If I assume that by "privacy" you meant "piracy," then no, I do not believe it to be a right, and that it because (at least in the US) copyright infringement is currently illegal. However, if you were to ask me if I believe that 'creators' are entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas and the ability to control the data stored on your equipment, then no, I do not believe anyone is entitled to any such thing.
What humans think or how many humans think it is irrelevant to whether something is absolutely correct or not, so while many people may think certain music sounds better than a mosquito, it's rather irrelevant. Actual relativists would simply say it's an opinion shared by many.
Certain people who believe morality is not subjective try to make similar arguments. They might use killing millions of innocent children as an example of why morality is objective, for instance. However, again, saying that killing millions of children is evil would, to an actual relativist, likely appear to be a mere statement of an opinion, not something that is objectively true.
Asking a 'victim' likely won't get you the most impartial answer, but then again, what is and is not trivial is a subjective matter to begin with. I do consider it trivial enough as to find it ridiculous that they might be using undercover cops to stop things such as this.
Dare to suggest that the government isn't made up of perfect, incorruptible beings who can never do any wrong and it's therefore not wise to give them essentially unlimited powers or let them exercise their powers in secrecy? You must be a terrorist!
It's scary how many people possess the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality as if they think that people who work for the government are somehow perfect beings.
I don't remember getting fondled at all before 9/11, truth be told.
And I'd be against any such fondling if it were being done by a private company. I definitely wouldn't go to any such airports. I may even go so far as to say that they shouldn't even be allowed to do that to begin with.
Oh, and I'd be perfectly happy even without metal detectors. Take your security theater elsewhere, and I'll gladly fly on a plane knowing that there's an absolutely minuscule chance that a terrorist will not only break through the secured cockpit doors (the only decent change since 9/11) but also not cause every citizen on board to murder him/her.
I suppose you thought you were being clever by implicitly saying that I believe that the freedom to do something trumps safety in all cases, but I must inform you that that's not really what I believe. Or is my interpretation incorrect?
I don't remember getting fondled at all before 9/11, truth be told. Furthermore, a search conducted by the government is different from a private company scanning your luggage with a metal detector.
Before 911, the airport security guys had a badge that said something different on it.
Before 9/11, you weren't getting fondled and searched by goons from a government agency. If you need to ask how your rights are being violated, I don't really know what to say.
What gives you the right to force your ideals on other people at the expensive of their lives?
What gives you or I the right to do anything? I don't think your question is very meaningful because it seems to assume that there is some entity that gives us the right to do things, and there is no evidence to suggest that that is the case. I simply advocate for things that I agree with, just as you do.
That said, I could just as easily say, "What gives you the right to force your ideals on other people at the expense of their freedoms?"
A bit amusing is the fact that this is something that I'd imagine would come out of a TSA supporter's mouth...
It's an argument not dissimilar to one the TSA would make, with the only real difference being that it's not about the terrorist bogeyman.
it's just that I would make a small sacrifice (of personal liberty) to perhaps save someone that someone else holds near and dear.
That's where you and I differ. I think we've been making far too many 'small' sacrifices as of late and that this 'protect us at the expense of freedom' mentality is poison.
Taking the opposite extreme only makes the other side dig in deeper.
What?
A middle ground is best.
That's your opinion. Obviously I disagree that the "middle ground" is the best choice here. I don't care for them having the ability to take action without a warrant for things that a judge would possibly never have given a warrant for to begin with, which is what would happen in some cases if such a thing was allowed.
Such a policy has a good chance of saving some lives over the years
I'd much prefer that a few lives be lost than allowing for random exceptions. As I keep saying, I'd be against the TSA even if it was actually effective.
Actually, from what I've seen, there are many people who seem to support things such as this. They're scared of nearly nonexistent threats and would rather give up everyone's freedoms than risk injury.
Then there's the fact that the government takes advantage of every disaster and many people, being 'irrational' due to said disasters, actively support the government's actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so the TSA wasn't at the airport you went to, then? It is my understanding that they will search you or scan you if you try to get on a plane.
If I assume that by "privacy" you meant "piracy," then no, I do not believe it to be a right, and that it because (at least in the US) copyright infringement is currently illegal. However, if you were to ask me if I believe that 'creators' are entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas and the ability to control the data stored on your equipment, then no, I do not believe anyone is entitled to any such thing.
'Piracy' is only wrong if you are of the opinion that it is wrong.
Whether it helps or hurts is in itself a mere opinion and really depends on what you believe is hurtful to begin with.
Or perhaps you're simply overconfident?
The examples given provide lasting value.
Watching a television show might provide someone with lasting value (nice memories, for instance).
Now, you can quibble over the interpretation of this clause, and over how much power it provides. I'll grant you that.
Which I think is kind of important, you know. These posts explain it.
What humans think or how many humans think it is irrelevant to whether something is absolutely correct or not, so while many people may think certain music sounds better than a mosquito, it's rather irrelevant. Actual relativists would simply say it's an opinion shared by many.
Certain people who believe morality is not subjective try to make similar arguments. They might use killing millions of innocent children as an example of why morality is objective, for instance. However, again, saying that killing millions of children is evil would, to an actual relativist, likely appear to be a mere statement of an opinion, not something that is objectively true.
There's a weak correlation between taste in music and other arts, and the way a person acts and what he accomplishes.
Which really has nothing to do with whether or not something has an objective value associated with it.
In that sense, there is some degree of superiority of one art form or another.
Even that is an opinion.
That must be due to the magical opinion fairy; she decides what is truly good and what is not truly good.
Kant showed why such things are objectively wrong almost 200 years ago.
That seems extremely unlikely to me.
Asking a 'victim' likely won't get you the most impartial answer, but then again, what is and is not trivial is a subjective matter to begin with. I do consider it trivial enough as to find it ridiculous that they might be using undercover cops to stop things such as this.
You'll understand someday!
Must be nice to be able to see into the future and to instantly know the ages of people you've never met.
That said, you'll understand why you're 100% wrong when you're older.
Also these so called "parties" usually involve excessive alcohol consumption and use of illegal drugs.
So? No one really agrees with the drug war, right?
You do not have a right to party as loud and as long you may want.
You do not have a right to voice your disagreement with government policies except if your voice is as quiet as a whisper.
Dare to suggest that the government isn't made up of perfect, incorruptible beings who can never do any wrong and it's therefore not wise to give them essentially unlimited powers or let them exercise their powers in secrecy? You must be a terrorist!
It's scary how many people possess the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality as if they think that people who work for the government are somehow perfect beings.
I don't remember getting fondled at all before 9/11, truth be told.
And I'd be against any such fondling if it were being done by a private company. I definitely wouldn't go to any such airports. I may even go so far as to say that they shouldn't even be allowed to do that to begin with.
Oh, and I'd be perfectly happy even without metal detectors. Take your security theater elsewhere, and I'll gladly fly on a plane knowing that there's an absolutely minuscule chance that a terrorist will not only break through the secured cockpit doors (the only decent change since 9/11) but also not cause every citizen on board to murder him/her.
I suppose you thought you were being clever by implicitly saying that I believe that the freedom to do something trumps safety in all cases, but I must inform you that that's not really what I believe. Or is my interpretation incorrect?
I don't remember getting fondled at all before 9/11, truth be told. Furthermore, a search conducted by the government is different from a private company scanning your luggage with a metal detector.
Before 911, the airport security guys had a badge that said something different on it.
Before 9/11, you weren't getting fondled and searched by goons from a government agency. If you need to ask how your rights are being violated, I don't really know what to say.
That's just your opinion, and it is subjective.
Correct. Notice the "I think."
What gives you the right to force your ideals on other people at the expensive of their lives?
What gives you or I the right to do anything? I don't think your question is very meaningful because it seems to assume that there is some entity that gives us the right to do things, and there is no evidence to suggest that that is the case. I simply advocate for things that I agree with, just as you do.
That said, I could just as easily say, "What gives you the right to force your ideals on other people at the expense of their freedoms?"
A bit amusing is the fact that this is something that I'd imagine would come out of a TSA supporter's mouth...
This isn't a "think of the children" argument
It's an argument not dissimilar to one the TSA would make, with the only real difference being that it's not about the terrorist bogeyman.
it's just that I would make a small sacrifice (of personal liberty) to perhaps save someone that someone else holds near and dear.
That's where you and I differ. I think we've been making far too many 'small' sacrifices as of late and that this 'protect us at the expense of freedom' mentality is poison.
Taking the opposite extreme only makes the other side dig in deeper.
What?
A middle ground is best.
That's your opinion. Obviously I disagree that the "middle ground" is the best choice here. I don't care for them having the ability to take action without a warrant for things that a judge would possibly never have given a warrant for to begin with, which is what would happen in some cases if such a thing was allowed.
Such a policy has a good chance of saving some lives over the years
I'd much prefer that a few lives be lost than allowing for random exceptions. As I keep saying, I'd be against the TSA even if it was actually effective.
What choice do we have?
Actually, from what I've seen, there are many people who seem to support things such as this. They're scared of nearly nonexistent threats and would rather give up everyone's freedoms than risk injury.
Then there's the fact that the government takes advantage of every disaster and many people, being 'irrational' due to said disasters, actively support the government's actions.
There are extreme circumstances where obtaining a warrant will take more time than you have
Too bad. Get a warrant.