The mere fact that someone might feel differently were they in a different situation than they are currently in does not mean that their current arguments are wrong.
(and, yes, pornography does cause really serious problems to a LOT of people)
Oh, I'm sure.
(which it would be right in public places, by the way)
Really? I don't like hats, so nobody should be allowed to wear them in public places. Seeing someone wearing a hate inflicts extreme mental anguish upon me.
I think they should add religious content to the list of things they're going to block; maybe then people would start seeing the problem with such censorship.
By law A FISA warrant is a warrant and therefore the Amendment has not been violated. How exactly is the Fourth Amendment violated?
Here: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Many of the warrants the FISA court approved are broad and ridiculous.
He probably also thinks that free speech zones are not a violation of free speech. These people thrive off of technicalities and seem to love watching other people's individual liberties get violated.
Second, you have no idea what this information has been used for nor do you have any evidence of this data being used irresponsibly.
I feel that you should distrust the government by default.
Is it? I honestly doubt it.
Why do you doubt it? Has history's long line of abusive and tyrannical governments given you any reason to do so? I don't think so.
Personally, I have more faith in the integrity NSA employees than the marketing guys at Facebook or any number of other companies that collect my data and have a great incentive to monetize it.
Then you're naive. Government employees are nowhere near being perfect beings, so any trust in them is misplaced.
And how is what you say actually at odds with what I say?
Because you're deciding for them that they simply despise change in general.
And don't let people's rationalizations of dislike throw you off.
There's that buzzword again! When used in such a context, it becomes almost meaningless. Again, they don't need to 'rationalize' anything; they have their own opinions, and you can't decide it for them.
They decided and made it clear for the rest of us.
No, they didn't. They may truly hate specific changes, and the reason they didn't leave may have been because the changes weren't bad enough to completely negate any benefit Facebook as a whole brings them. How does this not make sense?
Are you really trying to argue that people do generally like change and that all of Facebook's changes are bad?
Where did I say any of that?
Deal with it.
I don't need to, because I realize that people can decide for themselves what they like and how much value they place in something.
I can decide that when the same people stop complaining and keep using the service and use the new features without a peep.
Only they can decide such things for themselves. Perhaps they truly do dislike the new changes, but not enough to make them stop using Facebook? None of this means they just hate change.
If someone is trying to use force to hijack a plane, I don't think it is unreasonable for people to try to stop them, especially after 9/11. I don't see your point.
Wrong. Now that we secure cockpit doors and passengers are willing to fight back (neither of which violate anyone's freedoms), such hijackings are simply not going to happen.
That said, even if we didn't have either of those things, I believe freedom is more important than security, so toss your "happy medium" right in the garbage.
Actually, I firmly believe the TSA should be destroyed outright. The TSA constantly and consistently violates people's rights; I don't see any reason such an organization should continue to exist.
We can't take everything they say at face value, and especially so when they ask for powers which could easily be used to abuse people's fundamental individual liberties. History gives me absolutely zero reason to trust the government with such powers, so why would I not take into account what it could do with the powers it's asking for, even if I don't have any direct evidence that the government is going to abuse them? That seems very foolish to me.
Slashdot Mirror
So, why, for goodness sake, is it so bad that I have the right of opting out of porn?
You're already quite capable of that without any government intervention.
Besides, you said that the censorship would be okay if the content being censored was able to be seen in public, and that's what I responded to.
The mere fact that someone might feel differently were they in a different situation than they are currently in does not mean that their current arguments are wrong.
(and, yes, pornography does cause really serious problems to a LOT of people)
Oh, I'm sure.
(which it would be right in public places, by the way)
Really? I don't like hats, so nobody should be allowed to wear them in public places. Seeing someone wearing a hate inflicts extreme mental anguish upon me.
I think they should add religious content to the list of things they're going to block; maybe then people would start seeing the problem with such censorship.
Software is never sold, it is always licenced.
I disagree with any law that says that; if it's on my hard drive, I consider it mine.
If punishing the innocent is your only answer, maybe you should just give up.
Wow, you really believe that your opinion is the law, don't you?
I highly doubt that.
By law A FISA warrant is a warrant and therefore the Amendment has not been violated. How exactly is the Fourth Amendment violated?
Here: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Many of the warrants the FISA court approved are broad and ridiculous.
And the supreme court can be wrong.
He probably also thinks that free speech zones are not a violation of free speech. These people thrive off of technicalities and seem to love watching other people's individual liberties get violated.
Second, you have no idea what this information has been used for nor do you have any evidence of this data being used irresponsibly.
I feel that you should distrust the government by default.
Is it? I honestly doubt it.
Why do you doubt it? Has history's long line of abusive and tyrannical governments given you any reason to do so? I don't think so.
Personally, I have more faith in the integrity NSA employees than the marketing guys at Facebook or any number of other companies that collect my data and have a great incentive to monetize it.
Then you're naive. Government employees are nowhere near being perfect beings, so any trust in them is misplaced.
And how is what you say actually at odds with what I say?
Because you're deciding for them that they simply despise change in general.
And don't let people's rationalizations of dislike throw you off.
There's that buzzword again! When used in such a context, it becomes almost meaningless. Again, they don't need to 'rationalize' anything; they have their own opinions, and you can't decide it for them.
They decided and made it clear for the rest of us.
No, they didn't. They may truly hate specific changes, and the reason they didn't leave may have been because the changes weren't bad enough to completely negate any benefit Facebook as a whole brings them. How does this not make sense?
Are you really trying to argue that people do generally like change and that all of Facebook's changes are bad?
Where did I say any of that?
Deal with it.
I don't need to, because I realize that people can decide for themselves what they like and how much value they place in something.
I can decide that when the same people stop complaining and keep using the service and use the new features without a peep.
Only they can decide such things for themselves. Perhaps they truly do dislike the new changes, but not enough to make them stop using Facebook? None of this means they just hate change.
People aren't going to fight back.
But it already happened. Have you forgotten?
People without a firm opinion on any subject can be swayed by being told that government and "most people" approve of whatever.
I can't see why that would persuade anyone...
Actually, corporations can censor speech.
These are courses that every adult in this entire country should have a firm grasp of.
But the reality is that they likely don't, and you probably have rote memorization education to thank for it.
If someone is trying to use force to hijack a plane, I don't think it is unreasonable for people to try to stop them, especially after 9/11. I don't see your point.
Wrong. Now that we secure cockpit doors and passengers are willing to fight back (neither of which violate anyone's freedoms), such hijackings are simply not going to happen.
That said, even if we didn't have either of those things, I believe freedom is more important than security, so toss your "happy medium" right in the garbage.
Actually, I firmly believe the TSA should be destroyed outright. The TSA constantly and consistently violates people's rights; I don't see any reason such an organization should continue to exist.
Frankly, I don't care how effective either is; just get rid of the TSA and stop harassing people, even if at random or by profiling.
We can't take everything they say at face value, and especially so when they ask for powers which could easily be used to abuse people's fundamental individual liberties. History gives me absolutely zero reason to trust the government with such powers, so why would I not take into account what it could do with the powers it's asking for, even if I don't have any direct evidence that the government is going to abuse them? That seems very foolish to me.
There's a lesson to be learned here: Focus on what a politician proposes and/or implements, not on what you fear he might do.
That seems very naive and foolish.
I just want the people who collect the data to use it responsibly.
While you're living in a fantasy land, you may as well wish that they stop collecting the data at all.