic fallacy is called but I call it the "Now Look what you did!" argument. It's the allegation that the consequences of one's own poor decisions is somehow the fault of another who had no control over those decisions, but is nevertheless blameworthy through a tortured "but for" test. Tyrone wouldn't have gone to jail for armed robbery if you had'na called the police. Your pizza wouldn't be screwed up if you had ordered only 2 toppings instead of 4. Timmy wouldv'e passed his test if you hadn't been checking for cheaters. It makes my head hurt just contemplating how someone can follow this sewer pipe of a line of reasoning to reach this conclusion, yet here we are.

(post is archived)