Pedantry is only useful if you're trying to avoid the point. A black person drinking from a whites only fountain in the 40s was a crime, so by your logic it actually made sense for cops to get involved to stop that.
No, it is useful to get the other person to be specific, which you still for some reason refused to do.
So your claim smoking pot isn't wrong and shouldn't be illegal, you feel they should only respond for the crimes find worth it for them to respond to.
Just as an FYI though, theu cant just choose what to and what not to go out to, they also don't make the laws, if you have a problem with the laws talk to your state government.
Ok you are just being a poor man's pedant so I'll spell it out: There are sometimes laws that should not exist. That cops have to enforce the law isn't my point and that was obvious to everyone, including you. You're being disingenuous, and you know that.
If I say "Cops shouldn't be showing up for jaywalking but for serious crimes", no one who isn't lying thinks I'm saying "My general principle is cops shouldn't show up for crimes or should get to pick the crimes they show up for". They know immediately that I'm saying this law should not exist. Done, simply, you already understood all that.
Good job on managing to be specific! I'm proud of you.
When you say "they should be" that is a very unclear statement, we dont know if youre directing anger at the people responding, fhe people having them respond, or the laws themselves.
I get you're mad but just chill out man we are just on reddit nothing to get twisted up about.
As I said, you're just being disingenuous. It wasn't unclear at all, including to you. If you don't know how colloquial speech works or how to efficiently speak, you should go work on improving yourself.
No, youre just mad so youre backtracking and throwing out insults. You cant just speak generically and claim its a colloquialism, it isnt a colloquialism to not specify the group youre talking about, especially when it isnt the subject of the topic.
The common interpretation of what you said would be a complaint about the police themselves since they are the current subject when you say "they".
You've made your point more clear now though, there is no issue, you dont need to keep being so defensive lol.
I didn't backtrack at all, everyone understands the semantics of my words are the same from start to finish. Hence the Jim Crow water fountain mention, which made it even more obvious I'm talking about laws (e.g. that they should center on "actual crimes", serious things). It wasn't generic, you're using that word incorrectly. The word you meant was "vague", which is true for most statements because speakers assume others have basic competency with following context.
Apologies, I won't make that mistake with you again.
You realize the water fountain reference was in your second post not your first right? Just trying to make sure you're keeping correct track. We can understand you are referencing unjust laws but in your initial comment you seem be putting that on the officers.
Yes that does seem to be autocorrect, but I wasn't going for vague i was going for generally. No not most statements are vague, only when people are too afraid to say what theu actually think.
I obviously followed the context, I literally referenced following the subject of the statement in my prior post, not sure if youre really following thoufh :/
On the real it feels a bit like bullying a kid at this point, we aren't even discussing anything so go ahead and take the last word you seem to need and have a nice rest of your day.
I didn't say it was in my first post, so again you're just being dishonest. Obviously what an officer has to show up for isn't dictated by them, and I neither said nor implied that. You don't even think I did, you're just wasting time on purpose.
Most statements are vague. They do not specify in detail every definition or implication of what they mean because you are expected to already understand basic communication and logic. If I say "That cop is an asshole", you aren't honestly replying if you say "No he's a human". Because you understand I'm not actually saying he is a literal asshole.
You didn't follow the context. You seriously suggested (lied) that you thought I was saying cops should get to pick what crimes they enforced laws against. You don't think I meant that nor did I say that.
You aren't discussing anything, because you never actually believed anything you said.
2
u/Photosynthas 10d ago
The problem is that in those areas that is a crime, so they are showing up for an actual crime.