3 ms·

If your train of logic basically reaches the conclusion "police cannot legally investigate crimes," I'm afraid I have some bad news about the facts underpinning

If your train of logic basically reaches the conclusion "police cannot legally investigate crimes," I'm afraid I have some bad news about the facts underpinning your train of logic, because society will not conclude crimes can no longer be investigated.

jancsika 8y ago
That sentence was poorly worded. But then if this least generous interpretation you chose represented my train of thought, one would have expected me to clearly argue that both "road cameras" and "mobile service providers" are illegal. Instead I replied with, "Agreed." Did you read down to those parts? If so I'm curious what you thought that could mean in a worldview where police cannot legally investigate crimes.
- fixermark 8y ago
  No, the error was mine. I zoned out on details because I misinterpreted your earlier sentence and assumed the remainder of the post was poor justification of my misunderstanding of your thesis.
  - jancsika 8y ago
    Ah, I see. That makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. If the initial thesis sounds fatuous, inconsistencies that come later wouldn't necessarily stand out.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    This is surprisingly civil for an internet discussion forum. Kudos on having good manners.
Dylan16807 8y ago
Good news! The train of logic doesn't do that! Traditional methods are just fine. Some technological methods are fine, others are not.
- fixermark 8y ago
  Ah, my mistake---you wrote "all methods of gathering evidence from a group of innocent people are not legal" and I think you meant it as "not all methods of gathering evidence from a group of innocent people are legal". English needs parenthetical binding. ;)
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Also it wasn't me.
  - jancsika 8y ago
    That's what I meant. > English needs parenthetical binding. No I think it is. (Enough to take) care when communicating and rely on our falcuties to rveceor qikucly form flaiures wehn tehy hppean().

jancsika 8y ago

That sentence was poorly worded. But then if this least generous interpretation you chose represented my train of thought, one would have expected me to clearly argue that both "road cameras" and "mobile service providers" are illegal. Instead I replied with, "Agreed." Did you read down to those parts? If so I'm curious what you thought that could mean in a worldview where police cannot legally investigate crimes.

fixermark 8y ago
No, the error was mine. I zoned out on details because I misinterpreted your earlier sentence and assumed the remainder of the post was poor justification of my misunderstanding of your thesis.
- jancsika 8y ago
  Ah, I see. That makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. If the initial thesis sounds fatuous, inconsistencies that come later wouldn't necessarily stand out.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  This is surprisingly civil for an internet discussion forum. Kudos on having good manners.

Dylan16807 8y ago

Good news! The train of logic doesn't do that! Traditional methods are just fine. Some technological methods are fine, others are not.

fixermark 8y ago
Ah, my mistake---you wrote "all methods of gathering evidence from a group of innocent people are not legal" and I think you meant it as "not all methods of gathering evidence from a group of innocent people are legal". English needs parenthetical binding. ;)
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Also it wasn't me.
- jancsika 8y ago
  That's what I meant. > English needs parenthetical binding. No I think it is. (Enough to take) care when communicating and rely on our falcuties to rveceor qikucly form flaiures wehn tehy hppean().