680
Rule The Police (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jasory@programming.dev 4 points 11 months ago

The outliers don't make the rule.

On the subject of outliers, are we supposed to assume that a user named MycoBro (a user who references smoking marijuana and having a particular interest in identifying Psilocybin cubensis) is actually academically interested in fungi, and not one of the vastly more common abusers of poisonous mushrooms?

[-] MycoBro@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That’s absolutely right. My interest in mushrooms led me to read a book about shiitakes(the mushroom at the end of the world). In my excitement I ordered some to make with my ramen at lunch(in a carpenter I have a medical card for weed. How the fuck does that make me a criminal? Wanna talk about mushrooms, man? Because I have a hell of a lot more to say than “they get you high”. Me and all my grand kids hunt for them all year long as they are learning what they are called, which ones are useful, and which aren’t. Your just as wrong and arrogant as you could possibly be. Edit: do I look like a drug user? You know exactly what I look like probably. Picture that but keep me kind of handsome. Is that different than a pig fucking with a black dude because he’s black? I’d bet you would hate that.

[-] jasory@programming.dev 1 points 11 months ago

You're right, I would be very unhappy if a pig sexually assaulted a black man, even if it was it's fetish.

I believe sexual relations should be consensual and between humans, I'm very conservative in that way.

[-] CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I wonder if there is a word or phrase for when someone lost an argument but still wants the last word so they bring up a grammatical error or act like they don't understand common nomenclature and take every word in the most literal sense in an attempt to feel superior. Can any English teachers out here help?

"Grasping at straws" doesn't completely encompass this but it's the closest thing I can think of

[-] jasory@programming.dev 2 points 11 months ago

How did I lose the argument? I claimed that the user is probably a drug addict, they denied it. There is really no proving or disproving either claim.

The actual argument I made, that MycoBro's personal experience has little relevance, was completely unaddressed. Literally read any of his response, all of it was about consuming mushrooms, absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of anecdotal experience.

I merely made my last response because I found the clearly vitriolic analogy to be humourous, and the rest of the comment had nothing of substance.

[-] MycoBro@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Dude. You are so full of shit. You sound like a real self righteous piece of shit. There is one fucking mention of Psilocybe cubensis and it’s in a comment about Pleurotus ostreatus. And what the fuck do you want? Am I supposed to use a bunch of mycology words? Arbusculsar? Mychorrhizal? Do I have to go on about the proper names for the morphological features? It’s not a stem. It’s a stipe. My favorite mushroom is the chanterelle because I find it beyond fascinating that they repel pest with an unknown mechanism (you will only ever find a slug on one. Now bugs. So delicious). Your a prick

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 months ago

Are you trying to say his position is invalid because he might enjoy recreational drugs?

[-] jasory@programming.dev 1 points 11 months ago

No, I'm saying two things.

  1. His anecdote is not sufficient to refute the claim that 9 times out of 10 you should cooperate with LE.
  2. The user probably is a mushroom abuser, given the fact that they are a self-proclaimed marijuana abuser and have expressed interest in Psilocybin mushrooms.

These are two separate things, his anecdote probably being a lie makes his argument look worse but it is not necessary to show that it is insufficient. It would be an incorrect argument based solely on the first point.

I personally just find it humourous and incredulous that he supposedly spent 2 weeks in jail, because he totally wasn't using Psilocybin mushrooms. You know Shiitakes are huge and pretty hard to confuse with Psilocybin, not to mention the fact that you can test them pretty easily. (They are also in tons of grocery stores, so it's not exactly alien to everyday individuals).

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That is much more likely than it sounds. Law enforcement in the United States are fond of a $2 drug test that reacts with practically anything. Allegely, it waa supposed to serve as a field test (with follow-up tests at a lab) but these days is used as probable cause in a baggie.

This test has been known to land gazed donut enjoyers in jail as well as someone transporting the cremated remains of a recently deceased loved one. It would not surprise me if a (willfully) ignorant police officer eager to ruin someone's day woud use such a test on produce mushrooms to assert cause to arrest.

While I cannot say that is what happened here, I can say it's not merely plausible in the States, but expected, especially if someone shows signs they don't have a family lawyer.

You seem eager to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt, which I assure you in the US, at from the precinct level though municipal department, county sheriff, state department and federal level they do not deserve.

this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
680 points (100.0% liked)

196

16410 readers
2476 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS