The system could easily be corrupted. The police could make up charges and easily plant evidence. Our personal freedoms are not worth temporary safety and probable corruption. Ben Franklin said that someone who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If they're corrupt enough to make up charges and plant evidence, then they're corrupt enough to lie to get a warrant. It's not like a warrant magically keeps them from being corrupt.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It creates a system that makes corruption harder.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's not true.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Your face isn't true but you don't see me saying that without any reasons to back it up.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Is that supposed to be a comeback?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Is your comment supposed to be a comeback? Because it's the fourth quater and you're still losing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I fail to see how you could possibly think that someone saying "that's not true" to a false statement could possibly be seen as an attempted comeback.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I fail to see how you fail to see my criticism of your statements. I don't know how you could possibly think that someone making fun of someone else's comments for having no logical backing or evidence is not a comeback.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Please explain which logical fallacy I am committing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You said that is not true. No reason why, no asking to clarify why I think that search warrants make corruption harder. Then I made fun of you by making a general statement and purposely saying I wasn't going to back it up. And then you continued to make general statements without anything backing them up. Now, I believe that search warrants make corruption harder because they leave a paper trail and make it necessary that people give reasons as to why they are looking into a house. If someone else were to look over the search warrants they could more easily see anything fishy going on. Requiring the police to get search warrants creates a system in which it is easier to detect abuse through paper evidence. If the warrants don't add up...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Again, I ask: what logical fallacy have I committed? You accused me of not being logical, and you need to back up what you've said.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I am. I am giving you reasons. You're just saying statements, that are quite honestly opinions, and not giving any reasons: why using search warrants doesn't make corruption harder, etc. You just say things like: that's not true. That's not a comeback. You need to back up what you've said. But you aren't saying anything beyond that. You are being illogical if you're just going to keep saying how am I being illogical even when I explain why.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And I ask you again: what is illogical about that? What fallacy have I committed? Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's illogical. If you're going to say something isn't logical you have to be able to explain why. So tell me what fallacy has been committed. Which of the rules of logic have I broken? There is a big difference between "you've made a logic error" and "I don't agree with you."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"If you're going to say something isn't logical you have to be able to explain why." If you are going to say something isn't true, you also have to be able to explain why. Otherwise, do not expect the person you are debating with to explain their reasoning.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Again, I ask someone to explain what isn't logical about what I said. What rule of logic am I breaking? I maintain that you can't claim something is "illogical" simply because you don't agree with it, and doing so makes you sound quite ignorant. You can try to point the finger at me and use a "tu quoque" argument as you are doing (which IS a logical fallacy), but my point stands.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I never said you said something illogical. That was the other person. I said you can't say something isn't true without backing up why and then expect other people to explain their reasoning.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're not involved in this argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But that is the beautiful thing about the internet, I can include my opinion if I so wish.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That doesn't mean that anyone cares what it is.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't care if anyone else cares what my opinion is. If you don't like other people expressing their opinions, then why are you on a site where the purpose is to express your opinion? I am feeling quite a bit of hostility from you. Honestly I don't care, you could stop responding at any time and I would drop it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

tl;dr

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Your immaturity is rather cute =]

by Anonymous 13 years ago

**You** **have** **no** **evidence** to back up your so called "logic". It's been said more than once and you're still sitting here asking the same question. Read thoroughly **BEFORE** replying. I bet you'll still be asking why your "logic" is still being called an opinion even after I've explained and dumbed it down for you...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

OK, dumb it down for me. Tell me what logical fallacy I'm committing. And I'm not talking about a sentence saying why what I'm saying doesn't make sense. I'm asking specifically what rule of logic have I broken?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Are you stupid? She's given you paragraphs of evidence as to why she thinks your wrong, and all you're doing is repeating your question and pretending that you've actually given any valid explanations. Stop asking her to "back up what you said"; she's already done so in at least four different comments, and yet you've yet to do any "backing up" yourself.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm simply asking what rule of LOGIC I'm breaking. I haven't broken any of the rules of logic.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Courtney said that the use of search warrants decreases the probability of corruption because you need to state a legitimate reason to get one, and then there is physical evidence which people can look over and try to find anything suspicious. She has given her reasons for believing that. According to logic, she is right until you prove her wrong. If neither of you can prove each other wrong, you may just pass it off as a matter of opinion. However, simply ignoring her arguments and insisting you are right without any arguments or reasons is a logic error.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Please explain the rule of logic that states she's "right until proven wrong" and please give the name of the logic fallacy I am committing by insisting that I am right.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It simply means that she's right until proven wrong. Is it really that difficult to comprehend? It is the same idea as "innocent until proven guilty". You've yet to prove her wrong, but she's already proved YOU wrong. I don't see you giving any valid arguements. And as for your second question: the logic that says that you can't be proven right without evidence. You're insisting that you're right, but you've failed to provide any sort of evidence to support your claim. Are you going to stop asking that question now? Have we repeated it enough times for you?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So you'd be totally fine if the police randomly decided that they were going to search your room, and they found your stash of gay porn? Or other items you'd like to keep to yourself?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

God dammit spenser, I was going to make a comment about gay porn!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Hmm I wonder why that idea popped into your head...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Gay porn is not illegal. If someone had a stash of it, what would the police do about it? Nothing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It world still be embarrassing. You wouldn't mind if the police searched your home and found gay porn? Assuming you're not gay?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Would*

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There's nothing illegal about it so there's nothing they would be able to do to you about it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's still fuckin embarrassing and you would not want it to be seen by others..

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Then keep it well hidden. It's not like the police would randomly search you anyways unless they had a good reason to. They're too busy

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Without a search warrant, who knows? They're to busy to take the time to get a search warrant just to search your house randomly, but without it they might just turn bad and steal all your stuff. There are fucked up people in this world.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It is illegal if you're under 18.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ok, next time the police bust down your door to search you just for the hell of it, I don't want to hear you complain.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Now you're just trying to be ridiculous to make your stance look better. I didn't say anything about busting down doors.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You said that people should be searched without probable cause, and I'm the one being ridiculous?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Show me where I said people should be searched without probable cause. I said without WARRANTS. Making things up and then saying that other people said them doesn't lend a lot of credibility to your argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not needing a warrant gives them the right to search someone without probable cause. That is the whole reason warrants are needed in the first place, to protect our right to privacy. If warrants were not used, any officer could go into anyone's house they wanted to in order to search them, even if there was no evidence that they had something to hide. Posting anonymously doesn't lend credibility to your argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You can't be searched without either consenting or having a warrant. Just because they have probable cause isn't enough. Ad hominem arguments don't lend credibility to your argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If warrants were not used, you wouldn't have to consent. They could search you anyway.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I was talking about the status quo. You need to either submit, or they have to have a warrant.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My point is, an officer should not be able to search my house without a warrant simply because they want to if I don't want them to. Doesn't mean I have something to hide, is just means I don't feel like having some stranger rummaging through my stuff.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you really think they would do that if they didn't have a reason to? And what would you be worried about if you didn't have anything to hide?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, I do think that. That is why warrants were invented in the first place. Again, just because I don't want some stranger going through my stuff doesn't mean I have something to hide.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

OK, what if I do have stuff to hide, like my money, my laptop, my phone, my video games, and my flat scren TVs? They're just sitting there in plain sight. Any police could break into my house, take all my stuff in a bag, hide the bag, and say they didn't find anything. That would be harder to do if they needed a warrant.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Can't tell if trolling, or just very stupid. We don't live in a perfect world; if we did, we wouldn't need police searching homes in the first place. Corruption is not a myth, anything could happen.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not about having something illegal to hide, it's about not wanting your personal privacy exposed. It's also about not wanting the police to come and rip your house apart (they can search inside walls if they have a warrant, but in your scenario they don't need one, so they could literally rip open your walls), and they don't clean it up. If you're gay, and you have gay porn (as previously exampled), and you're not openly gay, having that exposed is basically outting you without being ready. That's not fair and you have the right to keep that private if you want. Also, say a cop has a neighbour and he simply doesn't like this neighbour. He could keep having this guys house investigated simply to cause problems and in hopes of finding something illegal just because of a grudge. Most cops aren't like this, but there are corrupt people in all professions. The use of warrants would prevent needless harassment.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

okay, first of all, there is a reason why the legal system of many nations have established warrants; because they make sense, and contain alot of legal security, as well as protecting human rights. a warrant (in most cases, bar fabricated warrants) prevents injustices occuring, as well as false evidence to be planted within properties and persons. a warrant also prevents "he said she said" in the majority of cases, as a document allowing the search of ones property is legally attained. Also, it would be a general disturbance to the lives of many innocent people if police came raiding and searching their property without any legal justification. A warrant filters this disruption, only searching a person's property if there is reasonable suspicion of illegality. i rest my case.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i, personally, would not want the police to walk into my apartment and say, "we decided to do a random search of your place." i have nothing to hide, nothing I would be ashamed of and most definitely no gay porn. Or normal porn for that matter. It's still a major inconvenience following these guys around answering questions about all my crap.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Hey, I was the anon dude who was trolling you guys and I just want to say that I'm done trolling on this post because I realized how retarded I sounded.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

This is the best troll I've seen in a while. So much butthurt, it's amazing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If you say "fallacy" one more time....

by Anonymous 13 years ago