Chef Jim Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 1) Normal people 2) People that have chosen to wage war against the United States and its people If the government wants to kill number 2, I'll be ok with that No those are not categories of citizens. They are both citizens. Don't you think it's strange we try non-citizens in a court of law but kill American citizens without a trial for doing the same thing?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 24, 2015 Author Posted April 24, 2015 No those are not categories of citizens. They are both citizens. Don't you think it's strange we try non-citizens in a court of law but kill American citizens without a trial for doing the same thing? And who decides which is which? The government or the people? And if it's the government deciding who's in category 1 or 2 of gatorman's (inane) list, who "checks" their power (to use gator's get-out-of-a-debate-free-card)? Ah, it doesn't matter. The government's got this.
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) Again demonstrating you don't comprehend this material or this thread. Judging by what's been presented I'm concluding you don't have a clue about what you are arguing. Is there any particular previous post you want me to review that would sum up your point? No those are not categories of citizens. They are both citizens. Don't you think it's strange we try non-citizens in a court of law but kill American citizens without a trial for doing the same thing? No, I understand that the non-citizens that were in court we actually caught, while the citizen killed could not be caught. You don't get that? Edited April 24, 2015 by gatorman
Deranged Rhino Posted April 24, 2015 Author Posted April 24, 2015 Judging by what's been presented I'm concluding you don't have a clue about what you are arguing. Is there any particular previous post you want me to review that would sum up your point? Now that you know the topic, please explain how you define privacy, why privacy is (or is not) important to a democratic society, and how privacy is (or is not) being threatened today. Prove to me for once you actually have an informed opinion on this subject before we go further -- because you've yet to do that thus far.
Chef Jim Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Judging by what's been presented I'm concluding you don't have a clue about what you are arguing. Is there any particular previous post you want me to review that would sum up your point? No, I understand that the non-citizens that were in court we actually caught, while the citizen killed could not be caught. You don't get that? What do you mean he couldn't be caught? Why couldn't he be caught?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 24, 2015 Author Posted April 24, 2015 What do you mean he couldn't be caught? Why couldn't he be caught? Because he didn't come willingly. The government has no ability to catch people who don't want to be caught, clearly.
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Now that you know the topic, please explain how you define privacy, why privacy is (or is not) important to a democratic society, and how privacy is (or is not) being threatened today. Prove to me for once you actually have an informed opinion on this subject before we go further -- because you've yet to do that thus far. So this is your next step at deflecting away from a discussion you said we NEED to have? Just asking for definitions? I said I can't define it. You know the old saying, I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it. Same with privacy. Why are you deflecting on such a really important topic? You just want to get lost in defining something? That's pretty lame What do you mean he couldn't be caught? Why couldn't he be caught? What's your point? Where I you going with this nonsense?
Chef Jim Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 What's your point? Where I you going with this nonsense? That for some reason you're ok with the government not following the Constitution. I would love to know what your take would be if Bush was doing this.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 24, 2015 Author Posted April 24, 2015 So this is your next step at deflecting away from a discussion you said we NEED to have? Just asking for definitions? I said I can't define it. You know the old saying, I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it. Same with privacy. Why are you deflecting on such a really important topic? You just want to get lost in defining something? That's pretty lame This is your problem. My question isn't deflecting away from the discussion at all, it's bringing the conversation back into focus. The fact you cannot define privacy -- or are unwilling to even attempt to do so -- let alone answer the other (perhaps even more important questions posed to you about its impact on democratic society and how privacy is under threat currently) shows you're the one deflecting. This is a crucial topic that we should be having a national conversation about. But in order to have a conversation about it, you must be willing to have that conversation. You're not willing. You're only interested in exposing your own ignorance while you attempt to piss on the topic in this thread. That's deflecting with a healthy dose of douchebaggery thrown in on top. So, don't be a douchebag, answer the questions. There aren't right or wrong answers, no one is trying to play "gotcha", I'm simply trying to get you to participate in the conversation.
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 This is your problem. My question isn't deflecting away from the discussion at all, it's bringing the conversation back into focus. The fact you cannot define privacy -- or are unwilling to even attempt to do so -- let alone answer the other (perhaps even more important questions posed to you about its impact on democratic society and how privacy is under threat currently) shows you're the one deflecting. This is a crucial topic that we should be having a national conversation about. But in order to have a conversation about it, you must be willing to have that conversation. You're not willing. You're only interested in exposing your own ignorance while you attempt to piss on the topic in this thread. That's deflecting with a healthy dose of douchebaggery thrown in on top. So, don't be a douchebag, answer the questions. There aren't right or wrong answers, no one is trying to play "gotcha", I'm simply trying to get you to participate in the conversation. Ok fine, listen, I'll just accept Tom's definition he posted earlier. I know I had a problem with it, but, ok, fine, its a good place to start. How's that?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 24, 2015 Author Posted April 24, 2015 Ok fine, listen, I'll just accept Tom's definition he posted earlier. I know I had a problem with it, but, ok, fine, its a good place to start. How's that? What role does privacy play in a democratic society? How is privacy in danger today?
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 1) What role does privacy play in a democratic society? 2) How is privacy in danger today? 1) Good question, not sure I know the answer but I am willing to listen and learn. Private citizens and the government both should be able to keep secrets 2) i guess people disagree on that, like me and you
Chef Jim Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 1) Good question, not sure I know the answer but I am willing to listen and learn. Private citizens and the government both should be able to keep secrets 2) i guess people disagree on that, like me and you Where can those secrets be kept?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 24, 2015 Author Posted April 24, 2015 1) Good question, not sure I know the answer but I am willing to listen and learn. Private citizens and the government both should be able to keep secrets 2) i guess people disagree on that, like me and you http://www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/a-frozen-society-the-long-term-implications-of-nsas-secrets/ "The second flow is that it is frequently necessary to break the law in order to further an important social cause. Slavery was legal in the US south until 1865. Women did not get the vote in the UK until 1928. African – Americans faced huge legalised forms of discrimination until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Interracial marriage only became legal in most US states in 1967. Homosexuality only became legal in all of the US in 2003. All of these legal changes were preceded by difficulties and civil strife. The activists who were fighting to change society were frequently breaking the law. Imagine how hard it would be now to lead one of these movements today. All of your communications with other supporters could be monitored. They would know who is connected to who. They would know your private secrets. You could be either rounded up, or co-opted through blackmail."
DC Tom Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Ok fine, listen, I'll just accept Tom's definition he posted earlier. I know I had a problem with it, but, ok, fine, its a good place to start. How's that? Seriously? A week later, and we're here? You wasted all this time with your assclownery?
Azalin Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Seriously? A week later, and we're here? You wasted all this time with your assclownery?
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 That for some reason you're ok with the government not following the Constitution. I would love to know what your take would be if Bush was doing this. So you are using the Constitution just to make a cheap political point. Wow
reddogblitz Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Have any of y'all read "The Circle" by David Eggers?
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 http://www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/a-frozen-society-the-long-term-implications-of-nsas-secrets/ "The second flow is that it is frequently necessary to break the law in order to further an important social cause. Slavery was legal in the US south until 1865. Women did not get the vote in the UK until 1928. African – Americans faced huge legalised forms of discrimination until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Interracial marriage only became legal in most US states in 1967. Homosexuality only became legal in all of the US in 2003. All of these legal changes were preceded by difficulties and civil strife. The activists who were fighting to change society were frequently breaking the law. Imagine how hard it would be now to lead one of these movements today. All of your communications with other supporters could be monitored. They would know who is connected to who. They would know your private secrets. You could be either rounded up, or co-opted through blackmail." But gay marriage, marijuana legalization and other controversial topics ARE making huge progress during our age. No one stopped or did anything to their communication. The movements you named in the past all faced huge backlashes, violence, even war! Way more than anything today. That's why I argued we are more free. Seriously? A week later, and we're here? You wasted all this time with your assclownery? Hold on, YOU are criticizing someone for posting too much? Ha ha ha!!!
FireChan Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 But gay marriage, marijuana legalization and other controversial topics ARE making huge progress during our age. No one stopped or did anything to their communication. The movements you named in the past all faced huge backlashes, violence, even war! Way more than anything today. That's why I argued we are more free. And they would've lost if they went against the 2015 government.
Recommended Posts