Senal
Indeed, in a working ideal model(see below for more on this*) of society the police exist to enforce the rule/spirit of law equally to all people.
ICE should ostensibly be a federal branch that is held to account by the government as a whole and deals specifically with customs and immigration related issues.
Citizens with no customs or immigration issues aren't really part of that mandate so it should be handed off to the relevant authorities that do in fact deal with that type of 'crime'.
Things are so far removed from that, that ICE is effectively running on gang/gestapo rules at this point and the government is actively encouraging it.
* So, by working ideal model i'm describing a point of view using traditional ideals of fairness and law, that assume the system is working towards that ideal.
The current system is not at all set up that way, so even if it seems batshit , this might actually be the system working as intended by the current sitting majority power (or if you're really cynical like me, capitalism as a whole).
So not only are you fighting to move the overton window in a direction that resembles the storybook ideals of fairness and equality, you are also fighting the existing imposed status quo.
I also wonder why this even is a case for ICE and not the police.
Same reason the Mafia or the Cartels don't call the police when something goes down.
If you don't take care of it yourself how will people know not to fuck with you ?
No need for apologies, you don't mean it and i don't really care about your opinion enough to warrant it.
judging by the replies so far I wouldn’t expect any level of good faith discourse
^
Responding with a deflection is on brand though, so kudos for consistency.
I think you have me mistaken for someone else.
You don't need to prove anything, and judging by the replies so far I wouldn't expect any level of good faith discourse so no need to worry about my expectations.
Does the fact that the democrats are shitty politicians somehow negate the fact that trump is an incompetent manchild with apparently no checks and balances ?
Or are they, in fact, two entirely unrelated things that can both be true ?
An unrelated strawman is a poor distraction from you not actually addressing what is being said.
Though i suppose if you don't actually have anything to say on the subject a strawman is better than nothing, for a given value of "better".
And somebody who includes health in their metric of enjoyment will have a different threshold
Indeed, but my comment was a reply to another poster who was implying a specific metric.
I was just trying to point out that metric isn't the same for everyone, even a composite metric will differ person to person
That assumes that enjoyment is the only metric, which is common, but not universal.
Some people can think the movie is of high quality, but the subject matter isn't for them, as an example.
Think of it like food:
Good food: the food you enjoy
Bad food: the food you don’t
Unless you're basing good and bad on how "healthy" the food is (for whatever given metric of health you want to use)
They can, and do, but that's not exactly what i was getting at.
I was saying that a (hypothetical) person, completely free of autistic traits can acquire traits very similar to how autism is expressed purely through CPTSD experience.
I fully agree that you can get ASD + CPTSD for the extra special double dose of the fun times, but it's possible to have one without the other.
From what I've been told over the years by various different head people, the overlap between the outward symptoms of cptsd and autism is somewhat large.
The underlying causes are usually very different, but the expression has enough overlap that they always check for cptsd markers and questions.
In my anecdotal experience, of course.
It's also entirely possible to have both, which makes it even more complex.
Consumer research, look up the brands you don't know before you buy them, the corps aren't generally out here running shell companies to hide relationships.
Im not being snide and I don't care about the rest of the argument with OP, this is the literal answer to that one question, that's all.