• AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    So, just to confirm, you’re saying that there are only two options for dealing with crime.

    A) We have the police exactly as they are now

    B) We pretend crime doesn’t exist

    You are literally replying to a comment explaining that I do not believe that! Here is what I said again, since you clearly didn’t read it the first time:

    The police exactly as we have them now fucking suck, but you seem to think they should be abolished rather than reformed, and I’m still waiting for you to tell me how, why, and what they should be replaced with.

    What is it with leftists and never reading past the first sentence?

    I have repeatedly explained that I am open to the possibility of a third option, and repeatedly asked you what it is. You have yet to do anything other than stall the conversation and deliberately misrepresent my position. I am forced to conclude that you have no argument to present and are simply trolling.

    If this is not the case, let me know. If it is the case, just make one more comment not answering the goddamn question so I can finally block you with a clean conscience.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      The problem is that I did read it and, as such, I know that (the police) “fucking suck” doesn’t mean that you’ve accepted that something other than what we have now could exist, in the same capacity. Its actually, specifically that I did read it and saw that you once again evaded backing down from a silly false dichotomy you attempted to defend.

      More so, you’ve decided that my argument is proving something, rather than what it actually was “calling out someone else’s false dichotomy and the false need for a state” ,one that you seemed fine with. Thats why you’ve had to attempt to change the conversation and then claim me to be a troll for point out invalid arguments. If you cared, you’d Google it and it wouldn’t take two seconds to find communial restorative justice where the focus in on restitution for the victim and not punishment of the offender.

      As it is, you’re just mad that I won’t play your game. I’ve come accorss people like you before and I won’t be going along with those cheap tricks.

      Please, block away. The less bad faith debatebros I come into contact with, the better. Honestly, you’ll be doing me a favour and you don’t need to announce it. All you had to do was actually climb down from an invalid argument and you refused, claiming me to be the problem. But no, you had to claim saying the correct situation is bad is the same thing as that.

      Yeah, you won’t be missed and you shouldn’t threaten people with a good time.