The fact that he said something you don't agree with does not mean he has no kids. Not all parents are the same, and if you were a True Parent, you'd know that!
Really? We have free speech zones, the NSA, the TSA, constitution-free zones, and a host of other nonsense. Just because you don't notice it, that doesn't mean your freedoms aren't under attack; they are.
Well, okay... but my post didn't really strongly suggest that there were significant differences to begin with. I'm aware that any information these corporations have will likely also fall into the hands of government thugs.
Put away your tinfoil hats and see the real threat.
What tinfoil hats? Are you suggesting that it is crazy to be afraid that the government might abuse the massive amount of power we've given it, even though every government has abused its power without fail? The people who work for the government are humans, not perfect angels; thus, it makes no sense to me to not be wary of them.
Of course, I don't think corporations having all this data is a good thing either, but there are no tinfoil hats present here.
Do those freedoms envisioned back when the "west" was still frontier and mail took 3 months to reach Europe still work in a world of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons? Does it work in a world of suicide bombers, high explosives, and a world in which you can reach any major city in less than 24 hours?
Yes. I believe freedom to be more important than safety to begin with, so such nonsense isn't going to persuade me in the least. Terrorist bogeymen are largely nonexistent to begin with; the threat is highly exaggerated.
Anyway, if I had a choice between risking annihilated and allowing the government to violate everyone's freedoms as it pleases (which is pretty much the current situation), I'd choose the former. I don't care for police states, and I think a world without freedom isn't a world worth living in or even a world worth existing; people who don't like being cattle are probably inclined to agree with me.
I would respect a President more who said, "We need an agency who can spy and record everything for national security. Their job is not to police the nations many laws, it isn't in their charter, so even if they find you cheating on your taxes, they won't tell the IRS. Their sole job is to prevent major threats against the United States from enemies who would seek to destroy our way of life".
I think that would be only slightly better than outright lying, but I wouldn't respect such a president at all. Why would I respect a president who admits openly that they despise the constitution and freedom? I don't respect presidents who lie about the fact that they care about freedom, either.
It was a major campaign promise. Still hasn't been closed 5 years later. Why?
Most likely because he's a lying politician (my use of the word "lying" may have been redundant), like most are in the two major parties. Still, fools keep voting for them.
It isn't a perfect system, but there really are bad people in the world who want to kill us, what would you suggest doing about that?
If it means throwing away our freedoms--as we have with the NSA, TSA, PATRIOT ACT, et al.--nothing. As far as I've heard, we're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, so I think the fact that some bogeymen were so easily able to make us discard some of the freedoms that supposedly make us 'better' is absolutely pathetic.
I have great respect for rule of law, freedom and the Constitution.
I seriously doubt that, given that you're practically cheering on the NSA and trying to trivialize violations of the constitution.
Just because I view eavesdropping as trivial
I do not think that collecting such a massive amount of information randomly is trivial.
I've known for decades though, that all communications in this country were vulnerable to this kind of thing.
Whether it's new or not (I know that it's not new) is 100% irrelevant to me. Change never comes to those who give up.
I don't say it's a good thing
Yet you said you want them looking at everyone.
The government knows how far they can go
They can target certain individuals with impunity because people generally only seem to care about themselves and not about freedom in general. Rarely do police states try to make life as much of a living hell for everyone as they do for certain dissidents.
Thanks to people trivializing this issue and acting apathetically towards it (like you), we're likely one step closer to a police state.
Of all the issues in my life this doesn't rank in the top ten.
The constitution? How trivial. Freedom? Inconsequential. None of that trivial nonsense matters.
It's puzzling to me how many people who live in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free can be so apathetic or even opposed to the very principles the country was founded about, and freedom in general.
If you're scared of this little thing you must be shitting your pants over the new obamacare system.
If you think this is "little," you must be ignoring history, the risks, and pretty much everything else.
Basically the government is going to have control of all your info to the most remote data.
Whatever you think of Obamacare, spying on people's communications gives them far more information than merely knowing some basic facts that they already know and some health information. I'm more worried about the spying.
Bitching about a little eavesdropping is silly.
Indeed, to describe this as "a little eavesdropping" means you likely don't care about the constitution; thanks for confirming that once more. You are ignoring all the ways that this information could be abused, ignoring the fact that the people in the government are not perfect angels, ignoring the fact that people other than yourself could be targeted and harassed, and ignoring the fact that this is a blatant violation of the constitution. You're ignoring everything inconvenient merely so you can trivialize the issue.
I think the fact that you believe defending the rule of law, freedom, and the constitution is "silly" demonstrates profound ignorance on your part.
You've accused me of being against the Constitution and freedom when I've stated no such thing.
As far as I'm concerned, you've implicitly stated it many times by coming out in support of the NSA's unconstitutional actions. I believe the fact that the government is violating any part of the constitution is a huge cause for concern.
The world is all about balance.
I don't think we should compromise away fundamental freedoms, or the constitution. Forget "balance."
Maybe the NSA have gone too far but things are far, far from the horrible state you are claiming.
Perhaps it's not horrible for you, but it is for those of us who care about the constitution, and even more so for those few who get abused by the government thanks to this information. You're also not thinking in the long-term at all, and instead are seemingly choosing to blindly trust the government with this large repository of information on basically everyone.
Taking only part of my sentence and leaving off qualifiers changing its meaning then putting it in a quote block as if that's what I said wasn't supposed to be part of the discussion either, but hey it happened anyway.
Well, the very next sentence in my previous comment acknowledged the more likely possibility that you were talking about actual rapists.
and laws that are to stop people from harming others are not any infringement on freedom
To say that I've been criticizing laws that merely seek to ban actions that necessarily harm people is incorrect.
Merely desiring it is indeed an example of freedom if you do not believe in thoughtcrime. If you're talking about acting on it, that's a mere straw man; that just wasn't part of the discussion.
Well, if the odds of being blown up by a terrorist were above 0.1%, and the effectiveness of the TSA was above 0.1%, then actually yea I would say that question should be asked and those variables factored.
Then I'm done with you. Freedom is what matters to me.
You say that, and yet you're terrified of the terrorist bogeymen.
I know what governments are capable of but I think you've let your fear get the best of your brain.
No, I'm just not ignorant of history. You're far too trusting of those who have power and authority over you, I think.
Put the tin-foil hat away and calm yourself.
I believe that the notion that I must have a tinfoil hat merely because I don't think the people who work for the government are perfect angels who should be given massive amounts of information about citizens is positively absurd. I suggest you pick up a history book; I can't stress that enough.
If there were truly a problem then you could not come here to this public forum and bitch about the NSA.
You assume--foolishly, I think--that they won't harass certain people in near secrecy. Why do you think that we need to transform into a full-blown police state before there is a problem? Why do you trust the government to such a degree?
Just because I don't sweat a bunch of feather merchants listening in on my communications hardly means I don't believe in the Constitution.
You've quite clearly demonstrated that you don't care for freedom or the constitution. Why else would you come out in support of the NSA's actions? Those positions are mutually exclusive, or at least that's how I see.
That's like me telling an anti-gun advocate he doesn't believe in freedom
Most likely true.
It's not a perfect world but that doesn't mean we are living in tyranny.
And you're willing to attack people who want to stop us from descending into the realm of tyranny by defending the NSA's actions and pretending as if violating people's privacy and the constitution is no big deal; I believe it is this attitude that is the problem.
I think your trust in the current government and all future governments is extremely misplaced and undeserved.
A reasonable discussion is impossible when it is derailed by people who try to turn a discussion about grown-ups trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds into a discussion about personal freedom.
"reasonable" is subjective to begin with.
And why put that in bold? Do you honestly believe that I care about the age of the imaginary child? If so, well, I don't. Just because the situation is black-and-white to you doesn't mean it is to me.
You are proof-positive that there are people out there who are inaccessible to rational discourse.
I'd say the 'for the children' crowd serve as better proof of that.
Slashdot Mirror
That he has no kids is obvious.
The fact that he said something you don't agree with does not mean he has no kids. Not all parents are the same, and if you were a True Parent, you'd know that!
Nobody's freedom being infringed on.
Really? We have free speech zones, the NSA, the TSA, constitution-free zones, and a host of other nonsense. Just because you don't notice it, that doesn't mean your freedoms aren't under attack; they are.
Says the person who knows nothing about the person he's replying to when spewing forth ad hominems.
My own personal idea is that copyright/patents should only last like 5-7 years, then everything is in public domain.
I have an idea that I think is even easier, and ultimately, would make society more free: Get rid of copyrights and patents.
Well, okay... but my post didn't really strongly suggest that there were significant differences to begin with. I'm aware that any information these corporations have will likely also fall into the hands of government thugs.
Put away your tinfoil hats and see the real threat.
What tinfoil hats? Are you suggesting that it is crazy to be afraid that the government might abuse the massive amount of power we've given it, even though every government has abused its power without fail? The people who work for the government are humans, not perfect angels; thus, it makes no sense to me to not be wary of them.
Of course, I don't think corporations having all this data is a good thing either, but there are no tinfoil hats present here.
most Americans don't like much of what their government is doing
I find this hard to believe. Most seem rather apathetic.
and are trying to stop it.
I find this much harder to believe.
The truth is that support for these wars came from Anger. Bloody, mortal rage. Not fear.
I think rational, courageous behavior would have helped a bit here.
Still blaming Bush I see.
How did you get that from that post?
But if you believe that freedom is what's important, none of that garbage is relevant, even in the unlikely event that it's true.
Do those freedoms envisioned back when the "west" was still frontier and mail took 3 months to reach Europe still work in a world of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons? Does it work in a world of suicide bombers, high explosives, and a world in which you can reach any major city in less than 24 hours?
Yes. I believe freedom to be more important than safety to begin with, so such nonsense isn't going to persuade me in the least. Terrorist bogeymen are largely nonexistent to begin with; the threat is highly exaggerated.
Anyway, if I had a choice between risking annihilated and allowing the government to violate everyone's freedoms as it pleases (which is pretty much the current situation), I'd choose the former. I don't care for police states, and I think a world without freedom isn't a world worth living in or even a world worth existing; people who don't like being cattle are probably inclined to agree with me.
I would respect a President more who said, "We need an agency who can spy and record everything for national security. Their job is not to police the nations many laws, it isn't in their charter, so even if they find you cheating on your taxes, they won't tell the IRS. Their sole job is to prevent major threats against the United States from enemies who would seek to destroy our way of life".
I think that would be only slightly better than outright lying, but I wouldn't respect such a president at all. Why would I respect a president who admits openly that they despise the constitution and freedom? I don't respect presidents who lie about the fact that they care about freedom, either.
A "good job"? Like when he didn't veto the PATRIOT ACT when he had the chance? Like when he has come out and supported the NSA numerous times?
When it comes to things that are important to me, which are all freedom-related issues, I think Obama has done a rather bad job.
It was a major campaign promise. Still hasn't been closed 5 years later. Why?
Most likely because he's a lying politician (my use of the word "lying" may have been redundant), like most are in the two major parties. Still, fools keep voting for them.
It isn't a perfect system, but there really are bad people in the world who want to kill us, what would you suggest doing about that?
If it means throwing away our freedoms--as we have with the NSA, TSA, PATRIOT ACT, et al.--nothing. As far as I've heard, we're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, so I think the fact that some bogeymen were so easily able to make us discard some of the freedoms that supposedly make us 'better' is absolutely pathetic.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
It is to me.
I think the fact that we even cared whether or not these measures were temporary is simply pathetic.
I have great respect for rule of law, freedom and the Constitution.
I seriously doubt that, given that you're practically cheering on the NSA and trying to trivialize violations of the constitution.
Just because I view eavesdropping as trivial
I do not think that collecting such a massive amount of information randomly is trivial.
I've known for decades though, that all communications in this country were vulnerable to this kind of thing.
Whether it's new or not (I know that it's not new) is 100% irrelevant to me. Change never comes to those who give up.
I don't say it's a good thing
Yet you said you want them looking at everyone.
The government knows how far they can go
They can target certain individuals with impunity because people generally only seem to care about themselves and not about freedom in general. Rarely do police states try to make life as much of a living hell for everyone as they do for certain dissidents.
Thanks to people trivializing this issue and acting apathetically towards it (like you), we're likely one step closer to a police state.
Of all the issues in my life this doesn't rank in the top ten.
The constitution? How trivial. Freedom? Inconsequential. None of that trivial nonsense matters.
It's puzzling to me how many people who live in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free can be so apathetic or even opposed to the very principles the country was founded about, and freedom in general.
How much is personal liberty worth when you can't make a living wage with a full time job?
Still quite a bit, I'd say.
If you're scared of this little thing you must be shitting your pants over the new obamacare system.
If you think this is "little," you must be ignoring history, the risks, and pretty much everything else.
Basically the government is going to have control of all your info to the most remote data.
Whatever you think of Obamacare, spying on people's communications gives them far more information than merely knowing some basic facts that they already know and some health information. I'm more worried about the spying.
Bitching about a little eavesdropping is silly.
Indeed, to describe this as "a little eavesdropping" means you likely don't care about the constitution; thanks for confirming that once more. You are ignoring all the ways that this information could be abused, ignoring the fact that the people in the government are not perfect angels, ignoring the fact that people other than yourself could be targeted and harassed, and ignoring the fact that this is a blatant violation of the constitution. You're ignoring everything inconvenient merely so you can trivialize the issue.
I think the fact that you believe defending the rule of law, freedom, and the constitution is "silly" demonstrates profound ignorance on your part.
You've accused me of being against the Constitution and freedom when I've stated no such thing.
As far as I'm concerned, you've implicitly stated it many times by coming out in support of the NSA's unconstitutional actions. I believe the fact that the government is violating any part of the constitution is a huge cause for concern.
The world is all about balance.
I don't think we should compromise away fundamental freedoms, or the constitution. Forget "balance."
Maybe the NSA have gone too far but things are far, far from the horrible state you are claiming.
Perhaps it's not horrible for you, but it is for those of us who care about the constitution, and even more so for those few who get abused by the government thanks to this information. You're also not thinking in the long-term at all, and instead are seemingly choosing to blindly trust the government with this large repository of information on basically everyone.
Taking only part of my sentence and leaving off qualifiers changing its meaning then putting it in a quote block as if that's what I said wasn't supposed to be part of the discussion either, but hey it happened anyway.
Well, the very next sentence in my previous comment acknowledged the more likely possibility that you were talking about actual rapists.
and laws that are to stop people from harming others are not any infringement on freedom
To say that I've been criticizing laws that merely seek to ban actions that necessarily harm people is incorrect.
Desiring to rape 10 year olds is not freedom.
Merely desiring it is indeed an example of freedom if you do not believe in thoughtcrime. If you're talking about acting on it, that's a mere straw man; that just wasn't part of the discussion.
Well, if the odds of being blown up by a terrorist were above 0.1%, and the effectiveness of the TSA was above 0.1%, then actually yea I would say that question should be asked and those variables factored.
Then I'm done with you. Freedom is what matters to me.
I think you've let your paranoia run wild.
You say that, and yet you're terrified of the terrorist bogeymen.
I know what governments are capable of but I think you've let your fear get the best of your brain.
No, I'm just not ignorant of history. You're far too trusting of those who have power and authority over you, I think.
Put the tin-foil hat away and calm yourself.
I believe that the notion that I must have a tinfoil hat merely because I don't think the people who work for the government are perfect angels who should be given massive amounts of information about citizens is positively absurd. I suggest you pick up a history book; I can't stress that enough.
If there were truly a problem then you could not come here to this public forum and bitch about the NSA.
You assume--foolishly, I think--that they won't harass certain people in near secrecy. Why do you think that we need to transform into a full-blown police state before there is a problem? Why do you trust the government to such a degree?
Just because I don't sweat a bunch of feather merchants listening in on my communications hardly means I don't believe in the Constitution.
You've quite clearly demonstrated that you don't care for freedom or the constitution. Why else would you come out in support of the NSA's actions? Those positions are mutually exclusive, or at least that's how I see.
That's like me telling an anti-gun advocate he doesn't believe in freedom
Most likely true.
It's not a perfect world but that doesn't mean we are living in tyranny.
And you're willing to attack people who want to stop us from descending into the realm of tyranny by defending the NSA's actions and pretending as if violating people's privacy and the constitution is no big deal; I believe it is this attitude that is the problem.
I think your trust in the current government and all future governments is extremely misplaced and undeserved.
A reasonable discussion is impossible when it is derailed by people who try to turn a discussion about grown-ups trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds into a discussion about personal freedom.
"reasonable" is subjective to begin with.
And why put that in bold? Do you honestly believe that I care about the age of the imaginary child? If so, well, I don't. Just because the situation is black-and-white to you doesn't mean it is to me.
You are proof-positive that there are people out there who are inaccessible to rational discourse.
I'd say the 'for the children' crowd serve as better proof of that.
Capability alone is sufficient in this case.
Everyone is capable of rational thought.
I seriously don't think the 'for the children' crowd cares about such things.