Fallacies and all-round Stupidity Courtesy of the Texas Department of Public Safety

This entry was composed 1 October.
I am posting it despite its imperfect nature in the interests of exposing stupidity wherever I encounter it...

I've honestly done my very best to read the web site of the Texas Department of Public Safety as well as the Driver's Guide (whatever exactly they call it--"handbook" I suppose)... in preparation for taking a written test and a driving driver's test so that I could legally drive a car in the great state of Texas.

But, I was stopped at the very first step of identifying myself.

The employees of the Northeast El Paso branch of the Texas DPS think I've got to have my social security card. But I have found no evidence whatsoever of their claim, and during my visit to their offices yesterday, they showed me no evidence.

I have found evidence that I must tell them what my number is and I must identify myself.

But nowhere does it say that a " first time applicant" must present her/his social card. (Notice that "first time applicant" is itself a technical term. I've had a Texas driver's license before--so I've applied before. But I count as a "new" applicant since that was more than two years ago.--Or, so I was told by one of the not very helpful employees yesterday.)

At the web site and in the handbook there is a list of acceptable supporting documents, but nowhere does it say that these are the only possible documents one may use to establish SSN/identity.

Nowhere have I found in official documents originating in Dallas or Austin or wherever is the central headquarters anything saying that I have to have that card.

The police officers and bureaucrats I met yesterday have a different opinion, an opinion which they were unable to substantiate.

To their credit, they listened to my claims, and tried to convince me I was wrong.

I was taken behind closed doors and where two uniformed officers attempted (as they saw it) to explain to me what the law is. I was, however, wholly unconvinced by their attempt; and also overwhelmed by their poor reading and reasoning skills.

Why behind closed doors? Nothing I was saying was provocative. I was merely repeating what I had read, and even attempting to read carefully out loud as they simply insisted upon their point of view without giving adequate attention to any text they presented me with.

Why must such an activity be carried out in secret?---literally carried out "behind closed doors"?

One tactic the two employees of the Texas Department of Public Safety tried was to find something legal and official with the word "social security card" on it, point to the words and say "See! We told you! You have to have it!"

My response: Pointing at a word is not enough. We need a sentence to read the document.
And their response was incomprehension. The nearest uniformed man seemed absolutely dumb-founded by the word "sentence". "Why"?

Hmmm, I guess he never heard of "quoting out of context".

At the time I was so amazed by his reaction that I found myself at a loss for words.
So, I will supply the appropriate explanation now:

If you merely point at an official document which has the words "social security card" on it,
and you cannot find a complete sentence (or re-construct one from the context) then you do not know what the document is telling you about the social security card. Without a specific sentential context, you do not know whether the document says:

Social Security cards are one of many forms of identification allowed. -or,

Everyone must have a social security card to apply for a driver's license.--or,

Everyone must not be carrying their social security card when they apply for a driver's license.--or,

In applying for a driver's license, a person may use a social security card or another document to establish their identity.

etc

etc

Moreover, according to our Driver's Handbook (a passage other officials gleefully pointed to because, I suppose, it had the words "social security card" in it) the purpose of the social security number revelation is to establish identity. And, one knows on general principles that for that purpose the card itself is not needed.

I did supply other documents with my social security number, but, no they said, only the card will do.

I repeat: I can find no public statement of the relevant laws which backs up what they are claiming.

Personally, what I think is going on is something like this:

The actual laws are rather liberal about allowing a variety of forms of documentation and nowhere specifies that only a specific list of documents is allowed---although it does provide examples of the sorts of things which are valid.

Someone in northeast El Paso has decided to make their life simpler by requiring a social security card and nothing else. That cuts out the need to make a decision.

You might say someone is being lazy.

That's what I believe to be the explanation for what I experienced. I cannot "prove" it. But neither have I found any clear support for the policy these bureaucrats are following--neither have they provided me any.

But then aren't these servants of the public we are talking about? They should serve me, right? So, I should not have to gear my behavior to their convenience.

Shame

Shame

Shame

Another fallacy: The uniformed officers also seemed to suggest: It's my job to know; so, I know.

My retort: It's your job to know. You do not know. So, you are incompetent. (Or perhaps illiterate and therfore incompetent, since your job requires you to read.)

Again like Slovakia.
I recall getting in an argument at one school where they committed the following fallacy:
(a) The Slovak Legislature requires schools to have rules-[-though it is not specified exactly which rules one must have.]
Therefore,
(b) The rules at our school are required by law!

The parallel would go something like this:
You have to establish identity and provide some legitimate document with your social security number.
versus
You have to have exactly this document...

Yawn

DISCOVERING SLOVAKIA IN TEXAS? no! všade policii su debili!!!

STUPIDITY IS THE RIGHT WORD;
As further evidence of the sheer stupidity at the Department of Public Safety, let us ask the following:

What is a social security card?

A social security card indicates that an individual is registered with the Social Security Administration? Why? If you are registered, then you can save money for your retirement. They take money out of your paycheck and set it aside for your retirement.

Now, let's ask: What actual documentation did I provide? Among other things, I provided a letter from the Social Security Admsinistration in Washington which detailed the money taken out of my paycheck and set aside for my retirement.

Hello! If a person is having money taken out of their paycheck by the Social Security Administration and set aside .,.. then they must have a social security number, musn't they?

Yet, our public servants were unable to read my document and engage in that very difficult bit of reasoning which I have just rehearsed above. Sounds like stupidity to me.