You just keep cherry picking. I linked you with an arrest link (which requires a charge - detainment doesn't), and now you ask me for this. It's pointless and futile to argue with you. Bye. Anyone...

"Oh my god with the semantics.

Go back to hypothesizing."


Detainment and arrest have very different legal definitions. Detainment doesn't require a charge. Arrest, however, DOES.

Learn the difference between detainment and arrest. Those are different concepts.

You can't make evidenced claims if the hypothesis hasn't been tested. You can only form a hypothesis, and either test it or not. And from what I know, you're a libertarian. This forum got ran over by...

No, you can't. You can get detained, but not arrested. The police then bring information to the prosecutors, who then decide whether to charge. If the prosecutor declines to charge, the police...

You can't arrest someone without charging them in the US. The detention of a suspect is detention, not arrest.

You resorted to personal attacks despite your argument being refuted. I've reported you.

Lol, you serious?

OKLAHOMA CITY -

Officials arrested an Oklahoma City Public Schools' employee for allegedly knowing about a child being sexually abused but not reporting it.

His argument got refuted and he resorts to personal attacks. How mature. Reported by the way.

21st June 2012



Here you go:
...

This is still punishing people for not reporting a crime.

No, it's still punishing for not reporting crimes.

This doesn't only apply to doctors to begin with, and this is a partial enforcement of what I've stated.

21st June 2012



Yes, of course it would apply to mandatory reporters once they've...

Please learn what the scientific method is before entering a debate.

Except it's already partially implemented in the US:

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/report.cfm

"Anyone who has ever studied law knows that there is a certain point at which a crackdown becomes so severe that it causes more crimes than it prevents. "

Exactly. And this is why I stated if it...

Never said it would make money at all. Only said that it would probably pay off a significant portion of the costs. Straw man once again.

21st June 2012




So by that logic, we shouldn't...

"You think this Orwellian bullshit isn't going to piss people off?"

Nope. It most likely wouldn't. You've pasted some irrelevant shit pictures.

By solving more cases from the reports. If the number of murders due to this kind of reports would be less than the number of reduced murder, then such a system would be implemented for the long...

I think a significant portion would most likely be paid off with the fines. And on top of that, I doubt the gain would be minuscule in terms of the crimes solved.

I hope you realize how delusional the shit you've said sounds.

"and nobody will ever kill each other over that?"

I believe the number killed because of that would be more than compensated by the prevented murders due to the reported crimes. But then again,...

In nearly all justice systems, the main firepower is reserved for the lead offender in a crime; however, those who help that person escape punishment by concealing facts are not forgotten. Under the...

"Except you have no god damn evidence because nobody is cooperating with you."

Don't see why that would happen at all. The same legal processes as now would be used.

"You turn the entire...

"That you can just write them up as a criminal if they so much as wait five minutes to tell you, or if they want to get their families somewhere safe before they piss off a gang?"

Because, as I...

"and the only way you can prove that they did was by obtaining more evidence from someone else"

Here's the fallacy. After reporting, the crime scene would be tested normally, just like in a normal...

"And what happens when everyone stops talking to the police for fear of being punished?"

Please re-state that. I don't even understand what you're talking about.

21st June 2012



But no...

"But your entire investigation would be based upon a false testimony, therefore your investigation would reflect the false testimony and not the truth."

That could also be said about every single...

By gathering more evidence and seeing if their testimony is in accordance with all the evidence up to date. If the probability of their testimony being deliberately wrong is more than 98%, they would...

Yes, you're not going to jump into another rabbit hole of you using straw man fallacies. That's very good.

Because you've used them:





You effectively misrepresented my position, and...

You discover them by compiling a list of witnesses for a discovered crime, and then fining them. One would only be excused from reporting when one's testimony clearly gives out their identity.

"That's cool. You missed this part!"

Now you're just trying to play it off.

Here's my hypothesis: Fining people who don't report crimes, as well as dealing with these crimes in a sustainable manner after they've been discovered, will lead to a lower crime rate.

"Do you even know what a strawman is?"

Yep. What you've just done. You misrepresented my position and stated another one instead - one which I don't support.

Yep.

21st June 2012



No? Against my hypothesis.

21st June 2012

Testing it requires implementing it. I've already stated it before.

Where's your evidence up to date? Emotional bias? This not going according to your values?

"A hypothesis is inadmissible prior to testing.

There is no teapot in orbit of Mars. Until evidence is presented to the contrary, the Russel's Teapot Hypothesis is wrong.

Simply because you can...

Yep. Neither has any other hypothesis prior to it being tested. Neither did all the credible theories up to date.

One can't know if a hypothesis is possible without first testing it. And it's "formulate", not "formalute".

No, they don't have any relevant facts - this hypothesis hasn't been tested.

Yet another person with no understanding of the scientific method.

I've only presented a hypothesis. A hypothesis to be tested. I don't claim that there's any evidence to back it up, and openly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k

"It's barely democratic at all."

The US level is only used as a reference point, regardless whether its level is high or not. And on top of that, the US is arguably democratic, due to the fact...

Lol, OK. Except the 'made up shit' is called a hypothesis (and I openly stated it was), and it is to be tested.

The conclusion didn't precede the test, so no.

21st June 2012



Please read my post.

It clearly states:

"I'm sorry but the US isn't either of those. It's a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected representatives."

A democracy level doesn't imply a democratic form of government. The...

"Since you like to tell people how much you like the scientific method - There is not a single variable in your hypothetical equation that adds up. In fact, there are several sources that directly...

Not believing in it, only believing that it should be tested.


"And if that counted as evidence you'd be well-to-do in this discussion!

Sadly, it doesn't :("

Where's your evidence for...