Require that the app include some sort of sobriety test before showing the DUI checkpoints - maybe a math test - or a dexterity test - or a reaction time test. Can't pass the test - can't know where the checkpoints are.
This whole debate is along the lines of passing out condoms encourages kids to have sex. Which is really a way of saying you would much rather be in the dark as to how much sex kids are having regardless so you can be properly outraged when they come home pregnant with STDs.
Stopping a car that was just at an establishment which servers alcohol to check if the driver is intoxicated is not entrapment and I don't even think that is profiling - that is just common sense - and misses all the folks who drank at home or a friends house or at any of the millions of places where alcohol can be purchased and consumed.
I'm not emotional, I'm just pointing out repeatedly...
Then you shouldn't throw stones. I believe you were the one accusing me of being emotional while vehemently opposing the way I framed my comments. Sounds like a pretty emotional response, to me. I'm also very informed of civil rights and have a pretty good understanding of Constitutional law, and I'm sure you are, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Your poor choices in terminology and example to champion are just as bad as those grandstanding senators...
My, aren't we judgmental. Once again, I have to shrug my shoulders, because it doesn't matter. We have much larger issues on the plate, like your civil rights slipping away by a bunch of busy-body lawmakers. Massive increase of social welfare programs (along with rising food & gas costs) that are going to crush the middle class. And... the fact that Congressmen declare and agreement to trim $40B off a yearly budget a high-falutin' victory, when we we have a 14 TRILLION hole in our pockets scares the living s#!t out of me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
Require that the app include some sort of sobriety test before showing the DUI checkpoints - maybe a math test - or a dexterity test - or a reaction time test. Can't pass the test - can't know where the checkpoints are.
That's actually not a bad idea. A compromise, but I think a fair one. However...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
Stopping a car that was just at an establishment which servers alcohol to check if the driver is intoxicated is not entrapment and I don't even think that is profiling - that is just common sense - and misses all the folks who drank at home or a friends house or at any of the millions of places where alcohol can be purchased and consumed.
Obviously you believe in police states, since you failed to acknowledge the large percentage of people along these stops who have done nothing wrong, haven't had a drop to drink, and are being forced to pull over for a sobriety test under threat of imprisonment because they were driving in the vicinity of a drinking establishment. What if you were walking down a sidewalk minding your own business and a cop decided to give you a strip search, because there might be a shoplifter in the area. When your pants are around your ankles while bystanders look on, will you be thinking "this is common sense"?
Then you shouldn't throw stones. I believe you were the one accusing me of being emotional while vehemently opposing the way I framed my comments. Sounds like a pretty emotional response, to me. I'm also very informed of civil rights and have a pretty good understanding of Constitutional law, and I'm sure you are, too.
My, aren't we judgmental. Once again, I have to shrug my shoulders, because it doesn't matter. We have much larger issues on the plate, like your civil rights slipping away by a bunch of busy-body lawmakers. Massive increase of social welfare programs (along with rising food & gas costs) that are going to crush the middle class. And... the fact that Congressmen declare and agreement to trim $40B off a yearly budget a high-falutin' victory, when we we have a 14 TRILLION hole in our pockets scares the living s#!t out of me.
That's actually not a bad idea. A compromise, but I think a fair one. However...
Obviously you believe in police states, since you failed to acknowledge the large percentage of people along these stops who have done nothing wrong, haven't had a drop to drink, and are being forced to pull over for a sobriety test under threat of imprisonment because they were driving in the vicinity of a drinking establishment. What if you were walking down a sidewalk minding your own business and a cop decided to give you a strip search, because there might be a shoplifter in the area. When your pants are around your ankles while bystanders look on, will you be thinking "this is common sense"?
Wow, somebody's insecure. I thought you said you were fine with your position and terminology? And you say it doesn't matter, but you show that to be a false statement because if it doesn't matter you wouldn't continue to post lame non-defenses. Judgmental, yes I am as far as the position goes. Making a stand for not allowing governmental prior restraint in freedom of speech is worth being judgmental over. Identifying points and arguments that damage that position are definitely a judgement call. No apologies coming there.
As for the police state thing, how can anyone take a libertarian government "get out of my library" equivalent position and logically turn it into a police state support statement? That takes some imagination. But the real imagination and your quite successful attempt at reductio ad absurdum show you to be intellectually bankrupt. You ran out of real supporting thoughts and went straight for public sexual humiliation. Real smooth. At least there is no doubt left in an readers mind that you are completely out to lunch.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. It was an important public service.
Wow, somebody's insecure. I thought you said you were fine with your position and terminology?
I am <yaaaawwn>. Throwing stones won't do you any good; you keep responding with asinine accusations, so I say it is you who is the insecure one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
...you wouldn't continue to post lame non-defenses.
Yet you continue to post lame non-starter arguments over something we fundamentally agree on? Yes, don't apologize for hypocrisy, or for fighting little fights over trivial nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
You ran out of real supporting thoughts and went straight for public sexual humiliation.
Your failure to connect the logic in my prior comments shows as you jump the shark from what I said about "strip searching" and somehow turn that into sexual humiliation. Useful analogies are never going to be understood by people whose only intent is useless commentary.
My comments about these politics might be fairly sensationalist, but at least they are directed towards the topic as opposed to petty potshots at someone who I don't agree with. Regarding my so-called "intellectual bankruptcy" or being "out to lunch": sorry "Hiro", but you only have your own presumptions and do not speak for everyone else here. Grow up.
I am <yaaaawwn>. Throwing stones won't do you any good; you keep responding with asinine accusations, so I say it is you who is the insecure one...
At least you're consistent with the strawman and redefinitions. I give reasons for my positions, and show contrast with others, not straight ad homs with no backup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapf Brannigan
Yet you continue to post lame non-starter arguments over something we fundamentally agree on?
You say you agree, but use over the top arguments that are completely self defeating. Tactics that are part and parcel to folks that are trying to discredit what they say they are arguing for. if that's not you, you have to modify to using same arguments that don't automatically create a boomerang effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapf Brannigan
Yes, don't apologize for hypocrisy, or for fighting little fights over trivial nonsense.
What hypocrisy? It's not a little fight, it's a big one, and I am quite open about the position, no duplicity or hiding behind something. Are you just using your previously stated leave to redefine terms the way you want them so they fit your mental model? Because that's the only way you can bring hypocrisy into that sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapf Brannigan
Your failure to connect the logic in my prior comments shows as you jump the shark from what I said about "strip searching" and somehow turn that into sexual humiliation. Useful analogies are never going to be understood by people whose only intent is useless commentary.
So I jump the shark because you bring up the strip search and I call you on being over the top. Riiiight. What else other than sexual humiliation could this sentence of your earlier example be about:
"When your pants are around your ankles while bystanders look on, will you be thinking this is common sense? "
I'm supposed to take an action everyone I have run across finds humiliating, the strip search; have it executed in public with bystanders watching; and think you aren't trying to press a sexual humiliation button to get me to change an opinion over freedom of speech because in your police state the strip search can happen?
I'll let that little bit of wonderment sit on its own. You do an ever better job of tying your point up in incomprehensible ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapf Brannigan
My comments about these politics might be fairly sensationalist, but at least they are directed towards the topic as opposed to petty potshots at someone who I don't agree with. Regarding my so-called "intellectual bankruptcy" or being "out to lunch": sorry "Hiro", but you only have your own presumptions and do not speak for everyone else here. Grow up.
Well, that surely doesn't change my mind. Now admittedly sensationalist, that's supposed to make it all better? And how could I speak for all here. You're here and I assuredly do not speak for you. Still sloppy with your logic and writing.
...at pointing out your flawed self-assurance and faulty logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
You say you agree...
Read back through the whole thread, genius. The context of this topic is, "Senators are trying to censor consumers from using a piece of software", which one way or the other, we've both said is wrong. You're creating your own controversy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
What hypocrisy? It's not a little fight, it's a big one..
Your hypocrisy. And it is a small argument; don't get so emotional over trivial things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
So I jump the shark... "When your pants are around your ankles while bystanders look on, will you be thinking this is common sense?
Yes, you did. A) Had I said "groped" or made a suggestion of sexual contact, you might have a valid point. But, You've come to a wildly false conclusion, and have taken umbrage over a comment that wasn't even directed at you... lilgto64 can speak for himself. That being the case, you're obviously taking this whole thread very personally, which makes all your accusations of me "getting emotional" all the more asinine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
I'm supposed to take an action... and think you aren't trying to press a sexual humiliation button...
I made a pointed analogy that you completely drew the wrong conclusion about. Deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
You're here and I assuredly do not speak for you.
Yeah, I don't want you speaking for me. And while you're at it, don't take up my responses to other posters for your own personal crusade. Speak for yourself.
...at pointing out your flawed self-assurance and faulty logic. Read back through the whole thread, genius. The context of this topic is, "Senators are trying to censor consumers from using a piece of software", which one way or the other, we've both said is wrong. You're creating your own controversy. Your hypocrisy. And it is a small argument; don't get so emotional over trivial things. Yes, you did. A) Had I said "groped" or made a suggestion of sexual contact, you might have a valid point. But, You've come to a wildly false conclusion, and have taken umbrage over a comment that wasn't even directed at you... lilgto64 can speak for himself. That being the case, you're obviously taking this whole thread very personally, which makes all your accusations of me "getting emotional" all the more asinine.I made a pointed analogy that you completely drew the wrong conclusion about. Deal.Yeah, I don't want you speaking for me. And while you're at it, don't take up my responses to other posters for your own personal crusade. Speak for yourself.
Wow, well developed sense of self importance there. I don't care about you. I care about getting the issue right. Your style of ridiculous argument hurts that, and that's not a small thing.
I wasn't responding for lilgto64, I was responding to you on to your publicly stated opinion (merely in a post to lilgto64) that supporting sobriety checks equated to a poster believing in a police state. You can't take that back after the fact and say it "only applies in the case of a certain poster when you were feeling a certain way on a certain day...".
Maybe a little less ego and a whole lot more purposeful writing will keep you out of the debate dog house.
Wow, well developed sense of self importance there. I don't care about you. I care about getting the issue right.
Wow, you really care about something since you haven't had a single constructive comment in that regard since you've been responding to me. Since you're only good for cheap potshots you don't care about "getting it right". You haven't had anything intelligent to say about the topic, so this does not qualify as a "debate" either. Until then (and believe me- I am not holding my breath), you're the only one here writing to nurture his bruised ego.
Wow, you really care about something since you haven't had a single constructive comment in that regard since you've been responding to me. Since you're only good for cheap potshots you don't care about "getting it right". You haven't had anything intelligent to say about the topic, so this does not qualify as a "debate" either. Until then (and believe me- I am not holding my breath), you're the only one here writing to nurture his bruised ego.
Charming, and yes I care. I have said that several times, and it's why I'm not giving you a free stage. Ignoring content has become one of your strengths too. Anyone can go back and see the string of posts with my consistent content of protecting freedom of speech; advocating debate reasonably, don't default to extremism; and that resorting to extremism hurts the point supposedly supported. Each of those content points has repeatedly been discussed with relation to the violating examples you so graciously provided. The thread does not lie.
Comments
This whole debate is along the lines of passing out condoms encourages kids to have sex. Which is really a way of saying you would much rather be in the dark as to how much sex kids are having regardless so you can be properly outraged when they come home pregnant with STDs.
Stopping a car that was just at an establishment which servers alcohol to check if the driver is intoxicated is not entrapment and I don't even think that is profiling - that is just common sense - and misses all the folks who drank at home or a friends house or at any of the millions of places where alcohol can be purchased and consumed.
I'm not emotional, I'm just pointing out repeatedly...
Then you shouldn't throw stones. I believe you were the one accusing me of being emotional while vehemently opposing the way I framed my comments. Sounds like a pretty emotional response, to me. I'm also very informed of civil rights and have a pretty good understanding of Constitutional law, and I'm sure you are, too.
Your poor choices in terminology and example to champion are just as bad as those grandstanding senators...
My, aren't we judgmental. Once again, I have to shrug my shoulders, because it doesn't matter. We have much larger issues on the plate, like your civil rights slipping away by a bunch of busy-body lawmakers. Massive increase of social welfare programs (along with rising food & gas costs) that are going to crush the middle class. And... the fact that Congressmen declare and agreement to trim $40B off a yearly budget a high-falutin' victory, when we we have a 14 TRILLION hole in our pockets scares the living s#!t out of me.
Require that the app include some sort of sobriety test before showing the DUI checkpoints - maybe a math test - or a dexterity test - or a reaction time test. Can't pass the test - can't know where the checkpoints are.
That's actually not a bad idea. A compromise, but I think a fair one. However...
Stopping a car that was just at an establishment which servers alcohol to check if the driver is intoxicated is not entrapment and I don't even think that is profiling - that is just common sense - and misses all the folks who drank at home or a friends house or at any of the millions of places where alcohol can be purchased and consumed.
Obviously you believe in police states, since you failed to acknowledge the large percentage of people along these stops who have done nothing wrong, haven't had a drop to drink, and are being forced to pull over for a sobriety test under threat of imprisonment because they were driving in the vicinity of a drinking establishment. What if you were walking down a sidewalk minding your own business and a cop decided to give you a strip search, because there might be a shoplifter in the area. When your pants are around your ankles while bystanders look on, will you be thinking "this is common sense"?
Then you shouldn't throw stones. I believe you were the one accusing me of being emotional while vehemently opposing the way I framed my comments. Sounds like a pretty emotional response, to me. I'm also very informed of civil rights and have a pretty good understanding of Constitutional law, and I'm sure you are, too.
My, aren't we judgmental. Once again, I have to shrug my shoulders, because it doesn't matter. We have much larger issues on the plate, like your civil rights slipping away by a bunch of busy-body lawmakers. Massive increase of social welfare programs (along with rising food & gas costs) that are going to crush the middle class. And... the fact that Congressmen declare and agreement to trim $40B off a yearly budget a high-falutin' victory, when we we have a 14 TRILLION hole in our pockets scares the living s#!t out of me.
That's actually not a bad idea. A compromise, but I think a fair one. However...
Obviously you believe in police states, since you failed to acknowledge the large percentage of people along these stops who have done nothing wrong, haven't had a drop to drink, and are being forced to pull over for a sobriety test under threat of imprisonment because they were driving in the vicinity of a drinking establishment. What if you were walking down a sidewalk minding your own business and a cop decided to give you a strip search, because there might be a shoplifter in the area. When your pants are around your ankles while bystanders look on, will you be thinking "this is common sense"?
Wow, somebody's insecure. I thought you said you were fine with your position and terminology? And you say it doesn't matter, but you show that to be a false statement because if it doesn't matter you wouldn't continue to post lame non-defenses. Judgmental, yes I am as far as the position goes. Making a stand for not allowing governmental prior restraint in freedom of speech is worth being judgmental over. Identifying points and arguments that damage that position are definitely a judgement call. No apologies coming there.
As for the police state thing, how can anyone take a libertarian government "get out of my library" equivalent position and logically turn it into a police state support statement? That takes some imagination. But the real imagination and your quite successful attempt at reductio ad absurdum show you to be intellectually bankrupt. You ran out of real supporting thoughts and went straight for public sexual humiliation. Real smooth. At least there is no doubt left in an readers mind that you are completely out to lunch.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. It was an important public service.
Wow, somebody's insecure. I thought you said you were fine with your position and terminology?
I am <yaaaawwn>. Throwing stones won't do you any good; you keep responding with asinine accusations, so I say it is you who is the insecure one...
...you wouldn't continue to post lame non-defenses.
Yet you continue to post lame non-starter arguments over something we fundamentally agree on? Yes, don't apologize for hypocrisy, or for fighting little fights over trivial nonsense.
You ran out of real supporting thoughts and went straight for public sexual humiliation.
Your failure to connect the logic in my prior comments shows as you jump the shark from what I said about "strip searching" and somehow turn that into sexual humiliation. Useful analogies are never going to be understood by people whose only intent is useless commentary.
My comments about these politics might be fairly sensationalist, but at least they are directed towards the topic as opposed to petty potshots at someone who I don't agree with. Regarding my so-called "intellectual bankruptcy" or being "out to lunch": sorry "Hiro", but you only have your own presumptions and do not speak for everyone else here. Grow up.
I am <yaaaawwn>. Throwing stones won't do you any good; you keep responding with asinine accusations, so I say it is you who is the insecure one...
At least you're consistent with the strawman and redefinitions. I give reasons for my positions, and show contrast with others, not straight ad homs with no backup.
Yet you continue to post lame non-starter arguments over something we fundamentally agree on?
You say you agree, but use over the top arguments that are completely self defeating. Tactics that are part and parcel to folks that are trying to discredit what they say they are arguing for. if that's not you, you have to modify to using same arguments that don't automatically create a boomerang effect.
Yes, don't apologize for hypocrisy, or for fighting little fights over trivial nonsense.
What hypocrisy? It's not a little fight, it's a big one, and I am quite open about the position, no duplicity or hiding behind something. Are you just using your previously stated leave to redefine terms the way you want them so they fit your mental model? Because that's the only way you can bring hypocrisy into that sentence.
Your failure to connect the logic in my prior comments shows as you jump the shark from what I said about "strip searching" and somehow turn that into sexual humiliation. Useful analogies are never going to be understood by people whose only intent is useless commentary.
So I jump the shark because you bring up the strip search and I call you on being over the top. Riiiight. What else other than sexual humiliation could this sentence of your earlier example be about:
"When your pants are around your ankles while bystanders look on, will you be thinking this is common sense? "
I'm supposed to take an action everyone I have run across finds humiliating, the strip search; have it executed in public with bystanders watching; and think you aren't trying to press a sexual humiliation button to get me to change an opinion over freedom of speech because in your police state the strip search can happen?
I'll let that little bit of wonderment sit on its own. You do an ever better job of tying your point up in incomprehensible ways.
My comments about these politics might be fairly sensationalist, but at least they are directed towards the topic as opposed to petty potshots at someone who I don't agree with. Regarding my so-called "intellectual bankruptcy" or being "out to lunch": sorry "Hiro", but you only have your own presumptions and do not speak for everyone else here. Grow up.
Well, that surely doesn't change my mind. Now admittedly sensationalist, that's supposed to make it all better? And how could I speak for all here. You're here and I assuredly do not speak for you. Still sloppy with your logic and writing.
At least you're consistent...
...at pointing out your flawed self-assurance and faulty logic.
You say you agree...
Read back through the whole thread, genius. The context of this topic is, "Senators are trying to censor consumers from using a piece of software", which one way or the other, we've both said is wrong. You're creating your own controversy.
What hypocrisy? It's not a little fight, it's a big one..
Your hypocrisy. And it is a small argument; don't get so emotional over trivial things.
So I jump the shark... "When your pants are around your ankles while bystanders look on, will you be thinking this is common sense?
Yes, you did. A) Had I said "groped" or made a suggestion of sexual contact, you might have a valid point. But,
I'm supposed to take an action... and think you aren't trying to press a sexual humiliation button...
I made a pointed analogy that you completely drew the wrong conclusion about. Deal.
You're here and I assuredly do not speak for you.
Yeah, I don't want you speaking for me. And while you're at it, don't take up my responses to other posters for your own personal crusade. Speak for yourself.
...at pointing out your flawed self-assurance and faulty logic. Read back through the whole thread, genius. The context of this topic is, "Senators are trying to censor consumers from using a piece of software", which one way or the other, we've both said is wrong. You're creating your own controversy. Your hypocrisy. And it is a small argument; don't get so emotional over trivial things. Yes, you did. A) Had I said "groped" or made a suggestion of sexual contact, you might have a valid point. But,
Wow, well developed sense of self importance there. I don't care about you. I care about getting the issue right. Your style of ridiculous argument hurts that, and that's not a small thing.
I wasn't responding for lilgto64, I was responding to you on to your publicly stated opinion (merely in a post to lilgto64) that supporting sobriety checks equated to a poster believing in a police state. You can't take that back after the fact and say it "only applies in the case of a certain poster when you were feeling a certain way on a certain day...".
Maybe a little less ego and a whole lot more purposeful writing will keep you out of the debate dog house.
Wow, well developed sense of self importance there. I don't care about you. I care about getting the issue right.
Wow, you really care about something since you haven't had a single constructive comment in that regard since you've been responding to me. Since you're only good for cheap potshots you don't care about "getting it right". You haven't had anything intelligent to say about the topic, so this does not qualify as a "debate" either. Until then (and believe me- I am not holding my breath), you're the only one here writing to nurture his bruised ego.
Wow, you really care about something since you haven't had a single constructive comment in that regard since you've been responding to me. Since you're only good for cheap potshots you don't care about "getting it right". You haven't had anything intelligent to say about the topic, so this does not qualify as a "debate" either. Until then (and believe me- I am not holding my breath), you're the only one here writing to nurture his bruised ego.
Charming, and yes I care. I have said that several times, and it's why I'm not giving you a free stage. Ignoring content has become one of your strengths too. Anyone can go back and see the string of posts with my consistent content of protecting freedom of speech; advocating debate reasonably, don't default to extremism; and that resorting to extremism hurts the point supposedly supported. Each of those content points has repeatedly been discussed with relation to the violating examples you so graciously provided. The thread does not lie.
That you don't like that is only your issue.