A Pound of Flesh? Two? All of it? (Drunk/drink Drivers)

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

1. I'm curious as to when roadside sobriety tests became the equivalent of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. You people do realize you can refuse a breathalyzer test. Do we execute everyone that refuses?

He already said that "Police are impartial." That sent up a red flag in my mind.

[Laerod]

He already said that "Police are impartial." That sent up a red flag in my mind.

Ha! Reminds me of when a cop stopped us and falsely claimed he smelled alcohol in the vehicle.

[The Cat-Tribe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Because murder by the roadside is clearly what "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense" means.

It's speedy and public. The police are impartial. It's deifintely in the state and sitrict where the crime was committed. They will be informed of the anture and cause. They will be confronted with the witness (who is holding the gun). They shall have access to any other witnesses (hence, the second car). The ONLY thing you could argue that isn't being provided is Counsel. My personal sugegstion for fixing that problem is to let them call a pre-arranged number, that ONLY handles this kind of case. As soon as the Counsel hears the circumstances, they will offer the best advice they can in such circumstances - 'pray'.

Setting aside the difference between a summary execution and a trial, a jury and a police officer, and the many other absurdities in this exchange, I never thought I'd see G_n_I make the statement "[t]he police are impartial."

[Grave_n_idle]

There's more to cost than the weight of your materials. A gold watch is worth more than the value of its raw materials, because it is at a state of lower entropy than the raw materials in unused form and hence takes the expenditure of energy to create. Ultimately, gold and oxygen are made of exactly the same thing, but gold is more expensive because it is more rare. Why is it more rare, because the physical structure of its atoms is more energetically difficult to produce than oxygen's. The chemical elements making up the human body are at a much higher state of entropy when they exist as simple compounds in nature than when they comprise a human body. This is precisely why human bodies don't spontaneously generate and hence take large quantities of energy to produce. Why do I have to explain this to a chemist?

You don't. It was a weak attempt at being patronising.

Your assumption rests on the fact that value is inextricably contingent on rarity.

An interesting argument from someone who has been arguing that humans have value.

[Grave_n_idle]

1. I'm curious as to when roadside sobriety tests became the equivalent of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It depends on the nature of the crime.

If all that is required to be sure of a crime committed was, for example, the presence of Uranium, then tests that located Uranium on the accused would be considered pretty damning.

In this case, it's not Uranium - the crime is drunk driving, and chemical we test for is alcohol.

2. You people do realize you can refuse a breathalyzer test. Do we execute everyone that refuses?

I said blood test, actually. But sure.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Justice is an unscientific idea. Your lack of scientific thinking is showing.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's funny. When someone ENGAGES your 'value/worth' argument, you pretend you weren't making it...

I wasn't debating him about worth. I was debating him about hidden costs. I was debating you about worth. You were the one that brought up worth to me. You know, it's almost as if I can debate more than one notion with more than one person. Nah, that couldn't be possible.

You misattributed the value/worth argument to me, and then argued it with me.

I refused to argue it, because I think you're using a self-serving argument.

Someone else picked up the value/worth argument and... all of a sudden you're only talking about hidden costs.


I love that squeak-noise goalposts make when they move, don't you?

[Grave_n_idle]

1. I'm curious as to when roadside sobriety tests became the equivalent of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. You people do realize you can refuse a breathalyzer test. Do we execute everyone that refuses?

He already said that "Police are impartial." That sent up a red flag in my mind.

You maight want to quote me, if you want to make arguments about what I said.

Feel free to quote in context.

[Grave_n_idle]

Setting aside the difference between a summary execution and a trial, a jury and a police officer, and the many other absurdities in this exchange, I never thought I'd see G_n_I make the statement "[t]he police are impartial."

Effectively impartial. For the sake of the requirements of the Constitution argument.

My own personal viewpoints are not necessarily on the table.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. I'm curious as to when roadside sobriety tests became the equivalent of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It depends on the nature of the crime.

If all that is required to be sure of a crime committed was, for example, the presence of Uranium, then tests that located Uranium on the accused would be considered pretty damning.

In this case, it's not Uranium - the crime is drunk driving, and chemical we test for is alcohol.

2. You people do realize you can refuse a breathalyzer test. Do we execute everyone that refuses?

I said blood test, actually. But sure.

chemical blood alcohol content (BAC) tests are (1) not administered at the roadside and (2) not infallible.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Setting aside the difference between a summary execution and a trial, a jury and a police officer, and the many other absurdities in this exchange, I never thought I'd see G_n_I make the statement "[t]he police are impartial."

Effectively impartial. For the sake of the requirements of the Constitution argument.

My own personal viewpoints are not necessarily on the table.

For the sake of the requirements of the Constitution, a police officer =/= an impartial jury.

Not even close. Doesn't pass the laugh test.

Fail.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

That's funny. When someone ENGAGES your 'value/worth' argument, you pretend you weren't making it...

I wasn't debating him about worth. I was debating him about hidden costs. I was debating you about worth. You were the one that brought up worth to me. You know, it's almost as if I can debate more than one notion with more than one person. Nah, that couldn't be possible.

You misattributed the value/worth argument to me, and then argued it with me.

I refused to argue it, because I think you're using a self-serving argument.

Someone else picked up the value/worth argument and... all of a sudden you're only talking about hidden costs.


I love that squeak-noise goalposts make when they move, don't you?

I'm sorry, who was it that said drunk drivers have no value? I guess I said it. I'm just so stupid you see, I can't keep my arguments straight.

[JuNii]

Show me where I said that all or even a majority of officers abuse power. I said it happens, and I'm pretty sure that you know it happens. I pointed out that when an officer abuses power (like shooting an innocent black man because he thought that he had a gun), he is less likely to face punishment than other people. There exists abuse in the system, and this idea would only further the potential for such abuse. This is not an emotional argument.

by attempting a totally emotion free viewpoint, you are pulling out alot of emotional responses.

by being totally emotion less, you cannot take the 'possiblity' but the 'statistics'.

less likely is again, a plea towards the emotional side.

the facts is what you want to present. show the statistics that police officers WILL, not "Likely".

what you are presenting is the same as saying "Muslims are most likely to be terrorists" or "Black men are most likely to rape white women" all it is is fear mongering and thus an emotional response.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

There's more to cost than the weight of your materials. A gold watch is worth more than the value of its raw materials, because it is at a state of lower entropy than the raw materials in unused form and hence takes the expenditure of energy to create. Ultimately, gold and oxygen are made of exactly the same thing, but gold is more expensive because it is more rare. Why is it more rare, because the physical structure of its atoms is more energetically difficult to produce than oxygen's. The chemical elements making up the human body are at a much higher state of entropy when they exist as simple compounds in nature than when they comprise a human body. This is precisely why human bodies don't spontaneously generate and hence take large quantities of energy to produce. Why do I have to explain this to a chemist?

You don't. It was a weak attempt at being patronising.

Your assumption rests on the fact that value is inextricably contingent on rarity.

An interesting argument from someone who has been arguing that humans have value.

I never argued that there was some moral value to humans. I did not make this argument once. I made the arguments about economic worth. You are the one that raised the worth of human beings based on their composition. I then deconstructed this argument on the basis of entropy and the energy used to overcome it. Rarity only in the entropic sense. Rare things tend to need energy to happen, because they tend not to happen spontaneously. Energy has a cost or, in a physics sense, it IS a cost. Therefore, entropic rarity is a measure of cost where composition alone is not, unless you can make a watch out of magnetic monopoles.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Show me where I said that all or even a majority of officers abuse power. I said it happens, and I'm pretty sure that you know it happens. I pointed out that when an officer abuses power (like shooting an innocent black man because he thought that he had a gun), he is less likely to face punishment than other people. There exists abuse in the system, and this idea would only further the potential for such abuse. This is not an emotional argument.

by attempting a totally emotion free viewpoint, you are pulling out alot of emotional responses.

by being totally emotion less, you cannot take the 'possiblity' but the 'statistics'.

less likely is again, a plea towards the emotional side.

the facts is what you want to present. show the statistics that police officers WILL, not "Likely".

what you are presenting is the same as saying "Muslims are most likely to be terrorists" or "Black men are most likely to rape white women" all it is is fear mongering and thus an emotional response.

Getting five heads when flipping a coin five times is less likely than getting three heads and two tails. Did that take any emotion at all?

[Grave_n_idle]

1. I'm curious as to when roadside sobriety tests became the equivalent of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It depends on the nature of the crime.

If all that is required to be sure of a crime committed was, for example, the presence of Uranium, then tests that located Uranium on the accused would be considered pretty damning.

In this case, it's not Uranium - the crime is drunk driving, and chemical we test for is alcohol.

2. You people do realize you can refuse a breathalyzer test. Do we execute everyone that refuses?

I said blood test, actually. But sure.

chemical blood alcohol content (BAC) tests are (1) not administered at the roadside and (2) not infallible.

Not infallible, but not as fallible as some like to pretend. So long as the sampling site isn't swabbed with alcohol first (which you would assume is elementary), and no yeast is introduced to the sample, it's pretty reliable.

Bloodtests can be administered at the roadside.

[The Cat-Tribe]

chemical blood alcohol content (BAC) tests are (1) not administered at the roadside and (2) not infallible.

Not infallible, but not as fallible as some like to pretend. So long as the sampling site isn't swabbed with alcohol first (which you would assume is elementary), and no yeast is introduced to the sample, it's pretty reliable.

Bloodtests can be administered at the roadside.

Again, this whole argument is absurd.

But, playing along, having the test conducted at the roadside by police officers (rather than qualified personnel) is going to reduce the reliability a tad, isn't it?

[Laerod]

Not infallible, but not as fallible as some like to pretend. So long as the sampling site isn't swabbed with alcohol first (which you would assume is elementary), and no yeast is introduced to the sample, it's pretty reliable.

Bloodtests can be administered at the roadside.

One would assume that the authorities are that meticulous, but Germany, for instance, has been going on a transnational manhunt for a woman connected to over a dozen crimes all over central Europe. They eventually found the culprit, an elderly Polish woman that worked in the company that supplied the cotton swabs.

[JuNii]

Getting five heads when flipping a coin five times is less likely than getting three heads and two tails. Did that take any emotion at all?

if the quantities we are talking about is 5.

but it's not.

and then there are the 3 tails and 2 head results.

as well as the 4 tails and 1 head.

then there is the method of catching the coin, or letting it fall on the floor.

and what type of floor since that could add or subtract the average number of bounces.

and yes, I can flip a coin to make it come up heads 5 times out of 5.

however, we are not talking about coin flips, you are talking about power abuse and use a statement as fact.

also what of the hidden cost argument?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Getting five heads when flipping a coin five times is less likely than getting three heads and two tails. Did that take any emotion at all?

if the quantities we are talking about is 5.

but it's not.

and then there are the 3 tails and 2 head results.

as well as the 4 tails and 1 head.

then there is the method of catching the coin, or letting it fall on the floor.

and what type of floor since that could add or subtract the average number of bounces.

and yes, I can flip a coin to make it come up heads 5 times out of 5.

however, we are not talking about coin flips, you are talking about power abuse and use a statement as fact.

also what of the hidden cost argument?

How will such changes in methodology change chance in any significant manner? By making the chance of heads go up to 51% per flip? Nonetheless, this still makes the result of 2 tails and 3 heads more likely than the result of 5 heads. It would require a very drastic change in methodology to make the latter more probable. Even taking that into account, there does exist Baye's theorem, you know. We can update our probability estimates when new data comes in. None of your objections change anything.

[JuNii]

Bloodtests can be administered at the roadside.

and even if it cannot, the suspect can then be 'driven' to the station where a Bloodtest can then be administered and proceedings properly recorded.

[JuNii]

[snipped]

so, does this mean that you're giving up your argument that "cops are corrupt".

[Concurria]

This is a falsehood.

I disagree. Bye bye.

All people deserve to have value. History has demonstrated what happens when people think they are grossly superior. Hell, we still see this happening.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

[snipped]

so, does this mean that you're giving up your argument that "cops are corrupt".

I'll give it up, because I never made it to begin with. I said that corruption amongst officers exists. I really don't think I need to defend that, do you?

[JuNii]

[snipped]

so, does this mean that you're giving up your argument that "cops are corrupt".

I'll give it up, because I never made it to begin with. I said that corruption amongst officers exists. I really don't think I need to defend that, do you?

did you really say that?
hmm... let's go back some posts... shall we?

Show me where I said that all or even a majority of officers abuse power. I said it happens, and I'm pretty sure that you know it happens. I pointed out that when an officer abuses power (like shooting an innocent black man because he thought that he had a gun), he is less likely to face punishment than other people. There exists abuse in the system, and this idea would only further the potential for such abuse. This is not an emotional argument.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=6850&start=150#p226616

The power given to the police officers will, almost of necessity, be abused. Police officers already abuse power

no, you didn't say corruption amongst officers exist. you said police officers will abuse the power. not "some" officers, not "a few" but police officers stated as a whole group. WILL, not might, not maybe, but "WILL, ALMOST OUT OF NECESSITY" abuse their power.

so there, your blanket statement that cops will abuse their power.