Fuck "Godwin's Law", as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't mean what 98% of people who invoke it think it means, and even if it did, who cares... it's just some off-hand observation by one random dude. But if it will make you feel better, I can edit my post and change it to reference the KGB or the Stasi or something, instead of the Gestapo.

Have any argument that isn't based in hyperbole and other logical fallacies?

Nope; I'm not here to argue.

It's a weak technique usually employed by those who have nothing of substance to say. Why resort to a cheap appeal to emotion right out the gate? What's the point? What is your point?

First, I reject the premise of this question, therefore no real answer is possible. There's nothing "cheap" about emotion.

And aren't we getting way too caught up in debating style over substance here? I think my point was pretty clear, personally, and that you're just being intentionally argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. But since you asked, the point is that our government(s) are far too large, bureaucratic, corrupt and evil as it is, and that the continued militarization of local police is an unhealthy step towards more State power... a trend which I've observed growing over my lifetime (38 years so far) and which seems to be continuing unabated, if not gaining steam.

Now, go ahead and accuse me of a "slippery slope fallacy," if you want. But I believe that if the bad guys (and I do consider governments to be the bad guys) have these UAVs flying around spying on (and, more than likely, eventually attacking) us, then we should at least have the capability to respond in kind. Whether or not it's actually time to start doing that is an open question, but we should resist letting the balance of power shift further and further.

None of this, if course, argues against a simultaneous strategy of working to reduce State power by educating people, using the electoral process, etc. But I'd rather hedge my bets...

I disagree. You called them "gestapo drones" (an emotionally loaded and pretty much useless term) without elaborating further. That said, nope. I try not to argue on the internet just for the lulz. Huge waste of time. I'd rather you just tell me what you're getting at in plain English, thanks.

Well, then you should have said so before I posted! :-)

It's hard. I _really_ think the potential for UAV abuse is high.

But it's a Law of the Internet, I guess. You win this round.

I agree, however there's no legal standing to challenge it on. I'd rather spend my energy, instead of trying to fight something that is going to pass, to instead fight the abuses and make sure that the tool can't be misused too badly. Denying the tool outright is just silly, especially with our current understanding of privacy.