Comic Strips

21092 readers

2683 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
!memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lawrence@lemmy.world

946

1312 (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago by MyCatIsDumb@lemmy.world to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world

103 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world -1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

“No but you have to understand, All Cops might Be Bastards but they’re could be way worse bastards!”

This strawman isn't even properly put together; it's falling apart. If English isn't your first language, skip the following: Write better.

Do you not understand that things are clearly immoral should lead to law enforcement refusing to enforce the laws. It doesn’t mean they get to decide which laws to enforce or not, willy nilly, but if someone says “go an arrest every minority out there” they can say ‘that’s unconstitutional and I won’t do it, you can fire me and then I’ll sue you’ or whatever it is you do there.

Evidently not, because my understanding of your argument is that it is an oxymoron: Cops should use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law, but also, cops should not use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law.

I'm not a Harry Potter encyclopedia so maybe your perception of Harry being a loose cannon is much more arbitrary than mine, but in the context of someone refusing to enforce a law on moral grounds, you're making zero sense to me. It seems like you're assigning "willy nilly" to selective enforcement you disagree with and "refusal" to selective enforcement you agree with.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

This strawman isn't even properly put together; it's falling apart. If English isn't your first language, skip the following: Write better.

I really wouldn't talk with that sort of syntax. "They" became "they're" due to my fat thumbs, not because I meant it to. I write pretty fast on a phone and like we all (should) know, the predictive algorithm sometimes get stuck with the wrong word, and I don't really care yoo much (see, now I have to fix "yoo" to "too". Better to remove "yoo" as a prediction really, but who's got time for thay).

I'll bet my left nut that if we both tested our English skills, I'd have a larger vocabulary and better syntax. More than ten years ago I surpassed the average native speaker in vocabulary size.

Cops should use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law, but also, cops should not use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law.

No, you're just a dummy. There are laws in place which allow cops — just like soldiers, to not do what they're commanded to do. They're called "illegal orders". So for instance if I were at war (and I am a sergeant in the reserves), I would never hesitate to question a direct command... unless it broke the core principles which are not my personal morals, but strict rules which are in place. At that point, if it's murky if it is a legal order or not (as superiors officers often do give them, to both cops and soldiers), the first step is to ask it in writing. Then you can show that you protested, but as it was unclear, you did it anyway. However if your superiors officers tell you to do something clearly illegal like torturing people and kidnapping children, you don't need to hesitate, and even getting it in writing wouldn't help, as any reasonably well trained person should definitely understand the immortality and thus refuse to obey.

I'm not a Harry Potter encyclopedia so maybe your perception of Harry being a loose cannon is much more arbitrary than mine,

See what did I tell you about the syntax. Gjeoddamn.

But also, vocabulary. My definition isn't arbitrary in the least. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word?

but in the context of someone refusing to enforce a law on moral grounds, you're making zero sense to me.

Probably because you have zero actual understanding of the topic..?

It seems like you're assigning "willy nilly" to selective enforcement you disagree with and "refusal" to selective enforcement you agree with.

Yes, you keep repeating your asinine and completely wrong argument. Did you just forget the other times, or do you repeat it so that you'll remember it? Either way, kinda weird, and super wrong.

Let's start small and check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_order_(international_law)