Just because something is subjective (like respectable behavior) does not mean people should disregard that it exists.
I didn't say that people should disregard it, but I do believe people should stop pretending that they're objectively correct (as you seemed to do when you said certain people have "serious developmental issues").
No True Adult would tell tit jokes to a mixed audience. They must not be... True Adults!
Now, that's just vague. Who are you to decide that people who tell certain types of jokes don't act like adults (Whatever that means; it's subjective nonsense as far as I'm concerned.)?
Oh, ffs, the reason you don't make category-targetted jokes like this isn't because it causes offense (it does, and people are entitled to be offended, but that's neither here nor there), but because it's a pointed act of exclusion.
"the reason you don't"? Well, some people do, so your point went right out the window.
Or did you mean that people shouldn't do that? If so, who are you to decide such a thing? Are you an omnipotent being who decides what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong? Otherwise, I'm going to have to conclude that the matter is simply subjective.
What people? There are very few people here, if any, that haven't already made up their minds on this issue. This is not a public debate on national television, so I don't see your point. The truth (that most people are imbeciles) might hurt people's feelings, and it might not be expedient to tell people such things when you're trying to make actual change, but that's not what's happening here. Furthermore, anyone who would disregard everything that someone says just because the person used an insult is an imbecile to begin with.
Intelligence agencies have always, always, been mandated to spy on foreigners
Irrelevant; we need to stop.
Should the CIA and NSA stop spying on Brits, Israelis*, etc?
Yes.
Well, only if MI-6 and Mossad stop spying on Americans.
We could just stop with or without the other countries. Since we're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, let's set an example by not spying on countries that aren't even hostile towards us.
Wait... what? Who provided a list of arrests, convictions, and interrupted plots in this discussion? No one. You act as if because someone insulted other people, that people on one side have no actual arguments at all, while at the same time claiming that the other side does have validity when they didn't even post anything yet.
Note that you're wasting your time, though. Freedom lovers don't care what you have to say because the only thing you'll tell us is that we should all sacrifice our freedoms for security, even if you deny that we've sacrificed any rights at all.
Sure, Obama and the democrats in the senate and house are proving they're also in the pockets of the wealthy (not a single bank or banker held accountable for the 2008 economic meltdown), but the alternative is horrific (republicans that want to utterly decimate the economy and make the U.S. a Christian theocracy).
That's simply idiotic. If you keep voting for evil because you believe the other side is more evil, evil will always prevail. Sometimes you just have to accept that you may be burdened by people who are slightly more evil for a while while you're trying to change things; whatever the case, don't keep voting for evil.
That's probably intentional. It's not hard to feel superior to people who support this nonsense because they believe it will keep them safe, or people who simply don't care in the least.
However, whilst exercising your right to do so, you recklessly endanger others, which is what you get charged with. Nothing to do with the first.
That's ridiculous. What you're getting charged with is saying the 'wrong' thing at the 'wrong' time, and no newspeak nonsense will tell me otherwise. It is very much a first amendment issue.
Why would the government send people who want to give the government more power to jail? Unless the public catches wind of the corruption and there's enough backlash, that simply isn't going to happen.
So people who say that the government is violating constitutional rights look like nuts? Free speech zones, the TSA, the NSA spying, protest permits, etc. The government does many things that violate the constitution, and it does so quite openly to such a degree that there is practically no room for debate.
When bad guys use encryption to conceal their activities, we need to be able to decrypt it.
The people in the NSA (and the government in general) are the "bad guys." Anyway, why are you so worried about a nonexistent threat? The government is more of a threat to you (as in, your individual liberties, and if you're one of the few who make them angry, your well-being) than these fabled "bad guys" who use encryption.
Crippling the NSA is not the answer.
Yes, it is; they're human garbage.
The real problem is oversight. FISA is little more than a rubber stamp for whatever the intelligence services want to do.
That's only part of the problem. You'll never have effective oversight unless the public can always see what they're doing, and even then, the public might just accept the injustices. Furthermore, even if we did have "effective oversight," we'd just have another TSA on our hands; in other words, an organization that quite openly violates people's individual liberties.
We need stronger oversight to protect the privacy of law abiding citizens, not a weaker ability to catch bad guys.
What do you suggest we do to catch these "bad guys"? Intentionally weaken all encryption? After all, if we advocate the use of strong encryption, these fabled "bad guys," who apparently aren't using it already, might use it, too!
The notion that I must weaken my own security and put up with blatant government overreach (and putting backdoors in encryption software is overreact) all to stop some "bad guys" is something I find disgusting.
If there are laws in place that clearly prohibit certain activities
The constitution is already in place, and it quite clearly prohibits them from doing this nonsense (they didn't have any probable cause to spy on millions of innocent people, and since that is the case, any warrants the FISA courts handed out are invalid).
Slashdot Mirror
Just because something is subjective (like respectable behavior) does not mean people should disregard that it exists.
I didn't say that people should disregard it, but I do believe people should stop pretending that they're objectively correct (as you seemed to do when you said certain people have "serious developmental issues").
If "sexist" means whatever you wish it to mean, then yes.
Dehumanizing? I don't see anyone thinking that women aren't humans.
No True Adult would tell tit jokes to a mixed audience. They must not be... True Adults!
Now, that's just vague. Who are you to decide that people who tell certain types of jokes don't act like adults (Whatever that means; it's subjective nonsense as far as I'm concerned.)?
Oh, ffs, the reason you don't make category-targetted jokes like this isn't because it causes offense (it does, and people are entitled to be offended, but that's neither here nor there), but because it's a pointed act of exclusion.
"the reason you don't"? Well, some people do, so your point went right out the window.
Or did you mean that people shouldn't do that? If so, who are you to decide such a thing? Are you an omnipotent being who decides what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong? Otherwise, I'm going to have to conclude that the matter is simply subjective.
What people? There are very few people here, if any, that haven't already made up their minds on this issue. This is not a public debate on national television, so I don't see your point. The truth (that most people are imbeciles) might hurt people's feelings, and it might not be expedient to tell people such things when you're trying to make actual change, but that's not what's happening here. Furthermore, anyone who would disregard everything that someone says just because the person used an insult is an imbecile to begin with.
We accept that if we enter your country, you might spy on us.
I accept that they might spy on me, but I don't accept that it would be moral for them to do so.
Because the US Constitution applies to US citizens
Many parts of the constitution don't distinguish between US citizens and non-US citizens.
Intelligence agencies have always, always, been mandated to spy on foreigners
Irrelevant; we need to stop.
Should the CIA and NSA stop spying on Brits, Israelis*, etc?
Yes.
Well, only if MI-6 and Mossad stop spying on Americans.
We could just stop with or without the other countries. Since we're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, let's set an example by not spying on countries that aren't even hostile towards us.
There is no perfect solution
Indeed, and in the name of freedom, we must accept that there are sometimes casualties.
Which is exactly why they shouldn't have such sweeping powers to begin with. Even your beloved court admitted it can't even provide oversight.
Wait... what? Who provided a list of arrests, convictions, and interrupted plots in this discussion? No one. You act as if because someone insulted other people, that people on one side have no actual arguments at all, while at the same time claiming that the other side does have validity when they didn't even post anything yet.
Note that you're wasting your time, though. Freedom lovers don't care what you have to say because the only thing you'll tell us is that we should all sacrifice our freedoms for security, even if you deny that we've sacrificed any rights at all.
Sure, Obama and the democrats in the senate and house are proving they're also in the pockets of the wealthy (not a single bank or banker held accountable for the 2008 economic meltdown), but the alternative is horrific (republicans that want to utterly decimate the economy and make the U.S. a Christian theocracy).
That's simply idiotic. If you keep voting for evil because you believe the other side is more evil, evil will always prevail. Sometimes you just have to accept that you may be burdened by people who are slightly more evil for a while while you're trying to change things; whatever the case, don't keep voting for evil.
It's smug and condescending
That's probably intentional. It's not hard to feel superior to people who support this nonsense because they believe it will keep them safe, or people who simply don't care in the least.
However, whilst exercising your right to do so, you recklessly endanger others, which is what you get charged with. Nothing to do with the first.
That's ridiculous. What you're getting charged with is saying the 'wrong' thing at the 'wrong' time, and no newspeak nonsense will tell me otherwise. It is very much a first amendment issue.
Why would the government send people who want to give the government more power to jail? Unless the public catches wind of the corruption and there's enough backlash, that simply isn't going to happen.
So people who say that the government is violating constitutional rights look like nuts? Free speech zones, the TSA, the NSA spying, protest permits, etc. The government does many things that violate the constitution, and it does so quite openly to such a degree that there is practically no room for debate.
Yes, it does take years to get government thugs to obey the very thing which gives them any power at all, but I was aware of that.
You're right. At no point should I believe that the government is going to follow the constitution.
and they've just been edging over the line, not just ignoring the law completely.
No, they're ignoring the constitution completely.
When bad guys use encryption to conceal their activities, we need to be able to decrypt it.
The people in the NSA (and the government in general) are the "bad guys." Anyway, why are you so worried about a nonexistent threat? The government is more of a threat to you (as in, your individual liberties, and if you're one of the few who make them angry, your well-being) than these fabled "bad guys" who use encryption.
Crippling the NSA is not the answer.
Yes, it is; they're human garbage.
The real problem is oversight. FISA is little more than a rubber stamp for whatever the intelligence services want to do.
That's only part of the problem. You'll never have effective oversight unless the public can always see what they're doing, and even then, the public might just accept the injustices. Furthermore, even if we did have "effective oversight," we'd just have another TSA on our hands; in other words, an organization that quite openly violates people's individual liberties.
We need stronger oversight to protect the privacy of law abiding citizens, not a weaker ability to catch bad guys.
What do you suggest we do to catch these "bad guys"? Intentionally weaken all encryption? After all, if we advocate the use of strong encryption, these fabled "bad guys," who apparently aren't using it already, might use it, too!
The notion that I must weaken my own security and put up with blatant government overreach (and putting backdoors in encryption software is overreact) all to stop some "bad guys" is something I find disgusting.
If there are laws in place that clearly prohibit certain activities
The constitution is already in place, and it quite clearly prohibits them from doing this nonsense (they didn't have any probable cause to spy on millions of innocent people, and since that is the case, any warrants the FISA courts handed out are invalid).
the NSA has done over a 100,000,000 million legal searches.
Legal? Maybe. Constitutional? No. Rubberstamped warrants don't count.
Something licked my chops.
I licked my chops.