Originally Posted by Adept1

Again you fail to notice what the request was. He asked for more examples.
I saw what the request was.
The point is that the way he answered the "request" makes his argument MUTE and POINTLESS.
You ever hear of a strawman argument?
(What am I talking about. You SUBSIST on strawman arguments.

I argue for warrants. I agree that once a warrant is in hand, we should wire-tap, inspect houses, etc, etc.
But by bhkad's argument, he is pretending that I NEVER want to wire-tap.

The "fear mongering" I am talking about is one whereby you LACK sufficient reason for obtaining a wiretap, so you just go ahead and do it anyways SOLELY because of UNSUBSTANTIATED and NON-SPECIFIC FEAR.
If you can show a REASON for fear (like is done in the process of obtaining a warrant), then THAT is a legitimate and legal course of action.


Yes except that those aren't the ONLY locks and keys around. And some things are REQUIRED by law TO BE LOCKED.
Let's see.
His examples resolved SOLELY around "larceny", so that's the context of my reply.
If you want to take the conversation elsewhere, then BE SPECIFIC in what you're talking about.
Otherwise, you're just pretending to say something meaningful when all you're doing is moving off topic and saying non-sequiturs.


You do have difficulty making a reasonable analogy don't you?
And you have difficulty explaining WHY the analogy is invalid, and blindly declaring that it's wrong cause you can't argue your way out of a paper bag.


The comparison between a lock and privacy is trying to lump subjects that do not compare.
I got that.
Obviously, you lacked the capacity to understand MY point whereby HIS analogy was flawed because his pretense is like saying that I am arguing against those who CHOOSE to lock up their homes.
I don't. I have no quarrel with that.

My quarrel, by the analogy, is in the pretense that we have to DEMAND OTHER PEOPLE enact safety precautions on their homes.
Furthermore, it would be more apt to draw the comparison as to a requirement that people should submit to random home searches to make sure their houses aren't being burgled.


YES. And don't even try to say that they aren't.
The point is that I AM NOT saying that they should outlaw cigarettes.
The point is that by the "fear mongering" mentality, YOUR SIDE should be insisting on outlawing cigarettes based on the "risk".
I swear. Forest for the trees...


So who is fear mongering by bringing "wiretaps" into a conversation about fear mongering?
I swear. You are TERMINALLY slow.
The "wire-tap" discussion is the WHOLE REASON WHY bhkad made this thread in the first place.
I pointed out that the ONLY BASIS for his insistence on allowing ILLEGAL wire-taps is based SOLELY on fear.
Whereas, for a LEGAL wire-tap the person requesting the wire-tap has to show DUE CAUSE as to WHY there is substantial reason for the wire-tap. MORE than JUST fear.


When the criminals are breaking into your house I bet you just insist that the cops stop by the courthouse and wake the judge.