Ah, so... what exactly is the reason that you think having video of cops makes you safe?
You're trying to avoid seeming foolish. Like when you tried to correct my English.
So... how many languages do you speak?
Dasus
joined 7 months ago
You use "being on camera" to imply that since they're on camera, they'll face consequences for whatever they might do.
With law enforcement, that isn't nearly as probable as you think. I hope you have those feeds recording to a server that isn't located on the same premises, at the very least. Even if you have the material though, it usually doesn't mean a thing. Cops can justify pretty much anything in the US, and the justice system tends to go their way. Sure, you can show a few examples of cops actually sentenced, but for each one, there's at least a dozen cases of officers who got off scot-free or with a warning, and a hundred more who weren't even investigated.
And as to your pitiful attempts at insults with your assumption that your English is better than mine? I've more than likely used English longer than you. More than you. In addition, I speak another language on a native level and several others on a customer service level. How many do you speak?
He specifically mentioned "in the context of the US".
If he had been talking about any other English-speaking country, I'd say it would be somewhat irrelevant.
But it most certainly isn't when talking about the US, especially southern US.
Well written. To add: "Boy" coming from a white person to a black man is even more offensive, what with all the chattel slavery history and whatnot.
Dude.
As a third-party to this conversation, I have to say that the dude writing "There is often a gap between common-use language, and the academic function of words (see "racism"). This is why I emphasized the relation of the definitions I provided to the fields of anthropology and sociology, as well as why I stated it is a use almost exclusively found, in my experiences, in academia." seems a tad more credible than the one writing "I'm not superior just because I used a dictionary to quash the logical fallacy of your call to authority."
I seriously think you just missed the nuance he was trying to emphasise, and you started mansplaining something he already implicitly had agreed on. Now you're going for these rather immature "logical fallacy" arguments. Just a tip for that, btw, to up your game in that aspect. Naming fallacies to implicate that the other person is wrong is actually something called "the fallacy fallacy", ie "because their logic contains a fallacy, the conclusion must be false. That in itself is a fallacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
So yeah. You're not wrong, but you're also not right in correcting him in any way, and he's not wrong to say that he is right.
I do believe he's an English teacher. Just use your imagination a bit and think of how many of the things your English teacher told you didn't seem to make sense, but when you actually dug into the material, you got an "aaa this is what he meant" - moment.
By tracking who sent what to whom?
And since tracking the devices is actually impossible, how would you know which pager is where and held by whom,
Say one of the pagers wasn't delivered to the person who you "know" it to belong to. Say it got dropped in front of a school. Say another person who has one and even is a Hezbollah member, is visiting a children's hospital, because they're people too and usually have reasons to fight (even if their fighting style is immoral to some). Say another is eating dinner with his family. Etc. Etc. Etc.
There's no way to verify any of that. It's basically just as bad if not worse than carpet-bombing. Unless you implant a device like this on a person and then have surveillance on that person to know where they are and who with when you detonate the device, you're probably doing a war crime.
John Oliver sort of did it.
But it doesn't even need a LLM.
They just used predictive text.
What you have is shitty slogans and zero thought. You're a trumpet for NRA propaganda and you're too dumb to even realise it.
The whole "security for liberty" shit you're referring to? Actually means the exact opposite of what you're trying to say.
SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.
WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.
Now which is a more real risk to the collective security of Americans, daily mass shootings or some fantasy where the government is "coming to take muh guns" and you end up living in some hills fighting a guerrilla fight against a military made up of your fellow nationals?
Gee, idk, should we ask the kids who survived Sandy Hook how they feel about it? (They're old enough to vote now.)
You can't track a pager.
A mobile tower will send it a message, but since there's no two-way communication, theres no way to track where the pager received the message. (Even if it was a two-way one, you need at least three good points of connection to be able to triangulate it.)
So how exactly do you identify who's using a pager you don't even know the location of?
You obviously don't know how tracking works.
Ditto
Which explains why the IDF has had so many "accidents" recently.
A almost 50 year old man doesn't want to look uncool on his bike.
Have you noted to him how fucking uncool it is for a grown man to think safety (especially of children) is uncool?
Takes just one slipup of someone, not even them, but just someone in traffic, and he will never forgive himself his shitty attitude.
You started this with "thats why it's important to have a lot of cameras", to which someone responded "so the cops can shut them off, like they did Afroman's?", to which you responded "cops wouldn't..."
Then I entered the conversation, because you've asserted what cops would and wouldn't do, showing just how much faith — wrongly, though — you have in the justice system.
You're just really hard trying to ad hoc what you said, but unlike in real life, what has been said is actually on record, so bullshitting your way out of this doesn't work as easily as with your mates in the pub.
Weird how you yourself commented on the "language barrier" and what you thought was an incorrect use of the English language, yet now have completely shut up about it, almost as if you're avoiding comparing your language skills to mine. Perhaps because you don't like feeling stupid?