Elistan

That still doesn't exempt folks from exercising a bit of critical thinking before spouting off kneejerk reactions to inflammatory headlines/taglines.

woodburn

I wasn't saying anything was fact. I was implying that its coming from multiple sources and to be honest I don't trust anything coming from the goverment especially that goverment. I know there true intentions whether that come right out an admit it or slowly hint at a possibility.

stockae92

The police will be the first to object because they will lose the major source of their revenue ..

SkiLLeDS2000

That's your opinion. I honestly feel in 25 years we will lose control of how we drive in certain cities, like DC, LA, and NYC. It may be "inflammatory" to you, but I look it as a wake up call to car lovers all over the world. We can't let it happen. I feel like this article was like a feeler to see what the reaction is concerning this plan. No need to attack the OP, that would be me btw.

Elistan

That's your opinion.[/quote]

Yes, it is my opinion that people should exercise some critical thinking for every bit of news they get, regardless of where its from or from how many sources.

Indeed, I worry about that too.
But not because of articles like this.

Fair enough. I feel like this article was clickbait, praying on anti-EU sentiment in the UK. It's not a "plan" in the sense that things usually are "plans". I have no issue with an article discussing something like "will self-driven cars be banned?" But this is just crying wolf. An article discussing increasing wolf populations, and how to mitigate wolf attacks? Good. An article saying "There's a wolf!"? Bad.

I agree. Which is why I never attacked you.

s2kreeper

It certainly does, because you can form opinions based entirely on supposition of something being true. Suppose the article was true, was going to come true, etc, and obviously my reaction stays the same. Now that someone revealed the title as misleading and incorrect, my opinion changes. That's completely fine for me to work with all the evidence I plan to do, especially since I'm not trying to change anything myself.

It's when people start to act in a manner assuming things as actual truth or refuse to change their opinions when new evidence is introduced that are wrong, because they're trying to actively force something that isn't logical (anything that is an opinion and has no one truth) onto people who don't share that opinion (this isn't a poke at you in any way, just distinction between opinion and logical truth, of which if something is an opinion the person can think whatever they want and it's completely 100% valid).

SkiLLeDS2000

I didn't do a google search yet, but didn't Google invent a car that can drive itself in Cali? If the technology is already there, we really might be in serious trouble.

Another thing I've been seeing, all these new car commercials that have accident prevention systems that are anitcipating accidents and braking on their own. Who would of ever though that would be standard in a 2014 car.

Or how about the black boxes in cars that will be mandatory in a year or two.

All the pieces are coming together for a networking system that will soon control our cars, sad.

Elistan

It certainly does, because you can form opinions based entirely on supposition of something being true. Suppose the article was true, was going to come true, etc, and obviously my reaction stays the same. Now that someone revealed the title as misleading and incorrect, my opinion changes. That's completely fine for me to work with all the evidence I plan to do, especially since I'm not trying to change anything myself.

It's when people start to act in a manner assuming things as actual truth or refuse to change their opinions when new evidence is introduced that are wrong, because they're trying to actively force something that isn't logical (anything that is an opinion and has no one truth) onto people who don't share that opinion (this isn't a poke at you in any way, just distinction between opinion and logical truth, of which if something is an opinion the person can think whatever they want and it's completely 100% valid).
[/quote]

I like the gist of your post. I would like to point out a bit of a twist, however. It's one thing to form an opinion about the possibility of something happening - for example, my opinion of an automated speed limit, whether or not one ever actually happens, is "it would suck." I could even have an opinion like "the EU would suck if they actually do this." But that's a lot different from forming an opinion like "the EU sucks" based on an article like this.

If Person A claims that Person B is going to do something outrageous, I'll likely have an opinion about that action, but I won't actually believe that Person B is going to do it, or form an opinion about Person B because of it, until I have something to substantiate the original claim.

woodburn

It certainly does, because you can form opinions based entirely on supposition of something being true. Suppose the article was true, was going to come true, etc, and obviously my reaction stays the same. Now that someone revealed the title as misleading and incorrect, my opinion changes. That's completely fine for me to work with all the evidence I plan to do, especially since I'm not trying to change anything myself.

It's when people start to act in a manner assuming things as actual truth or refuse to change their opinions when new evidence is introduced that are wrong, because they're trying to actively force something that isn't logical (anything that is an opinion and has no one truth) onto people who don't share that opinion (this isn't a poke at you in any way, just distinction between opinion and logical truth, of which if something is an opinion the person can think whatever they want and it's completely 100% valid).
[/quote]

I like the gist of your post. I would like to point out a bit of a twist, however. It's one thing to form an opinion about the possibility of something happening - for example, my opinion of an automated speed limit, whether or not one ever actually happens, is "it would suck." I could even have an opinion like "the EU would suck if they actually do this." But that's a lot different from forming an opinion like "the EU sucks" based on an article like this.

If Person A claims that Person B is going to do something outrageous, I'll likely have an opinion about that action, but I won't actually believe that Person B is going to do it, or form an opinion about Person B because of it, until I have something to substantiate the original claim.
[/quote]

When you have seen enough and understand what libreals ultimate goals are you don't need that much. When they said they just wanted to limit guns sales to criminals or restrict large clips, the people voted it down, they voted it down because we don't trust libreals and we all know there ultimate goal is to eliminate guns from citizens. Gun free America is like a wet dream to these people. Just like government control is there ultimate agenda, so when they come at us with this, we automatically shut it down because we know how they are. Little by little they chip away at your rights.

Mr.E.G.

It certainly does, because you can form opinions based entirely on supposition of something being true. Suppose the article was true, was going to come true, etc, and obviously my reaction stays the same. Now that someone revealed the title as misleading and incorrect, my opinion changes. That's completely fine for me to work with all the evidence I plan to do, especially since I'm not trying to change anything myself.

It's when people start to act in a manner assuming things as actual truth or refuse to change their opinions when new evidence is introduced that are wrong, because they're trying to actively force something that isn't logical (anything that is an opinion and has no one truth) onto people who don't share that opinion (this isn't a poke at you in any way, just distinction between opinion and logical truth, of which if something is an opinion the person can think whatever they want and it's completely 100% valid).
[/quote]

I like the gist of your post. I would like to point out a bit of a twist, however. It's one thing to form an opinion about the possibility of something happening - for example, my opinion of an automated speed limit, whether or not one ever actually happens, is "it would suck." I could even have an opinion like "the EU would suck if they actually do this." But that's a lot different from forming an opinion like "the EU sucks" based on an article like this.

If Person A claims that Person B is going to do something outrageous, I'll likely have an opinion about that action, but I won't actually believe that Person B is going to do it, or form an opinion about Person B because of it, until I have something to substantiate the original claim.
[/quote]

When you have seen enough and understand what libreals ultimate goals are you don't need that much. When they said they just wanted to limit guns sales to criminals or restrict large clips, the people voted it down, they voted it down because we don't trust libreals and we all know there ultimate goal is to eliminate guns from citizens. Gun free America is like a wet dream to these people. Just like government control is there ultimate agenda, so when they come at us with this, we automatically shut it down because we know how they are. Little by little they chip away at your rights.
[/quote]


I genuinely pity you that you feel so worried about some force that is largely a figment of your imagination. Many people will ignorantly jump toward faulty legislation to solve some trumped up problem (such as gun control) but the notion that there is this articulated conspiracy is simply absurd.

I almost wholly agree with you that gun control is stupid and runs afoul of the Bill of Rights. However, concepts such as the Bill of Rights and explaining to someone why "I don't care if the government spies on me since I have nothing to hide" is a notion fraught with peril is an intellectual endeavor. People are generally not interested in pondering these subtleties and simply voting away the guns is an easy solution. They're not conspiring against my AR15 because of some liberal wet dream, they're simply voting for what they think will be an effective solution to a very scary issue. Their lack of consideration for the intellectual subtleties of a constitutional system of government is just a reflection of people being, on average, kind of short sighted, not proof of some agenda.

I own more than a few guns. I conceal carry. I have many high capacity magazines. I am the thing that many people are scared of. In any other system of government, their concerns may indeed be valid and they may very well take my guns away, to which my only response would be perhaps an argument that reflects philosophical position, but I would lack legal standing. The big difference with the American system of government is that our Constitution, to some extent, legislates our philosophical position in a concrete way that resists public sentiment. I get that and you get that, but such a system of government is anything but intuitive. Again, people being short sided and willfully ignorant may not fully comprehend the significance of why we should take deliberate steps to not undermine the Constitution, but their lack of understanding is hardly a unified front. You, me, and everyone else who has taken the time to study and appreciate the Constitution can easy argue that it is so important and fundamental to our way of life that any law which runs afoul of it, even if it accomplishes great things, is not worth having. The end does not justify the means and gun deaths and mass shootings plus an intact Constitution genuinely is in the greater good than no gun deaths and a Constitution that is violated, but surely you can see how that is an intellectualized position that runs afoul of intuition.

Again, I think that we are in the right but I completely disagree that the threat you perceive is real. It's just a bunch of scared people who don't understand the big picture impact of what they're trying to accomplish.