talkpolitics | (no subject)

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd
http://www.cato.org/blog/why-nsa-collecting-phone-records-problem
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

There are a significant number of people who respond to any revelation that government is violating the law (yes, the Constitution is part of the law) with a shrug and "I've got nothing to hide". These people are selfish fools at best. They are not looking at the bigger picture and/or aren't considering other people. Plus, they probably aren't paying attention to the fact that everyone in America is currently a criminal, that everyone violates a law with serious penalties at some point, whether you know it or not. (And the fact that that is the case is another problem, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)

Even Biden and Obama railed against what they are themselves supporting now, before they were in power. That alone should be enough to make you stop and think about what having that kind of power available can do to people.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

yes, indeed. I've not supported a R candidate since Nixon. Well..Gary Johnson but that was more a dalliance. I consider Bush a murderer, as I do Obama with his 'sleep well at night' drones.

I felt you went 'modly' when you skipped the substance and focused on the 'offending ______ (phrase, comment, word, etc), a common foil in this universe.

You seem...tense...perhaps a nice massage? NSA called me to tell you that everything is going to be OK

:)

I don't see a reason why I can't react to something that I've found disturbing enough to warrant a response. But I suppose you're not too willing to spend the rest of the day talking about talking anyway.

perhaps a nice massage?

Good suggestion. I might get one. But not from you. ;-)

On the mod thing. Bickering over semantics with a mod is like arguing the nuance of law with a cop. In the end, the one with the power has to final say.

Remember that. With great authority comes great responsibility.

LOL no I suck at internet massage. That was a suggestion not an offer :D

You be well, kid.

I'm saddened that you feel intimidated to discuss semantics just because it's me you're discussing it with. I don't seem to recall having ever used power to force my opinion onto anyone, but if you prefer to believe that I'm capable of doing that, I guess there's nothing I can do, so I'd rather move on on this issue.

That said, I'm not going to apologize for essentially telling someone that they're not fostering constructive debate by implicitly offending a whole group of people - because that's what I believe they're doing, and my conclusion stands that the purpose of that was something different from actual constructive debate. Whether you like to take that statement as "moddy" or not.

I don't think an apology is in order at all. It was merely an observation, and not really meant to be critical (much).

However, I question whether we have to follow rules of debate, when a conversation will do. Debates have clear winners and losers.

Not a good atmosphere for an exchange of ideas and POV's, agreed?

All's well. No harm no foul. I am ready to move on as well..

I question whether we have to follow rules of debate

Depends. If you mean rules as in guidelines that prevent you from falling into the trap of logical fallacies (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html), I wouldn't say those should be strictly observed. It's entirely up to the debater whether they'd choose to embarrass themselves by resorting to those fallacies.

If you mean the rules as they're stipulated in the community profile, well that's another story. They're there for a reason.

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

I see no reason for you not to, either.

no subject

no subject

no subject