Following you around with a camera does prove something. If surveillance cameras don't bother you as much as this guy does, that's proof that you're a hypocrit. You don't want to be a hypocrit do you? No? Then you better start hating surveillance cameras and complaining loudly about them.
a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators. In this case, he is very mobile and instead of filming a predefined area, he films individual people
What's the difference between one mobile guy that takes his camera from point A to point B, and two stationary surveillance cameras at point A and B?
While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.
That his actions are assholish at best IS the entire point. Surveillance cameras are no less assholish. So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.
Sure, the MAFIAA can trawl file sharing sites and get the password to the key. But they can't trace it back to who uploaded it, so they can't sue you. And Mega can't know that you've posted the key, so Mega can't know what's in the encrypted file. So they can't sue Mega either.
What is this obsession you have with child pornography? You realize that prosecuting child pornography is a very, very small part of the business of law enforcement? Right?
You're the only person talking about child pornography. I'm talking about the very real fact that we have over 2 million people in prison in this country. That's mass incarceration. We're not talking about a "specious risk". We live in that Orwellian police state. That's reality.
You're right. That part of the argument is circular, but it's also superfluous to the main argument I think. The real question is "why is it wrong to kill a person". And then iterate through the characteristics of fetuses to see if that can be a reason we don't kill something. The rest of the argument is the same.
I'd also point out that the main anti-abortion argument is similarly circular. It's wrong to kill fetuses because fetuses are persons. It's wrong to kill persons because persons have souls. Souls which are very conveniently missing from all the delicious plants and animals they eat, and really any other form of life that doesn't gain them power over a womans reproductive system.
It's very simple. Just find a secular reason why killing is wrong. Then see if it applies to fetuses. Leave the "persons" thing out of it entirely.
I'd argue that it's failed to work for thousands of years. Humanity is much less peaceful, healthy, and educated than it could be because of magical thinking.
you can play the percentages by doing what you can to restrict the ability of those who have already shown they are willing to harm others
That's exactly what I'm doing when I restrict the power of police. The police enforce the law, whether it's good or bad law. If it's bad law, it does harm and the police are willing to do that harm.
I have had bullets wiz by me when I passed a crack house, but not yet when passing a police station. Would you have me ignore my life experience?
And I've never been assaulted, but I'm threatened every time I encounter a cop. What's the difference between you and me? Nothing but a different choice of recreational activity.
Your arguments make sense if we can guarantee that there will never be any bad laws or bad cops. But we can't, and that's why we have privacy, freedom of expression, and due process. Yes, some bad people will do some bad things, but on the whole we come out ahead. There are no holocausts or purges in societies that jealously guard their civil liberties.
I see where someone would feel that way, but I doubt that those who have been victims of violent crime would agree.
What about those who have been victims of mass incarceration?
The extreme end of the social liberties spectrum does not seem to have any alternatives that still hold the safety of the community first and foremost.
You're absolutely wrong on this. Safety of the community is absolutely the goal of social liberty. If you can be taken from your home and thrown in a cage for personal choices you've made that don't affect anyone else, how safe are you really?
The fact that he would have to break the law to satisfy his sexual proclivities sets up a character test - it shows that he values the gratification of his sexual desires over conforming to the law.
Everyone should value the gratification of their sexual desires over conforming to the law. What you shouldn't do is value the gratification of your sexual desires over the consent of your partner.
You could use this argument to support bans on interracial marriage, masturbation, anal sex, and adultery. Do you really think that if we passed a law against masturbation that every well adjusted citizen would stop masturbating? Do you think that every citizen who failed to resist the temptation to masturbate is too dangerous to walk the streets?
There are many people out there who do not like a particular law, yet because they are a member of society, they obey it nonetheless. This fact alone says that there is something different about someone who is not able to resist temptation despite the risk to his life and liberty. They have already shown that, unlike a normal person, they are willing to break the law for their own purposes.
When a law is unjust, a man of good character will break it. The only thing accomplished by abdicating your own conscience to the government is that you become a more effective tool for injustice. I could go on at length on this issue, but I think it would be more efficient all around if I just linked you to Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.
I'm glad you're sticking with this discussion, despite the undeserved downmods. The concrete answer you want is "warrants".
How do I protect my family (within the framework of the changes you would like to see in the laws) proactively?
When you have evidence of wrong doing (actual wrong doing, not violation of sumptuary laws), you give that evidence to police who take it to a judge who signs a warrant.
Or do you mean "proactively" as in "fishing expedition"? If you do, my argument is that fishing expeditions make your family less safe. There are so many laws on the books that everyone is violating some of them. Any contact a citizen has with law enforcement has the potential to have very negative consequences for that citizen and his family. Remember, in the eyes of the police and our justice system, even a wrongful arrest and conviction is considered a win. The police are not your friends.
I understand that there is no way to guarantee the safety of anyone, but there is such a thing as making sure that the odds favor life and safety - and not the opposite.
Yes, there has to be a balance. If police were able to enter your property whenver they wanted, they would be a threat to your family. If police could never enter anyones property, then common criminals would be a greater threat than they are now. This is why we have warrants and rules for evidence.
Now I'll turn your question back around at you. How can I protect my family against abusive law enforcement, proactively? And I mean without moving my family into the wilderness or otherwise removing them from society.
My goal is to have a safe environment for myself and my family to live in.
This is my goal as well. I want your family, and every family to be secure against abuses of power by police.
I'd like to think that the other side cares enough about my family (even if only in the abstract) that they would not push their ideas without thought to how it would negatively affect people.
I would too. Have you thought about how allowing the police to walk through my property without a warrant or any sort of probable cause might negatively affect my safety?
I am not willing to trade abstract ideas of freedom for the lives of my family.
I think you already are making such a trade. Specifically, you're exchanging the security of your family against government aggression for the authoritarian ideal that law is right because its the law and every law breaker is a bad person.
In my experience, I have found very few instances where an individual vehemently was against a particular law, when they were not already breaking that law, or intended to. I would like to protect my family from these people.
Why do you assume that because someone is breaking a law that they are a threat to your family?
Easy solution. Legalize drugs and the police will have no business snooping around open fields.
Can any of you who vigorously push for "freedom" tell me how your efforts will directly help to make things safer for my family?
Your children will become adults some day. If you care about their safety, you should ensure that they are not persecuted by their government for their personal life choices that don't harm anyone else. The only threat to your family discussed in the article is the police.
Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior. So if you want good things to happen to the most people, which most empathetic people would, then you should eschew empathy and be as rational as possible.
OK, we'll start with the assumption that killing a person is wrong (except in cases of self defence). We'll also assume that a baby is a person. If you disagree with these premises let me know, I'd be interested to find out why.
So now we have to find out whether a fetus is a person or not. If it's not a person it immediately follows that it's not a baby. You might think that we need a definition for "person" too, but we have an operational definition already. If it's OK to kill it, then it's not a person. Then all we have to do is consider the features that fetuses share with persons, and see if they make killing wrong.
A fetus has a beating heart. If this defined personhood, cheeseburgers would be murder.
A fetus has human DNA. If this defined personhood, amputations would be murder.
A fetus has totipotent cells which potentially create a person. If this defined personhood, removing cancerous tumors would be murder.
A fetus has a highly human face. If this defined personhood then will it blend would be murder.
A fetus responds to the human voice. If this defined personhood, then canine euthansia would be murder.
And so on. Obviously we can't prove in the logical sense that a fetus is not a person, since we can't prove a negative. But as a practical matter we don't need to. We can eliminate the most plausible candidates, and then those who make the positive claim can shoulder the burden of proof.
So far, and I've asked a lot, no anti-abortionist has ever offered a definition of "person" that included fetuses, babies, and adults while excluding other life forms we kill willingly without resorting to magic, which obviously cannot be the basis for sound policy. Can you?
A high incarceration rate doesn't erase our public education system or other social programs. It doesn't counter our large economy
It does if you're one of the 2 million Americans in prison. It does if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans in danger of imprisonment for your personal life choices. It does if you're a tax payer who would rather pay for that public education system, or public housing for the homeless, or mental health care for the mentally ill, or anything else that would make us all much safer for much lower cost than mass incarceration does.
The incarceration rate is proof that the government has failed at its most basic task, keeping its citizens safe. Instead, it has set itself up as the primary agressor against its own citizens.
I define authoritarian hell hole as places where RPGs and guns are mounted on civilian vehicles, and everyone is a corrupt ex-soldier.
I disagree with this definition. That's warlordism. Arguably, The People at least have a chance at getting their way through sheer force. If your warlord treats you too badly, you can band together and kick him out. That mother you saw with an assault rifle believes she has a real chance at self defence against agressors. Does anyone really believe she would stand a chance against the US government?
Slashdot Mirror
Following you around with a camera does prove something. If surveillance cameras don't bother you as much as this guy does, that's proof that you're a hypocrit. You don't want to be a hypocrit do you? No? Then you better start hating surveillance cameras and complaining loudly about them.
a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators. In this case, he is very mobile and instead of filming a predefined area, he films individual people
What's the difference between one mobile guy that takes his camera from point A to point B, and two stationary surveillance cameras at point A and B?
While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.
That his actions are assholish at best IS the entire point. Surveillance cameras are no less assholish. So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.
"Think differently."
You're assuming the debt is legitimate. They can and do completely invent debts out of thin air.
And yet Lloyd Blankfein still walks free. A vote for Obama continues to be a vote for plutocracy.
Sure, the MAFIAA can trawl file sharing sites and get the password to the key. But they can't trace it back to who uploaded it, so they can't sue you. And Mega can't know that you've posted the key, so Mega can't know what's in the encrypted file. So they can't sue Mega either.
I'm sick of hearing about the US projecting its bad laws outside its jurisdiction.
What is this obsession you have with child pornography? You realize that prosecuting child pornography is a very, very small part of the business of law enforcement? Right?
You're the only person talking about child pornography. I'm talking about the very real fact that we have over 2 million people in prison in this country. That's mass incarceration. We're not talking about a "specious risk". We live in that Orwellian police state. That's reality.
You're right. That part of the argument is circular, but it's also superfluous to the main argument I think. The real question is "why is it wrong to kill a person". And then iterate through the characteristics of fetuses to see if that can be a reason we don't kill something. The rest of the argument is the same.
I'd also point out that the main anti-abortion argument is similarly circular. It's wrong to kill fetuses because fetuses are persons. It's wrong to kill persons because persons have souls. Souls which are very conveniently missing from all the delicious plants and animals they eat, and really any other form of life that doesn't gain them power over a womans reproductive system.
It's very simple. Just find a secular reason why killing is wrong. Then see if it applies to fetuses. Leave the "persons" thing out of it entirely.
I'd argue that it's failed to work for thousands of years. Humanity is much less peaceful, healthy, and educated than it could be because of magical thinking.
Great idea. Can we get Congress to undergo the same when they vote on a bill too?
you can play the percentages by doing what you can to restrict the ability of those who have already shown they are willing to harm others
That's exactly what I'm doing when I restrict the power of police. The police enforce the law, whether it's good or bad law. If it's bad law, it does harm and the police are willing to do that harm.
I have had bullets wiz by me when I passed a crack house, but not yet when passing a police station. Would you have me ignore my life experience?
And I've never been assaulted, but I'm threatened every time I encounter a cop. What's the difference between you and me? Nothing but a different choice of recreational activity.
Your arguments make sense if we can guarantee that there will never be any bad laws or bad cops. But we can't, and that's why we have privacy, freedom of expression, and due process. Yes, some bad people will do some bad things, but on the whole we come out ahead. There are no holocausts or purges in societies that jealously guard their civil liberties.
I see where someone would feel that way, but I doubt that those who have been victims of violent crime would agree.
What about those who have been victims of mass incarceration?
The extreme end of the social liberties spectrum does not seem to have any alternatives that still hold the safety of the community first and foremost.
You're absolutely wrong on this. Safety of the community is absolutely the goal of social liberty. If you can be taken from your home and thrown in a cage for personal choices you've made that don't affect anyone else, how safe are you really?
The fact that he would have to break the law to satisfy his sexual proclivities sets up a character test - it shows that he values the gratification of his sexual desires over conforming to the law.
Everyone should value the gratification of their sexual desires over conforming to the law. What you shouldn't do is value the gratification of your sexual desires over the consent of your partner.
You could use this argument to support bans on interracial marriage, masturbation, anal sex, and adultery. Do you really think that if we passed a law against masturbation that every well adjusted citizen would stop masturbating? Do you think that every citizen who failed to resist the temptation to masturbate is too dangerous to walk the streets?
There are many people out there who do not like a particular law, yet because they are a member of society, they obey it nonetheless. This fact alone says that there is something different about someone who is not able to resist temptation despite the risk to his life and liberty. They have already shown that, unlike a normal person, they are willing to break the law for their own purposes.
When a law is unjust, a man of good character will break it. The only thing accomplished by abdicating your own conscience to the government is that you become a more effective tool for injustice. I could go on at length on this issue, but I think it would be more efficient all around if I just linked you to Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.
I'm glad you're sticking with this discussion, despite the undeserved downmods. The concrete answer you want is "warrants".
How do I protect my family (within the framework of the changes you would like to see in the laws) proactively?
When you have evidence of wrong doing (actual wrong doing, not violation of sumptuary laws), you give that evidence to police who take it to a judge who signs a warrant.
Or do you mean "proactively" as in "fishing expedition"? If you do, my argument is that fishing expeditions make your family less safe. There are so many laws on the books that everyone is violating some of them. Any contact a citizen has with law enforcement has the potential to have very negative consequences for that citizen and his family. Remember, in the eyes of the police and our justice system, even a wrongful arrest and conviction is considered a win. The police are not your friends.
I understand that there is no way to guarantee the safety of anyone, but there is such a thing as making sure that the odds favor life and safety - and not the opposite.
Yes, there has to be a balance. If police were able to enter your property whenver they wanted, they would be a threat to your family. If police could never enter anyones property, then common criminals would be a greater threat than they are now. This is why we have warrants and rules for evidence.
Now I'll turn your question back around at you. How can I protect my family against abusive law enforcement, proactively? And I mean without moving my family into the wilderness or otherwise removing them from society.
My goal is to have a safe environment for myself and my family to live in.
This is my goal as well. I want your family, and every family to be secure against abuses of power by police.
I'd like to think that the other side cares enough about my family (even if only in the abstract) that they would not push their ideas without thought to how it would negatively affect people.
I would too. Have you thought about how allowing the police to walk through my property without a warrant or any sort of probable cause might negatively affect my safety?
I am not willing to trade abstract ideas of freedom for the lives of my family.
I think you already are making such a trade. Specifically, you're exchanging the security of your family against government aggression for the authoritarian ideal that law is right because its the law and every law breaker is a bad person.
In my experience, I have found very few instances where an individual vehemently was against a particular law, when they were not already breaking that law, or intended to. I would like to protect my family from these people.
Why do you assume that because someone is breaking a law that they are a threat to your family?
Easy solution. Legalize drugs and the police will have no business snooping around open fields.
Can any of you who vigorously push for "freedom" tell me how your efforts will directly help to make things safer for my family?
Your children will become adults some day. If you care about their safety, you should ensure that they are not persecuted by their government for their personal life choices that don't harm anyone else. The only threat to your family discussed in the article is the police.
If you want the cops to get a warrant, grow your MJ indoors or in the "curtilage" behind a tall fence (and hope they're not using aircraft).
Or dogs.
Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior. So if you want good things to happen to the most people, which most empathetic people would, then you should eschew empathy and be as rational as possible.
I think we need to look at the issue in such a way where we ask "Does an abortion violate any entity's rights?"
That IS the question pro-choice people ask. But the only relevant entity that is even capable of having rights is the woman.
I said "legitimate". ;)
OK, we'll start with the assumption that killing a person is wrong (except in cases of self defence). We'll also assume that a baby is a person. If you disagree with these premises let me know, I'd be interested to find out why.
So now we have to find out whether a fetus is a person or not. If it's not a person it immediately follows that it's not a baby. You might think that we need a definition for "person" too, but we have an operational definition already. If it's OK to kill it, then it's not a person. Then all we have to do is consider the features that fetuses share with persons, and see if they make killing wrong.
A fetus has a beating heart. If this defined personhood, cheeseburgers would be murder.
A fetus has human DNA. If this defined personhood, amputations would be murder.
A fetus has totipotent cells which potentially create a person. If this defined personhood, removing cancerous tumors would be murder.
A fetus has a highly human face. If this defined personhood then will it blend would be murder.
A fetus responds to the human voice. If this defined personhood, then canine euthansia would be murder.
And so on. Obviously we can't prove in the logical sense that a fetus is not a person, since we can't prove a negative. But as a practical matter we don't need to. We can eliminate the most plausible candidates, and then those who make the positive claim can shoulder the burden of proof.
So far, and I've asked a lot, no anti-abortionist has ever offered a definition of "person" that included fetuses, babies, and adults while excluding other life forms we kill willingly without resorting to magic, which obviously cannot be the basis for sound policy. Can you?
A high incarceration rate doesn't erase our public education system or other social programs. It doesn't counter our large economy
It does if you're one of the 2 million Americans in prison. It does if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans in danger of imprisonment for your personal life choices. It does if you're a tax payer who would rather pay for that public education system, or public housing for the homeless, or mental health care for the mentally ill, or anything else that would make us all much safer for much lower cost than mass incarceration does.
The incarceration rate is proof that the government has failed at its most basic task, keeping its citizens safe. Instead, it has set itself up as the primary agressor against its own citizens.
I define authoritarian hell hole as places where RPGs and guns are mounted on civilian vehicles, and everyone is a corrupt ex-soldier.
I disagree with this definition. That's warlordism. Arguably, The People at least have a chance at getting their way through sheer force. If your warlord treats you too badly, you can band together and kick him out. That mother you saw with an assault rifle believes she has a real chance at self defence against agressors. Does anyone really believe she would stand a chance against the US government?