Wait so @jensensbooty
You only care if it’s offensive to Islamic people? If it’s meant to be something else you don’t care?
Other things this could be disrespecting can get fucked as long as it isn’t specifically disrespectful to Islam?
Wtf?

The measurement system is completely irrelevant to this lel. It doesn’t matter what system you are using you’ll still be using tiered measuring cups/spoons just with different numbers on it. The literal only difference if this was in metric is that it would say 200, 100, 60, 50. That’s literally the only different a measuring system change would make, how is that easier that 1, half, third, quarter?

random thing about rankine, (note: I don't really know that much about specialized measurement systems like kelvin or Rankine so im going completely off of surface information about such lel)
kelvin and rankine are basically the same thing except that rankine is just F shifted down to absolute 0 and kelvin is C with the same done to it yes? Since F is a bit more precise than C (meaning that a change of 1 in F is a smaller change than a change of 1 in C) would that not mean that, from a completely "human brain do better with whole numbers than with decimal numbers" situation that rankine would be a better scale?
i mean that as a genuine question, not as a statement posed as a rhetorical question by the way. Im rather curious as to why kelvin is used in situations where that low temperature is talked about rather than rankine given the information i have about it.

Also I’ll also point out that this is basically the only time I’ll disagree with America’s measurement systems being absolutely garbage, having standardized gaps between measurement terms is definitely superior to the seemingly arbitrary conversion rates in imperial.

I concede the fact that other temperature measures are better for specialized jobs and tasks but for the average citizen and daily common use, F is better.

I offer two possibilities and don’t see room for many others. Either 1. The man showed up without contacting the child before hand, trespassing in the house in the hopes he would end up having sex with a minor, or 2 he contacted the minor before hand with one of the above methods and arranged it, either not know he was really talking to the father or the father found out before he arrived or maybe the father wasn’t supposed to be home.
Either 1. Prior contact or 2. No prior contact
If 1. There is a paper trail in the form of texts or calls, even if the actual content of the calls can’t be found, there being calls at all is enough of a red flag that, combined with him being in the house, he could get convicted.
In the 2. Situation, he’s trespassing. Nothing else need be said, that’s a crime with very low proof requirements.

contrary to popular belief, hearsay is allowed in court, its not this tv drama "hearsay is inadmissible"
legally speaking anything that wasn't said in court is hearsay, video recording is hearsay, audio recording is hearsay, text conversation records are hearsay.
It would easily stand up in court, even if you ignore the solicitation of child charge, he is in a house he was not invited into by the father, he is trespassing and thought to be there for the purpose of having sex with a minor. At minimum he's committing trespass which is a crime.
Now if we actually talk about the solicitation of a child charge, chances are the person had some sort of recorded or traceable conversation with the child, very likely over some text form, most likely text or instant message program.

He's not commiting a crime. He's using his legal right to detain a criminal in the act of a crime.
"not trying to impress anyone with big words either, "
thats a personal attack and a red herring fallacy, not a point or a justification.
Trying to deflect away from the fact you are arguing with things that are logical fallacy by attacking my character, implying that im only calling you out on your disingenuous argument tactics to impress people, and also trying to make it look like you are justfied in using logical fallacy in your arguments.
"if you were so adament to want to press charges for false imprisonment, then you'd be all for pressing charges on a guy with a bat. "
thats a false equivalency and an appeal to hypocrisy.
Stop using logical fallacy in your arguements. You havent made a single point that isnt a logical fallacy yet.

The of threat of force during the detaining of a criminal currently in the act of committing a crime is legal. It's not assault to detain a pedophile currently trying to fuck your 14 year old daughter (just for anyone reading this out of the loop, that is the context of the bat threat that iccarus is talking about)

Stopping a crime is a legal action. brandishing a weapon while detaining an individual committing a crime is also a legal action. using that weapon should the criminal attempt attack the person detaining them is, again, a legal action.
thats also a strawman arguement. If you have to strart what you are saying with "so you are saying" you might want to rethink what you are saying and ask yourself if you are arguing against a point no one made.

"ok, the guy wanting to meet a 14 year old girl, he's in the wrong, so gets beat up with a bat, fair enough, a 14 year old that bullies my son, 10, hits him, it's fair i beat him up with a bat as well. "
this entire post is a strawman argument as well as a false equivalence fallacy.
No where in the post is it said he started a fight. he has a legal right to detain a criminal in the act of a crime. He also has a right to defend himself with a weapon should the criminal attempt to start the fight is has the weapon to stop happening in the first place.
Also, that whole second post is a mix of a personal attack fallacy and an appeal to hypocrisy.
Please stop using logical fallacy when you try to argue a point. Ill say again, its a bad look for the site to have people doing that and its just generally bad form and, should you be doing it on purpose rather than out of ignorance, is disingenuous and actively attempting to stop any functional discussion.

the act of downvoting isnt the sad part. Its downvoting the truth of the law because you dont think the law should apply in a situation because "dont take a meme seriously, its just a prank bro"

if you think what the machine operator did was ok you need to re-evaluate your morals.
also, downvoting me because you dont like the truth that im saying is sad.
what he did is a federal crime. It's actively deciding that your feelings are more important than someone else's rights. It's feeling like your feelings make you above the law, make you more important than other people. It's selfish and entitled, not to mention highly illegal.

"Yeah, life is not fair, but if you have the advantage, why give yourself more so by using a weapon, takes a true hero to do that doesn't it, don't want to break a nail, use a bat. "
that's an appeal to emotion, not a point. The objective of doing what he's doing is to get results, not fall in line with some arbitrary honor code stopping you from effectively protecting people.

"true, but given the size of the guy with the bat, he doesn't need it. but for those that can't fight, they do"
why is it your place to decide this? What logical reason is there to not use a bat? please give something other than than "but fair fight" or back up said "but fair fight" with a logical reason why a fair fight is important outside of a game, friendly fight, or arranged ruled structured fight where both parties agree to rules and no one is committing a crime and further in the specific when preventing a crime and protecting someone from becoming a victim.
""wait until i get my friends to beat you up", they're just pussies"
thats not only an attack on a non-present third party, but also either a strawman or a red herring fallacy, not a point.

*internally*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Also on the question of “do you think fights should be unfair, one side at a disadvantage”
Yes, generally speaking it would be preferable that the victim or the person defending a victim or the person stopping someone from becoming a victim have a distinct advantage and be more likely to win the fight.

Life isn’t a game, this isn’t a playground. This isn’t 2 people agreeing to have a friendly or organised fight. This is someone being caught in the attempt to commit what most would consider a heinous crime and being stopped with the threat of violence and made to peacefully and passively stay put until arrested with the same threat of violence.
You don’t get to have an honourable duel with a fair clean above the belt fight offered to when you try to fuck a 14 year old.
Also that entire post is a strawman argument. It’s a bad look on the website to have people using logical fallacy as their entire argument. Please try harder.

You aren’t going to break your knuckles using a bat. Actual fist fights are bad for your bones. A weapon will not only make it easier and faster but also protect your body from hurting itself in the process.
Also the idea that “oh he feels weak because he’s using a bat and not being a real man and using his bare fists” is pretty fucking dumb ngl. Not only are you making an assumption, but you are leading the answer to confirming that assumption in the way you worded the question.