(no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

For the record, starting a statement by lumping a whole group of people into the nicey-nicey qualification of "they are all selfish fools" does not serve well to foster a constructive debate, which I presume is what you must have intended when writing this post (the alternative being to just rile up a bunch of people for the sake of lullzy flame-war, for which there's a term that I'm sure you're very familiar with).

That said, I've generally been around the places you frequent for quite a while, and I don't seem to recall you having held Bush & Cheney's feet to the fire on the very same issue, the way you're apparently so eager to hold Biden & Obama now. Care to explain that discrepancy? Was it because you suddenly woke up to the realization that governments have been treading along the brink of the basic law of the land for ages, or does it, by chance, have something to do with your ideological affiliations?

You might not answer the latter question if you feel that you don't have the time to deign an elaboration for the selfish fools you've so kindly addressed.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

So this community is totes about 'proper tone'? The point is still valid, even if the sentence and thought structure does not match the current acceptable paradigm. Whatever that is...

FWIW even though not directed at me, I did blame BushCheney. Pretty much did in the present tense up until he ceased the POTUS gig.

I don't think there was a whole group of people lumped here; merely the selfish and foolish ones. The rest are lemmings.

you mods sure like to play referee a lot.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Can't I just respond to a statement I've seen without having my mod job constantly rubbed into my face? What the fuck.

I'm not sure what you think this community is "about", but you'll have to agree if I start my sentence to you with, "So tell me, you fool, what do you think about...", I shouldn't seriously expect a sensible and well thought response from you, and you wouldn't be the one to blame for that. Just saying. If I were saying that as a mod, the OP would've already learned it.

I did blame BushCheney

I'm so glad for you. Hey, I'm not even going to ask you for evidence for your claim, I'd rather just take your word for it and be done with it.

even though not directed at me

Indeed.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"Can't I just respond to a statement I've seen without having my mod job constantly rubbed into my face?"

Probably not, I'm pretty sure it's in the job description. :)

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

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

:)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

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. ;-)

I see no reason for you not to, either.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

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.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

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.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

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..

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

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.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Then you have a poor memory.

And I have no illusions that there will ever be a constructive debate in this community. I post to express myself, nothing more, nothing less. But if you can only think of two possible intentions, that's not my problem.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Then you have a poor memory.

And, yourself having fallen short of providing actual evidence (as usual), I'm going to conclude that you have a wild imagination.

And I have no illusions that there will ever be a constructive debate in this community

What I know for sure is that if there ever is, it definitely won't be thanks to you.

I post to express myself

LOL.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

yourself having fallen short of providing actual evidence (as usual), I'm going to conclude that you have a wild imagination.

No, just a lack of time, and I don't keep references to past articles/comments by anyone, including me.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

The "lack of time" excuse was interesting only the first few times you used it. Now it's just lame.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Maybe if you don't have time to back up your claims, you shouldn't bother making an ass of yourself.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Your skewed perception of reality isn't important.