Heckle said:
like I said, make up your mind
either its covered already or not
if you just want the word drone added to trespassing, i pretty much said that already
either way youre still over-reacting
and what youre doing in this thread with the constant contradicting yourself is just sad
cognitive dissonance...
No I am of the firm belief (opinion) that laws need to be specific and not broad generalizations, left to vague interpretation, or have the ability to be twisted to support an illegal activity. The fact is, without interpretation and inference, the law does not expressly state that "remote control devices used to cross property boundaries is considered trespassing".
My logical legal argument, against was defined by: All of the current legal precedents, and interpretation of current laws supporting my stance.
Your logical stance is: Your opinion differs from the legal interpretation you have provided. Therefore, you have committed cognitive dissonance.
You have perceived a want of mine, and the facts to be intertwined and they are not. You have inferred that I believe the law is adequate currently, and you have failed to provide counter logical legal arguments outside of attempting to disprove my logic (deflection).
My opinion which differs from my logical standpoint: I believe the law is currently inadequate and you shouldn't have to reference 3 laws, statues, previous precedents and ordinances to come to a conclusion as to whether something is legal or not. -
That is a broken system that allows for government and authority abuse. The law should be concise and exact...not a series of investigations from which the average person cannot fathom or pull their own conclusion. That is a system meant to manipulate its people and undermine the civil liberties laws were meant to protect. I'll stop there because now I am getting into legal theory of civil liberties, infringement, and systems of control.
You are using cognitive dissonance in the wrong context. Inconsistent thoughts, yes. Do they contradict? No.
My opinion and logical standpoint are two very different things that are mutually exclusive. Which then breaks the "definition mold" of cognitive dissonance. My opinion of what the law should be and what is are mutually exclusive. You are taking comments from a response that included an opinion to argue against a list of legal facts I presented in a different context in a completely separate portion of conversation (a logical legal argument about interpretation).
But if you really want to go that route on a routine basis your arguments consist of: Strawman, tu quoque, false cause, ad hominem, composition/division, sharpshooter and conjunction.
The logical fallacy I've committed: Burden of proof. - But I could argue that having to substantiate a claim on the internet isn't a formal debate platform and the information to disprove or prove is readily available. So a need to "produce evidence" for me is minimal because you are not locked out of obtaining additional information for your counter argument. - One reason that fallacy exists, and it is a rationalization from me to avoid doing more work that I don't believe is necessary when you are not contributing meaningful counter-dialogue.
I'm done with this thread until a response with a legal, logical response is presented refutes the points I have made here. I am not going to continue with arguing ideology and defending opinions.
Thank for you for the conversation and debate you have offered so far.
