This strawman isn’t even properly put together; it’s falling apart. If English isn’t your first language, skip the following: Write better.

I really wouldn’t talk with that sort of syntax. “They” became “they’re” due to my fat thumbs, not because I meant it to. I write pretty fast on a phone and like we all (should) know, the predictive algorithm sometimes get stuck with the wrong word, and I don’t really care yoo much (see, now I have to fix “yoo” to “too”. Better to remove “yoo” as a prediction really, but who’s got time for thay).

I’ll bet my left nut that if we both tested our English skills, I’d have a larger vocabulary and better syntax. More than ten years ago I surpassed the average native speaker in vocabulary size.

Cops should use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law, but also, cops should not use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law.

No, you’re just a dummy. There are laws in place which allow cops — just like soldiers, to not do what they’re commanded to do. They’re called “illegal orders”. So for instance if I were at war (and I am a sergeant in the reserves), I would never hesitate to question a direct command… unless it broke the core principles which are not my personal morals, but strict rules which are in place. At that point, if it’s murky if it is a legal order or not (as superiors officers often do give them, to both cops and soldiers), the first step is to ask it in writing. Then you can show that you protested, but as it was unclear, you did it anyway. However if your superiors officers tell you to do something clearly illegal like torturing people and kidnapping children, you don’t need to hesitate, and even getting it in writing wouldn’t help, as any reasonably well trained person should definitely understand the immortality and thus refuse to obey.

I’m not a Harry Potter encyclopedia so maybe your perception of Harry being a loose cannon is much more arbitrary than mine,

See what did I tell you about the syntax. Gjeoddamn.

But also, vocabulary. My definition isn’t arbitrary in the least. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word?

but in the context of someone refusing to enforce a law on moral grounds, you’re making zero sense to me.

Probably because you have zero actual understanding of the topic…?

It seems like you’re assigning “willy nilly” to selective enforcement you disagree with and “refusal” to selective enforcement you agree with.

Yes, you keep repeating your asinine and completely wrong argument. Did you just forget the other times, or do you repeat it so that you’ll remember it? Either way, kinda weird, and super wrong.

Let’s start small and check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_order_(international_law)

I mean, as an actual disabled person… By just like, backing up to it?

Well, as an actual disabled person, how many different chairs do you have on a daily basis? Because as a taxi driver driving around disabled people, there’s a lot of different chairs.

I’ve never seen one without a backrest. Do you have one?

Could you back into that with a chair? Ofc.

But if yours has a backrest like all the other chairs, you’ll hit the backrest before with the back of your chair before you’d be in the same line as a person leaning back on other parts of the bench.

Not to even mention that a ton of the people that I know who use chairs have often have a bag or a backpack hanging back there.

I don’t want to be around when they pull into a parking spot and then can’t drive forward out of it…

As a professional driver, I can tell you that if you have to choose a parking place between a space that’s only just and just free (three cars around it, all parked tightly so as to not leave any extra room even close to the line), and one that is completely free, not a single car around it, you choose the latter one.

Can I reverse into the former? Ofc. Even just a few years after I started, when I was still very young, around 20, I made grown (and somewhat drunk) men give a little shriek as they thought I would crash the car when driving in places where they thought a car wouldn’t fit (because people were picked up usually from in front of a bar, and bars can exist in the weirdest places.)

So with that logic in mind, my question is why would you, as a chair user, ever want to back in to this bench, when you could just park next to it, effectively lengthening the bench?

Put 1,000 hotel rooms, but only 5 are made for accessibility? Your store has a wheelchair ramp, all the fuck at the end of the building near the loading docks?

Not a problem in the EU/Finland (idk which the regulations comes from) We got building regulations.

Shit, even paving walkways, in fucking modular concrete squares, suck ass: when (not if) the front wheels get stuck, especially if I’m being pushed, my ass gets launched.

I would’ve been proud if this wasn’t a problem either, but as someone who regularly pushed chairs, I’m so goddamn disappointed in my own city. They remodelled the market square for a parking garage they wanted to build below it. Corruption and capitalism wins and after years and years of talks, more years of building and millions of euros, we got an utterly shit market square made of roughly 40cm x 40cm tiles which won’t stay the fuck down because of the soil. I haven’t had to push a chair through that yet but I dread it for any one who does, be they pushing their own chairs or getting pushed. Hell, I’ve almost fallen down several times and I like to think I have good awareness in general.

It would be bad enough when a completely abled person falls off their feet, seems it would be much more devastating to someone in a chair, let alone if they’re traveling solo. Thankfully it’s literally the busiest place in the city, so at least anyone who gets hurt will get help quickly, but still.

It used to be centuries old paved stone, as stable as, well idk, something really stable. Perhaps a bit bumpy for a chair user, but honestly only a tiny bit, dad used to take lots of his customers in chairs there for coffee. He had his own taxi-van with a chair-lift in the back, that’s how I started as a taxi driver, working for him. And he started because his dad (my grandpa) had the first taxi the town I was born in. My father chose to prominently tape “Gentleman of the Road” in the back of the van. For aura farming when he wouldn’t start accelerating to speeding just because some dick was hurrying him up. He really impresses upon me the need to keep the car stable. But whenever he didn’t have customers in there, just me, it wasn’t as smooth, as he raced on the slippery backroads like the pro he was.

It sucks ass being disabled, but god damn it’s like the dumbest people get assigned to accessibility planning.

I do empathise and honestly while I criticise a ton of things about Finland, infrastructure for disabled access is really one thing I can’t help but be somewhat proud of. Let me see if I have a photo I took perhaps last year. It might be my previous phone and then it’s lost. (Actually binned my old phone by accident, a top of the line flagship phone that only had the sim-reader faulty gooooooooodammit I still blame myself so much for that fuckup.)

Oh I do have the photos, yeah.

This is an outhouse with disabled access, along a nature path of which roughly 60-70% is available with a chair. The route goes around a small lake and while it is regrettable the whole path isn’t available, I think even a majority of it being available is a win. Half of it is this well maintained gravel footpath that you can sort of see the material there, but around a third or so is really craggy forest on the beach on the other side and I’d argue the amount of nature you’d have to completely get rid off to pave that part as well, the places designation as a “nature trail” would really lose something. Mainly the view from the main side of the lake, which would affect disabled people as well.

I would’ve read the article. But I put it off. Because I don’t want to accept some weird corporate conditions with my news.

I read the original study through some other post

Or just started smoking weed.

Shouldn’t’ve

And how exactly would one even back a wheelchair into that? Wheelchairs have backrests already, so you’d just hit the backrest of this bench before being on the same line as the other people sitting on it.

I mean, that’s a very sweeping generalisation, which sort of ignores reality. There’s clearly a lot of protesting, and I, as I’m sure you have as well, have seen videos of people being murdered on the street to the cries of “stop resisting” even when the person didn’t do jack shit, only tried to hold on to their 1st and 4th amendment rights. And the end up under the knee of some psycho powertripper, repeating “I can’t breathe” for minutes before finally succumbing to death.

Also nowadays I believe using AI is rather more common than photoshop.

“No but you have to understand, All Cops might Be Bastards but they’re could be way worse bastards!”

Wow what a magnificent argument.

How do you feel about ICE arresting people for immigration offenses?

How do you feel about the DEA prosecuting people for cannabis?

Do you not understand that things are clearly immoral should lead to law enforcement refusing to enforce the laws. It doesn’t mean they get to decide which laws to enforce or not, willy nilly, but if someone says “go an arrest every minority out there” they can say ‘that’s unconstitutional and I won’t do it, you can fire me and then I’ll sue you’ or whatever it is you do there.

What you CAN’T do is become law enforcement and then use that authority while being completely arbitrary about laws.

The only reason I’m not a cop is because drugs are illegal (and some other laws but mainly those.)

TL;DR: Harry would be morally upstanding and a loose cannon (assuming he doesn’t mature past 18), therefore a “good” cop

“Loose cannons” are never good as cops. No matter how much you delude yourself they’re completely moral and even if that were 100% true they wouldn’t be good cops. Cops aren’t justice. They’re law enforcement.

Someone applying their own morality all the time instead of laws should never ever be a cop. That’s why ACAB.

The reason we’ve evolved to tune out whatever taste water may have, is because we need to be able to detect when there’s shit in it. Literally. But also anything else non-suitable.

Which is why waters taste slightly different as we never drink distilled water really. Not that it’s somehow toxic, but drinking only distilled water when there’s no food and then sweating a lot would dehydrate you eventually.

Hydrophobia is still very much the name of one of the symptoms that rabies has.

As in a doctor might write “patient exhibits hydrophobia, rabies suspected” or something. Although most doctors wouldn’t ever be in a situation like that, but still.

Socrates was wrong guys

Yeah, he was, about a lot. But what specifically do you mean?

Probably an accident when I’ve screenshot the video, touched my thumb and drew a line or smth, is my guess, but yeah, good question. I would wager this is the answer, but like you, I don’t actually know.

Oh damn I didn’t even notice I thought my phone had some dust or thrash on it but yeah theyve censored the i in “died”

You are pathetic.

First off, ACAB.

Secondly, in a lot of stories Batman defeats city-wide or even nation- or global-wide threats. Kinda like Harry. And whatever Batman happens to do, because it’s somehow justified, it ends up being good. Because he’s the hero. Like Harry.

But like the earlier dude said Harry hasn’t even got an understanding of the wider world. He would be much better at being a professor, because it also includes studying instead of just enforcing the rules.

Even if you imagine a perfect cop, he wouldn’t be acting like Harry. Harry constantly breaks some rules or laws. Not what cops should be doing. Yeah you need some of the virtues Harry has but Harry is also inpatient and a large risk-taker. Neither of which are particularly good characteristics in cops except in media. A perfect cop would be someone slightly autistic about the rules and literally doesn’t do whatever they feel like, but defers to the rules.

Which Harry most certainly doesn’t.

Imagine if the magical world was (for this analogy) the US. Some who grew up in another country and hasn’t even lived in the US, just went to a mostly American school, wants to be an American cop? Even when they go through a necessary training (and we know the wizarding world isn’t big on credentials or experience) to become a cop, he’d still have very little understanding of the actual law with just some weeks of training, and wouldn’t have grown up hearing about the constitution of the US let alone all the amendments to it.

Shortly? They were polytheists. Christians weren’t.

"The Paradox of Tolerance, articulated by philosopher Karl Popper, argues that unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance because if a tolerant society tolerates the intolerant, the intolerant will eventually destroy the tolerant, ending tolerance itself. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism#Associations_with_violence

I know mostly not my own word but should be plenty of explanation my hands are freezing ask more if you feel like it

It’s not specific to a language and most PIE languages and even non-PIE euro languages use a version of “elite.”

English didn’t come up with the word, you know?

You’re basically talking to yourself without realising it.

You can’t even formulate a sentence on what I was supposedly wrong in. I can. You were wrong that I haven’t lifted multiple reasons to vote for the left, and the fact that even in the first comment, I already saw right through you.

You’re just spreading “don’t support the left” propaganda, but you’re too dumb to realise how painfully obvious you make it to every literate adult to see it’s exactly what you’re doing.

I’ve repeated in every single reply that you’re spreading Russian propaganda. I’ve asked if you’re doing it on purpose, or if you’re just brainwashed and don’t realise you are. About 100 times. Over a week. You desperately avoid even mentioning it, for obvious reasons.

Look, here’s the same link I put in my first comment (which eveyone can see.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_disinformation

Often Russian campaigns aim to disrupt domestic politics within Europe and the United States in an attempt to weaken the West due to its long-standing commitment to fight back against “Western imperialism” and shift the balance of world power to Russia and her allies. According to the Voice of America, Russia seeks to promote American isolationism, border security concerns and racial tensions within the United States through its disinformation campaigns.

Go cry to babushka that you’re getting bullied online by literate people using logic — SO UNFAIR!