The only thing I can imagine that would work as a "test" here is thinking about whether the principle really matches one's feelings/intuitions. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? — Terrapin Station

So then you do allow for a methodology which permits all kinds of nonsense, like the example I gave? And... you don't see that as problematic?

Consider that you find yourself amongst a crowd of protesters. You're not one, but are detained anyway for interrogation, simply due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time - coming home from school.

This has happened. Where is the crime?

Where has it happened? That is an arbitrary arrest with no proper due process, which flies in the face of human rights laws throughout the world. If the person wasn’t immediately released he has grounds to sue.

It happened 20 years ago, and no, we didn't and still don't have grounds to sue.
If me or my friend did sue it would be ruled off as frivolous.

It happened 20 years ago, and no, we didn't and still don't have grounds to sue.
If me or my friend did sue it would be ruled off as frivolous.

You’d be surprised.

.How much first hand experience with the judicial system do you have?

How much first hand experience with the judicial system do you have? — Shamshir

He clearly doesn't even understand the basics, or so he'd have us believe. Talk about black-and-white thinking. It's either arbitrary arrest or you commited a crime? Lol. The funny thing is, he actually cited the UK government website, which states: "To arrest you the police need reasonable grounds to suspect you’re involved in a crime for which your arrest is necessary", which neither implies that you've commited a crime, nor arbitrary arrest.

How much first hand experience with the judicial system do you have?

Why?

Because the judicial system doesn't support your claim. Neither the article, nor my experience with law enforcement support your claim.

What has you so convinced in your theory?

Theory? Probable cause, or any derivative thereof, is a matter of law and human rights. It’s a part of due process. Please, show me the law that says one can be arrested without committing a crime.

Please, show me the law that says one can be arrested without committing a crime. — NOS4A2

It's logically implied in what you cited earlier.

Should be easy to find a law or something that states you don’t have to have committed a crime to be arrested. Hell, it’s how law enforcement works everywhere.

Should be easy to find a law or something that states you don’t have to have committed a crime to be arrested. Hell, it’s how law enforcement works everywhere. — NOS4A2

It doesn't need to be explicitly stated in those exact words when it's so obviously implied, in the logical sense, that even a halfwit could figure it out without much trouble.

Halfwits believe one can be arrested without having committed a crime. Halfwits and authoritarians believe in arbitrary arrest.

There's a 'probable' in probable cause.

"A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true"."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

That means you don't have to have committed a crime to be arrested. All that is necessary is that a law enforcement official has a reasonable belief that you have.

If you don't understand this, we could be forgiven for assuming you have a serious comprehension disability or are trolling. Please help us not to think that.

Halfwits believe one can be arrested without having committed a crime. Halfwits and authoritarians believe in arbitrary arrest. — NOS4A2

Okay, but are you full yet? Or still a bit peckish?

And when are you going to create that discussion about the idea that music can invoke feelings being wizardry? I've been waiting in anticipation.

There's a 'probable' in probable cause.

"A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true"."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

That means you don't have to have committed a crime to be arrested. All that is necessary is that a law enforcement official has a reasonable belief that you have.

If you don't understand this, we could be forgiven for assuming you have a serious comprehension disability or are trolling. Please help us not to think that.

The entire point of due process is to avoid arbitrary arrest. No, you cannot arrest people if they haven’t committed a crime, and if you mistakenly and unjustly arrest an innocent person, you let them go. You guys are resorting the the strangest sophistry to defend an authoritarian point. Assume all you want.

Probable cause clearly states that the detained is suspected of criminal activity, not that he has committed any.

Airport security checks function this way.
Ever been detained and searched at an airport?

Probable cause clearly states that the detained is suspected of criminal activity, not that he has committed any.

Airport security checks function this way.

Alright, I concede. The authorities can arrest innocent people, and in fact every law enforcement agency throughout the world does so.

Thanks.

So then you do allow for a methodology which permits all kinds of nonsense, like the example I gave? And... you don't see that as problematic? — S

What's the other option?

What's the other option? — Terrapin Station

A methodology which doesn't permit all kinds of nonsense.

Where did this occur? I’m always interested to see which coddled population requires a Nancy-state to tell them what they can and cannot say or read. — NOS4A2

It happened in Germany.

In a country that punishes insult and disparagement of the president, I suppose that’s to be suspected.

I mean “legitimate” as in “according to a standard”. According to the standard of what we call an opinion the sentence “Homosexuals are inferior human beings” is an actual opinion whereas the sentence “Homosexuals are effing bastards” is not. The latter sentence is meaningless, it doesn’t express any real opinion about anything. It is empty abuse and as such there is no need to protect it as an instant of freedom of speech. The first sentence is a legitimate opinion inasmuch as it is an actual opinion. However much I disagree with it and find it disgusting I must consent that a person should have the right to voice such a view.

And they do have that right, just not without consequence, at least if you're in a country with decent laws.

A methodology which doesn't permit all kinds of nonsense. — S

i don't suppose I'm going to be able to get details on that.

I don't suppose I'm going to be able to get details on that. — Terrapin Station

Well, what do you think? You presumably acknowledge the problem with a methodology which allows for all kinds of nonsense, which would be a consequence of looking for the answers to these kinds of questions simply through someone appealing only inwards to their own feelings or intuitions, because that in itself wouldn't rule out all of the nonsense. So whatever it is that leads everyone to the right answers, that would be a better methodology. That way, the nonsense can be ruled out. We could just disregard any nonsense conclusions stemming from misguided feeling or intuition and focus instead on the conclusions which make sense, the ones which have actually been thought through properly.

I don't know if you misread my response above. I said that the only thing that I can imagine as a "test" is thinking about whether the principle really matches one's feelings/intuitions.

So, in other words, thinking, "Do I really feel, or are my intuitions really that we should have no crimes that are words starting with the letter 'M'." And then if the answer is "Yes," it has passed the test.

I'm not sure you realize that I really, really do not believe that there are any "correct" stances when it comes to morality.

There are stances that are nothing like my own, and of course I'd prefer that my own were common, were made law, etc., but that doesn't make mine correct or anyone else's incorrect.

I don't know if you misread my response above. I said that the only thing that I can imagine as a "test" is thinking about whether the principle really matches one's feelings/intuitions.

So, in other words, thinking, "Do I really feel, or are my intuitions really, that we should have no crimes that are words starting with the letter 'M'." And then if the answer is "Yes," it has passed the test. — Terrapin Station

Then we've easily confirmed what your problem is. You have a faulty test. It might well pass your test, but your test itself is wrong. That's obvious from the sort of content which it passes.

You're not really a subjectivist on this stuff, then. That you have the stance you do isn't the same as saying that your stance is correct and alternates are incorrect in general.