The fact is, if you say, "A spy agency spies. Big surprise!" in a discussion about whether or not mass surveillance is bad, people will rightfully interpret that as an argument for mass surveillance. It's irrelevant. We all know the NSA is full of evil scumbags, and that they spy, so you don't need to tell everyone again.
Knowingly or not, it doesn't matter. A secret compartment can be used for anything, and installing it for a specific purpose shouldn't be a crime. If any law says otherwise, then that law is unjust and is no law at all. I suggest any juries use the power of jury nullification to stop the government from using such laws.
Perhaps if I did and shouting fire in a theater was the method, one might confuse that with being arrested for shouting fire in a theater.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Other people's actions are *their own*. If people panic in response to your speech, that is their own fault. Arresting someone for "inciting a panic" is the same as arresting someone for their speech. Remove the speech, and they wouldn't be arrested; it's just that simple.
You end up dying from anaphylactic shock. Does the First Amendment offer a "get out of jail free" for the criminal charges I'm likely to face?
If the government followed the constitution, yes. But it doesn't.
And don't use that bullshit legal logic that they're not punishing people for their speech, but the 'damage' they (in actuality, others caused the damage by acting) caused. Remove the speech from the equation, and no one would be punished.
No, I'm not. Nor is it a straw man. If people don't want to look like they're defending nonsense, then how about not coming in and using inflammatory language like "He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators. He promoted himself as having the ability to teach people to lie to investigators. He claimed past clients have successfully lied to investigators for decades."?
If he taught people to beat a polygraph and **always** said to never lie to government investigators he would not be in trouble.
So it's okay to lie to other people?
And his methods are universal. I find it funny how people can teach about beating a pseudoscientific lie detector without a problem up until someone tells them that they're going to use the methods to beat a government polygraph test. Then it's somehow 'bad.'
Look up Thing I Agree With sometime. It proves my point.
Some things are worth giving your life to protect. "Give me liberty or give me death." and all that. You speak of something different than what I speak of, anyway. I am saying that freedom is what should be considered most important in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." You are saying that it is *difficult* to get people to care in a situation where they are worried about their financial situation. I would say they should care regardless.
I am well aware of the reality of the situation (that most people don't actually give a shit about freedom); you don't need to inform me.
Not trolling, and I know the difference between fact and opinion.
I just think it's a fact that voting for worthless scumbags who support the mass violation of our rights and the highest law of the land makes you ignorant of the value of freedom at best, and a hardcore authoritarian at worst. If you're a hardcore authoritarian (as so many people are), then yes, I suppose The One Party provides exactly what you want.
I don't see your point at all. What does this have to do with censorship? Are you trying to say that our fundamental liberties are less important than safety?
Rather, I think hardcore authoritarians such as yourself should just move to places like North Korea rather than trying to shit up other countries and banning speech you don't like.
The rest of us will enjoy safety and civility in a world with no place for extremism.
I'd be quite surprised if you could even scientifically prove any of this keeps you safe. But you don't even care about proof.
Not that it matters, because freedom of speech is more important, but still; the least you people could do is prove that your nonsense will be effective before creating laws.
You can get in huge trouble for making bomb jokes on Twitter or at airports. There are protest permits. The FCC mandates certain forms of censorship on television and punishes those who do not comply. In many places, saying a 'swear word' in public can get you fined.
We have a number of things to fix in the US, and there's more than just that.
A lot of people are going to complain about the freedom of speech or expression, but that's a pretty American thing.
Yeah, fundamental liberties are an American thing. Except that they're not, because the US government just ignores the first amendment and the rest of the constitution as is convenient.
What's that? you can't tie your shoe laces? We'll, its useless to try, you'll never do it!
It is a waste of time, however. I just wear shoes that don't need shoe laces. I'm not sure why something so arbitrary got so popular and is considered to be 'necessary' to begin with.
And that leaves me little choice but to vote for what I consider the lesser of two evils.
No, you can vote third party. Stop voting for evil scumbags, or you're part of the problem. We have voters to thank for this mass violation of our fundamental liberties, and The One Party is overjoyed by your cooperation.
No, I honestly wouldn't care if someone was masturbating in a restroom. But I wouldn't care about breastfeeding either. Enough of this puritan nonsense.
We're not arguing about whether or not they should exist
Okay, then stop bringing that nonsense into discussions of whether or not mass surveillance should exist, because otherwise it will rightfully be taken as an argument trying to show why it should exist.
It's hyperbole to refer to rational actors entwined in complex sociopolitical systems as nothing more than "evil scumbugs" no matter the outcome of any individual decisions of theirs.
Again, nope. If a candidate votes for evil policies like mass surveillance, the Unpatriotic Act, the TSA, etc., then they are, to me, evil. No way around it.
It's also hyperbole to assert that voting for an evil scumbag is always irrational
Okay, fine. If you're on the side of evil, it's not irrational, since you're getting exactly what you want.
This, I agree with. However, just because it's rational to vote for a third party (whether to send a message or otherwise), does not make it irrational to vote differently.
Voting for The One Party candidates is absolutely, positively retarded at the very *best*, and additionally irrational if you don't support evil. This is just a fact.
It certainly can be, if you do so without reason.
Rarely are things done completely without reason. Certainly not the case here.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact is, if you say, "A spy agency spies. Big surprise!" in a discussion about whether or not mass surveillance is bad, people will rightfully interpret that as an argument for mass surveillance. It's irrelevant. We all know the NSA is full of evil scumbags, and that they spy, so you don't need to tell everyone again.
Knowingly or not, it doesn't matter. A secret compartment can be used for anything, and installing it for a specific purpose shouldn't be a crime. If any law says otherwise, then that law is unjust and is no law at all. I suggest any juries use the power of jury nullification to stop the government from using such laws.
Perhaps if I did and shouting fire in a theater was the method, one might confuse that with being arrested for shouting fire in a theater.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Other people's actions are *their own*. If people panic in response to your speech, that is their own fault. Arresting someone for "inciting a panic" is the same as arresting someone for their speech. Remove the speech, and they wouldn't be arrested; it's just that simple.
You end up dying from anaphylactic shock. Does the First Amendment offer a "get out of jail free" for the criminal charges I'm likely to face?
If the government followed the constitution, yes. But it doesn't.
And don't use that bullshit legal logic that they're not punishing people for their speech, but the 'damage' they (in actuality, others caused the damage by acting) caused. Remove the speech from the equation, and no one would be punished.
Would you consider that harmful to society?
Teaching someone how to pass a pseudoscientific lie detector is never harmful to society, because it's bullshit to begin with.
Yes, you are conflating them.
No, I'm not. Nor is it a straw man. If people don't want to look like they're defending nonsense, then how about not coming in and using inflammatory language like "He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators. He promoted himself as having the ability to teach people to lie to investigators. He claimed past clients have successfully lied to investigators for decades."?
The drug war is 100% ridiculous to begin with, so none of that matters.
But secret compartments can be used for anything. Whether someone wants to transport drugs or not should be irrelevant.
Yes, the government ignores the constitution. News at 11.
No, I'm not conflating them. It's just bullshit that anyone defends this nonsense.
If he taught people to beat a polygraph and **always** said to never lie to government investigators he would not be in trouble.
So it's okay to lie to other people?
And his methods are universal. I find it funny how people can teach about beating a pseudoscientific lie detector without a problem up until someone tells them that they're going to use the methods to beat a government polygraph test. Then it's somehow 'bad.'
As opposed to....what.. not fixing roads?
But that's exactly the problem.
Look up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs sometime.
Look up Thing I Agree With sometime. It proves my point.
Some things are worth giving your life to protect. "Give me liberty or give me death." and all that. You speak of something different than what I speak of, anyway. I am saying that freedom is what should be considered most important in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." You are saying that it is *difficult* to get people to care in a situation where they are worried about their financial situation. I would say they should care regardless.
I am well aware of the reality of the situation (that most people don't actually give a shit about freedom); you don't need to inform me.
Not trolling, and I know the difference between fact and opinion.
I just think it's a fact that voting for worthless scumbags who support the mass violation of our rights and the highest law of the land makes you ignorant of the value of freedom at best, and a hardcore authoritarian at worst. If you're a hardcore authoritarian (as so many people are), then yes, I suppose The One Party provides exactly what you want.
These replies are vomit-inducing.
I don't see your point at all. What does this have to do with censorship? Are you trying to say that our fundamental liberties are less important than safety?
Then move. Nobody stops you.
Rather, I think hardcore authoritarians such as yourself should just move to places like North Korea rather than trying to shit up other countries and banning speech you don't like.
The rest of us will enjoy safety and civility in a world with no place for extremism.
I'd be quite surprised if you could even scientifically prove any of this keeps you safe. But you don't even care about proof.
Not that it matters, because freedom of speech is more important, but still; the least you people could do is prove that your nonsense will be effective before creating laws.
Oh, and whistleblowers can be prosecuted merely for copying and transferring data.
You can get in huge trouble for making bomb jokes on Twitter or at airports. There are protest permits. The FCC mandates certain forms of censorship on television and punishes those who do not comply. In many places, saying a 'swear word' in public can get you fined.
We have a number of things to fix in the US, and there's more than just that.
A lot of people are going to complain about the freedom of speech or expression, but that's a pretty American thing.
Yeah, fundamental liberties are an American thing. Except that they're not, because the US government just ignores the first amendment and the rest of the constitution as is convenient.
What's that? you can't tie your shoe laces? We'll, its useless to try, you'll never do it!
It is a waste of time, however. I just wear shoes that don't need shoe laces. I'm not sure why something so arbitrary got so popular and is considered to be 'necessary' to begin with.
Stop it. Stop using logical fallacies to justify surveillance. "They do it too!" is not a proper justification.
And that leaves me little choice but to vote for what I consider the lesser of two evils.
No, you can vote third party. Stop voting for evil scumbags, or you're part of the problem. We have voters to thank for this mass violation of our fundamental liberties, and The One Party is overjoyed by your cooperation.
No, I honestly wouldn't care if someone was masturbating in a restroom. But I wouldn't care about breastfeeding either. Enough of this puritan nonsense.
We're not arguing about whether or not they should exist
Okay, then stop bringing that nonsense into discussions of whether or not mass surveillance should exist, because otherwise it will rightfully be taken as an argument trying to show why it should exist.
That's hyperbole.
Nope.
It's hyperbole to refer to rational actors entwined in complex sociopolitical systems as nothing more than "evil scumbugs" no matter the outcome of any individual decisions of theirs.
Again, nope. If a candidate votes for evil policies like mass surveillance, the Unpatriotic Act, the TSA, etc., then they are, to me, evil. No way around it.
It's also hyperbole to assert that voting for an evil scumbag is always irrational
Okay, fine. If you're on the side of evil, it's not irrational, since you're getting exactly what you want.
This, I agree with. However, just because it's rational to vote for a third party (whether to send a message or otherwise), does not make it irrational to vote differently.
Voting for The One Party candidates is absolutely, positively retarded at the very *best*, and additionally irrational if you don't support evil. This is just a fact.
It certainly can be, if you do so without reason.
Rarely are things done completely without reason. Certainly not the case here.