3 ms·
> if you are pro-catching-crime, you're against anonymity, because that's a prerequisite. I'm not sure it is. It seems to me you can be pro-hoodie without bei
by bb88 5y ago
> if you are pro-catching-crime, you're against anonymity, because that's a prerequisite.
I'm not sure it is. It seems to me you can be pro-hoodie without being pro-murder. It also appears that being anti-murder doesn't require you to be anti-hoodie.
> One salient example is the security theater we have to go through in airports since 9/11, which have eroded the liberty of millions of people and have probably caught (or even deterred) zero people.
I won't say the TSA is good at their jobs. But I will say that anonymity ends at the door of an airplane. Now whether the former can do the latter is another question entirely.
- stavros 5y ago> It seems to me you can be pro-hoodie without being pro-murder. It also appears that being anti-murder doesn't require you to be anti-hoodie. I didn't say anything about being anti-murder, though. If you're pro-catching-murderers, you must be anti-hoodie, otherwise you catch fewer murderers.
- bb88 5y ago> If you're pro-catching-murderers, you must be anti-hoodie, otherwise you catch fewer murderers. Maybe, but also there's other options. One might be that more cops on the street would probably have a more powerful effect than banning hoodies say. So I reject your black and white reasoning outright.