# Cops - can they do this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2000, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445 "2000-01-18T19:54:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2000, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/81 "2000-02-05T23:25:00Z")
> [@](#): > > …given the the low level of sophistication among even the teeming millions (witness the remarks of VogueVixen, Zulu, and mattk) regarding the relationship between even mundane matters of law (such as traffic control) and larger issues of liberty… **PatronAnejo** , please leave the snide asides out and concentrate on the topic. FWIW, I have never stated that the current system is the best solution to issues of road-safety. Personally I’d like to see a system of variable speed limits depending on specific road and traffic conditions; but I can’t think of any truly practical ways to implement it. I’ll gladly listen to any you can suggest; in the meantime, leave out the little digs at people. * * * I never touched him, ref, honest! ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2000, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/82 "2000-02-06T00:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by PatronAnejo: > **You’re dead wrong. The following may be counterintuitive to you,** It’s not counterintuitive - if it were meerly counterintuitive I could accept it. It’s wrong - _by my personal experience_. Do you understand yet? > [@](#): > > **but that makes it no less true: enthusiasts are spirited drivers; as such, they are far more attentive and have a better understanding of driving ettiquette.** I’m glad that truck that nearly took my head off with it’s mirror when I was crossing the road was being driven by a courteous, attentive driver. > [@](#): > > **Sorry if you’re having a hard time comprehending just how delusory your prejudices are.** Wow. It’s about time you got around to attacting me. I was beginning to think there _was_ something wrong with my arguement. * * * _Eschew Obfuscation_ ---
**Author:** ![PatronAnejo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@PatronAnejo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatronAnejo)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2000, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/83 "2000-02-06T09:03:00Z")
That is , of course, _the Germans’_, not _the German’s_. ---
**Author:** ![PatronAnejo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@PatronAnejo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatronAnejo)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2000, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/84 "2000-02-07T05:50:00Z")
**mattk** : > [@](#): > > **PatronAnejo** , please leave the snide asides out and concentrate on the topic…leave out the little digs at people. This post made me laugh for a couple of reasons:[ul][li]Me, not _concentrate on the topic_? Do you read these posts or do you just scan them for your handle?Sorry to hold you accountable for your post. You might append a disclaimer next time: “I don’t really mean this; I posess a deeper understanding that I am unable to articulate and my comments here belie.”[/ul][/li]It is a matter of fact that a lot of folks fail to see the connection > [@](#): > > between…mundane matters of law (such as traffic control) and larger issues of liberty I use the failure of even those among the teeming millions to be outraged at this state of affairs–and in your case, your failure to grasp the importance of public sentiment in legal reform–to demonstrate the scope of the task of education. That is neither _little_ nor _snide_–your characterization is off the mark. **Tengu** : > [@](#): > > It’s not counterintuitive - if it were meerly [sic] counterintuitive I could accept it. It’s wrong - by my personal experience…I’m glad that truck that nearly took my head off with it’s [sic] mirror when I was crossing the road was being driven by a courteous, attentive driver. Well that changes everything. While we’re basing the law on one of your personal experiences, let’s incorporate a couple of mine, too. A black man broke into my car. _We should do something about those people_. I broke my arm playing soccer. _It’s a dangerous activity, we should outlaw it_. A friend of a friend of a friend received a transfusion from a homosexual donor and contracted AIDS. _Let’s ban all homosexuals from donating blood._ This is what is known as reactionary thinking; it’s a failure to realize that everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. “Do you understand yet” how insidious this kind of thinking is? There’s a difference between a crazed trucker patrolling your town, deploying a mirror as an implement of decapitation, and someone who feels that competent drivers should not be restricted due to the incompetence of others. ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2000, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/85 "2000-02-07T06:29:00Z")
Nice strawman, Anejo. Too bad none of your examples come within hailing range of mine. Let’s apply your logic to each of them, shall we? > [@](#): > > A black man broke into my car. It wasn’t a white man, so we shouldn’t accuse white men of theft. > [@](#): > > I broke my arm playing soccer. But I did it when I was simply running the ball down the field. The guy who was spiked in the shins earlier came out alright, therefore let’s make spiking legal. > [@](#): > > A friend of a friend of a friend received a transfusion from a homosexual donor and contracted AIDS. Let’s ban all homosexuals from donating blood. But let’s let any heterosexual donate without any testing whatsoever. See how easy it is? Now, let’s apply mine: > [@](#): > > A black man broke into my car. Anyone might be a thief, therefore we shouldn’t exclude _anyone_ (regardless of race) until it’s proven they couldn’t have done it. > [@](#): > > I broke my arm playing soccer. Thus all precautions should be taken to increase safety - make tackling illegal, instruct the players to watch for each other, etc. > [@](#): > > A friend of a friend of a friend received a transfusion from a homosexual donor and contracted AIDS. Let’s ban all homosexuals from donating blood. Since AIDS is a threat, all donated blood must be tested - regardless of who it came from. See how easy it is? I don’t _like_ making my decisions based on the worst possible scenario, but, I’m too sane to make them based on the best. Many of your tactics in this discussion - attacking the person (Vogue, Zulu, Matt, myself, for instance), and strawman arguements such as the above - are deplorable and far from supporting your position paint you as an insane zealot. * * * _Eschew Obfuscation_ ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2000, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/86 "2000-02-07T16:58:00Z")
**PatronAnejo** , I read your posts and I recognise the arguments you’re making - I say “concentrate on the topic” because your attitude towards people you disagree with adds nothing to the perfectly valid points you’re expressing. And as for my previous post; I’m sorry if I wasn’t eloquent enough for you, but I still think my point holds water. If you break a law, no matter how much you disagree with it, you should not be surprised at receving a punishment allowed for by that law. That doesn’t make it “right” (whatever you choose to define that as), or separate it from concerns around issues of liberty. As an aside, I spent six years studying for a Masters in politics - that doesn’t make me an expert in the matter, but I certainly hold a better understanding of “the importance of public sentiment in legal reform” than you credit me with. Hold me accountable for my posts - but please don’t patronise me. * * * I never touched him, ref, honest! ---
**Author:** ![StarvinMarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7993a0/32.png) [@StarvinMarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvinMarvin)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/87 "2000-02-08T06:44:00Z")
I believe the simplest answer is this: The officer in question wasnt up to par for the month on his ticket quota. You were an easy pick. Cops dont have to “follow through” on a ticket, they make the quota for trying. So even if you get out of this one, he gets credit towards his monthly goal. Fight it using the argument(s) that you were unable to see the sign or limit line clearly and in fact believed it was still ahead of you, due to grime or bad weather et al. Second (should you not choose the first)that from the distance at which the officer saw your vehicle he could not have possibly seen whether you came to a complete stop unless he was directly behind you. Draw a diagram and situation representation, and include some math and grpahics. The intimidation of a prepared and educated opponent is more then any “ticket” can handle. I have done this 4 times, never had a ticket. * * * "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. " Jonathan Swift ---
**Author:** ![PatronAnejo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@PatronAnejo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatronAnejo)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/88 "2000-02-09T11:56:00Z")
**mattk** : I have scrupulously avoided applying pejorative to the posters here regardless of the nature of their posts. Examination of my comments will reveal that _remarks_ and _attitudes_ are the object of my vituperative; I have engaged in no argumentation _ad hominem_. Underinformed viewpoints, slipshod research, and fallacious logic will be exposed and disparaged, if it is my inclination to do so. If that to you is _patronizing_, so be it. If you are too thin-skinned to stand correction, I suggest you put greater consideration into your opinion before you express it. That said, your post is a far cry from being the most egregious example of ill-conceived, underinformed supposition that I read. **If** it is the association of yours with the others’ that you feel constitutes unwarranted admonishment, I understand that the matter cannot be as trivial to you as it is to me, and I concede the point. **Tengu** : Your logic (I apply the term loosely) is fundamentally flawed.[ul][li]_Straw Man defense_: The author attacks an argument which is **different from** , and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.[sup]\1\[/sup] [emphasis mine][/li] This description is clearly not applicable to my post, as your own rebuttal blatantly affirms the characterization I assigned to you: > [@](#): > > Anyone might be a thief, therefore we shouldn’t exclude anyone (regardless of race) until it’s proven they couldn’t have done it. You have predictably missed the point; race is a canard. If it were a white man that had broken into your car, you would hold all white men guilty of the crime until they proved themselves innocent. That you are an equal-opportunity reactionary has no effect on the logic. [li]_Ad Hominem argument_: an _ad hominem_ argument to your position would need to be framed as follows[sup]\2\[/sup]: “ **Tengu** is known to be stupid [or immoral, or insane]. On that basis, I declare his position on _this_ particular matter to be invalid.”[/li] Clearly, I have never employed such a tactic. Rather, I contrast your stand to supported fact, highlighting the misinformed nature of your position.[/ul] > [@](#): > > Many of your tactics in this discussion - attacking the person (Vogue, Zulu, Matt, myself, for instance), and strawman arguements such as the above - are deplorable and far from supporting your position paint you as an insane zealot. What is _deplorable_ is that in your desperation to protect your prejudices, you would post such garbage about someone who has effectively eroded the basis of your prejudices using nothing but fact and logic. That is, ironically, a highly effective demonstration of _zealotry_.[/list] * * * [sup]\1\[/sup]\Cedarblom, Jerry and Paulsen, David W… _Critical Reasoning: Understanding and Criticizing Arguments and Theories_. Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1997.\ [sup]2[/sup]\Ibid.\ ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/89 "2000-02-09T12:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by PatronAnejo: > **Tengu** : > > Your logic (I apply the term loosely) is fundamentally flawed._Straw Man defense_: The author attacks an argument which is **different from** , and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.[sup]\1\[/sup][emphasis mine] > > This description is clearly not applicable to my post, as your own rebuttal blatantly affirms the characterization I assigned to you: Actually, it’s the very definition of a strawman arguement. You throw in the race card - and in your arguement it wasn’t just ‘They’re a suspect until eliminated’ it was ‘They’re bad whether they did anything or not’ - then when called on it you withdraw and claim it was a canard. Let me put my arguement into terms even you can’t distort: There are idiots with licences. These idiots, if it weren’t for traffic laws, couldn’t be reigned in until they did actual damage. Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiats’ from driving at the speed they want, with no _real_ inconvenice to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots will do if left to their own devices. Simple as that. > [@](#): > > What is deplorable is that in your desperation to protect your prejudices, you would post such garbage about someone who has effectively eroded the basis of your prejudices using nothing but fact and logic. That is, ironically, a highly effective demonstration of zealotry. I am, due to mountains of proof to the contrary, unable to believe in the fundimental goodness and intelligence of humanity. I want to protect myself and others from the idiots. Thank you for informing me that this makes me a prejudiced zealot, rather than someone who’s justifiably scared of the consequences of optimism. * * * _Eschew Obfuscation_ ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/90 "2000-02-09T13:12:00Z")
Ugh, that post didn’t come out right. Let me try that again: Your example is the very definition of a strawman arguement. _You_ played the race card - which bore no resemblance to my arguement. And in _your_ arguement it wasn’t just ‘Anyone is a suspect until eliminated’ it was ‘Blacks are bad whether they did anything or not’. Thus you were comparing my arguement to racism, allowing you to knock it down easily. And - if the strawman weren’t bad enough - when called on it, you’re not even man enough to _support_ it. My arguement in simple terms: There are idiots with licences. These idiots, if it weren’t for traffic laws, couldn’t be reigned in until they did actual damage. Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiasts’ from driving at the speed they want, with no _real_ inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do if left to their own devices. As an aside: I apologise for the unwarranted ‘terms even you can’t distort’ remark in the above post. Being compared to a bigot pisses me off. That doesn’t make the insult proper, however. And let me now respond to another point from your post: > [@](#): > > If it were a white man that had broken into your car, you would hold all white men guilty of the crime until they proved themselves innocent. Not true. Also not a very close fit - though almost understandable, due to my less than ideal phrasing. _Anyone_ who was in the area at the time of the crime who fit the description of the thief - not just in race and sex, but height, weight, hair colour - I would view as _equally likely_ to be the criminal. Note that this is _very_ different (if subtly so) from ‘Guilty until proven innocent.’ This isn’t prejudice. This isn’t zealotry. This is simply not looking at the world through rose coloured glasses. * * * _Eschew Obfuscation_ ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/91 "2000-02-09T13:40:00Z")
Why not simply eliminate all laws and legislation, and arbitrate and enforce the [Noncoercion Principle](http://www.libertarian.org/libphilo.html) instead? ---
**Author:** ![Erratum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cc9497/32.png) [@Erratum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erratum)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/92 "2000-02-09T16:37:00Z")
**Tengu** : > [@](#): > > There are idiots with licences. > > These idiots, if it weren’t for traffic laws, couldn’t be reigned in until they did actual damage. > > Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiasts’ from driving at the speed they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do if left to their ow devices. This is a brilliant theory of law. In fact, we ought to be able to apply it to lots of other situations as well! Let’s see… There are idiots who know how to speak. These idiots, if it we don’t repeal the first amendment, couldn’t be reigned in until they did actual damage, such as slandering someone or insighting a riot. Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiasts’ from speaking their mind, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do if left to their own devices. **Or…** There are some burglars who wear dark clothing. These burglars, if it weren’t for laws which make dark clothing illegal, couldn’t be seen until they actually break into your house (they blend into the night, you see…). Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiasts’ from wearing the clothing they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the burglars would do if left to their own devices. **Or…** There are idiots who know how to walk. These idiots, if it weren’t for laws against pedestrians, couldn’t be reigned in until they actually caused an accident. Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiasts’ from walking where they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do to themselves and others if left to their own devices. **PatronAnejo** ’s race analogy: It is inappropriate to make being black illegal just because one particular black person did something harmful. It is inappropriate to make driving at a particular speed illegal just because one particular person (your hypothetical “idiot”) who was driving at that speed did something harmful. And, by the way, here is the rationale behind And, you are basically setting up another straw man, anyway, in your latest posts. Aren’t these idiots engaging in _actual_ unsafe behavior? Why don’t you try to tailor the laws to fight the actual _problem_ rather than subject an entire class of people (capable drivers) to your brand of logic? We would get quite a few criminals behind bars if we made being black illegal, but we’d get many more completely innocent people. Similarly, speeding laws may stop _a few_ of your “idiots”, but they stop a lot more safe and responsible drivers who are perfectly capable of driving at reasonable speeds in appropriate conditions. ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/93 "2000-02-09T17:16:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Erratum: > There are idiots who know how to walk. > These idiots, if it weren’t for laws against pedestrians, couldn’t be reigned in until they actually caused an accident. > > Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiasts’ from walking where they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do to themselves and others if left to their own devices. Interesting attempt at refutation there. A complete inability to move is no real inconvenience, huh? An absurd counter-example does not make for a good arguement. > [@](#): > > **PatronAnejo** ’s race analogy: It is inappropriate to make being black illegal just because one particular black person did something harmful. It is inappropriate to make driving at a particular speed illegal just because one particular person (your hypothetical “idiot”) who was driving at that speed did something harmful. They are already doing something harmful - driving at excessive speeds. Even if our hypothetical driver _is_ capable of driving safely at the speeds he wants to drive, the others on the road - who are forced to speed up to accomodate them, or else are prompted to speed up to fill the gap left by our ‘enthusiast’ - may not be. Also, I’m not speaking only of speeding - running a stop sign - the act that prompted this thread - is a blatantly stupid thing to do. > [@](#): > > And, by the way, here is the rationale behind And, you are basically setting up another straw man, anyway, in your latest posts. Aren’t these idiots engaging in _actual_ unsafe behavior? Yes - driving faster than they should - faster than many can do safely; running stop signs/lights. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you try to tailor the laws to fight the actual _problem_ rather than subject an entire class of people (capable drivers) to your brand of logic? Because - as I’ve said - the only way to deal with the problem drivers without making the laws apply to capable drivers is to apply them _after_ they’ve done damage. > [@](#): > > We would get quite a few criminals behind bars if we made being black illegal, but we’d get many more completely innocent people. Good gods, man, Anejo disavowed that analogy when called on it, why do you continue it? See my answer to him. > [@](#): > > Similarly, speeding laws may stop _a few_ of your “idiots”, but they stop a lot more safe and responsible drivers who are perfectly capable of driving at reasonable speeds in appropriate conditions. Even if I grant your statement that there are ‘more safe and responsable drivers’ than idiots - their freedom has not been removed - simply reduced in a non-onerous way. In your theory of law, the idiots would have to have done damage - quite possibly killed - before they could be dealt with. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Frankly, I don’t think there should be private vehicles, at all. I’m bending backwards simply allowing that it might be a good thing to allow people to drive at all. * * * _Eschew Obfuscation_ ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/94 "2000-02-09T17:38:00Z")
Please note that should read ‘private _motor_ vehicles’. People nowadays are too bloody lazy. * * * _Eschew Obfuscation_ ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2000, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445/95 "2000-02-10T08:07:00Z")
**Tengu** : > [@](#): > > You throw in the race card - and in your arguement [sic] it wasn’t just ‘They’re a suspect until eliminated’ it was ‘They’re bad whether they did anything or not’ - then when called on it you withdraw and claim it was a canard. You couldn’t be more wrong; I _withdraw_ absolutely nothing. Your claim that my argument is a _straw man_ is absolutely unfounded, as my characterization of your attitude differs in no way from your own description of your philosophy. **Blanket treatment of everyone as a suspect** places an unreasonable, unwarranted _onus probandi_ on the innocent majority. Your willful misapprehension of the analogy is that it is a charge of racism; in fact, race is not a player in the logic of the argument. The inclusion of race serves as a real-world illustration of the insidious effects of your way of thinking (more on this below). Your ostensible open-mindedness in being willing to place the onus of self-vindication on _everyone_, not just a subset of the whole, serves to further cement your status as a reactionary. Hence, **race is a canard** : the nature of your reaction to the race issue backfires on you. The phrase constitues no retraction, withdrawal, back-pedaling, or disavowal; this is unequivocal. > [@](#): > > Your example is the very definition of a strawman arguement. > > You played the race card - which bore no resemblance to my arguement [sic]. And in your arguement [sic] it wasn’t just ‘Anyone is a suspect until eliminated’ it was ‘Blacks are bad whether they did anything or not’. Thus you were comparing my arguement [sic] to racism, allowing you to knock it down easily. > > And - if the strawman weren’t bad enough - when called on it, you’re not even man enough to support it. Again, the issue of race is auxiliary to the main argument and demonstrates a consequence of your way of thinking. **Erratum** ’s recent post demonstrates still others. Let us definitively contrast the aspects of my argument with those that define the _straw man_.[ul][li]I characterize you as a _reactionary_, not a _racist_. Racism is a real-world consequence of reactionary attitudes, but **it is not a necessary consequence** ; you do not have to be a racist for my characterization of you as a reactionary to hold.Second, your rebuttal[/li][quote] Anyone might be a thief, therefore we shouldn’t exclude anyone (regardless of race) until it’s proven they couldn’t have done it. [/quote] affirms your reactionary worldview. Your willingness to distibute _onus probandi_ on an ever-widening target group has the effect of further affirming your willingness to abridge the Constitution (not, as is your intent, of making the underlying philosophy easier to swallow). Hence, my characterization of you **does not differ** from the argument you make. It is possible that _you_ have _disavowed_ the quoted position–to wit, > [@](#): > > Not true. Also not a very close fit - though almost understandable, due to my less than ideal phrasing. so allow me to provide you with a fresh one. > [@](#): > > Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiasts’ from driving at the speed they want, with no _real_ inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do if left to their own devices. > > Simple as that. In addition to being another horrifying example of your reactionary attitude (see **Erratum** ’s effective dissection)–again demonstrating a violation of the requirement that the argument I offer differ from your position–this statement is rife with inaccuracies and unsupportable implications: **Handful of enthusiasts** implies that our numbers are insignificant. The combined paid circulation of _Motor Trend_, _Road and Track_, _Car and Driver_, and _Automobile_ magazines is **3,824,352** [sup]\1\[/sup]; **no real inconvenience to them** implies that you are an effective judge of the offense others take at the abridgement of their rights–the posts of **Erratum** , **Libertarian** , **MaxTorque** , and **PatronAnejo** are vehement indications to the contrary; **small price to pay** implies that you have the right to determine what price in freedom others should pay; it also implies that you posess a complete awareness of the full cost of the erosion of liberty–both implications are unequivocally false; **damage the idiots would do** implies that the only way to control incompetent drivers is to abridge the rights of everyone–this has already been demonstrated to be false; **Simple as that** indicates that you take pride in the _obfuscatory_ statement debunked above. [li]Finally, I don’t attack your argument on the basis of your postulatory racism–no effort is made at _knocking down_ your delusory _straw man_.[/ul][/li]Before making remarks such as yours, I suggest you be “man enough” to spend a little time learning basic terms (I won’t require you to be much of a man–the explanations provided in my previous post require no more than a sixth-grade reading level). If you are going to employ the language of logic, it is only reasonable to expect you to use it properly. > [@](#): > > Good gods, man, Anejo disavowed that analogy when called on it, why do you continue it? Again–unequivocally–I disavow nothing. **Erratum** ’s characterization is unimpeachable. You are indeed a reactionary; the truth of that is not dependent upon your acknowledgement of such. > [@](#): > > I am, due to mountains of proof to the contrary, unable to believe in the fundimental [sic] goodness and intelligence of humanity. I want to protect myself and others from the idiots. Thank you for informing me that this makes me a prejudiced zealot, rather than someone who’s justifiably scared of the consequences of optimism. No-one is asking you to be an optimist; any argument that insists that you abandon skepticism is immediately suspect. Your arguments indicate a failure to recognize that every individual has the right to be assessed on his own merits. A government whose purported role is to protect freedom is hypocritcal and self-defeating if it arrogates for itself the task of abridging one’s right to conduct activities which do not violate the rights of others _even if the intent of such a task is to curtail actions which violate others’ rights_. It is inconsistent with the Constitution to demand such _protection_, and it is inconsistent with the Constitution for you to wish to impose such _protection_ on the public. Thanks, but no thanks. It is the activities of your _idiots_ that should be restricted, not those of competent drivers. > [@](#): > > …the only way to deal with the problem drivers without making the laws apply to capable drivers is to apply them after they’ve done damage. It’s no surprise that you are unable to conceive a scheme which restricts incompetent drivers’ violation of other drivers’ rights **without** abridging the rights of competent drivers (whose circumspect application of speed or contravention of traffic control signals violate no-one’s rights). That doesn’t mean such a scheme cannot be conceived. Moreover, it is the **duty** of a freedom-loving government to do so. [quote] As an aside: I apologise for the unwarranted ‘terms even you can’t distort’ remark in the above post. Being compared to a bigot pisses [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-can-they-do-this/17445.md?page=4)