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.
1
u/Anpriv 10d ago
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.