Lol nice try but I don’t have to provide you with an alternative for you to attack. You’re wasting youre time there.
“See, the thing is, I already know I’m right, so I’m not going to waste time by giving you arguments to find flaws in.”
I really, really hope I don’t have to explain why it being done by a state doesn’t magically make it better, in of itself.
…you mean why a system of justice that is held liable to a court system is not superior to a system of justice where people can just go after whomever they want? yeah, you do have to explain that actually
See, the thing is, I already know I’m right, so I’m not going to waste time by giving you arguments to find flaws in.”
Again, nice try but I’m used to people as slippery as you. What you mean is “you’re right, we don’t just have to sit around and trust that crime doesn’t exist. However, I’m the kind of person who really struggles to back down or walk back even the most wild and silly of things that I imply.”
you mean why a system of justice that is held liable to a court system is not superior to a system of justice where people can just go after whomever they want? yeah, you do have to explain that actually
Why would I explain something completely different to what I said to you?
Okay, so if we’re not just going to trust that crime isn’t going to happen, how are we going to prevent it? I asked you that, straight up, and you said “I’m not going to give you something just for you to poke holes in it. I’ve dealt with your kind before.”
So, are you saying we do or we don’t all have to just sit around and trust crime wouldn’t exist? Sorry, I couldn’t tell which one it was you were saying from that answer.
You say we don’t. A cursory reading of the source you cited seems to imply that we do. Obviously, then, a cursory reading of the source is insufficient, and you must have some solution that will prevent crime in the absence of judges and police officers, right?
You linked to this source, so surely you’ve read it and you understand the author’s position better than I do, right?
“See, the thing is, I already know I’m right, so I’m not going to waste time by giving you arguments to find flaws in.”
…you mean why a system of justice that is held liable to a court system is not superior to a system of justice where people can just go after whomever they want? yeah, you do have to explain that actually
Again, nice try but I’m used to people as slippery as you. What you mean is “you’re right, we don’t just have to sit around and trust that crime doesn’t exist. However, I’m the kind of person who really struggles to back down or walk back even the most wild and silly of things that I imply.”
Why would I explain something completely different to what I said to you?
Okay, so if we’re not just going to trust that crime isn’t going to happen, how are we going to prevent it? I asked you that, straight up, and you said “I’m not going to give you something just for you to poke holes in it. I’ve dealt with your kind before.”
So, are you saying we do or we don’t all have to just sit around and trust crime wouldn’t exist? Sorry, I couldn’t tell which one it was you were saying from that answer.
You say we don’t. A cursory reading of the source you cited seems to imply that we do. Obviously, then, a cursory reading of the source is insufficient, and you must have some solution that will prevent crime in the absence of judges and police officers, right?
You linked to this source, so surely you’ve read it and you understand the author’s position better than I do, right?
I still couldn’t make out which one is was sorry?