4 ms·
You didn't refute anything in the comment, other than saying one part of it was correct. This comment would be more useful if you actually made an argument.
by pyth0 1y ago
You didn't refute anything in the comment, other than saying one part of it was correct. This comment would be more useful if you actually made an argument.
- bpt3 1y agoA cursory internet search would back up my statement. Feel free to do that if you're interested. I note that you aren't asking the parent poster for any citations for their claim, which I would say is quite extraordinary. And to be clear, my "argument" is that the parent poster is objectively incorrect, which is accurate. I decided not to posit on why the parent poster made an objectively incorrect statement, though I am curious.
- hitarpetar 1y ago[flagged]
- bpt3 1y ago[flagged]
- hitarpetar 1y ago[flagged]
- bpt3 1y ago[flagged]
- hitarpetar 1y agoGod forbids I engage in bad faith arguments with trolls who put words in my mouth
- bpt3 1y agoExactly what words did I put in your mouth? This is your statement: "just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/protect rich people's property" That statement is incorrect, no matter what your definition of "modern police force" is. That's it. It's not complicated, despite your attempts to deflect from the invalidity of that statement.
- hitarpetar 1y agoit's so incorrect that you knew exactly what I was talking about and agreed with me before you accused me of spreading misinformation :)
- bpt3 1y agoYes, I knew exactly how you were stretching the truth to suit your viewpoints. Thanks for confirming you knew exactly what you were doing as well. As I said at the start of this, I don't understand what you get out of intentionally making inaccurate statements, but I don't expect you to explain that.
- hitarpetar 1y agothank you for confirming that you agree with the substance of my argument but have some weird ideological axe to grind with the conclusion! i also appreciate you wasting my time, failing to provide any other viewpoint or counterargument, and repeatedly engaging in ad hominem instead of the substance of my argument!
- bpt3 1y agoI don't agree with the substance of your implied argument, and you made no explicit argument. You just made an inaccurate statement that supports your implied argument, because reality does not.