To be honest, I think most of the people screaming about privacy are full of shit. If someone wants your info, there are easier ways to get it than from a government agency.
Criminals don't have to be free to commit murder. Why do these obvious flaws in your argument continue to slip through? Murder while in prison is still murder.
But I'm sure you didn't consider that. My hope is that you take this logical beating I've given you, and consider your positions more carefully.
"Do you have the same amount of evidence to the French bribe case as you have had for WMD which turned out to be a logical loophole, magically disappearing"
Why is the first argument always "Well, you guys did bad things too"? Why are you people always so keen to resort to such ridiculous tactics?
If a country fucks up, hold it accountable. US, France, Iran and whoever. But stop playing that stupid game of moral equivalence. It's unseemly, and only gets everyone dirty.
Well, the reasoning is that because they're not high, they can hold a job, go to NA, and generally live a normal, non-junkie life.
Of course they're also chained to a methadone clinic. But hey, I'm sure that's better than sucking dick for smack.
I remember discussing this as an undergrad. The consensus, among students and faculty, was exactly as you say. Specifically, a professor said "It would never get past a board" just as you did.
"The person was obviously already apprehended, so it's a pretty dumb argument"
And prisoners don't get out? Who are you to talk to me about "dumb arguments" when that's the best you can come up with.
"The statistics are the reality"
You're kidding right? I'll give you a free pass to take that one back.
My point, which you are missing because you're too fucking busy with your talkign points, is that is IS a deterrent to ONE criminal. The one that get's executed. There is no counter argument, no refutation, so stop trying. DEAD PEOPLE DON"T COMMIT CRIMES. Just accept it and move on.
Oh, and try to figure out why you'd say something like
"The statistics are the reality"
I mean, holy shit, what's wrong with you that you can type something like that, then POST IT! I was flabbergasted to be handed such a club to bludgeon you with.
But, a better question is do the people you're trying so hard to jump into bed with believe it. They don't, so why try so hard to give them something they don't provide for themselves? Or even want, until they think it can serve their purposes.
I think it's incredibly jingoistic and racist of you to apply American ideals to a foreign citizen.
Except none of that applies. In this case, the Constitution isn't the relevant document. Since the Constitution doesn't apply, I'm not sure what you're point is.
I don't believe in the death penalty for "retribution." The people who say things like "think of what the victims went through when this guy was killing them" completely wig me out, mostly because they would likely endorse the most painful, drawn out, barbaric death possible.
No, I believe in the death penalty because it's the only way to GUARANTEE that a criminal will stop offending.
Now, you can claim it's not a deterrent all you want, but how does a dead criminal commit crimes?
As in so what if Google promotes themselves a little more, I would expect nothing less. Also, the fact that ALL other webmasters suffer the same restrictions means there is a level playing field.
I just can't see the reason for all the sturm und drang.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, I think most of the people screaming about privacy are full of shit. If someone wants your info, there are easier ways to get it than from a government agency.
Why bother? Sheep like you have already made up your mind.
Slashdot should start using mad-libs for articles. Just fill in the government agency and the abuse, then rant away.
Sadly, I doubt anyone would notice the difference.
If you hate all political parties who do you vote for? Please say no one.
Then you must be in a never ending state of anger induce catatonia.
Criminals don't have to be free to commit murder. Why do these obvious flaws in your argument continue to slip through? Murder while in prison is still murder.
But I'm sure you didn't consider that. My hope is that you take this logical beating I've given you, and consider your positions more carefully.
"Do you have the same amount of evidence to the French bribe case as you have had for WMD which turned out to be a logical loophole, magically disappearing"
Why is the first argument always "Well, you guys did bad things too"? Why are you people always so keen to resort to such ridiculous tactics?
If a country fucks up, hold it accountable. US, France, Iran and whoever. But stop playing that stupid game of moral equivalence. It's unseemly, and only gets everyone dirty.
Well, the reasoning is that because they're not high, they can hold a job, go to NA, and generally live a normal, non-junkie life. Of course they're also chained to a methadone clinic. But hey, I'm sure that's better than sucking dick for smack.
I remember discussing this as an undergrad. The consensus, among students and faculty, was exactly as you say. Specifically, a professor said "It would never get past a board" just as you did.
"the cable company absorbs all the costs" And by absorbs, I'm sure you meant passes along to subscribers.
I remember seeing Ozzie's baseball card when I was a kid. I thought, if they're twins, how come Jose is so good, and Ozzie sucks.
I don't remember steroids being discussed until years later, but I'm sure people more sophisticated than me had put it together.
"we shall fight in France"
Sometimes it's too easy.
"The person was obviously already apprehended, so it's a pretty dumb argument"
And prisoners don't get out? Who are you to talk to me about "dumb arguments" when that's the best you can come up with.
"The statistics are the reality"
You're kidding right? I'll give you a free pass to take that one back.
My point, which you are missing because you're too fucking busy with your talkign points, is that is IS a deterrent to ONE criminal. The one that get's executed. There is no counter argument, no refutation, so stop trying. DEAD PEOPLE DON"T COMMIT CRIMES. Just accept it and move on.
Oh, and try to figure out why you'd say something like
"The statistics are the reality"
I mean, holy shit, what's wrong with you that you can type something like that, then POST IT! I was flabbergasted to be handed such a club to bludgeon you with.
"And all the international papers you signed in the past"
Does that include the ones that make our actions at Gitmo legal? Or, do we throw those out because you don't like them?
When did I say that? Why put words in my mouth?
But, a better question is do the people you're trying so hard to jump into bed with believe it. They don't, so why try so hard to give them something they don't provide for themselves? Or even want, until they think it can serve their purposes.
I think it's incredibly jingoistic and racist of you to apply American ideals to a foreign citizen.
"but it sure makes it bloody hard to argue that it reduces it"
Not really. A man murders someone. That man is executed. He is prevented from murdering again.
GUARANTEED, EVERY TIME, WITHOUT EXCEPTION
Primarily because it's hard to kill someone when you're dead. Or do anything else, other than rot.
See how easy that was?
"Their status has not been determined by a competent tribunal, and therefore they are being held in violation of the Geneva convention"
And you know this how? Do you think the US military would tell you if they had determined their status?
Except none of that applies. In this case, the Constitution isn't the relevant document. Since the Constitution doesn't apply, I'm not sure what you're point is.
I don't believe in the death penalty for "retribution." The people who say things like "think of what the victims went through when this guy was killing them" completely wig me out, mostly because they would likely endorse the most painful, drawn out, barbaric death possible.
No, I believe in the death penalty because it's the only way to GUARANTEE that a criminal will stop offending.
Now, you can claim it's not a deterrent all you want, but how does a dead criminal commit crimes?
"That is known as "retribution", not prevention"
What an incredibly stupid comment. How exactly will a murderer, who is then executed, commit any more crime.
Seems like the very definition of prevention to me.
"Where did I say that being a monopoly is illegal?"
To use your argument, you didn't, but where did I ever say you did?
I didn't. I'll be waiting for my apology.
Ultimately, I'm left with the question "So what?"
As in so what if Google promotes themselves a little more, I would expect nothing less. Also, the fact that ALL other webmasters suffer the same restrictions means there is a level playing field.
I just can't see the reason for all the sturm und drang.
I think the point you are trying to make is that hypocrisy is inherently evil.
But you're wrong, and a quick analysis will tell you that there are MANY times when "do as I say, not as I do" is the prudent advice.
You wouldn't call a lifelong smoker who told you not to smoke evil would you? You could certainly call them a hypocrite.
So, the moral is squash the little guys before they can gang up and take you down.
I'm glad you brought such a relevant idea to the discussion.
What is evil about a company promoting itself first? There is no evil here, except perhaps that Google is doing something you don't like.
But it's pretty unreasonable to expect a company not to promote itself. And calling it "evil" is silly.
I think you grossly misunderstand why monopolies are policed (as apart from just being bad).
Being a monopoly is not agianst the law. Any combination of events can lead to a company being a monopoly, without any consequences at all.
The problem arises when these companies abuse their monopoly to further themselves, or extend their control over an area.
So the question is not whether they are a monopoly, but do they do things, which are against the law, that ensure their monopoly status.
That being said, it's also not really relevant to this discussion.