Generally I follow a simple rule when it comes to social media, no debates. Typically I follow the rules of one of my favorite political commentators, Ben Shapiro. In his opinion, there are only two reasons to debate someone you disagree with. First, if you honestly believe it will be an exchange of ideas in which both parties listen to the others opinion. Or, if the debate is in front of a large audience and your intent is to destroy their ideas, thereby trying to convince the audience. Neither of these ideas really work on social media, and let’s be honest, it’s just a waste of time……
However, sometimes, I just can’t help myself. Sometimes I see a post so ridiculous, so outrageous, I can’t help but engage in spirited argument.
So for today’s post, I present you with a little exchange I had. First, a little background. Like many towns, mine has several facebook groups. In one of them a person started a post about being pulled over after failing to either move over, or slow down when passing an authorized emergency vehicle with their lights on – commonly known as the move over law. This law is designed to protect police officers, EMTs, firefighters, and tow truck drivers who are either on the side of the road, or in the road working. Usually it is due to a traffic stop, vehicle accident, or medical emergency. Most states I’m aware of have similar laws. If you want to read the actual text of the law in Texas, look up Texas Transportation Code 545.157.
To the credit of the actual poster, she stated she was unaware of the actual provisions of the law, but took full responsibility and created the post as a warning of the laws existence – not that enforcement action was taken. So, good on her for owning up to a mistake she made. The post itself garnered a bit over 500 comments, which for this small town is quite the feat. I started reading the comments, and as expected, most people were very favorable of the law, and understood its purpose – to protect those working on the side of the road. But here is the catch, this isn’t the only law like this. We have laws to protect construction workers. We have laws to protect school children.
Apparently, one guy just doesn’t get it:
J.G.’s basic contention is this law is unconstitutional because in his opinion, it only protects police officers. Therefore, it is “unequal protection”. So in good form, I interject. My posts are from “Tom”.
I think I make my contention quite clear. Some laws are designed for a specific purpose. Move over laws are designed to protect those working in an emergency capacity on the roadway. It’s an important law as we often don’t have the luxury of setting up barricades and signage to alert and redirect traffic – hence why it is so important pay attention. Again though, the law is not unprecedented. Other similar laws exist for this same purpose. Now the rebuttal….
Ok, so not exactly a rebuttal. Honestly I can’t really tell what he’s going for here. Are police officers, EMTs, firefighters, and tow truck drivers not innocent? I mean at the end of the day, I’m just a guy trying to do my job. According to his first post though, I knew the dangers of this job, so it doesn’t actually matter. Lets continue:
J. G. starts with denying my assertion that those protected by this law must not be innocent. According to him, the other laws I cited were about protecting the innocent, but this one is not. Therefore, we are not worthy of such laws. J.G. keeps dropping those buzzwords, “Equal Justice”. At this point I just want to know, who isn’t receiving equal justice under this law. It’s a fair question. We could argue that perhaps emergency mechanics who also work on the side of the road may need this protection – I would actually agree with this. I didn’t mention it here, but we could even talk about the motorist trying to change a tire. I think enforcement for this type of scenario would be difficult, but it would be a great discussion. Lets continue:
Most of these posts are me trying to get him to identify who exactly isn’t getting equal justice. As you can tell, it’s like trying to nail jello to a wall. J.G. then informs me this post is about a women getting fined for not obeying the laws…… And my counter:
As you can see, now we need to actually define law. In case you’re wondering, the actual text for the definition of law is as follows:
“The system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.” And finally:
After it becomes obvious this is going in circles like a bad carnival ride, I figure it’s best to depart. This last post by J.W. is however, the most telling.It reads like a person with an ax to grind, not someone who is willing to debate ideas. There was one last message from J.W., which he posted after I did all of the screen shots which simply implied, I just don’t get it. Well, he’s right, I have no idea what he’s talking about, but I don’t think he really does either.
Anyway, that’s all for now. Maybe I’ll do more of these in the future, not the debate, but taking ridiculous posts and dissecting them.
Shield273 