Comment by defrost
2 days ago
No, and Venn diagrams.
How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%?
Also, Philippine Basketball Association membership carries no weight here.
2 days ago
No, and Venn diagrams.
How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%?
Also, Philippine Basketball Association membership carries no weight here.
PBA = Police Benevolent Association
> How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%?
Is that a real question? Having strict ethics is a higher bar than variable ethics. How can you assume that more LEO’s are strictly ethical than varying their ethics when you literally brought up
> Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.
You literally said “…strictly ethical about varies…” you are being inconsistent with terminology if you are trying to claim strict ethics can vary
If you need
Strict[1] Variable[2]
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strict
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/variable
<yawn>
You seemed determined to get messy rather than legitimately discuss where we are not seeing eye to eye.
Yes, definitions matter. Yes, I do see difficulties in two strangers discussing this.
Yes, the behaviour of LEOs changes depending on who they interact with and yes they can be oblivious to that change.
When I say that most of our state LEO's have strict adherence to the code of ethics, I mean that. When I say those in the grey area still consider themselves to have strict adherence, I also mean that.
Part of the mess lands with where they see themselves in the state and who they see as those they serve and those that they protect others against.
Maybe get a life and stop idly throwing about dictionary definitions? Particularly one that's a fork of English.
> When I say that most of our state LEO's have strict adherence to the code of ethics, I mean that. When I say those in the grey area still consider themselves to have strict adherence, I also mean that.
When Terrance Howard says 1x1 = 2, he also means that and it’s as equally coherent.
They cannot strictly adhere to a code of ethics and simultaneously violate it when it comes to people they don’t care about. The “strict” part would require them to always adhere to said ethics.