Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 256 of 272 (706411)
09-11-2013 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by ringo
09-09-2013 12:25 PM


Re: Your examples are not equivalent and in the OP no rights were infringed.
The whole concept of society is based on giving up individual rights in favour of collective security and collective convenience in general.
It is true that society requires an investment from it's members but societies only work because they benefit the individual. You can not speak in terms of benefiting society without demonstrating specifically how the benefit applies to it's members.
Society works because there is a net gain for the individual and that is why they willingly contribute. So if we want to ensure voluntary compliance then we need only look at how well our system benefits the individual. Society is built on individual rights.
The reason we have police in the first place is to protect society from individuals.
You see now that is damn near fascism right there. The ideological start of it anyway.
The police are there to protect individuals from harm which usually comes from other individuals. Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals and has no rights of it own. Only obligations.
I do object to your rudeness but I don't wish to prevent you from being rude.
The fact that you find the behaviour rude or offensive is the basis for it's being against the law or being recognized as an affront. We have social convention that prevents me from joining your intimate dinner and we have laws that prevent me from listening to your phone conversations. Both of these restrictions based on the fact that any reasonable person would find the behaviour offensive. I am saying that the state should be bound by the same standard and should not be allowed to act offensively without probable cause.
If I want something to be private then I keep it damn well private. If I'm concerned with electronic eavesdropping, I keep it inside my own skull. If you can get it out of there, more power to you.
Yes but that is not freedom.
I reject the arms race of privacy. There is no way that I can compete with the NSA regarding the privacy of my communications. They can only be resisted with the principal that it is wrong for them to be looking instead of trying to make it impossible for them to look. Similar to the paper that surrounds your letters.
How far do you want the state to go?
I just want them to not be the biggest threat to my privacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by ringo, posted 09-09-2013 12:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 09-11-2013 12:35 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 257 of 272 (706427)
09-11-2013 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Dogmafood
09-11-2013 8:26 AM


Re: Your examples are not equivalent and in the OP no rights were infringed.
ProtoTypical writes:
It is true that society requires an investment from it's members but societies only work because they benefit the individual.
Tell that to the bees.
ProtoTypical writes:
Society works because there is a net gain for the individual and that is why they willingly contribute.
You're oversimplifying the definition of "benefit". Like the bees, many members of our society willingly sacrifice themselves, including their lives, for the greater good. You don't get to decide whether letting the police search my house is a benefit to me.
ProtoTypical writes:
You see now that is damn near fascism right there. The ideological start of it anyway.
I told you I was representing the fascist position in this discussion.
ProtoTypical writes:
Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals and has no rights of it own. Only obligations.
On the contrary, the basic unit of humanity is society. Individuals have only obligations to society. They have only the rights that society confers on them.
See? I'm also representing the socialist position. Go ahead, call me an ideologue.
ProtoTypical writes:
The fact that you find the behaviour rude or offensive is the basis for it's being against the law or being recognized as an affront.
It shouldn't be. Laws should be based on harm or imminent potential for harm, not on "affronts". Otherwise we'd have laws against ugly sweaters.
ProtoTypical writes:
There is no way that I can compete with the NSA regarding the privacy of my communications.
You're mistaking whom the "enemy" is. Even if the NSA "shouldn't" listen in, you can't trust the people you're communicating with not to rat you out to the NSA. Communication by its very nature is never private. At best it's a conspiracy and conspiracies are notoriously fragile.
ProtoTypical writes:
ringo writes:
How far do you want the state to go?
I just want them to not be the biggest threat to my privacy.
The biggest threat to your privacy is you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Dogmafood, posted 09-11-2013 8:26 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Dogmafood, posted 09-11-2013 4:09 PM ringo has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 258 of 272 (706436)
09-11-2013 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by ringo
09-11-2013 12:35 PM


Re: Your examples are not equivalent and in the OP no rights were infringed.
Tell that to the bees.
I am not sure that I have the pheromonic capacity. Also, while I am sure that there are similarities, I am not sure that I would accept being equated with an insect.
You're oversimplifying the definition of "benefit". Like the bees, many members of our society willingly sacrifice themselves, including their lives, for the greater good. You don't get to decide whether letting the police search my house is a benefit to me.
You are welcome to sacrifice your rights as you see fit. The state, however, should not even be asking you to nor taking advantage of any ignorance that you may have.
I told you I was representing the fascist position in this discussion.
Well you are succeeding.
On the contrary, the basic unit of humanity is society.
Pfft. It most assuredly is not. The basic unit of humanity is a human.
Individuals have only obligations to society. They have only the rights that society confers on them.
Well I see it a different way. People have the rights that they claim and that they can defend. History shows us the long list of people who have claimed their rights and then defended them. Society is the mechanism that they use to defend their rights after they have fought for them.
Laws should be based on harm or imminent potential for harm, not on "affronts". Otherwise we'd have laws against ugly sweaters.
And they are. Insult is just the first measure of harm. My point is that the affront that some feel to their security from my web searches is far less reasonable than the affront that I feel by their looking at my web searches.
You're mistaking whom the "enemy" is. Even if the NSA "shouldn't" listen in, you can't trust the people you're communicating with not to rat you out to the NSA. Communication by its very nature is never private. At best it's a conspiracy and conspiracies are notoriously fragile.
Well that is completely beside the point. There is no similarity between intercepting a private communication and one of the parties betraying the privacy of a communication. The information belongs to the two parties involved and not to any third party. For a third party to access the information they should have some probable cause that legitimises the intrusion. Being afraid of what we are talking about or reading is not a legitimate reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 09-11-2013 12:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by ringo, posted 09-11-2013 4:54 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 272 (706440)
09-11-2013 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ringo
09-08-2013 2:51 PM


Re: Your examples are not equivalent and in the OP no rights were infringed.
I don't believe "they" are as timid or ignorant as you portray them.
The general American public? You need to get out more.
Or take MADD or SADD.
Nah, let's stick with SOPA. Do you care to address the point?
They are not "walking all over us". You do not live in a police state.
Yeah, you just get a team of six cops visiting your house if you Google the wrong things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ringo, posted 09-08-2013 2:51 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 09-11-2013 5:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 260 of 272 (706441)
09-11-2013 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Dogmafood
09-11-2013 4:09 PM


Re: Your examples are not equivalent and in the OP no rights were infringed.
ProtoTypical writes:
You are welcome to sacrifice your rights as you see fit. The state, however, should not even be asking you to....
The state is us. We (society) decide what we will ask us to do.
ProtoTypical writes:
The basic unit of humanity is a human.
No man is an island - i.e. no human is a unit. Children can't even develop without social interaction.
ProtoTypical writes:
People have the rights that they claim and that they can defend.
Yes, that's the feudal system but we've moved beyond that. In a democracy, we decide which rights we will grant each other - i.e. which ones are worth defending.
ProtoTypica writes:
My point is that the affront that some feel to their security from my web searches is far less reasonable than the affront that I feel by their looking at my web searches.
But you are not the supreme arbiter of what is "reasonable". Society is.
ProtoTypical writes:
There is no similarity between intercepting a private communication and one of the parties betraying the privacy of a communication. The information belongs to the two parties involved and not to any third party.
The information belongs to whomever either of the parties gives it to.
ProtoTypcal writes:
Being afraid of what we are talking about or reading is not a legitimate reason.
Once again, that is not your call.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Dogmafood, posted 09-11-2013 4:09 PM Dogmafood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by AZPaul3, posted 10-09-2013 4:51 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 261 of 272 (706442)
09-11-2013 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2013 4:31 PM


Re: Your examples are not equivalent and in the OP no rights were infringed.
Catholi Scientist writes:
Nah, let's stick with SOPA. Do you care to address the point?
Don't run away. Explain how SOPA is different from SADD and MADD and then we can address SOPA. And then we can address SADD and MADD.
Catholic Scientist writes:
ringo writes:
They are not "walking all over us". You do not live in a police state.
Yeah, you just get a team of six cops visiting your house if you Google the wrong things.
You're the one who needs to get out more. That is definiely not an indication of a police state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2013 4:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2013 5:04 PM ringo has replied
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-07-2013 11:48 AM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 272 (706444)
09-11-2013 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by ringo
09-11-2013 5:00 PM


Re: Your examples are not equivalent and in the OP no rights were infringed.
Well if you don't care to address my point then I'll just stop replying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 09-11-2013 5:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 09-11-2013 5:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 263 of 272 (706446)
09-11-2013 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2013 5:04 PM


Re: Your examples are not equivalent and in the OP no rights were infringed.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Well if you don't care to address my point then I'll just stop replying.
I did address your point. If you don't care to address my address I'll wave goodbye as you run away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2013 5:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2013 5:15 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 264 of 272 (706447)
09-11-2013 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by ringo
09-11-2013 5:13 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 09-11-2013 5:13 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 272 (708229)
10-07-2013 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by ringo
09-11-2013 5:00 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
ringo writes:
They are not "walking all over us". You do not live in a police state.
Yeah, you just get a team of six cops visiting your house if you Google the wrong things.
You're the one who needs to get out more. That is definiely not an indication of a police state.
And you'll get shot to death if you freak out drive around all crazy, even if you have your 1 year old child in the car with you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 09-11-2013 5:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by ringo, posted 10-07-2013 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 266 of 272 (708230)
10-07-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by New Cat's Eye
10-07-2013 11:48 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
And you'll get shot to death if you freak out drive around all crazy, even if you have your 1 year old child in the car with you
That's a safety device, like a fire extinguisher.
In a police state, they make house calls to wake you up and shoot you. The service is better but the protection is lacking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-07-2013 11:48 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 3:54 PM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 272 (708343)
10-08-2013 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by ringo
10-07-2013 11:52 AM


Here's some Vietnam vets getting arrested for refusing to leave the NYC memorial:
source
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : syntax
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : strike two

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by ringo, posted 10-07-2013 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by ringo, posted 10-09-2013 11:59 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 268 of 272 (708376)
10-09-2013 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by ringo
09-11-2013 4:54 PM


Re: Your examples are not equivalent and in the OP no rights were infringed.
ProtoTypical writes:
People have the rights that they claim and that they can defend.
Yes, that's the feudal system but we've moved beyond that. In a democracy, we decide which rights we will grant each other - i.e. which ones are worth defending.
Then a remnant of the feudal system survives, and will always survive, Ringo.
Proto is correct. We have only those rights we can defend. People can tell themselves they have a right against unusual search and seizure but if they do not zealously defend that right then we get things like the TSA. Without constant defense of a right against the encroachment of government and society, even in those most disagreeable instances, then that "right" is nothing but platitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by ringo, posted 09-11-2013 4:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by ringo, posted 10-09-2013 11:41 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 269 of 272 (708392)
10-09-2013 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by AZPaul3
10-09-2013 4:51 AM


Re: Your examples are not equivalent and in the OP no rights were infringed.
AZPaul3 writes:
Without constant defense of a right against the encroachment of government and society, even in those most disagreeable instances, then that "right" is nothing but platitude.
We are society. In a democracy, we are the government.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
We must defend ourselves against the encroachment of ourselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by AZPaul3, posted 10-09-2013 4:51 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by AZPaul3, posted 10-09-2013 10:44 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 272 by xongsmith, posted 10-10-2013 3:25 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 270 of 272 (708394)
10-09-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by New Cat's Eye
10-08-2013 3:54 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Here's some Vietnam vets getting arrested for refusing to leave the NYC memorial:
Washington D.C. has had a Juvenile Curfew Act since 1995. Apparently it applies to second childhoods too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024