You specifically rejected a point. I responded to talk about that point. Now you want me to defend everything someone else has said. > So let’s try this agai

You specifically rejected a point. I responded to talk about that point. Now you want me to defend everything someone else has said. > So let’s try this again: Use your math concepts of jailing to justify giving the police unilateral power to jail people despite the policies voted on by the people of San Francisco (or not!) Again, this is so far over the line. It's not something I've talked about. Indeed, no one except you is talking about arbitrary police powers to jail, as far as I can tell, but instead talking about the appropriateness of civil orders. I don't really want to talk about civil orders, because my answer is: it's complicated! I do think civil restraining orders are often good, which are a power of the police to jail if you go certain places or near certain people. One that covers a 50 block area to prevent broad sets of possible criminality is probably bad. But that has never been what I've been talking about in this thread. You talked on the other topic, which I responded about, and you've refused to talk about any more. What is the exact thing you are trying to achieve here? Are you trying to convince people? Are you trying to make yourself feel good by making other people feel bad? I had hoped to share ideas and really discuss, instead of being lambasted for other peoples' words.