More Cops Being Douches

[Adam]

Of course, the whole seatbelt argument is moot as you can simply drive without your seatbelt on. It's like speeding - illegal but impossible to track.

And I'm not sure why you'd denigrate emotional arguments. Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument as "Think of the CHILDS!!"

 

[Espy]

Of course, the whole seatbelt argument is moot as you can simply drive without your seatbelt on. It's like speeding - illegal but impossible to track.

And I'm not sure why you'd denigrate emotional arguments. Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument as "Think of the CHILDS!!"

Emotional arguments are manipulative. They aren't used to allow people to make good rational decisions they are used to make someone feel bad if they disagree with you.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument..." when clearly it isn't. Saying, "These are issues with the role of government in the lives of it's citizens" is in no way similar to "Bobby dies because of X and if you change that law you must not care who dies!".

I'm not saying you can't use emotional arguments, they will always be part of the discussion but I'm not going to be manipulated by sadness over someone's terrible loss into changing where I see the line in how the government interacts with it's citizens.

 

[Adam]

Emotional arguments are manipulative. They aren't used to allow people to make good rational decisions they are used to make someone feel bad if they disagree with you.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument..." when clearly it isn't.

It clearly is. The reason people are against government intrusion is because they fear overreach. Fear = emotional. The only arguments that aren't based on an emotional response are mathematics.

As an example:

Do we outlaw cheese? More people die from heart disease than pretty much anything else.

It's a manipulation of the argument - an emotional attempt to tie a government that outlaws one thing may outlaw another.

 

[Espy]

Emotional arguments are manipulative. They aren't used to allow people to make good rational decisions they are used to make someone feel bad if they disagree with you.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument..." when clearly it isn't.

It clearly is. The reason people are against government intrusion is because they fear overreach. Fear = emotional. The only arguments that aren't based on an emotional response are mathematics.[/QUOTE]

And if I said, "OMG, the government wants to control your entire life! BE AFRIAD! THIS IS BAD" then that would be a manipulative emotional argument. Instead I'm saying, clearly we must debate the role of government in our lives, not out of fear, but out of the reality that we MUST decide where we want to allow government intrusion into our lives.
If you can't see the difference in that, well, we are coming from two different places I guess. You keep rocking the way you rock and I'll keep rolling the way I roll.

 

[@Li3n]

Emotional arguments are manipulative. They aren't used to allow people to make good rational decisions they are used to make someone feel bad if they disagree with you.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "Arguing against government intrusion is just as much an emotional argument..." when clearly it isn't.

It clearly is. The reason people are against government intrusion is because they fear overreach. Fear = emotional. The only arguments that aren't based on an emotional response are mathematics.
[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that there's no math for how many times government went too far?!

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

This thread promised more cops acting like douches, but it's just devolved into forumites acting like douches.






What?









Oh right. j/k

 

[Adam]

And if I said, "OMG, the government wants to control your entire life! BE AFRIAD! THIS IS BAD" then that would be a manipulative emotional argument. Instead I'm saying, clearly we must debate the role of government in our lives, not out of fear, but out of the reality that we MUST decide where we want to allow government intrusion into our lives.
If you can't see the difference in that, well, we are coming from two different places I guess. You keep rocking the way you rock and I'll keep rolling the way I roll.

Hey, keep rocking the emotional language like "intrusion" and you're going to get emotive arguments. Debating the role government has is perfectly valid, but you can't pretend that there's not a large emotional component that colours our opinions.

I personally prefer a small, minimalist government that protects our basic rights.

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 PM ----------

Are you saying that there's no math for how many times government went too far?!

No?

 

[Ross]

Everyone's out to get you.




Including this guy:

 

[@Li3n]

Are you saying that there's no math for how many times government went too far?!

No?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McAeQiLmEYU&feature=related[/ame]

I'm willing to bet that statistically governments went too far way more times they they didn't...

 

[Adam]

Are you saying that there's no math for how many times government went too far?!

No?

I'm willing to bet that statistically governments went too far way more times they they didn't...[/QUOTE]

Ok, let's play a game.

The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.

Right or wrong?

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

How exactly can one define "too far" mathematically?

 

[Adam]

How exactly can one define "too far" mathematically?

Well, my next point is that how can you measure 'not going too far'? Wouldn't they have gone infinitely not too far?

 

[Espy]

And if I said, "OMG, the government wants to control your entire life! BE AFRIAD! THIS IS BAD" then that would be a manipulative emotional argument. Instead I'm saying, clearly we must debate the role of government in our lives, not out of fear, but out of the reality that we MUST decide where we want to allow government intrusion into our lives.
If you can't see the difference in that, well, we are coming from two different places I guess. You keep rocking the way you rock and I'll keep rolling the way I roll.

Hey, keep rocking the emotional language like "intrusion" and you're going to get emotive arguments. Debating the role government has is perfectly valid, but you can't pretend that there's not a large emotional component that colours our opinions.

I personally prefer a small, minimalist government that protects our basic rights.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how you understand "emotional argument", maybe thats our issue. Here's how I see it: Emotions clearly will be part of any discussion simply because we are human. However, there is a marked difference between using stories meant to emotionally manipulate instead of facts and talking about the reality of the situation. We say "government intrustion" because "intrusion", ie:1. The act of intruding or the condition of being intruded on. 2. An inappropriate or unwelcome addition. is what we are discussing, not fear mongering.
If I had said, like I previously posted, "The government wants to get you and thats why they are trying to control you through seat belts" then that would be a emotional argument meant to scare you.

Now, if you want to talk about a bad thing that happened to someone, like the kid who died in his car and say, there are this many more instances of this happening in our country, thats why we should do "X" because here is how many lives can be saved according to studies or whatever. Then thats appealing using a reasonable emotional argument I think. It's based out of rationality, not just throwing out bad things happening to people, which while sad and terrible, is not what I make decisions about my thoughts on the law on.
Does that make sense?

 

[Adam]

I'm not sure how you understand "emotional argument", maybe thats our issue. Here's how I see it: Emotions clearly will be part of any discussion simply because we are human. However, there is a marked difference between using stories meant to emotionally manipulate instead of facts and talking about the reality of the situation. We say "government intrustion" because "intrusion", ie:1. The act of intruding or the condition of being intruded on. 2. An inappropriate or unwelcome addition. is what we are discussing, not fear mongering.
If I had said, like I previously posted, "The government wants to get you and thats why they are trying to control you through seat belts" then that would be a emotional argument meant to scare you.

Now, if you want to talk about a bad thing that happened to someone, like the kid who died in his car and say, there are this many more instances of this happening in our country, thats why we should do "X" because here is how many lives can be saved according to studies or whatever. Then thats appealing using a reasonable emotional argument I think. It's based out of rationality, not just throwing out bad things happening to people, which while sad and terrible, is not what I make decisions about my thoughts on the law on.
Does that make sense?

Both sides claim exclusivity on logical reasoning and yet every argument is just multiple layers of abstraction away from a core emotional response. The problem is that the liberal side (larger government role, more nanny-statism) capitalizes on a little less abstraction.

And that's easier for people to understand so it garners public support far quicker.

 

[Espy]

Both sides claim exclusivity on logical reasoning and yet every argument is just multiple layers of abstraction away from a core emotional response. The problem is that the liberal side (larger government role, more nanny-statism) capitalizes on a little less abstraction.

And that's easier for people to understand so it garners public support far quicker.

I can't speak for any "side", just for how I view debates like this. If one side is using sob stories instead of actual reasons then I'm much less likely to be swayed.

I'm confused though, you said you were against big government I think right? But you support laws like the seat belt law? How do you reconcile the two?

Also: Thanks for the good discussion, always nice to have intense debate sans personal attacks

 

[Adam]

I can't speak for any "side", just for how I view debates like this. If one side is using sob stories instead of actual reasons then I'm much less likely to be swayed.

I'm confused though, you said you were against big government I think right? But you support laws like the seat belt law? How do you reconcile the two?

Also: Thanks for the good discussion, always nice to have intense debate sans personal attacks

Who said anything about supporting the laws? I drive a vehicle that I can take the doors, windshield and seatbelts out of (semi-legally). Why would I want to have that taken away?

Just because I understand it, doesn't mean I support it

 

[Espy]

Sorry, I thought you had mentioned thinking it was a good law, must have been someone else.

 

[Chippy]

Everyone's out to get you.




Including this guy:

Yeah that's not going to be a thing.

 

[ElJuski]

*comes in with a clipboard*
*checks off "not"*
*heads off to thread discussing vomiting starbursts*

 

[Adam]

Everyone's out to get you.




Including this guy:

Yeah that's not going to be a thing.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ross]

and yet you all fail to realize I'm not trying to make it a meme... I'm just posting it for the sake of me posting it.

I love that crazy BK King.

 

[Adam]

and yet you all fail to realize I'm not trying to make it a meme... I'm just posting it for the sake of me posting it.

I love that crazy BK King.

 

[Ross]

ummm... word?

 

[Adam]

ummm... word?

You're forever associated with the Burger King in my mind now

 

[makare]

Yes the Burger King who enjoys weather a little TOO much.

 

[drawn_inward]

Cop hating thread turns into seat belt hating thread turns into a hate the Burger King meme. I like where this thread is headed.

 

[@Li3n]

Are you saying that there's no math for how many times government went too far?!

No?

I'm willing to bet that statistically governments went too far way more times they they didn't...[/quote]

Ok, let's play a game.

The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.

Right or wrong?[/QUOTE]

Mathematically, at the time it probably ended in the right column... right now, i don't know, radiation poisoning and all that.

But you seem to misunderstand, just because something can have an emotional component to it does not make it unable to be justified mathematically...

 

[Shannow]

Fuck you, you little pussies. Grow a sack, jesus. And yes, I will get more fucking points for this. Fuck it.

 

[Vytamindi]

Fuck you, you little pussies. Grow a sack, jesus. And yes, I will get more fucking points for this. Fuck it.

:noidea:

:hug:

 

[@Li3n]

Fuck you, you little pussies. Grow a sack, jesus. And yes, I will get more fucking points for this. Fuck it.

Oh, did the big bad King of Burgers touch you in a bad place...

 

[Vytamindi]

Brings a whole new meaning to "special sauce."

Or is that a McD thing? Bah...

 

[Dave]

Fuck you, you little pussies. Grow a sack, jesus. And yes, I will get more fucking points for this. Fuck it.

Oh hi! What's going on in this thread?

Shannow, send me a PM. Let's talk. Because right now I'm lost. I think I missed out on something along the way. Of course, I haven't read this thread past the first few posts so maybe that has something to do with it...

 

[Krisken]

Fuck you, you little pussies. Grow a sack, jesus. And yes, I will get more fucking points for this. Fuck it.

Oh hi! What's going on in this thread?

Shannow, send me a PM. Let's talk. Because right now I'm lost. I think I missed out on something along the way. Of course, I haven't read this thread past the first few posts so maybe that has something to do with it...[/QUOTE]
He's got to be joking. He was the one saying on the Podcast that you shouldn't take the internet seriously and you can't get excited over what people say.

I'd like to join the crowd.

 

[Shannow]

Well, that was exactly my point in the cast, and proven here. That a comment like that had to be removed and censored, and from there the cause of an infraction, was ridiculous and overzealous, in my opinion. I apoligize for the next one, though. Thats is just me swearing because I like to swear.

 

[Krisken]

Well, that was exactly my point in the cast, and proven here. That a comment like that had to be removed and censored, and from there the cause of an infraction, was ridiculous and overzealous, in my opinion. I apoligize for the next one, though. Thats is just me swearing because I like to swear.

I'm still not sure how it proves everyone should just accept "The Internet D-Bag" as a part of the forum. I'm still