2 ms·

> The article can at best be described as clickbait. A better title would be: police given powers to do their job effectively. This purely opinion. I can’t do

> The article can at best be described as clickbait. A better title would be: police given powers to do their job effectively. This purely opinion. I can’t do anything with this other than to strongly disagree with you. > What you're suggesting would not work in reality. What I’m suggesting is already reality in the US and is reality for most other things in the Netherlands, as well as the reality in most EU countries. In the US the judicial overview has in many cases eroded to rubber stamping by judges, so I wouldn’t go as far as to state that “it works”, but when I practiced law in the Netherlands and a handful of times in other EU countries I indeed considered things to “work” just fine the way they were. > And if it was a reality I'm sure you'd be complaining even more about how the police can't solve anything or do their jobs properly You’re gish galloping and doing a pretty poor job at it because you’re making assumptions on my moral framework without knowing the first thing about me. I wouldn’t complain about the police not being able to solve anything because I’m more concerned about police powers being expanded at the expense of civil rights so “law & order” politicians can score a few points. I was educated in law school with the philosophy of rather having 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person ending up behind bars and till this day I still hold that to be a virtue to strive for. So no. I’m not in the slightest concerned about police being able to solve crimes. > I would imagine it was changed in 2018 because the current way it was working simply wasn't working. Like I said, it’s merely a consequence of politicians wanting to look tough on crime while quietly eroding away what little safeguards there are. You could’ve just said something to the effect if “I’ve got nothing to hide” and called it a day, instead of presenting your opinions and assumptions as if they have any merits as arguments.

account-5 3y ago
Haha... I hardly think my short and to the point replies to your rambling nonsensical musings are gish galloping, however appreciate your attempts at characterise my replies as such to cover your own use of this same technique, ad hominem though it was. Your points themselves are opinion too, but since your opinion seems to be predicated on wanting a useless policing structure I doubt we'll agree on much. You could have just said something to the effect of: defund the police. Needless to say people like you are all for the police having no power, or not existing, until you're the victim of a crime.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  You seem to neither know what a gish gallop is nor what an ad hominem is. So this is not going to be very productive. > Needless to say people like you are all for the police having no power, or not existing, until you're the victim of a crime. Perhaps it’s best if next time you focus more on crafting solid arguments that can stand on their own and less so with being concerned about trying to predict who I am or what I espouse.
  - account-5 3y ago
    At the risk of feeding the troll... Damn it, I can't resist. > You seem to neither know what a gish gallop is nor what an ad hominem is. Actually applies directly to you. With the exception you definitely don't know, or are so stuck up your own arse you can't identify them in your responses. > Perhaps it’s best if next time you focus more on crafting solid arguments that can stand on their own and less so with being concerned about trying to predict who I am or what I espouse. Again directly applies to you. Further I'm predicting nothing, I'm confident in all my assessments of you, and your character, none of which impresses me. You do, however, have an impressive lack of self awareness; you should work on that.

account-5 3y ago

Haha... I hardly think my short and to the point replies to your rambling nonsensical musings are gish galloping, however appreciate your attempts at characterise my replies as such to cover your own use of this same technique, ad hominem though it was. Your points themselves are opinion too, but since your opinion seems to be predicated on wanting a useless policing structure I doubt we'll agree on much. You could have just said something to the effect of: defund the police. Needless to say people like you are all for the police having no power, or not existing, until you're the victim of a crime.

turquoisevar 3y ago
You seem to neither know what a gish gallop is nor what an ad hominem is. So this is not going to be very productive. > Needless to say people like you are all for the police having no power, or not existing, until you're the victim of a crime. Perhaps it’s best if next time you focus more on crafting solid arguments that can stand on their own and less so with being concerned about trying to predict who I am or what I espouse.
- account-5 3y ago
  At the risk of feeding the troll... Damn it, I can't resist. > You seem to neither know what a gish gallop is nor what an ad hominem is. Actually applies directly to you. With the exception you definitely don't know, or are so stuck up your own arse you can't identify them in your responses. > Perhaps it’s best if next time you focus more on crafting solid arguments that can stand on their own and less so with being concerned about trying to predict who I am or what I espouse. Again directly applies to you. Further I'm predicting nothing, I'm confident in all my assessments of you, and your character, none of which impresses me. You do, however, have an impressive lack of self awareness; you should work on that.