3 ms·
>You're arguing that "Because law is arbitrary, police powers should be restricted." No. I'm arguing that because laws can be arbitrary, we should err on the s
by daenz 5y ago
>You're arguing that "Because law is arbitrary, police powers should be restricted."
No. I'm arguing that because laws can be arbitrary, we should err on the side of protecting criminals when difficult decisions around privacy are at play. I don't know why you insist on strawmanning absurd forms of what I am saying.
- vkou 5y ago> No. I'm arguing that because laws can be arbitrary, we should err on the side of protecting criminals when difficult decisions around privacy are at play. I'm probably 'strawmanning' it because your argument is utterly incomprehensible, given that it is entirely inconsistent with the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is not to protect the guilty from the legal consequences of things that they have done. You seem to think that it should be. This is utterly baffling. If you don't want people held accountable for crime, then strike those crimes from the criminal codex.