Slowly you americans will grow afraid of your own shadow. The Patriot Act, which violates the basic rules set down in your constitution was just the beginning. You americans is in need of a good old revolution soon it seems
The most ironic thing about the Patriot Act is the vast majority of these "the government is out to get us" types were the very same people who were all for the Patriot Act to "root out the evildoers" and welcomed it with open arms. Only the liberals and some libertarian types were upset back then when the Patriot Act was proposed and enacted. (especially to the library records clauses)
The Patriot Act passed extremely easily (no one dare would have opposed it back then as a politician because that was "unamerican") and you saw no Townyellers screaming about facism, socialism, and the government taking "taking away rights" during that time because it was Bush and Cheney scaring people.
Now those same morons are yelling that because the healthcare that would benefit the majority of them is from Obama, NOW the country is headed to Stalinism, lol. They come up with these theories so often its hard to keep up with the next conspiracy. FEMA camps, death camps, microchips.
If these people weren't so deluded, it would be funny. But considering if they actually represent (what they claim) is a large segment of the population, I wouldn't think whereever you are from in the world that this would be so funny to you. These people were trying to get someone like Sarah Palin to be one step away from controlling the world's most dangerous military machine. A religious whacko.
Many of us were consistently against both. Hoever, if you have some figures to back up your claim that shows that MOST of the same people supporting the patriot act and are now against government monitoring of citizens, I'd like to see them.
Toss a frog into a pot of boiling water and it'll jump out. Toss a frog into a pot of cool water and slowly bring it to a boil, and well... you've got the future of America (and frog stew). Because I mean, the difference between a debit card and a micro chip implant isn't that huge, am I right? Right?
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Toss a frog into a pot of boiling water and it'll jump out.
Toss a frog into a pot of cool water and slowly bring it to a boil, and well... you've got the future of America (and frog stew). Because I mean, the difference between a debit card and a micro chip implant isn't that huge, am I right?
Right?
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
i think your just a little bit paranoid..its just school, not a nazi death camp
No it has become the church of liberalism where socialist members of the local teacher's union preach the word to our children for twelve years straight. By the time they are released they are card carrying members of the socialist revolution ready to cast their vote against the founding fathers.
Originally posted by Fishermage Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by streea
Toss a frog into a pot of boiling water and it'll jump out. Toss a frog into a pot of cool water and slowly bring it to a boil, and well... you've got the future of America (and frog stew). Because I mean, the difference between a debit card and a micro chip implant isn't that huge, am I right? Right?
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
i think your just a little bit paranoid..its just school, not a nazi death camp
No it has become the church of liberalism where socialist members of the local teacher's union preach the word to our children for twelve years straight. By the time they are released they are card carrying members of the socialist revolution ready to cast their vote against the founding fathers.
i think your just a little bit paranoid..its just school, not a nazi death camp
No it has become the church of liberalism where socialist members of the local teacher's union preach the word to our children for twelve years straight. By the time they are released they are card carrying members of the socialist revolution ready to cast their vote against the founding fathers.
Freedom at it finest?
eh'
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Toss a frog into a pot of boiling water and it'll jump out.
Toss a frog into a pot of cool water and slowly bring it to a boil, and well... you've got the future of America (and frog stew). Because I mean, the difference between a debit card and a micro chip implant isn't that huge, am I right?
Right?
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
Obviouslu what you need is an English course, to learn how analogies work, and a logic course, to understand what a straw man is. But then, we both already knew that.
i think your just a little bit paranoid..its just school, not a nazi death camp
No it has become the church of liberalism where socialist members of the local teacher's union preach the word to our children for twelve years straight. By the time they are released they are card carrying members of the socialist revolution ready to cast their vote against the founding fathers.
Freedom at it finest?
The first freedom we gave up was freedom in education when we handed it over to the State, and then the Federal Government. We can witness its failure right here on these boards. Look at the sad leftist conformity we see. Look at the inability to think through a chain of logic. It's so sad.
The school has no right, nor does the goverment to require you to carry any form of indentification. These institutions are just supposed to guard those freedoms and educate you, thats it. I was about to mention how this is a plan by the banking elite to get us to accept a cashless system so they can control the planet much easier but I could see I was wasting my words on these brainwashed idiots. Whats waiting for my daughter when its time to enroll her ? chips implanted into her arm ? a background check ? maybe they want to do a credit check also ? how about pre-enrollment for mandatory military service ? Its a sad day when kids cant eat food without getting their finger scanned.
People are already implanting chips into their kids. The government already wants to put RFID chips into national ID cards. You already can get background checked and credit checked for a job. Obama wants to require mandatory military or para-military service from youths. I better be careful before I invoke Godwin's Law.
I, too, am rather amazed at how people would think you're nuts for not wanting the fingerprinting. Someone could disagree, sure, but to think you're a nutball for wanting to protect privacy is amazing. If you guys read some law enforcement officer forums or the like, you'll see how careful they are, and how understanding they are, of others' privacy. (The ones on the forums, anyway. Obviously, there's bad apples in every area of life.)
Take a common case of not showing your receipt to the greeter when walking out the door of Walmart or Best Buy and them getting all upset. If they didn't see you shoplift anything and basically just want to see the receipt, you cannot be detained by them. If they call the cops, you are free to leave before the cops get there. If you for some strange reason are still there when the cops arrive, you don't have to show the cop ID and you cannot be detained unless the store person thinks you shoplifted. Not showing a receipt is not a crime. Smart cops are Very careful about what they do in a situation like that. You cannot be detained without probable cause, and being forced to show ID is being detained.
Now, if you are pulled over while driving, as far as I know, that does require you to show ID since you were pulled over for breaking a speeding law or whatever else. But if you're just walking down the street, if there is no probable cause to stop you, the only person keeping you there talking to the cop is you. It's too bad some states see no problem with removing your rights by setting up "DUI checkpoints" and other wastes of time and money and freedom.
You know when a cop says, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," and then he starts asking you a lot of questions? ...why are you answering them? He just told you anything you say can be used against you. Now add some fingerprints or whatever else to that. There are plenty of innocent people who have been unjustly detained, tried, and even convicted. Perhaps you don't think of cops or government or whomever as your enemy, but they are your adversary. If some people are fine with giving up their privacy in whatever form, go ahead, but you should understand it is in your best interest not to.
A fingerprint to buy lunch? wtf is that, anyway? Doesn't the ID card have a magnetic strip on it that can be used as a debit card? The kids are supposedly supposed to carry the card all the time anyway, right?, so they'd have to forget the card AND actual money. And let's say they do... oh noes, missing lunch for one day and having to learn a big-boy lesson of, hey, carry a couple bucks on you in life if you think you'll ever get hungry. That's a good lesson to learn. What if they get hungry at the mall on a Saturday? There's no ID cards or fingerprinters for lunch there. (yet) How are we supposed to eat lunch now!?
It's amazing how often people are not forced to give up their rights -- yet they do so willingly.
How about Alex Hamilton's closing essay in the Federalist where he states that... It appears to me susceptible of absolute demonstration, that it will be far more easy to obtain subsequent than previous amendments to the Constitution. The moment an alteration is made in the present plan, it becomes, to the purpose of adoption, a new one, and must undergo a new decision of each State. To its complete establishment throughout the Union, it will therefore require the concurrence of thirteen States. If, on the contrary, the Constitution proposed should once be ratified by all the States as it stands, alterations in it may at any time be effected by nine States. Here, then, the chances are as thirteen to nine2 in favor of subsequent amendment, rather than of the original adoption of an entire system. This is not all. Every Constitution for the United States must inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars, in which thirteen independent States are to be accommodated in their interests or opinions of interest. We may of course expect to see, in any body of men charged with its original formation, very different combinations of the parts upon different points. Many of those who form a majority on one question, may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either may constitute the majority on a third. Hence the necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact; and hence, also, an immense multiplication of difficulties and casualties in obtaining the collective assent to a final act. The degree of that multiplication must evidently be in a ratio to the number of particulars and the number of parties. But every amendment to the Constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no necessity for management or compromise, in relation to any other point -- no giving nor taking. The will of the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue. And consequently, whenever nine, or rather ten States, were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly take place. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the first instance a complete Constitution. I can share with you an additional 27 facts that prove that it is...
This proves that it is not a living document, but must be CHANGED through amendment, which is a difficult process.
Sorry, that one fails.
EDIT: here is the discussion at wikipedia, and we can see it is far from a settled doctrine, and actually doesn't gets started until the 1920s.
Your attitude is one as if it was an obvious thng that everyone would know, as evidenced by your "I'm sure you know that..."
That displays once again you asserting a blatant falsehood. Things that are so contentious should not be treated as obvious facts. Obviously you were being deliberately misleading there.
Either way, nowhere in the constitution, whether you view it as living or static (or even if you view it as both), is there an implication that all US citzens can be forced to register wuth the government as children or that the government is allowed to keep databases of innocent citizens. That breaks original intent and all tradition within our history.
I like how you ask that I provide some evidence to support my assertion that the Consitution is a "living document"; which I had done. Thanks for the link a nice read, but I seldom quote wiki as a reliable source of information as any registered member may edit the sites content. Non-the-less it was informative, but does little to change my position that the Consitution was intended to change with the needs of our country and its people.
Your black and white thinking hurts... it truly does. It is through ammendment to the Consitution that our founding father's saw the Consitution being changed, hence my use of the phrase "living doucument", but again you prove that you are more concerned with hair spliting rather than any real discussion.
The intent behind my "i'm sure you know that..." was intended solely for you and was equally written sarcasticly given your self appointed expertise of the US Consitution. My bad I assumed that you would have picked up on that.
Either way, the government is not allowed to keep databases of innocent citzens?!? When you were born did your parents apply for a SS card for you? Your in a database. Do you have a drivers license? Your in a database. Do you have a public library card? Your in a database. Does your child attend public school? Guess what he is in a database. What the OP should have found out rather than appearing like a "big brother" fearing loon, my opinion based on his OP, and making a scene in front of his child was find out how this fingerprint would be used, where it would be stored and who would have access to it -
and if they do then they will probably know whats better for you and your family anyways.
Pure brainwashing there. It's sad when an individual believes the government knows what is best for you.
I belive what I wrote and you so aptly left the first half off was...
Reality check for all you paranoid folks out there I doubt our government or any other could give two figs about you or your kids so get off your high horses; and if they do then they will probably know whats better for you and your family anyways.
The latter part of that was intended to be highly sarcastic and demostrate that if you are, IMO, this ignorant in the first place then you may just be better off if they do. Not intended to be my endorsement or belief in the government running daily life of you and yours.
Toss a frog into a pot of boiling water and it'll jump out.
Toss a frog into a pot of cool water and slowly bring it to a boil, and well... you've got the future of America (and frog stew). Because I mean, the difference between a debit card and a micro chip implant isn't that huge, am I right?
Right?
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
Obviouslu what you need is an English course, to learn how analogies work, and a logic course, to understand what a straw man is. But then, we both already knew that.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Now I don't think it's necessarry to get your finger scanned when registering for school (in fact i've never heard of this happening before), it's not a huge deal.
Believe it or not, the government isn't out to get you, and we're not living in a sort of pre-1984. Not even close.
Toss a frog into a pot of boiling water and it'll jump out.
Toss a frog into a pot of cool water and slowly bring it to a boil, and well... you've got the future of America (and frog stew). Because I mean, the difference between a debit card and a micro chip implant isn't that huge, am I right?
Right?
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
Obviouslu what you need is an English course, to learn how analogies work, and a logic course, to understand what a straw man is. But then, we both already knew that.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Oh I missed this back whenever, glad for the necro in this case
You left out a crucial point in your weak use of the slippery slop accusation: context. Informally one may use a slippery slop if enoug context is evident in the discussion. Of course it is a fallacy, sctrictly speaking, but in context, and in politics, when such things as precedent hold sway, ir certainly works.
Implied in the discussion is "if things do not change," and the the slippery slope works. What has changed that prevents the slippery slope? People here in this very thread proved the point, they said, you already gave your freedom in X, why not Y?
Thus, the frog analogy works. No slippery slop fallacy is evident.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Believe it or not, the government isn't out to get you,
Of course it is. Many people in government would love to control your entire life if they could. It may not be obvious to some, but it's there. Taxes are used to control behavior, (raise taxes on things they don't like, lower taxes on things they want more of), Obama wants to require military service from every citizen, The non-federal Federal Reserve helps destroy your savings,
inflation pushes "low-income people" into higher tax brackets over time, eventually making "low-income tax brackets" worth less to those people despite them not having more buying power than they used to, you can't buy your own business and put up "No Cigarettes, No Service" signs to keep out non-smokers so they don't get mad at you, most states ignore The Fourth Amendment and can stop you at their whim to see if you're driving drunk or not (checkpoints), government wants to pass national healthcare plans that they don't have to take part in,
Congress doesn't follow other laws that everyone else has to follow, either, from hiring practices to buying stocks. Government took your grandchildrens' money to pay themselves and their buddies at AIG and Government Sachs, etc. (What happened to all the "toxic assets" that "we have to buy now or the world will end this week"? Oh yeah, they spent that money on other stuff, and the "toxic assets" are either still there or were never "toxic assets" in the first place.) They try to ban guns from law-abiding citizens so that only government and other criminals will have them.
The list goes on, and I'm sure someone could think of better examples than what I just hastily typed.
school IDs arent so bad. I think its to help make sure that the kid on campus is a student and not some idiot looking to make trouble. I needed an ID card in a public high school (last 2 years of my HS) but before that i didnt need it. I do agree though that the fingerprinting is really over the top. Hell IDs at that age are a bit over the top. But w.e. when i have kids and their school asks for fingerprints, i'll probably do exactly what you did.
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
Toss a frog into a pot of boiling water and it'll jump out.
Toss a frog into a pot of cool water and slowly bring it to a boil, and well... you've got the future of America (and frog stew). Because I mean, the difference between a debit card and a micro chip implant isn't that huge, am I right?
Right?
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
Obviouslu what you need is an English course, to learn how analogies work, and a logic course, to understand what a straw man is. But then, we both already knew that.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Oh I missed this back whenever, glad for the necro in this case
You left out a crucial point in your weak use of the slippery slop accusation: context. Informally one may use a slippery slop if enoug context is evident in the discussion. Of course it is a fallacy, sctrictly speaking, but in context, and in politics, when such things as precedent hold sway, ir certainly works.
Implied in the discussion is "if things do not change," and the the slippery slope works. What has changed that prevents the slippery slope? People here in this very thread proved the point, they said, you already gave your freedom in X, why not Y?
Thus, the frog analogy works. No slippery slop fallacy is evident.
I will concede that it the government said everyone needs to have an implanted micro chip in their head (frog in boiling water) it would go over like a lead balloon (frog jumps out of water). Now government put micro chips in debit cards, "eh, not a big deal" (frog in water, turn on heat) ...(this is what is missing the precedent that brings us to)... micro chip in your head (water boiling, frog cooked) .
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
I have not read anyone in this thread, at least none stand out and if I am wrong - which I hate to admit but I am occasionally - then please educate me thats why I read and partciapte in these discussions in the first place, that have drawn the connection between X and Y. I've read a lot about peoples fear of government control and the like, but that does not support the use of a Slippery Slope argument; again I think there is a lacking precedent.
Therefore, the frog analogy could work, but not at this time.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
argumentum ad logicam?
Oh! What a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
Yup if I was not questioning the lack of substantial examples that would support the argument and just dismissing the argument based on its apparent use of the slippery slope. However, as it stands it is fallacious and not logically sound. If clear examples are used to support the slippery slope I will be one of the first to concede that while still not logically sound in principle it can be contextually supported and used in debate.
If this challenge is a practice in deceit then I guess I am guilty as charged. Muhahaha!
Comments
The Patriot Act passed extremely easily (no one dare would have opposed it back then as a politician because that was "unamerican") and you saw no Townyellers screaming about facism, socialism, and the government taking "taking away rights" during that time because it was Bush and Cheney scaring people.
Now those same morons are yelling that because the healthcare that would benefit the majority of them is from Obama, NOW the country is headed to Stalinism, lol. They come up with these theories so often its hard to keep up with the next conspiracy. FEMA camps, death camps, microchips.
If these people weren't so deluded, it would be funny. But considering if they actually represent (what they claim) is a large segment of the population, I wouldn't think whereever you are from in the world that this would be so funny to you. These people were trying to get someone like Sarah Palin to be one step away from controlling the world's most dangerous military machine. A religious whacko.
Many of us were consistently against both. Hoever, if you have some figures to back up your claim that shows that MOST of the same people supporting the patriot act and are now against government monitoring of citizens, I'd like to see them.
fishermage.blogspot.com
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
"TO MICHAEL!"
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
fishermage.blogspot.com
No it has become the church of liberalism where socialist members of the local teacher's union preach the word to our children for twelve years straight. By the time they are released they are card carrying members of the socialist revolution ready to cast their vote against the founding fathers.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
"TO MICHAEL!"
No it has become the church of liberalism where socialist members of the local teacher's union preach the word to our children for twelve years straight. By the time they are released they are card carrying members of the socialist revolution ready to cast their vote against the founding fathers.
Freedom at it finest?
No it has become the church of liberalism where socialist members of the local teacher's union preach the word to our children for twelve years straight. By the time they are released they are card carrying members of the socialist revolution ready to cast their vote against the founding fathers.
Freedom at it finest?
eh'
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
Obviouslu what you need is an English course, to learn how analogies work, and a logic course, to understand what a straw man is. But then, we both already knew that.
fishermage.blogspot.com
No it has become the church of liberalism where socialist members of the local teacher's union preach the word to our children for twelve years straight. By the time they are released they are card carrying members of the socialist revolution ready to cast their vote against the founding fathers.
Freedom at it finest?
The first freedom we gave up was freedom in education when we handed it over to the State, and then the Federal Government. We can witness its failure right here on these boards. Look at the sad leftist conformity we see. Look at the inability to think through a chain of logic. It's so sad.
Four legs good, two legs bad.
fishermage.blogspot.com
People are already implanting chips into their kids. The government already wants to put RFID chips into national ID cards. You already can get background checked and credit checked for a job. Obama wants to require mandatory military or para-military service from youths. I better be careful before I invoke Godwin's Law.
I, too, am rather amazed at how people would think you're nuts for not wanting the fingerprinting. Someone could disagree, sure, but to think you're a nutball for wanting to protect privacy is amazing. If you guys read some law enforcement officer forums or the like, you'll see how careful they are, and how understanding they are, of others' privacy. (The ones on the forums, anyway. Obviously, there's bad apples in every area of life.)
Take a common case of not showing your receipt to the greeter when walking out the door of Walmart or Best Buy and them getting all upset. If they didn't see you shoplift anything and basically just want to see the receipt, you cannot be detained by them. If they call the cops, you are free to leave before the cops get there. If you for some strange reason are still there when the cops arrive, you don't have to show the cop ID and you cannot be detained unless the store person thinks you shoplifted. Not showing a receipt is not a crime. Smart cops are Very careful about what they do in a situation like that. You cannot be detained without probable cause, and being forced to show ID is being detained.
Now, if you are pulled over while driving, as far as I know, that does require you to show ID since you were pulled over for breaking a speeding law or whatever else. But if you're just walking down the street, if there is no probable cause to stop you, the only person keeping you there talking to the cop is you. It's too bad some states see no problem with removing your rights by setting up "DUI checkpoints" and other wastes of time and money and freedom.
You know when a cop says, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," and then he starts asking you a lot of questions? ...why are you answering them? He just told you anything you say can be used against you. Now add some fingerprints or whatever else to that. There are plenty of innocent people who have been unjustly detained, tried, and even convicted. Perhaps you don't think of cops or government or whomever as your enemy, but they are your adversary. If some people are fine with giving up their privacy in whatever form, go ahead, but you should understand it is in your best interest not to.
A fingerprint to buy lunch? wtf is that, anyway? Doesn't the ID card have a magnetic strip on it that can be used as a debit card? The kids are supposedly supposed to carry the card all the time anyway, right?, so they'd have to forget the card AND actual money. And let's say they do... oh noes, missing lunch for one day and having to learn a big-boy lesson of, hey, carry a couple bucks on you in life if you think you'll ever get hungry. That's a good lesson to learn. What if they get hungry at the mall on a Saturday? There's no ID cards or fingerprinters for lunch there. (yet) How are we supposed to eat lunch now!?
It's amazing how often people are not forced to give up their rights -- yet they do so willingly.
With our fingers?
This proves that it is not a living document, but must be CHANGED through amendment, which is a difficult process.
Sorry, that one fails.
EDIT: here is the discussion at wikipedia, and we can see it is far from a settled doctrine, and actually doesn't gets started until the 1920s.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
Your attitude is one as if it was an obvious thng that everyone would know, as evidenced by your "I'm sure you know that..."
That displays once again you asserting a blatant falsehood. Things that are so contentious should not be treated as obvious facts. Obviously you were being deliberately misleading there.
Either way, nowhere in the constitution, whether you view it as living or static (or even if you view it as both), is there an implication that all US citzens can be forced to register wuth the government as children or that the government is allowed to keep databases of innocent citizens. That breaks original intent and all tradition within our history.
I like how you ask that I provide some evidence to support my assertion that the Consitution is a "living document"; which I had done. Thanks for the link a nice read, but I seldom quote wiki as a reliable source of information as any registered member may edit the sites content. Non-the-less it was informative, but does little to change my position that the Consitution was intended to change with the needs of our country and its people.
Your black and white thinking hurts... it truly does. It is through ammendment to the Consitution that our founding father's saw the Consitution being changed, hence my use of the phrase "living doucument", but again you prove that you are more concerned with hair spliting rather than any real discussion.
The intent behind my "i'm sure you know that..." was intended solely for you and was equally written sarcasticly given your self appointed expertise of the US Consitution. My bad I assumed that you would have picked up on that.
Either way, the government is not allowed to keep databases of innocent citzens?!? When you were born did your parents apply for a SS card for you? Your in a database. Do you have a drivers license? Your in a database. Do you have a public library card? Your in a database. Does your child attend public school? Guess what he is in a database. What the OP should have found out rather than appearing like a "big brother" fearing loon, my opinion based on his OP, and making a scene in front of his child was find out how this fingerprint would be used, where it would be stored and who would have access to it -
Pure brainwashing there. It's sad when an individual believes the government knows what is best for you.
I belive what I wrote and you so aptly left the first half off was...
Reality check for all you paranoid folks out there I doubt our government or any other could give two figs about you or your kids so get off your high horses; and if they do then they will probably know whats better for you and your family anyways.
The latter part of that was intended to be highly sarcastic and demostrate that if you are, IMO, this ignorant in the first place then you may just be better off if they do. Not intended to be my endorsement or belief in the government running daily life of you and yours.
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
Obviouslu what you need is an English course, to learn how analogies work, and a logic course, to understand what a straw man is. But then, we both already knew that.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
?
Yes, exactly. It's just school. So why treat him like he's being booked for a felony?
Exactly
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
It's a fingerprint, calm down.
Now I don't think it's necessarry to get your finger scanned when registering for school (in fact i've never heard of this happening before), it's not a huge deal.
Believe it or not, the government isn't out to get you, and we're not living in a sort of pre-1984. Not even close.
People over-react way too much.
Dark side FTW (i didn't even read the post ....)
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
Obviouslu what you need is an English course, to learn how analogies work, and a logic course, to understand what a straw man is. But then, we both already knew that.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Oh I missed this back whenever, glad for the necro in this case
You left out a crucial point in your weak use of the slippery slop accusation: context. Informally one may use a slippery slop if enoug context is evident in the discussion. Of course it is a fallacy, sctrictly speaking, but in context, and in politics, when such things as precedent hold sway, ir certainly works.
Implied in the discussion is "if things do not change," and the the slippery slope works. What has changed that prevents the slippery slope? People here in this very thread proved the point, they said, you already gave your freedom in X, why not Y?
Thus, the frog analogy works. No slippery slop fallacy is evident.
fishermage.blogspot.com
argumentum ad logicam?
Oh! What a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
argumentum ad logicam?
Oh! What a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
/chuckles
fishermage.blogspot.com
Of course it is. Many people in government would love to control your entire life if they could. It may not be obvious to some, but it's there. Taxes are used to control behavior, (raise taxes on things they don't like, lower taxes on things they want more of), Obama wants to require military service from every citizen, The non-federal Federal Reserve helps destroy your savings,
inflation pushes "low-income people" into higher tax brackets over time, eventually making "low-income tax brackets" worth less to those people despite them not having more buying power than they used to, you can't buy your own business and put up "No Cigarettes, No Service" signs to keep out non-smokers so they don't get mad at you, most states ignore The Fourth Amendment and can stop you at their whim to see if you're driving drunk or not (checkpoints), government wants to pass national healthcare plans that they don't have to take part in,
Congress doesn't follow other laws that everyone else has to follow, either, from hiring practices to buying stocks. Government took your grandchildrens' money to pay themselves and their buddies at AIG and Government Sachs, etc. (What happened to all the "toxic assets" that "we have to buy now or the world will end this week"? Oh yeah, they spent that money on other stuff, and the "toxic assets" are either still there or were never "toxic assets" in the first place.) They try to ban guns from law-abiding citizens so that only government and other criminals will have them.
The list goes on, and I'm sure someone could think of better examples than what I just hastily typed.
school IDs arent so bad. I think its to help make sure that the kid on campus is a student and not some idiot looking to make trouble. I needed an ID card in a public high school (last 2 years of my HS) but before that i didnt need it. I do agree though that the fingerprinting is really over the top. Hell IDs at that age are a bit over the top. But w.e. when i have kids and their school asks for fingerprints, i'll probably do exactly what you did.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
No, you're not right. Frogs are not people and your analogy fails because of that main difference.
A frog might accept a microchip based on this logic I guess, since it doesn't have a reasoning process and has "thicker skin" than humans, but humans will think long and hard before going to that next level you are talking about.
Actually, the analogy is pretty good because the fact that frogs are not humans is not a significant difference in the context of how the analogy was drawn. People in this thread have said, you already gave up your rights when you accepted X, NOW you are complaining? That is exactly the same thing as slowly turning up the heat on the frog.
Nope.
Frogs are not people and just because you use an analogy, doesn't make that so or them connected in any way regarding choice. Frogs don't have a choice; they react on instinct. When the frog doesn't jump out of the pot it's because its instinct doesn't recognize physical danger.
People facing whether to choose a fingerprint or not are not in physical danger. It's just a fingerprint, lol. Humans don't operate on "instinct" either. Everything we do is off of some learned behavior, that leads us to other decisions of choice.
I mean, you might as well compare people to rocks. See, because mountains are tough because they are made of rock, and very few things like facts penetrate them. And the Townyellers are kind of thickheaded like rocks because no facts can get through to them. So the townyellers are pretty much like rocks. Or people are like planets and the government is like the sun; because everything in our country runs off of laws which determine our actions. So the government has "pull" on us like the sun has on planets because everything revolves around laws and the constitution. So, people are just like planets.
See how silly a comparison is between people and things not human? Humans should be compared with other humans, not frogs, rocks, frisbees, fish, or space objects when trying to prove a point.
Biology course basic life form animals/experiments and what those test animals do have nothing to do with choosing humans choosing fingerprints or not.
I'm surprised that you of all people don't recognize a strawman when you see one.
Obviouslu what you need is an English course, to learn how analogies work, and a logic course, to understand what a straw man is. But then, we both already knew that.
Unfortunately, it is Fish and Streea that need and course on logic as Steeas'. Even though his analogy would appear sound and logical it is based on flawed logic, or the logical fallacy of the "slippery slope". The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Oh I missed this back whenever, glad for the necro in this case
You left out a crucial point in your weak use of the slippery slop accusation: context. Informally one may use a slippery slop if enoug context is evident in the discussion. Of course it is a fallacy, sctrictly speaking, but in context, and in politics, when such things as precedent hold sway, ir certainly works.
Implied in the discussion is "if things do not change," and the the slippery slope works. What has changed that prevents the slippery slope? People here in this very thread proved the point, they said, you already gave your freedom in X, why not Y?
Thus, the frog analogy works. No slippery slop fallacy is evident.
I will concede that it the government said everyone needs to have an implanted micro chip in their head (frog in boiling water) it would go over like a lead balloon (frog jumps out of water). Now government put micro chips in debit cards, "eh, not a big deal" (frog in water, turn on heat) ...(this is what is missing the precedent that brings us to)... micro chip in your head (water boiling, frog cooked) .
Please by all means lets lay out some precedent to support the claim; the simple use of an analogy is not enough. I see a vast difference between putting a micro chip in a credit/debit card, which I do not have to own, to implanting micro chips in humans presumably against their will. In order for there to be a reasonible use of this sort of argument it needs to be given substance which this current debate does not maintain.
I have not read anyone in this thread, at least none stand out and if I am wrong - which I hate to admit but I am occasionally - then please educate me thats why I read and partciapte in these discussions in the first place, that have drawn the connection between X and Y. I've read a lot about peoples fear of government control and the like, but that does not support the use of a Slippery Slope argument; again I think there is a lacking precedent.
Therefore, the frog analogy could work, but not at this time.
argumentum ad logicam?
Oh! What a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
Yup if I was not questioning the lack of substantial examples that would support the argument and just dismissing the argument based on its apparent use of the slippery slope. However, as it stands it is fallacious and not logically sound. If clear examples are used to support the slippery slope I will be one of the first to concede that while still not logically sound in principle it can be contextually supported and used in debate.
If this challenge is a practice in deceit then I guess I am guilty as charged. Muhahaha!