This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
Mass Surveillance
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Going back to something, it's actually illegal to put cameras into bathrooms in some areas... so the idea that this would somehow cut down on 'rapes' is a little laughable... probably would cause more as some dirt bag security guard goes to take advantage of some poor drunk girl in a bar bathroom.
Post by
Squishalot
Going back to something, it's actually illegal to put cameras into bathrooms in some areas... so the idea that this would somehow cut down on 'rapes' is a little laughable... probably would cause more as some dirt bag security guard goes to take advantage of some poor drunk girl in a bar bathroom.
I was thinking that about the kitchen comment. Just makes the 'back room' of an Italian restaurant that much more.... fearsome.
Post by
Laihendi
Saving someone from falling off a cliff is not taking away their freedom, unless they are attempting to commit suicide. If you walk into Laihendi's private property with his consent, you are not invading his privacy... what's your point?
Does Liahendi have freedom of person or not? If he does, then yes, any permission Laihendi gives for me to touch Laihendi is him giving up that freedom.
Does Laihendi have freedom to manage his own property? If he does, then yes, any permission he gives me to enter in, is abridging that freedom.
And yes, the act of giving up your freedom is an act that is possible because of freedom. You had to be free to give it up in the first place. But once you've given it up, you no longer have that freedom. In order for Laihendi to give you $5, he has to have $5 in the first place. But once he gives you those $5, he no longer has them anymore.
But that doesn't take away the fact that he was free to give it to me.
Just like giving up one of my freedoms doesn't take away the fact that I was free to give it up.
Laihendi can tell you to stop touching him whenever he wants, and you entering into his property doesn't make it any less his property. If anything, you should be respecting his rules since you are on his property. You are not a governing body with a way of enforcing your authority. The government is. If you willingly give up your freedom to the government, then you are not free. There really isn't anything to dispute here... you give something up, and you don't have it anymore. Seriously...
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Laihendi can tell you to stop touching him whenever he wants, and you entering into his property doesn't make it any less his property. If anything, you should be respecting his rules since you are on his property. You are not a governing body with a way of enforcing your authority. The government is. If you willingly give up your freedom to the government, then you are not free. There really isn't anything to dispute here... you give something up, and you don't have it anymore. Seriously...
Just replace me in every one of those examples with a police officer. Tada! Laihendi just gave freedoms to the government.
Laihendi treating the government like something it's not.
And no, Laihendi cannot take back what he gave. He gave me permission to enter the house and he let me stay from moment x to moment y. That time that I was allowing in your property cannot be taken back, cannot be recompensed for. Laihendi cannot take me to court over it, he cannot call the police. He has no basis for taking his own recompense. What is given is given.
Post by
Laihendi
You're not a police officer though... the government has authority, and a means of enforcing it. You don't.
He didn't give you anything but permission to enter his house. That isn't an assault on his privacy or his property. And Laihendi has been saying this whole time that once you give something up it's gone, while you're saying you can give up your freedom to the government and still be free. You can't argue with Laihendi by repeating what he says to you...
You're just a troll, and not a very good one. Shoo.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
515465
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I know the movie and the book heh; it was Quickhoof who didn't.
Post by
515465
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
HoleofArt
You're just a troll, and not a very good one. Shoo.
The irony is astounding.
I'm usually a silent observer, but I had to say it;
I lol'd.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You're not a police officer though... the government has authority, and a means of enforcing it. You don't.
You just contradicted yourself on so many levels.
Regardless, that's wrong. I have complete authority over myself, and I am fully capable of enforcing those freedoms.
And the government only has authority because we let it. We give up certain of our freedoms and rights (a portion of our money, respect for the immediate authority of the police, etc) so that we might live safer or orderly lives. If we don't give the government the authority to police, they won't have it.
And Laihendi has been saying this whole time that once you give something up it's gone, while you're saying you can give up your freedom to the government and still be free.
You realize that there are many, many freedoms, right? You keep talking as if people are giving up all their freedom. I'm obviously not talking like that, I've given countless example of exactly the opposite.
And, I want you to prove to me that you haven't given up any of your freedoms. Go run outside naked with a boombox at full blast. By living in this country, you gave up that freedom.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
I don't understand what everyone who wants things like this is so
afraid
of. It's like everyone is convinced there's a terrorist hiding under their bed or a murderer in their closet. Less 'security' is what you
trade
to have the freedoms we enjoy -- it's the price (I leave 'security' in quotes because the things you're advocating probably wouldn't do much to increase
actual
security, only the warm fuzzy
feeling
of security -- in trade for real, actual freedoms).
The way I see it, if we have to face a terrorist attack every once in awhile because of our way of life which values liberty and privacy makes it impossible to completely prevent
and
those same liberties provoke feelings of anger in other nations for some reason... so be it, that's the cost.
We should do what we can in terms of intelligence and defense without violating these liberties (9/11 was probably preventable if the systems we
already
had in place were being used
properly
), and we should attempt to remedy the seemingly irrational anger our way of life causes around the globe through positive example (not by forcing the spread of democracy at the end of a rifle) -- but this knee-jerk reaction where the entire nation, overnight, is ready to support the PATRIOT Act regardless of its constitutionality, and considers re-instituting the Draft (although I wonder how many of these supporters are ready to pick up a gun and jump on a plane) to protect us from the boogey-man in the dark... it just drives me up the wall.
I don't know how old you are Quickhoof (and I'm not trying to act like a wise-old sage, I'm only 27), but if 'growing up' in this decade is what's to blame for your views, then
you
are terrifying to me, far more so than any terrorist or serial killer (and you're also evidence that the terrorists are winning this 'war'). "The Government" we all keep referring to, in the USA, is supposed to just be the extension of the people (
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
), the only way these things happen is if enough people
want
them to. It's like you've been brainwashed with all these things I'm talking about over the last 10 years, and now you're ready to completely change the fundamental liberties of this country because of that -- and pretty soon (if not already) the 9/11 generation
will
be the majority of voters.
I think it is more important to protect the publics security then to respect privacy.
What are you so afraid of?
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Most people are killed on private property because believe it or not, the person is a close friend or family member.
All the more reason to let people own guns and defend themselves.
...
Yes, the government = people. You would give Joe down the street 24/7 surveillance of you, so why would you give it to Bob in Washington or Fred from County. If people don't have a right to do that, and the government is an extension of the people, then it would follow that the government doesn't have the right either.
Post by
Patty
So, you think it's not so necessary on private property? That would be superficial 'security' at the cost of an actual freedom we currently have. It's like the speed cameras on motorways; they're here to make sure you aren't speeding - "okay, there's one coming up in about 400m, slow down guys". All it would do is make 'terrorism' more
difficult
to watch out for, because it would all be done in private property.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So, you think it's not so necessary on private property? That would be superficial 'security' at the cost of an actual freedom we currently have. It's like the speed cameras on motorways; they're here to make sure you aren't speeding - "okay, there's one coming up in about 400m, slow down guys". All it would do is make 'terrorism' more
difficult
to watch out for, because it would all be done in private property.
People can secure their own private property. The government shouldn't be the ones doing it.
Post by
Patty
So, you think it's not so necessary on private property? That would be superficial 'security' at the cost of an actual freedom we currently have. It's like the speed cameras on motorways; they're here to make sure you aren't speeding - "okay, there's one coming up in about 400m, slow down guys". All it would do is make 'terrorism' more
difficult
to watch out for, because it would all be done in private property.
People can secure their own private property. The government shouldn't be the ones doing it.
If a so-called terrorist owns their own property, they can exploit the proposed mass surveillance and plan events in that property. If this happened, the government would be powerless to prevent terrorist acts, because they are all being organised in a loop-hole of the policy.
Post by
Heckler
I would think that Patty is not advocating that the surveillance should include private property; but instead that if Quickhoof
doesn't
think it should, it reveals a fundamental flaw in his assertion that security would be increased.
Meaning we would be trading away at least some
real
portion of our freedom, and in return we would get no
real
security, only an imaginary feeling of security.
Post by
Patty
I would think that Patty is not advocating that the surveillance should include private property; but instead that if Quickhoof
doesn't
think it should, it reveals a fundamental flaw in his assertion that security would be increased.
Meaning we would be trading away at least some
real
portion of our freedom, and in return we would get no
real
security, only an imaginary feeling of security.
Precisely. I don't agree with Quickhoof's idea at all. Sorry for not being very clear, I'm very tired after ~17 hours up, and will be heading to bed shortly, so this is probably my last post for tonight. However, tomorrow I'll see what else has emerged and see if I have anything to contribute.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
