I'm almost 50 and I've seen this pattern many times now.

Once the fallacy of composition starts becoming common in a forum, it is the beginning of the end for good discourse.

Oh really?

I dare you to say with a straight face that opinions questioning the legal doctrine or legitimacy of civil regulation are anything other than an occasional rounding errors when the subject is any sort of regulation that people here generally likes.

It is not at all a stretch to say this HN believes strongly that administrative/civil law as it mostly currently stands is highly legitimate.

Of course, backpedaling and hair splitting ensues and the "doesn't represent us all" excuse flies when someone points out that those legal doctrines and, precedents are also empowering ICE. At some point you're responsible for who you associate with.

▲

lukan 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Have you ever read the guidelines around here?

▲

potato3732842 5 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, I have. So you're conceding my point then? Because why else would you drag the conversation towards "you're making your point with poor manners"?

	▲	lukan 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		In the guidelines there is an emphasis on curious debate. Also about political things, but those tend to be more controversial, so are avoided by default. Do you understand that point? Political debate is discouraged here by design. So the reason you won't find so much about this concrete ICE issue is simply that this type of debate is not welcome in general and does not say anything about "HN" communities position. Second thing is, there is no such thing as "HN mind". You can extrapolate some averages, but .. I for example ain't even from the US. "opinions questioning the legal doctrine or legitimacy of civil regulation are anything other than an occasional rounding errors when the subject is any sort of regulation" And from radical anarcho anarchists to radical communists, I have read all sorts of opinions here. Lastly, the guidelines strongly advice against debating in a "engaged mind". Meaning, you sound a bit emotional and aggressive. I perceive that as attacking .. and my default mode would answer in a different way and we would be in a flamewar situation. (Despite we likely agree on the political side of things here)

▲

joquarky 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Here's some wisdom for you:

"The world is what you make of it" can be interpreted multiple ways.