Your assumption about someone understanding your position based on rational arguments is flawed. The reason it's flawed is because of the same reason we're currently arguing whether or not Apple has the right to challenge whether the FBI can compel them/us to write software for the government so they can "protect us better" from both real and fictitious threats.
This type of reasoning leads to cognitive dissonance (believing two logically conflicting things at the same time) in the general population, which is caused by people applying double bind[1] arguments to conversations. Those double bind arguments end up creating additional cognitive dissonance in others and the vicious cycle is repeated, all the while being accelerated by our ever increasing connectedness. There's a going theory that these types of meme-based arguments are actually thought viruses[2].
One way to stop these types of arguments is to take a quiet moment and identify arguments or language structure that lean on speculative unknowns and which encourage equally speculative rhetoric which is dissonant in nature. In other words, let's all start to learn how to identify dissonant speech and reject it as a truth when we hear it. Let's tell others we think the conversation may be dissonant in nature to help stop the cycle.
One thing to consider while approaching solving these complex problems is setting the goal of removing rules of conduct as technology becomes more complicated. All this talk of creating new rules (and seeking new rulings to establish them) is creating an extremely complicated house of cards for all of us to thoughtfully manage. This is because we're basing our arguments on a fundamentally false premise, which is it's the government's job is to completely remove all suffering from society. That's actually not their job, nor is it achievable, so perhaps it's time to question why they think it is and figure out a solution that isn't in disagreement with itself.
> Your assumption about someone understanding your position based on rational arguments is flawed.
I'm not attempting a rational argument. I am attempting to phrase the argument in terms that a set of authoritarian advocating individuals can relate to.
To most of them, their guns are more important than preventing terrorists from killing people. By driving home the fact that this precedent will eventually apply to their guns, you get their attention.
Otherwise, they just fluff it off as a "whining from a bunch of liberal, elite pansies".
It is a hard fact there is no "most of them" with which you can have this argument. You can't make a meta group of people holding the same thought virus "listen" to an argument that is an equivalent thought virus. That's why you find yourself simulating what others might say to you if you didn't say it just right:
> Otherwise, they just fluff it off as a "whining from a bunch of liberal, elite pansies".
You can't simulate what you might say and then simulate what they might say and make any of it make any sense (or be reasonably efficient in whatever systems you plug that stupid logic into).
And to you, your encryption is more important than being able to come after the bad guys using it. Can I similarly argue that the precedent of government control over firearms will eventually apply to encryption?
Otherwise, you just fluff it off as "whining from a bunch of conservative, mouth-breathing gun nuts."
This type of reasoning leads to cognitive dissonance (believing two logically conflicting things at the same time) in the general population, which is caused by people applying double bind[1] arguments to conversations. Those double bind arguments end up creating additional cognitive dissonance in others and the vicious cycle is repeated, all the while being accelerated by our ever increasing connectedness. There's a going theory that these types of meme-based arguments are actually thought viruses[2].
One way to stop these types of arguments is to take a quiet moment and identify arguments or language structure that lean on speculative unknowns and which encourage equally speculative rhetoric which is dissonant in nature. In other words, let's all start to learn how to identify dissonant speech and reject it as a truth when we hear it. Let's tell others we think the conversation may be dissonant in nature to help stop the cycle.
One thing to consider while approaching solving these complex problems is setting the goal of removing rules of conduct as technology becomes more complicated. All this talk of creating new rules (and seeking new rulings to establish them) is creating an extremely complicated house of cards for all of us to thoughtfully manage. This is because we're basing our arguments on a fundamentally false premise, which is it's the government's job is to completely remove all suffering from society. That's actually not their job, nor is it achievable, so perhaps it's time to question why they think it is and figure out a solution that isn't in disagreement with itself.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind