It seems a little unfair to blame the voters in this case since they really didn't have a choice in getting the PATRIOT Act passed.
Most people at the time were emotional and irrational; they were calling for such 'solutions.' No wonder they're always able to get away with this nonsense; most people are emotional and irrational enough even when there isn't a disaster.
Of course, that doesn't excuse the people who actually implemented this garbage, since they swore an oath to the constitution.
And it's not like they were able to kick out those who voted for the act
But they could have at least voted for third parties to send a message. Anyone who votes for what they believe to be evil, even if they think it's a 'lesser evil,' is a moron of the highest caliber.
What? A grand majority of them are, unless you consider rote memorization education to be a good thing. Public schools, at present, are unworkable one-size-fits-all solutions, and worse still, they do not facilitate true understanding of the material they claim to teach.
You've also demonstrated to me that you're not serious
I'm quite serious.
You'll never be free again so don't kid yourself into thinking they didn't get the DP.
Again, being alive and being dead are two different things. Just because you view being in prison for the rest of your life the same as being dead doesn't mean everyone else feels that way.
The partisans in this argument will blithely say they'd choose the moral high ground, but in reality they would not.
As I suspected. That is not a logical argument. What someone would or would not do if they were to be put in a different situation than they are currently in has nothing to do with whether or not their present beliefs are correct. It also has nothing to do with whether or not the actions are moral.
If something affects you directly, chances are you're not going to be very impartial. Pointing to scenarios where someone chooses to do something convenient for them because something is negatively impacting them is not going to help you.
You have only yourself to blame for using such bad logic. I merely responded to that nonsense.
You have the luxury of living in a world where people's lives don't hang in the balance.
And you have the luxury of having no principles, it seems. It's very convenient to be able to throw everything away when in danger; kind of like how we threw away many freedoms to keep us 'safe' from the terrorists.
With that said, people who are directly affected by something are not somehow more 'right' than anyone else; if anything, they're not impartial, which might affect their judgement. So attacking me because you believe (you don't even know me) that I live in such a way that my life is not in danger is useless; it will not help you.
I'm sorry to say it, but you're just too naive about how the real world works.
I'm sorry to say it, but your response was 100% predictable. I am not "naive," so much as I am unwilling to throw away certain principles when it is convenient for me, or rather, I do not think it should be done.
Maybe your response would be something along the lines of, "But if you were in a different situation than you are now, you'd totally agree with me!" If that is indeed something you'd say, then I must say that it's a non sequitur. What I would or would not believe were I in a different situation than I am now is completely irrelevant to whether or not my current arguments are correct.
You're really not going to justify torture to me by talking about life-or-death scenarios, or any other such nonsense. I wonder if you'd be a big fan of the TSA if it actually worked.
Not really, but I do know people who attend low-quality colleges; many of the people who go to these colleges simply have no idea that they're not receiving anything resembling an actual education.
Many mediocre people enter college, and many mediocre people are pumped out of college. The problem is, masses of mediocre people entering college causes the quality of the education provided by many colleges to plummet.
Well, I do think that people should vote for third parties (which I do, and I tell others to do), and I don't vote for people who don't support drug legalization. Your reply confused me.
Looks, like your parents forgot to teach you something particular important to be considered an adult and able to participate in a discussion.
Looks, like your parents forgot to teach you something particular important to be considered an adult and able to participate in a discussion. You said something in a way I don't like, so you're not a True Adult.
I don't know whether or not it's possible to find good news sources on Facebook (I seriously doubt they would qualify as "good" to me.), but anyone who uses Facebook is most likely an absolute imbecile just for that. I'm not saying Facebook users are merely misinformed; I'm saying that any given Facebook user is very likely almost completely unintelligent.
Your false dichotomy is a direct result of your desire to feel like you know something that everyone else doesn't, or at least, most other people, all of whom you regard as being not as smart as yourself.
Most people don't make it difficult to feel more intelligent than them. Warmongers, rote memorization geniuses, people almost entirely without the aptitude to understand a given subject, people who toss away everyone's freedom for safety, people who continually vote for the 'lesser of two evils', and many more kinds of imbeciles make up most of the population.
Yeah I'm sure you'd believe them if they suddenly started supporting such policies.
You assume you know what I think in order to... make your point more valid? Can I start telling you what you believe? I'd rather not... because it's utterly ridiculous.
If they followed up with actual, public actions, and caused real policies to be put into place that would greatly reduce the chances of something like this happening again, I'd be more inclined to believe them.
As for the "they have only themselves to blame", you're wrong.
They don't have themselves to blame for abusing their powers? Interesting.
In any event, thanks for proving my point.
I didn't prove any point of yours.
They have no incentive to change at all.
Of course they do. What they're doing is morally wrong.
I sure as fuck wouldn't.
If that's how they feel, then they're most likely sociopaths.
Understand, however I don't think many rule that way in the case of someone's life.
Silly. You're talking about humans here, and not perfect angels. "They might abuse their powers in every other case... but they won't in this one!" This is naive. This is the sort of mindset we have to thank for garbage like the TSA.
What does freedom for society and executing someone who is a murderer have to do with each other?
It has to do with whether or not the government should be able to murder people, and the right to life.
I didn't address TSA because it's not that simple and it's off topic.
Not that simple? The question was simple. Assume that the TSA works; do you support it?
I bet if I were to take you to Saudi Arabia for say a month stay, you'd be a totally different person.
What a good country to live in, and a great example. Do you have any actual concrete evidence, or are you just going to keep confusing correlation with causation?
By the way, I'm not actually certain one way or the other. Frankly, even if the death penalty makes us safer, I don't want government thugs to have such a power.
I don't see much of a difference between being dead and being locked up in a cage like an animal for say 30+ years and then being dead.
Well, if you want to kill yourself, go ahead. Just don't make that decision for other people.
You're not "not doing anything to them."
You're not shooting them.
They can still do a lot of harm behind bars.
The terrorists! The terrorists will get us! Give the government more power to stop the terrorists! Safety is what's important! Ooga booga booga!
Such things are rare to begin with. You could use this sort of logic to advocate for the execution of every prisoner (they may want revenge for putting them in prison, after all).
Many cases they were 100% on and they weren't guilty?
Absolutely. Surely you don't think they went through all those appeals and no one felt 100% confident that the person actually committed the crime?
May help if I mention that when I say it's 100%, we're really darn sure.
Yep. They were "really darn sure" plenty of times. The perception was that they were absolutely guilty. Perception sort of gets in the way of the "100%" limitation, and it doesn't matter what you think "100%" means.
People are wringing their hands over an automated system that might see your super secret facebook Like of the latest Lil Bub video
Yeah! Who cares if they spy on everyone and blatantly violate the constitution? No big deal. No government has ever abused their powers or used information to their advantage. Also, laws are unchanging and always just, so what could possibly go wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Wait... who could it be!? It's... cold fjord! What a surprise!
It seems a little unfair to blame the voters in this case since they really didn't have a choice in getting the PATRIOT Act passed.
Most people at the time were emotional and irrational; they were calling for such 'solutions.' No wonder they're always able to get away with this nonsense; most people are emotional and irrational enough even when there isn't a disaster.
Of course, that doesn't excuse the people who actually implemented this garbage, since they swore an oath to the constitution.
And it's not like they were able to kick out those who voted for the act
But they could have at least voted for third parties to send a message. Anyone who votes for what they believe to be evil, even if they think it's a 'lesser evil,' is a moron of the highest caliber.
No, ///some/// public schools are failing
What? A grand majority of them are, unless you consider rote memorization education to be a good thing. Public schools, at present, are unworkable one-size-fits-all solutions, and worse still, they do not facilitate true understanding of the material they claim to teach.
But in the real world, they're people
They're human garbage, so I suppose they are kind of human.
You're showing me you really have no clue.
I think the same, but about you.
You've also demonstrated to me that you're not serious
I'm quite serious.
You'll never be free again so don't kid yourself into thinking they didn't get the DP.
Again, being alive and being dead are two different things. Just because you view being in prison for the rest of your life the same as being dead doesn't mean everyone else feels that way.
IT was supposed to be a temporary measure
Temporary or not, it was awful and it should never have passed.
The partisans in this argument will blithely say they'd choose the moral high ground, but in reality they would not.
As I suspected. That is not a logical argument. What someone would or would not do if they were to be put in a different situation than they are currently in has nothing to do with whether or not their present beliefs are correct. It also has nothing to do with whether or not the actions are moral.
If something affects you directly, chances are you're not going to be very impartial. Pointing to scenarios where someone chooses to do something convenient for them because something is negatively impacting them is not going to help you.
You have only yourself to blame for using such bad logic. I merely responded to that nonsense.
You have the luxury of living in a world where people's lives don't hang in the balance.
And you have the luxury of having no principles, it seems. It's very convenient to be able to throw everything away when in danger; kind of like how we threw away many freedoms to keep us 'safe' from the terrorists.
With that said, people who are directly affected by something are not somehow more 'right' than anyone else; if anything, they're not impartial, which might affect their judgement. So attacking me because you believe (you don't even know me) that I live in such a way that my life is not in danger is useless; it will not help you.
I'm sorry to say it, but you're just too naive about how the real world works.
I'm sorry to say it, but your response was 100% predictable. I am not "naive," so much as I am unwilling to throw away certain principles when it is convenient for me, or rather, I do not think it should be done.
Maybe your response would be something along the lines of, "But if you were in a different situation than you are now, you'd totally agree with me!" If that is indeed something you'd say, then I must say that it's a non sequitur. What I would or would not believe were I in a different situation than I am now is completely irrelevant to whether or not my current arguments are correct.
You're really not going to justify torture to me by talking about life-or-death scenarios, or any other such nonsense. I wonder if you'd be a big fan of the TSA if it actually worked.
Not really, but I do know people who attend low-quality colleges; many of the people who go to these colleges simply have no idea that they're not receiving anything resembling an actual education.
Many mediocre people enter college, and many mediocre people are pumped out of college. The problem is, masses of mediocre people entering college causes the quality of the education provided by many colleges to plummet.
Now it's more common for people to go to college
And there are plenty of degree mills to accommodate all of these mediocre individuals.
The way I interpret it is that we are becoming more and more shallow.
How is that even possible? People were extraordinarily shallow in the past; I can't imagine how much more shallow people can get.
no body or facial language
All of which is an eyesore to me. No screaming or interruptions, and you have the entirety of your opponent's arguments right before you.
We are a culture that worships superficiality.
Kids these days. This is definitely a new phenomenon.
And they MILLIONS of dollars per year for being a ... nothing.
Well, I certainly don't like them, but that's mighty subjective.
Well, I do think that people should vote for third parties (which I do, and I tell others to do), and I don't vote for people who don't support drug legalization. Your reply confused me.
Looks, like your parents forgot to teach you something particular important to be considered an adult and able to participate in a discussion.
Looks, like your parents forgot to teach you something particular important to be considered an adult and able to participate in a discussion. You said something in a way I don't like, so you're not a True Adult.
That's such a futile approach to becoming an absolute bayernude, don't you think?
I'm a gigantic bootybuttist, don't you know?
I don't know whether or not it's possible to find good news sources on Facebook (I seriously doubt they would qualify as "good" to me.), but anyone who uses Facebook is most likely an absolute imbecile just for that. I'm not saying Facebook users are merely misinformed; I'm saying that any given Facebook user is very likely almost completely unintelligent.
Your false dichotomy is a direct result of your desire to feel like you know something that everyone else doesn't, or at least, most other people, all of whom you regard as being not as smart as yourself.
Most people don't make it difficult to feel more intelligent than them. Warmongers, rote memorization geniuses, people almost entirely without the aptitude to understand a given subject, people who toss away everyone's freedom for safety, people who continually vote for the 'lesser of two evils', and many more kinds of imbeciles make up most of the population.
Yeah I'm sure you'd believe them if they suddenly started supporting such policies.
You assume you know what I think in order to... make your point more valid? Can I start telling you what you believe? I'd rather not... because it's utterly ridiculous.
If they followed up with actual, public actions, and caused real policies to be put into place that would greatly reduce the chances of something like this happening again, I'd be more inclined to believe them.
As for the "they have only themselves to blame", you're wrong.
They don't have themselves to blame for abusing their powers? Interesting.
In any event, thanks for proving my point.
I didn't prove any point of yours.
They have no incentive to change at all.
Of course they do. What they're doing is morally wrong.
I sure as fuck wouldn't.
If that's how they feel, then they're most likely sociopaths.
And how would they prove that they did more than talk?
By actually supporting policies that will help prevent nonsense such as this from happening to begin with.
Lets just be honest here...it's a no-win situation for them no matter what.
And they have only themselves to blame. Actually, people with a bit of knowledge of history are always cautious of the government by default.
In effect, you've given them every incentive to not change at all.
No. I think people just want them to do more than just talk. I think people want them to stop what they're doing.
I want to poke and prod the inner parts of your ass.
Understand, however I don't think many rule that way in the case of someone's life.
Silly. You're talking about humans here, and not perfect angels. "They might abuse their powers in every other case... but they won't in this one!" This is naive. This is the sort of mindset we have to thank for garbage like the TSA.
What does freedom for society and executing someone who is a murderer have to do with each other?
It has to do with whether or not the government should be able to murder people, and the right to life.
I didn't address TSA because it's not that simple and it's off topic.
Not that simple? The question was simple. Assume that the TSA works; do you support it?
I bet if I were to take you to Saudi Arabia for say a month stay, you'd be a totally different person.
What a good country to live in, and a great example. Do you have any actual concrete evidence, or are you just going to keep confusing correlation with causation?
By the way, I'm not actually certain one way or the other. Frankly, even if the death penalty makes us safer, I don't want government thugs to have such a power.
I don't see much of a difference between being dead and being locked up in a cage like an animal for say 30+ years and then being dead.
Well, if you want to kill yourself, go ahead. Just don't make that decision for other people.
You're not "not doing anything to them."
You're not shooting them.
They can still do a lot of harm behind bars.
The terrorists! The terrorists will get us! Give the government more power to stop the terrorists! Safety is what's important! Ooga booga booga!
Such things are rare to begin with. You could use this sort of logic to advocate for the execution of every prisoner (they may want revenge for putting them in prison, after all).
Many cases they were 100% on and they weren't guilty?
Absolutely. Surely you don't think they went through all those appeals and no one felt 100% confident that the person actually committed the crime?
May help if I mention that when I say it's 100%, we're really darn sure.
Yep. They were "really darn sure" plenty of times. The perception was that they were absolutely guilty. Perception sort of gets in the way of the "100%" limitation, and it doesn't matter what you think "100%" means.
I think most reasonably intelligent Americans
Reasonably intelligent Americans (or humans in general) are a minuscule portion of the population.
People are wringing their hands over an automated system that might see your super secret facebook Like of the latest Lil Bub video
Yeah! Who cares if they spy on everyone and blatantly violate the constitution? No big deal. No government has ever abused their powers or used information to their advantage. Also, laws are unchanging and always just, so what could possibly go wrong?
What?