Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the you're-kidding,-right? dept.

Los Angeles City Council is considering sending "Dear John" letters to the registrants of cars seen in an area of San Fernando described as having a "thriving street prostitution problem". The plan would use automated license plate readers to identify vehicles that stopped in the area. Council member Nury Martinez claims "If you aren't soliciting, you have no reason to worry about finding one of these letters in your mailbox. But if you are, these letters will discourage you from returning."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/12/01/the-age-of-pre-crime-has-arrived/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @02:00AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @02:00AM (#271108)

    That's a false dichotomy.

    No, it's not. I simply called it broad. That's not a false dichotomy. I did not specify the exact degree to which it is broad, and nor did I say that "broad" and "not broad" were the only two things that exist.

    It isn't a case of "broad" versus "not broad" it is a case of "broad" versus "anything under the sun."

    The actual definition is pretty vague and closer to the latter, sadly. I didn't come up with it. That's why I generally don't even bother using such terms unless someone else brings them up.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @03:15AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @03:15AM (#271151)

    No, it's not. I simply called it broad. That's not a false dichotomy. I did not specify the exact degree to which it is broad, and nor did I say that "broad" and "not broad" were the only two things that exist.

    Jesus christ. For someone complaining about literalism, you are way too fucking literal.

    You offered that up as an excuse as to why your meaninglessly broad definition was acceptable. The "I didn't literally say that" excuse is simple denialism.

    The actual definition is pretty vague and closer to the latter, sadly.

    So, lets think this through. You are complaining that I used a word with a definition that is so broad as to have no essentially meaning. And that's meaningful to you?

    Fucking dictionary pedants. Context dude.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:00AM (#271200)

      You offered that up as an excuse as to why your meaninglessly broad definition was acceptable. The "I didn't literally say that" excuse is simple denialism.

      It's not denialism; it's just that you accused me of doing something I wasn't doing. I communicated my point by saying it's broad, and you somehow got from that

      So, lets think this through. You are complaining that I used a word with a definition that is so broad as to have no essentially meaning.

      Well, it began with you complaining about my use of the term being too broad, so I simply decided to point out that the actual definition is, in fact, extremely broad. I see this as valid.

      Fucking dictionary pedants. Context dude.

      Words have meanings. It seems to me that you were trying to redefine it to be less broad than it really is, without even being clear about how broad your new definition was.