Nope, 4th amendment still covers unnecessary search and seizure and is the relevant precedent cited in the aforementioned case.

@damian - Why should we be upset at those who unduly burden society? Because there is that muich less to give to those who are truly in need. The lazy (and please be cl;ear I am talking about those who could but just don't want to) would be the first to scream it's unfair and they have some rightto be happy and have the things that make them happy, but they don't. Even the phrase from the Declaration of Independence says "the pursuit of Happiness" and not just "Happiness". I would suggest that if they truly want to be lazy bums, that we layout two classes of welfare recioients: those who truly deserve it and lazy ass mother fuckers. The truly deserving get nicer things (section 8 housing, food stamps, some cash). The lazy ass mother fuckers get gruel (literaslly, no food stamps just soup kitchen passes) and aren't eligible for section 8, but must instead choose to bunk at the homeless shelters. Money? Not for the lazy ass mother fuckers. What I would agree to give them is job counselign and assistance to find a job, get cleaned up for interviews, transportation there, etc. If they choose to take society up on the jab hunt assitance for real (a case worker would determine if they were legitimately looking) then they would get bumped up to the higher grade of welfare. If they secure a job, they have six months at that grade to save up money and work their way back to a normal life.

So that is why I feel that lazy ass mother fuckers don't deserve shit. If they want to be a burden, ten let them get the bare minimum to survive. When they decide they have had enough and actually want to have a real hamburger on a small grill on their own balcony, then we help them get there.

And the 4th Amendment is also oriented towards criminal or civil prosecution, hence the reference to a warrant. Warrants are issued by courts. This isn't a search and siezure, merely a voluntary submission to a test in order to receive benefits. It may be classed as under duress, but the diference between this and public figures in government is those figures are susceptible to the court of public opinion. That is why the courts have deemed it a violation. This is purely conjecture on my part, but I don't believe SCOTUS would strike down a law written that required anyone desiring subsidized assistance (including heads of corporations, so no need to go there) to take a drug test as long as they were receiving assitance. As long as all have equal access and equal protection under the law, the 14th isn't violated and making *all* who receive subsidees take the tests provides equal protectiona nd does not discriminate based on status on life.

Draug, they did not rule it a violation of the 4th because of public opinion. It is equivalent to an officer pulling me over then asking, "can I search your vehicle?" I have a right to refuse that search, regardless of whether or not I might get prosecuted. The point of the 4th is to prevent that sort of harassment, sure there is a secondary benefit to law breakers. But that is not why the amendment is there.

The 4th covers seizure of ones person as well.

Wow.....awesome...the whole thread...

I have a hard time hearing lectures about 'work ethic' from people who make 150K while spending much of their time during the workweek on a diplomacy board. Especially people who make this kind of money while having the functional literacy of a baboon.

ad hominem from Putin. My involvement is officially over.

"Did you even read what I wrote? How am I being sanctimonious? You're the one who called me a sociopath for not agreeing with you hook, line, and sinker."

Why do you never bother to answer my questions? You sit here standing in judgment of welfare recipients - and in addition to that - legal & medical personnel, but steadfastly deny you're not being a sanctimonious judgmental ass. You want to throw benefits dependents to the wolves without a second thought as to how they're going to manage to survive without benefits. You want to subject them to humiliating searches & seizures because after all you, you had to go through a security checkpoint at a fucking airport! You willingly want to implement a policy which you now know saves the government *no money whatsoever* but rather imposes significant hardship on people you are struggling to get by as it is.

So I answered your question. How about you stop with the evasion and actually answer mine.

"ad hominem from Putin. My involvement is officially over."

You attacked whole classes of people with ad hominem attacks. Good riddance.

"Putin, you are so full of shit. Do you shit in your hands and lick your fingers after, because you are bordering on Motard level tonight."

Getting dysentery is more hygienic and better for my health than listening to the filth that comes out of your shit geyser of a mouth.

"Well, of course, but we all know how likely that is to happen..."

So abgemacht knowingly advocates a policy that will drive people into misery & extreme poverty without a way out. Nice.

The 4th amendment is only enforced for evidence used in court. I couldn't get a lawyer to sue the police for a warrantless illegal search of my house where they couldn't find any evidence of a crime. I was told to be grateful that they couldn't arrest me.

Putin,

I actually agree with many of the things you say, but I still think you are one of the worst people on this site. You are a jerk. Quite frankly, a jerk who agrees with you is much worse than one who doesn't because it jeopardizes your position. I loved when TC used to go on rants because he used to make all of his positions seem stupid. You really are the liberal TC. You are abrasive, argumentative and make no effort to understand anyone's position when it doesn't instantly and perfectly match up with yours. For someone who likes to play Champion of the Weak, you seem much more concerned with demonizing those you disagree with, than actually attempting to help those you claim to defend. Why do you even post? Your attitude is never conducive to a conversation and your attacks will never actually affect anything, so why bother?

I sometimes wonder if putin os Lou Colagiovanni. Are you putin?

Nah, you never promote pay per click news ads. Nevermind

Abgemacht,

I've listened to these dossiers on my character flaws from the likes of you and many others thousands of times. The first people to cry about ad hominem attacks are usually the ones who don't want to bother addressing the substantive points of the discussion and find it more comfortable to shift the "debate" to a referendum on popularity.The irony is that the people who spend the most time attacking me are the same ones who demand that I accede to all of their demands about 'respecting people's opinions'. Even when those opinions show absolutely no respect for other human beings.

The last "discussion" I had with you of any significance that I can recall is the time when you had a conniption over me questioning the use of 'girl' for a female of adult age. I'm well versed in your "efforts" to understand others' opinions. You showed absolutely no regard for my pretty banal points then in the same manner that you show no willingness to really engage on the substantive matter of your policy proscription here.

As for the claim that I'm not helping the people I want to defend here, I don't even know what means. You honestly think that the webdip community - whose members frequently engages in misogynistic, anti-poor and racist hate screeds with impunity - is reflective of society at large? Do you really think this forum is a bastion of working class, ethnically diverse people who I want to help? The times when I call people out for alienating marginalized groups on the forum are met with laughs of derision from the likes of you, see: girl/woman discussion.

Add to the fact that nobody is ever "helped" via online message boards anyway. I don't pretend I'm helping anyone here. I'm just sick of the privileged heaping abuse on people with impunity.

The larger point is, stop hiding behind tonality and invest in the strength of your arguments. I receive many abusive posts all the time. I don't go into lengthy diatribes about why people suck because they hurt my feelings. They suck because of their bad politics. If you have a controversial position, as you do, then stand by it and defend it. Stop whining that I'm don't politely disagree with a position that deeply offends a lot of people besides just me.

If I may interject, a personal anecdote. "You" is general, since multiple people expressed this assertion.

You can change minds in an Internet discussion with politeness and civility.

Mafialligator actually convinced me to reassess how I use the terms "girl," "woman," etc. and as a consequence I've been more careful about those terms, to the point that I actually got into a discussion with officers of the feminist club at LSU (my roommate is one), whereupon I was informed that, though appreciated, they're not especially bothered by the use of 'girl' to describe a college-aged female (their rationale being that they considered 'guy' as a description of a college-aged male equivalent to 'boy' - essentially, college undergrads view themselves as adults, sure, but young adults, in contrast to professional working men and women, and thus are more lax about the lines). I still make the distinction anyway out of respect and belief it's right, but the point is, I've improved on it a LOT compared to when it was first brought to my attention. I've also incorporated some ideas behind critical theory of race and sex into my political philosophy, something that would never have been the case 1-2 years ago.

Now, obviously my story is but one example. I'd still say it's correct that most of the times Internet discussions don't impact the views of their participants if their participants have given a certain amount of thought to their views. There is a chance, however that a polite and civil discussion on subjects can lead to others changing their minds, where lacking politeness and civility will not.

And to be clear, you have no obligation to be polite and civil if you think someone is being sufficiently hateful to warrant it. If you don't think the chance mentioned before is worth your time then carry on as is. No one can tell you what you should do. But I would like to think that politeness, civility, and reason can make otherwise-meaningless conversations have some use after all.

I don't think I was uncivil in that particular conversation. But sure, civility has its purpose.

http://i.imgur.com/Ek6yp.png

I would like to point out that the majority of the people that argue with Putin are just as mean to him as he is to them. He's definitely not the nicest guy on the site, and it may just be that I wasn't here when he started being a dick to everyone, but it seems to me like people are strongly ant-Putin as much because of his extreme political beliefs as because of his rudeness.

@Putin - ad hominem can't be against a class. The very word means against the man. So ad hominem attacks are against individuals. Now if, instead of attacking me and others personally, you want to actually discuss fine. But you *always* return to ad hominem attacks and that is not worth wasting my time on.

@ghug - Putin invariably attacks individuals *before* they attack him. I actually used to respect him. His knowledge of WWII beyond the official bull we are fed in high school is par excellence. But his debate technique is deplorable and always results in him attacking people who disagree with him by using insults instead of trying to persuade them to his side with a quality argument. He is like krellin when krellin is on a bender, but Putin doesn't have that excuse.

The worst part of it is, he has fallen so far recently from grad school to his current state in life and I'm sure his attitude he displays here is the same as what he displays in life and is probably a principle cause of his fall. But he won't see it or can't see it. I truly hope one day his always explosive personality is brought in check as he is quite smart.

Seriously, maybe if I insulted special needs people all the time, made veiled death threats, threatened physical violence, made threats to people's academic careers, shouted "epic fucking fail" in every thread, I'd be considered more "civil" by the likes of Draugnar.

Getting lectures about being more civil from Draugnar & President Eden is like getting Taylor Swift to tell me to stop writing break-up songs.

Ad hominem attacks can be against groups, oh most wise Draugnar. The fallacy requires that you attack the source making the claim rather than address the claim itself.