3 ms·
"I don't have an issue with obeying a valid warrant" does not imply that the government is always "just, law abiding, and acting in everyone's interest." I woul
by daveFNbuck 8y ago
"I don't have an issue with obeying a valid warrant" does not imply that the government is always "just, law abiding, and acting in everyone's interest." I would strongly disagree with the latter while agreeing with the former.
- acct1771 8y agoIt implies that either: 1) You're capable of discerning what is, or is not, a valid warrant, or 2) You trust the L.E. to do so for you. Which?
- daveFNbuck 8y agoThese are not exhaustive options. The name of the logical fallacy you're committing here is a "false dilemma". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma I cannot discern what is or is not a valid warrant. That's why companies have lawyers. I don't trust law enforcement to do this either. That's why we have courts. There's a lot of room for nuanced opinions about our warrant system not being perfect but being better than nothing.
- acct1771 8y ago"You" implies your organization. You and your corporate attorneys are on the same team. No logical fallacy, simply a strict reading of the words chosen. Correction made, what's the third option, if those aren't exhaustive?
- daveFNbuck 8y agoOne other option is that I trust the courts. Another is that I don't trust law enforcement or the courts but I still think that an imperfect rule of law is better than not being able to have warrants at all. These things don't have to be absolute.