should people be arrested for offensive costumes?

[Chuk_Chuk]

Oh so you're not making a prediction and you think it's the case right now that people should be armed right now and that'll fix crime.

In that case your entire post is a joke and the place where the second amendment is from is presented as evidence.

Allow me to break down my point.
If the police cannot uphold the law because they are more concerned with easy wins, then people will take the matters into their own hands.

There minor point that is mostly irrelevant to what I was saying is that If people take matters into their own hand they will want to arm themselves. Most likely with baseball bats or knives.

The second amendment comment was more of a tongue in cheek comment. But judging by the fact that you’ve got all anal about it and ignored the meat of what I said, I’m going to predict guess you don’t actually have a proper response to make about my comment.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

I'm still confused as to where the line between offensive and grossly offensive is. Given offense is subjective I don't see how the law can clearly define where such a line can be drawn.

 

[Hotwired]

Allow me to break down my point.
If the police cannot uphold the law because they are more concerned with easy wins, then people will take the matters into their own hands.

There minor point that is mostly irrelevant to what I was saying is that If people take matters into their own hand they will want to arm themselves. Most likely with baseball bats or knives.

The second amendment comment was more of a tongue in cheek comment. But judging by the fact that you’ve got all anal about it and ignored the meat of what I said, I’m going to predict guess you don’t actually have a proper response to make about my comment.

Is that so?

I see people say exactly what you said with a straight face, but when you say second amendment as a crime solution, ah, you want to clarify that you don't mean guns at all (which is all the 2nd is about) but baseball bats and knives. And it wasn't serious in your head anyway haha.

So when I initially brush it off as you going too far and you tell me to read it again then change your words drastically... mmm... hmm...

If you want to go back to the burglary matter https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66304969

You reckon they're just not trying or does the reality of attending a burglary mean looking at a crime scene where things aren't there and praying the thief dropped their driving licence. Also a PR exercise to give hope that something can be made to happen out of little to nothing.

Attending a burglary vs arresting a suspect. Which do you think upholds the law better when a priority has to be called.

And as I said.

Any complaints that it's a bad law are for the government.

 

[danoliver1]

I am dressing up as Huw Edwards for Halloween, when people answer the door I will read them the news in a Welsh accent.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

I see people say exactly what you said with a straight face, but when you say second amendment as a crime solution, ah, you want to clarify that you don't mean guns at all (which is all the 2nd is about) but baseball bats and knives. And it wasn't serious in your head anyway haha.

So when I initially brush it off as you going too far and you tell me to read it again then change your words drastically... mmm... hmm...

Yes it was a tongue in cheek comment and not my full opinion ( and I still haven’t given my full opinion on the use of weapons for self defence or its affect on crime). But I could see why a simple minded person would assume that a single sentence made up of 16 words is the full extent of a persons opinion.

You reckon they're just not trying

Straw man. I never commented on whether or not they are “trying”. What I said is that the law isn’t there for easy wins. Now if you want to argue that these wins are just as difficult to solve as a burglary I would love to hear. Or maybe you want to argue on what exactly the law is there to do, that would be an interesting discussion.

Ironic since straw man’s are constructed to score easy wins.

Attending a burglary vs arresting a suspect. Which do you think upholds the law better when a priority has to be called.

What do you think affects people more thefts or offensive costumes? If you put it up to a vote what do you think the general public actually care about?

 

[Hotwired]

Yes it was a tongue in cheek comment and not my full opinion ( and I still haven’t given my full opinion on the use of weapons for self defence or its affect on crime). But I could see why a simple minded person would assume that a single sentence made up of 16 words is the full extent of a persons opinion.


Straw man. I never commented on whether or not they are “trying”. What I said is that the law isn’t there for easy wins. Now if you want to argue that these wins are just as difficult to solve as a burglary I would love to hear. Or maybe you want to argue on what exactly the law is there to do, that would be an interesting discussion.

Ironic since straw man’s are constructed to score easy wins.


What do you think affects people more thefts or offensive costumes? If you put it up to a vote what do you think the general public actually care about?

Aight clearly you've got nothing better to do tonight and are looking to do petty argument buzzword bingo.

1) I don't see why you're mad and backpedalling about me giving a straight reply to you stating the second amendment as a crime solution. Why would you expect anyone to think you're being insincere about a genuine belief held by tens of millions. There's people on all kinds of spectrums in here and you reckon being a second amendmenter is far out.

2) Ooh I see you're doing Ad hominem.

3) What are you doing chopping the first 6 words off a query and calling it a strawman argument. You interrupted my post following on from burglary attendance and I'm illustrating what I said.

4) isn't a false strawman a strawman? Pretty sure it is. Do I get two points now.

5) You've said the phrase "upholding the law" several times now and you don't seem to actually want that at all, because if you did then you'd recognise arrests as being a better result than attending a scene for a crime that is rarely solved. What you actually come across as wanting is a change in the law not upholding the law and I've already said it twice and I'll quote it.

Any complaints that it's a bad law are for the government.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Aight clearly you've got nothing better to do tonight and are looking to do petty argument buzzword bingo.

1) I don't see why you're mad and backpedalling about me giving a straight reply to you stating the second amendment as a crime solution. Why would you expect anyone to think you're being insincere about a genuine belief held by tens of millions. There's people on all kinds of spectrums in here and you reckon being a second amendmenter is far out.

2) Ooh I see you're doing Ad hominem.

3) What are you doing chopping the first 6 words off a query and calling it a strawman argument. You interrupted my post following on from burglary attendance and I'm illustrating what I said.

4) isn't a false strawman a strawman? Pretty sure it is. Do I get two points now.

5) You've said the phrase "upholding the law" several times now and you don't seem to actually want that at all, because if you did then you'd recognise arrests as being a better result than attending a scene for a crime that is rarely solved. What you actually come across as wanting is a change in the law not upholding the law and I've already said it twice and I'll quote it.

I tried to give you a fair shake but Latching onto a singular point and constantly harping on about it even after it’s been addressed. Constantly trying to tell me what I really meant. I recognise the pattern, this is the Dowie hole.

You ain’t catching me this time.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

I'm still confused as to where the line between offensive and grossly offensive is. Given offense is subjective I don't see how the law can clearly define where such a line can be drawn.

It can't, that's why it's such a ridiculous thing to police and subsequently why its used by the police for padding the conviction numbers. Lord knows they need all the help they can get to bump up the, what is it now 6% of crimes solved?

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

I am dressing up as Huw Edwards for Halloween, when people answer the door I will read them the news in a Welsh accent.

You monster, bring back the electric chair!

 

[Nasher]

There is such a thing as "too soon". But satire and ironic or dark humour is part of British culture. If you don't like it, walk away.

Police getting involved in this is a massive waste of resources

 

[Hotwired]

I tried to give you a fair shake but Latching onto a singular point and constantly harping on about it even after it’s been addressed. Constantly trying to tell me what I really meant. I recognise the pattern, this is the Dowie hole.

You ain’t catching me this time.

Get over yourself.

Name calling, reaching for argument buzzwords like its worth something and using the words "fair shake", some quality self auditing there.

The entire time you've been trying to push that the police shouldn't be doing this while hypocritically saying they should uphold the law.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Fat people in shorts should always be arrested.

Thanks

 

[Hagar]

Thanks

 

[Deluxe1]

No.