All Cars Should Be Tracked and Locked

[Galloism]

We have. Every time we point out how it would be hellacious expensive, violate rights, be unworkable, etc, you went "we'll figure it out", refusing to advance the inquiry.

No, those are arguments that do not commit inherently commit a logical fallacy (unless where they invoke a slippery slope argument).

That's because first it would have to qualify as an argument. An argument inherently involves evidence or logical assertions.

a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

If you provide no reasons it's not an argument. "I disagree" is not an argument. "We'll figure it out." is not an argument. In order to be a fallacious argument, it would first have to qualify as an argument.

I mean, shit, you look at this and think it's a good logical argument.

It is a You'll notice that I have actually not been dismissing all of your arguments. Only those that invoke some form of slippery slope.

You've been saying "I disagree" or "we'll figure it out" and calling that an argument. Without reasons, no argument was made.

There's also a difference between saying ''I don't think the technological issues can be overcome'' vs saying ''the technological issues can't be overcome because there is no way your proposal is correct given that I assume you completely lack technical knowledge''

Physics can't be overcome. They're universal laws.

one is valid, and the other is not (even though I disagree with both)

You've refrained from discussing how GPS works because you have no clue.

That's an unsupported inference and assumption, and it has no probative value because as I've said before, someone can come up with a good or a bad proposal intentionally or accidentally regardless of his actual technical knowledge; to draw any other definite conclusions following an assumption of that sort would be prejudicial

So you don't understand how GPS works, at even a basic level.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We have. Every time we point out how it would be hellacious expensive, violate rights, be unworkable, etc, you went "we'll figure it out", refusing to advance the inquiry.

No, those are arguments that do not commit inherently commit a logical fallacy (unless where they invoke a slippery slope argument). You'll notice that I have actually not been dismissing all of your arguments. Only those that invoke some form of slippery slope.

There's also a difference between saying ''I don't think the technological issues can be overcome'' vs saying ''the technological issues can't be overcome because there is no way your proposal is correct given that I assume you completely lack technical knowledge''

one is valid, and the other is not (even though I disagree with both)

You've refrained from discussing how GPS works because you have no clue.

That's an unsupported inference and assumption, and it has no probative value because as I've said before, someone can come up with a good or a bad proposal intentionally or accidentally regardless of his actual technical knowledge; to draw any other definite conclusions following an assumption of that sort would be prejudicial

I would like to remind you what you said on another thread not too long ago

Everyone should have technical knowledge about a simple circuit.

Fuck, people should have at least a passing knowledge about how a fucking grenade works. Michael Bay has literally made explosions into a successful trope in America.

You can't reasonably sit there and talk about how people shouldn't be expected to have technical knowledge of shit when America is literally addicted to things that go boom.

No, I have no ''passing knowledge'' of how a grenade works or technical knowledge about circuitry (even just a passing knowledge) and neither do a large number of my classmates. And schoolteachers are even older people with even less access and exposure to technology. For many people, all they know about bombs comes from the movies and video games.

That's the standard for measuring whether or not a non-technical person is reasonable in suspecting if something could be a bomb or not. There isn't a statutory duty or a common law duty in place where ordinary citizens (like teachers) who aren't trained in bomb recognition should be expected to know what is and isn't a bomb if it looks like a bomb in the movies.

[Gauthier]

At this point I will not be surprised if IM has a blog on the internet where he's gloating about taking NSG for a ride with these threads.

[Galloism]

At this point I will not be surprised if IM has a blog on the internet where he's gloating about taking NSG for a ride with these threads.

They're fun though. Gotta give him that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

At this point I will not be surprised if IM has a blog on the internet where he's gloating about taking NSG for a ride with these threads.

They're fun though. Gotta give him that.

It's sad though, if he really is doing that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Wikipedia said:
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence, they may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others, and they may incorrectly suppose that their competence in a particular field extends to other fields in which they are less competent.[1] The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999."

Emphasis mine.

I believe it is actually quite relevant here.

as I said, that's really a character attack and not an actual argument

its also an unsupported inference

By definition, though, you wouldn't be in a position to recognize it.

[Valystria]

Every year, tens of thousands of people are killed by car accidents largely caused by irresponsible driving. This includes driving under the influence of alcohol and speeding.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/gener ... lity-facts

I propose the following changes:

1. The government mandate that all cars be installed with mandatory tracking devices. This allows the police to monitor the positions of all cars and their speed at any given time. This is to deter speeding and ease the administration of speeding regulation for the public good.

2. Cars should also have a mandatory auto-lock system that requires a breath-analyzer to unlock and activate. This way, if you are drunk, you can't start the car. The car cannot be started except by a sober party and it is a criminal offence to try to game the system. The policy could save tens of thousands of lives potentially.

I believe these reforms will go a long way in crime prevention, car accident prevention, and improving general public safety as well as the efficacy of the law enforcement system.

What do you think?

For #1: This is a terrible idea that definitely violates our rights. Talk about invasion of privacy, tracking all cars at all moments of the day. Even ignoring that, wouldn't that volume be far too high for the cops to keep track of in the first place? Just keeping track of millions of cars, especially in a high traffic area, would just be impossible for whoever has to actually watch that screen.
If the last few months have taught me anything, it is that you cannot simply always trust the government and law enforcement. Giving them trackers of our whereabouts all the time is exactly what allows tyranny to happen.

For #2: This is also a bad idea, as in the fact that breathalyzers are very unreliable. Breathalyzers will fail if you used mouthwash right before you leave, which is something a lot of people do. I understand your reasoning for this one, but breathalyzers are far too unreliable for us to use.

There shouldn't be an expectation of privacy when driving on public roads.

After much thought, I'm of the opinion that vehicle breathalyzers should only be compulsory for people who have an alcohol-related crime on their record.

This could be enforced by making it illegal to have blood alcohol content above a certain level.

You...aren't serious, are you?

I am. Most of the social ills caused by alcohol could be avoided with a strict blood alcohol limit in place.

Another cost saving factor is that the increased deterrence will result in less people being in prison for unsafe driving.

Very very few people go to prison for unsafe driving.

I mean, you're reaching for trying to fix problems that are borderline imaginary at this point.

The trackers would reduce the occurrence of other crimes too.

[A Colony Of Canadas]

-Snippity snip-

They already have BAC limits for driving. And if you are clearly drunk in public, that's a fine and jail time for you. This is nothing new.

[Omega America II]

I do agree that something should be done of the many deaths caused by cars, but I feel that this might not be the best idea. I personally wouldn't like the government/police knowing where I am, it just would feel creepy.

[Galloism]

Very very few people go to prison for unsafe driving.

I mean, you're reaching for trying to fix problems that are borderline imaginary at this point.

The trackers would reduce the occurrence of other crimes too.

Questionable at the very best, given it would likely create yet ANOTHER underground industry, and we've previously seen how such underground industries tend to lead to more crime not less (see prohibition, war on drugs, etc).

[Infected Mushroom]

The trackers would reduce the occurrence of other crimes too.

Questionable at the very best, given it would likely create yet ANOTHER underground industry, and we've previously seen how such underground industries tend to lead to more crime not less (see prohibition, war on drugs, etc).

there wouldn't be, the vast majority of the people would be fine with the cars as they stand

most people aren't just going to become criminals because of a few meaningless ''privacy'' rights

[Infected Mushroom]

I do agree that something should be done of the many deaths caused by cars, but I feel that this might not be the best idea. I personally wouldn't like the government/police knowing where I am, it just would feel creepy.

Okay. But you do know that when you're in public people can see you right?

[Valystria]

-Snippity snip-

They already have BAC limits for driving. And if you are clearly drunk in public, that's a fine and jail time for you. This is nothing new.

The BAC limits can be extended to non-driving circumstances.

The trackers would reduce the occurrence of other crimes too.

Questionable at the very best, given it would likely create yet ANOTHER underground industry, and we've previously seen how such underground industries tend to lead to more crime not less (see prohibition, war on drugs, etc).

Most citizens would be okay with this trackers system. For the ones who aren't, there can be harsh penalties for subversive behavior.

I do agree that something should be done of the many deaths caused by cars, but I feel that this might not be the best idea. I personally wouldn't like the government/police knowing where I am, it just would feel creepy.

Why would it bother you? You should feel safe and secure with the government knowing where you are.

[Constaniana]

1: "subversive", well that word makes me think you just love freedom. Stop smoking that ganja 1984.
2: My parents need to know where I am. Some NSA creep trying to stalk me can sod off unless he gets a warrant.

[Galloism]

Questionable at the very best, given it would likely create yet ANOTHER underground industry, and we've previously seen how such underground industries tend to lead to more crime not less (see prohibition, war on drugs, etc).

there wouldn't be, the vast majority of the people would be fine with the cars as they stand

Since contradiction now qualifies as an argument:

No they wouldn't.

most people aren't just going to become criminals because of a few meaningless ''privacy'' rights

I contest that on two grounds:

First, privacy rights are not meaningless,

Second, people in America HATE government intrusion they understand.

[Galloism]

Questionable at the very best, given it would likely create yet ANOTHER underground industry, and we've previously seen how such underground industries tend to lead to more crime not less (see prohibition, war on drugs, etc).

Most citizens would be okay with this trackers system.

Source?

For the ones who aren't, there can be harsh penalties for subversive behavior.

Harsh penalties for drugs certainly wiped drugs off the streets. That's why it's impossible to even GET drugs anymore. Marijuana has been rendered almost to extinction, and PCP, cocaine and meth? People under 20 haven't even heard of such things.

[Valystria]

1: "subversive", well that word makes me think you just love freedom. Stop smoking that ganja 1984.
2: My parents need to know where I am. Some NSA creep trying to stalk me can sod off unless he gets a warrant.

1. Freedom should be protected from those who would misuse it.
2. The government can do its job better with the knowledge of where you are.

Most citizens would be okay with this trackers system.

Source?

For the ones who aren't, there can be harsh penalties for subversive behavior.

Harsh penalties for drugs certainly wiped drugs off the streets. That's why it's impossible to even GET drugs anymore.

A poll would need to be taken.

I am against drug laws, and the circumstances are different.

[Omega America II]

I do agree that something should be done of the many deaths caused by cars, but I feel that this might not be the best idea. I personally wouldn't like the government/police knowing where I am, it just would feel creepy.

Okay. But you do know that when you're in public people can see you right?

Yeah, but think of someone hacked into a system that was tracking your vehicle.

[Infected Mushroom]

there wouldn't be, the vast majority of the people would be fine with the cars as they stand

Since contradiction now qualifies as an argument:

No they wouldn't.

most people aren't just going to become criminals because of a few meaningless ''privacy'' rights

I contest that on two grounds:

First, privacy rights are not meaningless,

Second, people in America HATE government intrusion they understand.

Privacy rights are meaningless in the public sphere where your actions can directly endanger the public and where people can see you anyways

I contend that people in America need to have less of a knee-jerk reaction to ''government intrusion''

[Omega America II]

They already have BAC limits for driving. And if you are clearly drunk in public, that's a fine and jail time for you. This is nothing new.

The BAC limits can be extended to non-driving circumstances.

Questionable at the very best, given it would likely create yet ANOTHER underground industry, and we've previously seen how such underground industries tend to lead to more crime not less (see prohibition, war on drugs, etc).

Most citizens would be okay with this trackers system. For the ones who aren't, there can be harsh penalties for subversive behavior.

I do agree that something should be done of the many deaths caused by cars, but I feel that this might not be the best idea. I personally wouldn't like the government/police knowing where I am, it just would feel creepy.

Why would it bother you? You should feel safe and secure with the government knowing where you are.

To be honest, I don't think a bunch of politicians trying to run the country is going to help me anyways, if the police knew where I am, that still doesn't make me feel that much safer, it would make me feel a little more safe, but not too much.

[Galloism]

1: "subversive", well that word makes me think you just love freedom. Stop smoking that ganja 1984.
2: My parents need to know where I am. Some NSA creep trying to stalk me can sod off unless he gets a warrant.

1. Freedom should be protected from those who would misuse it.
2. The government can do its job better with the knowledge of where you are.

Source?



Harsh penalties for drugs certainly wiped drugs off the streets. That's why it's impossible to even GET drugs anymore.

A poll would need to be taken.

We don't have a poll for this, but let's see how people feel about NSA collection of metadata for surveillance? That's far less invasive and less well understood than this program.

Polls continue to confirm the trend. In a poll conducted in December 2013 by the Washington Post, 66% of Americans were concerned "about the collection and use of [their] personal information by the National Security Agency." Americans aren't only concerned about the collection. A recent Pew poll found—yet again—that a majority of Americans oppose the government's collection of phone and Internet data as a part of anti-terrorism efforts.

Since Americans are both concerned with, and opposed to, the spying, it's no surprise that they also want reform. In a November 2013 poll by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research,1 59% of respondents noted that they wanted surveillance reform and 63% said they wanted more oversight of the spying programs. While these polls focused on the larger population of Americans, a Harvard University Insitute of Politics poll focusing on younger Americans (aged 18-29 years old) reaffirmed younger Americans are both wary of the NSA's activities and that a majority do not want the government to collect personal information about them.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/p ... nsa-spying

Wow. It seems that people are concerned and generally opposed to the NSA even collecting metadata, much less people's personal movements every day all the time forever.

I am against drug laws, and the circumstances are different.

But this would result in yet another underground industry - not substantially different than drugs or alcohol, particularly given how the population is generally opposed to domestic surveillance.

Except now it would be "Sir, do you have any electronic components in your car? Do you mind if I search your vehicle for microchips?"

[Valystria]

Okay. But you do know that when you're in public people can see you right?

Yeah, but think of someone hacked into a system that was tracking your vehicle.

This can be somewhat mitigated with extreme penalties against hacking into state systems.

1. Freedom should be protected from those who would misuse it.
2. The government can do its job better with the knowledge of where you are.


A poll would need to be taken.

We don't have a poll for this, but let's see how people feel about NSA collection of metadata for surveillance? That's far less invasive and less well understood than this program.

Polls continue to confirm the trend. In a poll conducted in December 2013 by the Washington Post, 66% of Americans were concerned "about the collection and use of [their] personal information by the National Security Agency." Americans aren't only concerned about the collection. A recent Pew poll found—yet again—that a majority of Americans oppose the government's collection of phone and Internet data as a part of anti-terrorism efforts.

Since Americans are both concerned with, and opposed to, the spying, it's no surprise that they also want reform. In a November 2013 poll by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research,1 59% of respondents noted that they wanted surveillance reform and 63% said they wanted more oversight of the spying programs. While these polls focused on the larger population of Americans, a Harvard University Insitute of Politics poll focusing on younger Americans (aged 18-29 years old) reaffirmed younger Americans are both wary of the NSA's activities and that a majority do not want the government to collect personal information about them.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/p ... nsa-spying

Wow. It seems that people are concerned and generally opposed to the NSA even collecting metadata, much less people's personal movements every day all the time forever.

I am against drug laws, and the circumstances are different.

But this would result in yet another underground industry - not substantially different than drugs or alcohol, particularly given how the population is generally opposed to domestic surveillance.

Except now it would be "Sir, do you have any electronic components in your car? Do you mind if I search your vehicle for microchips?"

The US populace didn't revolt over the NSA revelations. They accepted it, as they would accept the vehicle trackers. People do not rebel against such things.

With additional surveillance any new underground industries can be suppressed.

[Omega America II]

Yeah, but think of someone hacked into a system that was tracking your vehicle.

This can be somewhat mitigated with extreme penalties against hacking into state systems.

We don't have a poll for this, but let's see how people feel about NSA collection of metadata for surveillance? That's far less invasive and less well understood than this program.


https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/p ... nsa-spying

Wow. It seems that people are concerned and generally opposed to the NSA even collecting metadata, much less people's personal movements every day all the time forever.


But this would result in yet another underground industry - not substantially different than drugs or alcohol, particularly given how the population is generally opposed to domestic surveillance.

Except now it would be "Sir, do you have any electronic components in your car? Do you mind if I search your vehicle for microchips?"

The US populace didn't revolt over the NSA revelations. They accepted it, as they would accept the vehicle trackers. People do not rebel against such things.

With additional surveillance any new underground industries can be suppressed.

But think of what they could do if they knew your exact location.

[Galloism]

Since contradiction now qualifies as an argument:

No they wouldn't.



I contest that on two grounds:

First, privacy rights are not meaningless,

Second, people in America HATE government intrusion they understand.

Privacy rights are meaningless in the public sphere where your actions can directly endanger the public and where people can see you anyways

Once again - people can see you in passing. However, if a person follows you, you can get a restraining order against them for stalking, even if they do so in public.

Police can be sued for harassment for following people without probable cause. There is a vast vast difference between bumping into someone at Wal-Mart and tailing them from the moment they leave their home til the moment they get home.

I contend that people in America need to have less of a knee-jerk reaction to ''government intrusion''

Your contentions aside, it is reality, and it is a good thing. The government has been careless with our personal data in the best of circumstances. Remember the data breach at OPM, where the US government lost control of personal data on 21.5 million federal workers, and went on for over a year before being discovered?

Yeah, we think the government having access to all our personal information is hazardous in the best of circumstances - and with good reason. They can't keep control of it, and have shown themselves to be irresponsible in the use of it.

[Valystria]

The BAC limits can be extended to non-driving circumstances.


Most citizens would be okay with this trackers system. For the ones who aren't, there can be harsh penalties for subversive behavior.


Why would it bother you? You should feel safe and secure with the government knowing where you are.

To be honest, I don't think a bunch of politicians trying to run the country is going to help me anyways, if the police knew where I am, that still doesn't make me feel that much safer, it would make me feel a little more safe, but not too much.

It's that extra little bit of safety that counts.