'The Day We Fight Back' is an Internet Protest Against Mass Surveillance

90

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

ApathyCurve

The windmills are terrified, I'm sure.

avatar

jbitzer

Associating Aaron Swartz with this diminishes my interest.

By him taking his own life rather than fighting for his cause, he gave ammunition to the people who say what he did was criminal. I don't deify quitters.

avatar

gc

x2

avatar

gc

@Paul Lilly
feed us with more pieces like these

avatar

Mungo

I HEARD THAT IF YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS THE NSA WILL SEND A DRONE TO YOUR HOUSE AND BLOW UP YOUR CAPS loc .... ahhhhhggg gurgile girgle

avatar

Paper Jam

NSA might as well be spelled KGB. The democracy of our parents and grandparents has eroded away. The NSA will not stop infringing on our privacy just like Congress will never stop spending money we don't have. Our government no longer represents us, we are ruled by an elite political class that only answers to the lobbyists that finance their reelection campaigns. This applies to the left as well as the right.

/end rant

avatar

vrmlbasic

Our parents and grandparents were the ones who helped chip away our democracy.

Maybe they weren't old enough to be responsible for WW, who started the slide away from what the Founders intended, or even FDR but they were definitely around for LBJ and his "Great Society/War on Poverty".

The generation that let the 17th Amendment go through really screwed us over. Idiots.

avatar

Morete

Exactly. There was a reason why they were called the Silent Generation and the Lucky Few Generation.

avatar

SliceAndDice

Another day, another cause. This cause will do nothing to stop the NSA. The NSA will probably spy on them more than any other group. Even if they somehow got a million people to join their cause chances are only a small percentage will actually care about it enough to sustain it. It's the next Occupy Wall Street and it will be chuck full of angry college students protesting on street corners with cardboard signs and as soon as reality sets in and they have to leave those street corners the world will forget about them entirely and nothing will come of their beloved cause. We need NSA spying to keep an eye on the criminals and terrorists and if you're not one of them you should be just fine. Anonymity is not a viable policy any more on the internet because of how large it has become. Assume you're being spied on and act accordingly.

avatar

fung0

The NSA program has been very close to 100% ineffective, so it's basically a huge waste of taxpayer money. Why axe food stamps, and then leave this pork on the table?

Oh, and it's also unconstitutional. Unlike protest, which is explicitly protected. I guess someone thought it was important.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>We need NSA spying to keep an eye on the criminals and terrorists and if you're not one of them you should be just fine.

It seems there's a new moron coming out of the woodwork every day.

avatar

JosephColt

You and your derogatory comments towards other people.

If you're going to refute and argue against someones claim, or opinion, show some common courtesy and don't insult them personally, it adds nothing to your arguments while making you appear less credible and infantile.

Insulting someone who may be misinformed, or simply share a different opinion does not reduce their ignorance, if any, but will increase emotional frustration, and blind-sighting an individual who will want to protect their ego or pride. Reason respectfully and diligent.

Thank you.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>If you're going to refute and argue against someones claim, or opinion, show some common courtesy and don't insult them personally,

I've already thoroughly refuted this position on many threads on this site. My comment wasn't meant to refute anything. My purpose was simply public ridicule. And honestly, when intellectual midgets such as yourself publicly espouse the death of my constitutional rights, you're getting off pretty light with public humiliation.

>>it adds nothing to your arguments

It's not supposed to. It's just simply supposed to insult you. I'm not the sort of retard who thinks insults win arguments. I ridicule you because I despise what you're saying, plain and simple. You can ignore it or go away. But as long as you advocate against my rights I will abuse you verbally. I don't intend to stop. Grow up and deal with it.

>>while making you appear less credible and infantile.

My credibility comes from sound logical arguments which neither you nor anyone else on this site have been able to refute. If you can't separate the arguments from the insults that's your problem.

>>Insulting someone who may be misinformed, or simply share a different opinion does not reduce their ignorance,

It's not supposed to. If they wanted to reduce their ignorance, they'd be at a library or some other place with reliable information (not that Maximum PC isn't reliable). And I might be inclined to help such a person with their ignorance. But those I'm insulting aren't doing that; and I'm not their tutor.

>>but will increase emotional frustration

You can check your emotions at the door. If emotions ruled the day we'd all be shooting one another by now. If you can't separate your emotions from the rest of the dialogue, maybe its best if you don't play.

>>, and blind-sighting an individual who will want to protect their ego or pride.

I'm not about to sit around a campfire singing Kumbaya and roasting weenies with you, just to pet your fragile ego. Besides when you bare your fundament in front of the entire internet while deriding constitutionally protected activity, your ego can stand a few dings. And even if it couldn't, I wouldn't cave on the defense of my rights just because you're an emotional train wreck, incapable of recovering from a simple insult.

>>Reason respectfully and diligent.

Why? Why should I respect you? I don't want to live in the kind of country you advocate for. It's people like you who think its ok to take what's mine. It's people like you who foolishly flush our rights away. It's people like you who will whine the loudest when they're gone, while others go away to fight for them. Your position commands no respect. There is much your ilk may demand of me before everything is said and done. And you may get much of it. But one thing you won't get is my respect.

But fortunately, you don't make the rules here. The site moderators do. When they notify me that something I have done has crossed the line, I'll reconsider how I write or I'll move to another site that affords me the liberty to speak my mind. But they haven't said anything yet. And until they do you'll have to deal with it.

avatar

JosephColt

"I've already thoroughly refuted this position on many threads on this site. My comment wasn't meant to refute anything. My purpose was simply public ridicule. And honestly, when intellectual midgets such as yourself publicly espouse the death of my constitutional rights, you're getting off pretty light with public humiliation."

Excuse me, your insults are not going to work on me, not at all. Using such derogatory speech patterns only makes you look bad, it isn't a sign of intelligence. Purposefully attacking someone verbally to publicly ridicule them for your enjoyment is horrible, this isn't high school.

"It's not supposed to. It's just simply supposed to insult you. I'm not the sort of retard who thinks insults win arguments. I ridicule you because I despise what you're saying, plain and simple. You can ignore it or go away. But as long as you advocate against my rights I will abuse you verbally. I don't intend to stop. Grow up and deal with it."

So, you insulted me, and others here, how does it benefit you? Does it make you feel better to insult others because their opinion is different? I am not going anywhere, if you are going to debate someone, like that other fellow, you can show respect.

"My credibility comes from sound logical arguments which neither you nor anyone else on this site have been able to refute. If you can't separate the arguments from the insults that's your problem. "

This one baffles me...separating the arguments from the insults...

Calling someone a moron after making a proclamation how NSA spying is unconstitutional, for example, is not part of your argument; I can separate the two. You claim that no one is refuting you in arguments, but not quite true.

"It's not supposed to. If they wanted to reduce their ignorance, they'd be at a library or some other place with reliable information (not that Maximum PC isn't reliable). And I might be inclined to help such a person with their ignorance. But those I'm insulting aren't doing that; and I'm not their tutor. "

People who are typically ignorant or misinformed don't know it until someone opens their eyes. A citizen inside the matrix would not know he is a slave to a system until another individual showed him the the truth. You can, instead of insulting, make a statement to them to make them realize that they might have been in the wrong.

"You can check your emotions at the door. If emotions ruled the day we'd all be shooting one another by now. If you can't separate your emotions from the rest of the dialogue, maybe its best if you don't play."

Last I checked emotions have swayed humanity quite a lot. Emotional frustration has caused a lot of harm in history. Muslim extremists want to blow up Americans for their God because their emotions have driven them in the wrong direction. Emotions can rule people.

I wasn't speaking for myself and emotional frustration, but I am quite capable of controlling myself. I could call you a hot headed and loud mouth prick who is also too stupid to comprehend other peoples views or thoughts, but no, I understand that you are just passionate about your perspectives and fear for your livelihood.

"I'm not about to sit around a campfire singing Kumbaya and roasting weenies with you, just to pet your fragile ego. Besides when you bare your fundament in front of the entire internet while deriding constitutionally protected activity, your ego can stand a few dings. And even if it couldn't, I wouldn't cave on the defense of my rights just because you're an emotional train wreck, incapable of recovering from a simple insult. "

I never said I was talking about myself. My statement is how other people will be if you insult and attack them so viciously.

"Why? Why should I respect you? I don't want to live in the kind of country you advocate for. It's people like you who think its ok to take what's mine. It's people like you who foolishly flush our rights away. It's people like you who will whine the loudest when they're gone, while others go away to fight for them. Your position commands no respect. There is much your ilk may demand of me before everything is said and done. And you may get much of it. But one thing you won't get is my respect."

"But fortunately, you don't make the rules here. The site moderators do. When they notify me that something I have done has crossed the line, I'll reconsider how I write or I'll move to another site that affords me the liberty to speak my mind. But they haven't said anything yet. And until they do you'll have to deal with it."

Why would you respect me? You should respect everyone.

It's the right thing to do, it shows care and compassion towards other people, it makes people look up to you, it shows you can understand how people think and feel, it helps bring people together peacefully, and more! You also don't know what I advocate for, so unless you know my beliefs, stop making false claims.

The way you treat other people is rather pitiful to be quite honest. You have no common courtesy or respect for others at all, nor do you try and understand others.

Maybe its slight sadistic personality disorder, insecurities, or you want to feel tougher, or something else. I would have to make a psychological diagnosis of you in real life; emotionally sound people don't take it upon on themselves to cause physical or emotional pain to another upon desire.

avatar

AMDfan64

How you YOU like a complete strip search every time you wanted to board a plane?

"We Need the NSA spying to keep an eye on the criminals and terrorists and if you're not one of them you should be just fine"

FALSE. nearly 3000 people have been arrested on false alarms in the past year. now tell me that again.

I don't have anything to hide, but it's still a gross invasion of privacy.

Anonymity is crucial for keeping the internet free. It allows people to voice their opinion without fear of scrutiny. Take that away & people wont be heard, Information cant travel. Everyone would be Forced into the same track.

So believe what you will. but you wont convince me that this is a GOOD thing.

avatar

Mungo

Yes we should only search terrorists and never anyone else.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Yes we should only search terrorists and never anyone else.

How about observing people's constitutional rights and obtaining a warrant when you have just cause to search someone? What's wrong with that? Too complicated for you?

avatar

maverick knight

"nearly 3000 people have been arrested on false alarms in the past year. now tell me that again."

I am dying to know how you get this information.

avatar

MaximumMike

My guess would be the same way you get yours.

avatar

maverick knight

I highly doubt it, otherwise he would not be saying that.

avatar

The Mac

Better whatch out, i ususally get gang-raped by the nerds on here for saying things like that.

lol

avatar

John Pombrio

Wouldn't it be better to let your congressman know that you are concerned? Or how about strong encryption programs that work for cell phones and e-mail?
Everyone online is already being blasted with news while half of the country isn't even aware of the NSA indiscretions (survey that surprised me!). Frankly, an online event is just preaching to the choir.

avatar

JosephColt

No, and where do you get the idea that congress will do its job. Congress complete lack of competence is a bigger deal than the NSA at that.

Change does not happen for the better if you rely on a government to solve your issues, it's the people who bring about change when they work together.

People who actually write to their congressmen these days are fools themselves.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>People who actually write to their congressmen these days are fools themselves.

Yea, I can see how taking an active part in the system and trying to change it for the better is much more foolish than spouting insensible mumbo jumbo on the internet about how the government should be allowed to take away our freedoms. Shame on those stupid jerks for trying to make a change for the better.

But the really foolish people are the ones who chastise people for blindly trusting the government and exhort them to work together for real change, and then turn around and call them fools for doing so.

avatar

JosephColt

You missed my point. Writing letters does nothing, you have to take more extreme measures these days if you want something done, mass rallies for example, or you don't make much of a difference.

Yes, you can have a few thousand people send in a letter that wants them to take action against injustices, but very little comes out of it; these letters are mostly ignored.

Congress can't get anything done these days. How can you fix a nail if your hammer is broken?

avatar

MaximumMike

You missed John's point. But I'll let him clarify it for you if he has the inclination.

avatar

JosephColt

No, I didn't misunderstand his point, he said we should write to congress we are concerned, but ...

Trying to rely on the people in congress is like trying to win the lottery, the system is to corrupt and broken, and it's near impossible for them to be productive. Simply writing your congressman is thus a poor method of change, sadly.

As he said though, the internet is bombard with this type of news, and once the rest of the normal population understands what is going on it may be to late...

We live in a messed up world.

avatar

MaximumMike

I'm not going to explain John's comment to you. But.... based on your recent comments have you reversed your previous position that what the NSA is doing could be a good thing?

avatar

JosephColt

I don't think you ever quite understood my point of view on that, but I am not going to start that debate again...

avatar

MaximumMike

>>I don't think you ever quite understood my point of view on that,

I understood it as you wrote it. If my understanding was wrong then you should have clarified your position. But it seems to me that you are all over the place and haven't really made up your mind yet. And its fine if you have not, but stop writing like you have. You may find yourself better understood.

>>but I am not going to start that debate again...

Then we don't have much to talk about on this thread, as that debate is the one that is on topic. I'm not interested in debating my motives for being rude or insulting with you and won't be responding to your childish topic. I find it funny that you tried to derail the entire thread and bait me into a defense of my motives. But I've been around too long to fall into that one. If you really thought your amateurish psychoanalysis was going to get you anywhere, then you are as ignorant of psychology as you are of history.

avatar

JosephColt

"I understood it as you wrote it. If my understanding was wrong then you should have clarified your position. But it seems to me that you are all over the place and haven't really made up your mind yet. And its fine if you have not, but stop writing like you have. You may find yourself better understood."

I did clarify my position in that last thread, but I could have been clearer from the get go, but people seemed rather vicious and made assumptions which were off base. Our discussion here isn't about the spying at all, but your degradation of others.

"I find it funny that you tried to derail the entire thread and bait me into a defense of my motives. But I've been around too long to fall into that one."

No I didn't. You constantly make assumptions which are completely wrong. I have no objectives or goals in this thread except asking you to show respect to others.

"If you really thought your amateurish psychoanalysis was going to get you anywhere, then you are as ignorant of psychology as you are of history."

Ignorant of psychology and history? What logical basis do you have for that deduction.

All I wanted was you to show others respect and not try and degrade them through public humiliation. You only care for yourself, and not others, no matter the expense.

Most of your arguments are insults and not logical reasoning due to the fact that it seems you have little to reason with left. What I am saying may be off-topic, but you insulting people will not keep things civil. Explain to me, why do you desire to insult someone who does not share the same opinion, and do not rant about your rights. People share different opinions, but that does not get you the right verbally abuse them like they are personally the ones taking them away. That's one reason the world is so messed up, people have no respect or common courtesy, and only think about themselves.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>I did clarify my position in that last thread, but I could have been clearer from the get go,

Then how could you expect that I, "ever quite understood [your] point of view on that?" But even if you had truly felt you were being clear all along, it was quite obvious that you were not clear when I asked you to clarify your position in one of my more recent posts. And of course you declined to do so. I think it goes without saying that you have been less than clear.

>>but people seemed rather vicious and made assumptions which were off base

Well aren't you the reactionary one? You stir a hornet's nest and then get offended at the result. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy and respect to others that you so unworthily demand from them, especially considering that you even admit that you weren't clear from the start.

>> Our discussion here isn't about the spying at all, but your degradation of others.

Doesn't that make you quite the disrespectful jerk? You insist on taking the dialogue off topic, even though I have plainly refused to do so. If someone clearly doesn't want to discuss something with you, why would a civil person such as yourself persist?

>>No I didn't. You constantly make assumptions which are completely wrong. I have no objectives or goals in this thread except asking you to show respect to others.

Really? The topic was clearly NSA spying until you jumped in and started lambasting me for not playing by your made up rules. And no sooner than you deny that you're trying to derail the thread, you immediately do it again. Furthermore, I do show respect to people on this site who have earned it. You're not in that category yet, and doing a pretty good job of keeping yourself out of it so far.

>>Ignorant of psychology and history? What logical basis do you have for that deduction.

Well, your own words would be the only basis I would have for that. In regards to history your complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the three branches of government and of the Constitution, along with your inaccurate characterization of the founding fathers was the justification for my opinion. Your arrogantly juvenile attempt at psychoanalysis was the basis of the other.

If one fails to demonstrate even the most fundamental understanding of a given subject, then I think it is fair to say that one is ignorant of the particular subject. The fact that you rattled on about the A's you received in your history class after making that bastardization of US history is just proof of how bad secondary education is becoming in this country.

>>All I wanted was you to show others respect and not try and degrade them through public humiliation.

I've clearly stated that I fully intend to publicly humiliate anyone who publicly advocates that the government take away my rights. I've already made that quite clear. I'm fully entitled to say what I like, whether you like it or not. You're not the moderator here. So, why are you trying to play one?

>>You only care for yourself, and not others, no matter the expense.

You get on here and prattle about like an utter buffoon, and then cry foul when someone mocks you for it. But you sure don't have any trouble mischaracterizing someone else when it suits you.

>>Most of your arguments are insults and not logical reasoning

Earlier you insisted that you could separate the arguments from the insults. But obviously that isn't true, as I normally go to great lengths to elaborate on my points. It is an absolute fact that no one else who posts on this site consistently gives as much detail and supporting evidence for their arguments as I do, although there are some who come close. So, I wonder how it is that you are either unwilling or unable to respond to those points, but instead choose to harp on about the insults. Could it be that the insults are the only points which are simple enough for you to understand?

Now, I know that you have been receiving a more disproportionate share of insults than others, but can I be frank? You've been begging for them.

>>due to the fact that it seems you have little to reason with left.

Now aren't you quite the hypocrite? Here you are demanding my respect, but you have yet to show me very much at all. Do you actually think I should earn your respect, but that you deserve to be freely handed mine? My my, what an egotistical prick.

>>What I am saying may be off-topic, but you insulting people will not keep things civil. Explain to me, why do you desire to insult someone who does not share the same opinion, and do not rant about your rights. People share different opinions, but that does not get you the right verbally abuse them like they are personally the ones taking them away. That's one reason the world is so messed up, people have no respect or common courtesy, and only think about themselves.

That was poorly written and it took a minute to decipher, but I finally got to the root of it. You're espousing that speaking nicely to an opponent has a higher priority on the list of the world's problems than an out of control government that spies on all of its citizens. In fact, you believe this so strongly that you are willing to hijack a thread on NSA spying in order to make it about your quest to restore civility to the Universe. You're just as egotistical as all the people you've been talking down to all this time, not to mention that you're also a hypocrite.

avatar

JosephColt

"Then how could you expect that I" & "Well aren't you the reactionary one?"

Let me just put the whole issue about the NSA dilemma and arguments in a quick explanation:

I stated my opinion in a quick comment, nothing to detailed since it's only a comment section for a quick reply and nothing serious.

My point was that his actions were not fully one sided(good or bad), and that with what we know now we can all discuss and figure out what the best possible actions are with the NSA spying. My statement too was that I don't necessarily find an issue with the government having access to data on me a big deal, only if those in power are morally sound; I do fear such power could easily be abused.

People made assumptions off of my original first comment and attacked me, which I should have expected, and I was forced into writing it out more and more. People assumed that I want a all seeing and all powerful central government to dictate every all aspects of are life, which is completely false, but I think governments should have some power within reason. What type of powers here is something we slightly may disagree on. So basically, I only half way agreed with you in that article.

I did not, nor have I ever been offended by the others attacking me, I try to respect anyone point of view.

---------------------------------------

"Doesn't that make you quite the disrespectful jerk?" & "Really? The topic was"

If I see someone abusing another physically or verbally, I will step in and stop them, and make sure they stop even if I put myself in danger. If you saw someone beating up or attacking someone in real life, wouldn't you do the same? It's the right thing to do, you're acting like a bully.

We need more people in the world that do the right thing because they care for other people, doesn't that remind you of someone like Snowden?

---------------------------------------

" Furthermore, I do show respect to people on this site who have earned it. "
I agree respect is earned.

---------------------------------------

" Well, your own words would be the only basis I would have for that. "

I am fairly well educated in history, at least a good amount of knowledge still from that almost a decade ago, and if an individual were to have an opinion that was unconstitutional, that alone does not mean they do not know or understand history. I don't recall bastardizing US history either; I don't really remember unimportant things so maybe I wrote something you didn't like. History classes I took on the side were some of my favorite actually too.

"bastardization of US history is just proof of how bad secondary education is becoming in this country."

Probably for normal public universities/colleges, I wouldn't know a lot about how good they area as I went to a private university. I remember high school education was really embarrassing quality wise.

"juvenile attempt at psychoanalysis"

This one actually gives me a smile on my face, but I am not making any real judgments unless I meet someone like you in real life; internet communication is just to impersonal nor does it conveys emotion well.

---------------------------------------

"You get on here and prattle about like an utter buffoon, and then cry foul when someone mocks you for it. But you sure don't have any trouble mischaracterizing someone else when it suits you."

When did I cry foul, I am not crying, I am sitting here calmly trying to understand you, and your thoughts. There isn't a even spark of negative emotions from me.

"Earlier you insisted that you could..."

You combine your insults as part of your argumentative opinions quite a lot, and yes, I get it, you will insult people purely if they oppose your opinion, and that it may tread on your rights; "damn them all to hell." I will give you only that you do post length rebuttals, but not that they are always correct.

---------------------------------------

"I've clearly stated that I fully intend to publicly humiliate anyone"

Why? How does that help your cause, those individuals are not personally taking your rights away, nor are you helping them understand their wrongs. You protest other peoples ideologies that you don't agree with, but not insult them into an emotional response that will further them away from your beliefs.

What kind of person are you to want to abuse another person simply based on beliefs or ignorance.

---------------------------------------

"Now aren't you quite the hypocrite? Here you are demanding my respect"

I am not demanding your respect, not even close to that, I am trying to keep your from abusing others. I would only respect you if you were trying to protest and persuade people without abusing them; verbal abuse can be worse then physical.

---------------------------------------

"That was poorly written and it took a minute to decipher."

Higher priority? We can have civil conversations while trying to solve the major issues that affect our livelihood.

Who you do think I am talking down to? I respect and try to view peoples opinions from their own perspective. Maybe I am a little aggressive towards you, but you constantly make false assumptions, and over think what I am saying.

We can try and fix and discuss our issues by being civil and respectful of others, not immature. When political issues rage on people start an endless cycle of hate and disrespect towards one another. We should show respect and understanding, then respectfully rebuttal them with reasoning, not viciously invoke an emotional response which furthers them from you(you create a barrier if hate.)

---------------------------------------

Quick examples:

How you should sound:
"Hey, I don't like the NSA spying, it violates my rights given by the constitution, and yours as well, do you want to know why it's bad for the people, let me explain."

How you sound:

"You're a fucking dumb ass, and should be embarrassed that you don't care if the government watches you, I will fight against idiots like you who want to take away my rights."

What do you think is more effective? You build a cause and support through getting others to respect and understand your crusade.

Think about this, if you wanted to help get more people playing on a PC instead of a console would you call them a console faggot for not buying a PC, or explain to them passionately why they should get into PC gaming?

To be fair though, you can say anything you want, but if you take it into abusive territory then it's not really right, and people will respect, look up to you, and understand you if you respect them properly.
---------------------------------------

avatar

MaximumMike

That was hilarious on so many levels that I actually contemplated how I could goad you into more of it. But I have enough respect for the forum, and also for the gravity of the topic that I won't continue to derail the thread. Instead, I'll only address your points that are on topic.

>>My point was that his actions were not fully one sided(good or bad),

That's one point I've never contended with anyone one. We still don't have anything close to enough facts to determine either Snowden's motives or culpability. But, I don't think many here would hesitate to label him a traitor and demand his execution. It's funny that those same people cry foul when they are insulted for their ludicrous behavior. Since when is it worse to insult someone than it is to advocate for their death?

But one thing I do know for sure is this, I'm very glad that what the NSA has been doing has come to light.

>>and that with what we know now we can all discuss and figure out what the best possible actions are with the NSA spying.

Ok, so here is where we start to disagree. I don't think there's much to discuss other than the most expedient way to put a stop to this obvious trampling of our rights, and the best way to convince the public (myself included) that it will never happen again.

But you seem very open to a dialogue about allowing some of this to continue. I say absolutely not. I want the warrantless data gathering and spying to stop completely. The fact that you think any of it is ok makes us diametrically opposed, whether you realize it or not.

>>My statement too was that I don't necessarily find an issue with the government having access to data on me a big deal, only if those in power are morally sound; I do fear such power could easily be abused.

This is the part that drives me nuts. First, just because you're complicit about your rights doesn't mean you have the right to hand mine away. For instance, let's say that some lawmaker decides to write a law that calls for the execution of anyone caught with chocolate. Now, since I hate chocolate I don't have any problem with this law and I give my support to this law maker. But on the other hand, you love chocolate. Do you feel that in surrendering my right to consume chocolate I was justified to also surrender yours?

Secondly, you say that you would only trust the government with this power under the caveat that they would not abuse it. And then you even admit that you do not believe that they would refrain from abusing it. And let me help you here, those in government aren't morally sound, not even close. So, if you believe that the government will abuse a power that you only think they should have if they will not abuse it, then why do you advocate for them to have it all?

>>People assumed that I want a all seeing and all powerful central government to dictate every all aspects of are life, which is completely false,

But what you're advocating will lead to exactly that. So, why should people think you believe any differently?

>>but I think governments should have some power within reason.

I hate these kinds of generalizations. You make it sound like government doesn't already have a reasonable amount of power. But the Constitution has already defined that. So, if you think the Constitution falls short somehow, then you need to say that, instead of making some senseless blanket generalization.

>>What type of powers here is something we slightly may disagree on. So basically, I only half way agreed with you in that article.

No, we don't agree at all. You think the Constitution fell short in the power it allotted the government. I think it afforded the government a plenty of power and that the government has greatly overstepped its constitutional boundaries. While you are advocating for more power for the government, I am advocating for less. Our opinions are exactly opposite.

>>Maybe I am a little aggressive towards you, but you constantly make false assumptions, and over think what I am saying.

No, my "assumptions" are the logical conclusions to what you're saying. What I'm doing with my "assumptions" is pointing out the contradictions in your statements. If you think I've mischaracterized what you're saying, then you either need to be clear or you need to rethink some of your contradicting beliefs. I'm not the one making the contradictions. I'm simply pointing them out.

avatar

JosephColt

"That was hilarious on so many levels that I actually contemplated how I could goad you into more of it."

Hilarious? I would love to know why me insisting that you to stop being abusive is amusing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Since when is it worse to insult someone than it is to advocate for their death?"

It's not worse, but it does not mean it's right to do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"But one thing I do know for sure is this, I'm very glad that what the NSA has been doing has come to light."

I do agree because nothing in power can go unchecked.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ok, so here is where we start to disagree. I don't think there's much to discuss other than the most expedient way to put a stop to this obvious trampling of our rights, and the best way to convince the public (myself included) that it will never happen again.

But you seem very open to a dialogue about allowing some of this to continue. I say absolutely not. I want the warrantless data gathering and spying to stop completely. The fact that you think any of it is ok makes us diametrically opposed, whether you realize it or not."

When I say discuss, I mean discuss how we can keep them in check, and not abusing their power, and solve the issue.

No, they are not going to be disbanded, for obvious reasons at that.

You do not want them to have this power, I want them to have some, but within reason, and kept from being abused. This is just differentiating political opinions in regards to this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"This is the part that drives me nuts..."

Sure I would, I would be upset if I lost my right to eat chocolate, but that right being taken was determined by the American people, and their representatives, majority wins.

Sure, law makers make laws that we don't directly choose a lot of times, but it is the American peoples obligated duty band together to stop such acts if they don't like them.

It's a bit of a slippery slope, I would want them to have some power, but I also don't want them because I know it could easily be abused.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"But what you're advocating will lead to exactly that. So, why should people think you believe any differently?"

"I hate these kinds of generalizations."

The constitution isn't the law of the entire human race, nor is it perfect, it needs amending.

When I say it needs power within reason it should be obvious I am talking about specific powers that don't abide to the constitution which you disagree on.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"No, we don't agree at all."

We do agree half way on it. I am saying more long the lines of reform the power to monitor, and weaken it within reason, but allow them to use data in a justified manner if necessary.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"No, my "assumptions" are the logical conclusions to what you're saying. "

I have been quite clear, and have no contradictions.

avatar

MaximumMike

Seems I missed this one. This thread really is getting quite fragmented. And your efforts to derail it aren't helping any.

>>When I say discuss, I mean discuss how we can keep them in check, and not abusing their power, and solve the issue.

You still don't get it do you? I don't want them to have the power at all. They can get a warrant for whatever data they need. There is no reason for them to have limitless access to our data. The "check", as you would put it, is the warrant.

>>No, they are not going to be disbanded, for obvious reasons at that.

The obvious reason is that I have reprehensible neighbors such as yourself who will give them the support they need to continue to trample my rights. I deride you because you are part of the problem. If it weren't for people like you they couldn't get away with this crap.

>>The constitution isn't the law of the entire human race,

Now this is the kind of Straw Man argument that TheMac is entirely unable to identify. We aren't talking about the entire human race. We're talking about the NSA spying on United States citizens, and the Constitution "IS" the utmost authority on that matter.

>>nor is it perfect, it needs amending.

It is perfect because it can be amended. But your connotation seems to suggest that it affords the common man too much freedom and that it should be amended to grant more power to the government. I avidly disagree. And it is this idea you have of stripping away freedom in the name security which erodes your dignity in my eyes.

>>When I say it needs power within reason it should be obvious I am talking about specific powers that don't abide to the constitution which you disagree on.

And you prove me out with that comment. In my opinion you are a traitor to the Constitution and the American ideals of freedom. When you say that the government should have powers that don't abide by the Constitution, I convey upon you the deepest form of loathing known to my heart.

>>You do not want them to have this power, I want them to have some, but within reason, and kept from being abused. This is just differentiating political opinions in regards to this.

You sound so idealistically naive when you say things like this. Who will keep the government from abusing power, the government? Don't you realize that the Constitution was written to protect us? Can't you fathom that the men who wrenched our freedom away from an abusive British government were thinking of these very things when they drafted the Constitution? Is it really beyond you that the protections embellished in the Constitution serve as the foundation for the pursuit of happiness and that they ought to be cherished rather than spat upon?

This no mere difference of political opinion. There is an insurmountable rift between us. Perhaps one day you will educate yourself and grow a spine. Perhaps one day you will know true dignity and have the courage to live freely. But until then, there is very little you and I have in common; I assure you.

>>We do agree half way on it. I am saying more long the lines of reform the power to monitor, and weaken it within reason, but allow them to use data in a justified manner if necessary.

There is no halfway with what you're saying. A warrant is halfway. If you think the government doesn't need a warrant before it seizes your documents, then your words are empty when you say things like, "but within reason, and kept from being abused." If you want to remove the need for warrants, how pray tell, do you propose we keep them in check?

>>I have been quite clear, and have no contradictions.

You want the government to have power, but within certain checks. But you advocate to remove the checks that already exist. That is a contradiction.

You deride me for what you consider abusive behavior, but your behavior on this thread has been abusive not only to me but to everyone else as you have continued to attempt to derail the thread countless times. Another contradiction.

avatar

The Mac

i would point to Nimrod as a good example.

Although he has been conspicuously absent as of late.

Personally, i now stay out of these debates.

As seen above, it inevitably turns into another anecdotal case of Goodwins's law.

With the exception of a few people, such as Carlidan among others, most people on here are intolerant of other peoples opinions and generally resort to ad hominim attacks eventually.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>As seen above, it inevitably turns into another anecdotal case of Goodwins's law.

I agree. The above thread is just rife with references to Nazis.

avatar

The Mac

i see we missed the word anecdotal. And the sarcasm.

Im pretty sure the others knew what i meant, if you wish to be pedantic, in response to my being intentionally hyperbolic, that is your right.

Also, feel free to ignore the actual content of my post and focus on something completely meaningless.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Also, feel free to ignore the actual content of my post and focus on something completely meaningless.

I'm not ignoring anything. Remove the "Godwin's Law" comment from your post and there really isn't much of anything to respond to. That line was the justification you gave for staying out of the discussion (which you actually didn't do) and was the basis of your criticism of the preceding thread.

You have no more understanding of Godwin's Law (which you cant even spell) than you do of any of the other philosophical rhetoric you like to spew in order to dismiss arguments rather than respond to them.

The premise of Godwin's Law is that almost any conversation will eventually descend into a discussion of Nazis. For instance, I might start a discussion about hot dogs. And you might comment about how you don't like Mustard on your hot dog. The dialogue could very well continue until you espoused that you abhorred mustard and that it had no place even being mentioned as a food item. At this point, I might call you a mustard Nazi.

That is an example of Godwin's Law. But discussion of events which are actually very similar to events that transpired in Nazi Germany, and recognizing that similarity is not what Godwin was talking about. And even if it was, such a premise would destroy his credibility because he would actually be claiming that we should ignore history. I'm sure people like that would find friends among Holocaust deniers, but they wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone else.

I've watched you play the Godwin's Law card time and time again when it didn't apply. So you can try to hide behind hyperbole all you like, but I don't buy it.

avatar

The Mac

whatever blows your skirt up boss....

as I said, im sure everyone else, except for you of course, understood what i was saying.

Time and time again eh?

I can recall only one other time, and i believe like this occasion, it was in reference to where the conversation was heading..

perhaps you would like to link to specific instances of these myriad of references to which you are referring?

avatar

MaximumMike

>>as I said, im sure everyone else, except for you of course, understood what i was saying.

And I'm sure that everyone else read it the same way I did. Who's to say? The only interpretation you can be sure of is mine because I'm the only person who gave one. But maybe the problem with the way you write is that you just assume everyone sees everything the same way you do.

>>I can recall only one other time, and i believe like this occasion, it was in reference to where the conversation was heading..

There was more than one instance, and just like this time the references were misplaced.

>>perhaps you would like to link to specific instances of these myriad of references to which you are referring?

I'm always one to oblige. Here are 4 different posts of yours on two different threads where you used "Goodwin's" Law to dodge a valid point.

http://www.maximumpc.com/comment/reply/25701/241802

http://www.maximumpc.com/comment/reply/25689/241429

http://www.maximumpc.com/comment/reply/25689/241621

http://www.maximumpc.com/comment/reply/25689/241453

But since we've got these four gems of yours on display for everyone. Let's not stop with Godwin's Law. You're also notorious for crying "ad hominem" in order to dodge truth as well. So, I'm curious how much ad hominem everyone will find on the other side of these links, you fucking hypocrite.

avatar

The Mac

I see, so some once actually using nazi doesnt count as goodwins law?

i suggest you go back and read those threads thoroughly.

each one of those was ACTUALLY in response to someone bringing up nazis or Hitler or the 3rd Reich.

I am referring to your assertions that i have mentioned it without someone else first saying "nazi"

as i said, i can think of only one other case...

i refuse to get into a politcal debate with you, so youve clearly found something else to be argumentative about.

Im all set with this nonsense.

They need an ignore button on here so i don't have to listen to you drone on.

unfortunately, in order to read other peoples comments, im forced to read yours.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>I see, so some once actually using nazi doesnt count as goodwins law?
i suggest you go back and read those threads thoroughly.
each one of those was ACTUALLY in response to someone bringing up nazis or Hitler or the 3rd Reich.

It's bad enough that you commonly abuse Godwin's Law (both in spelling and in usage). But its even worse that you couldn't be bothered to read the actual explanation of what it means. But to answer your question, NO. BRINGING UP NAZIS DOES NOT IN AND OF ITSELF CONSTITUTE AN INSTANCE OF GODWIN'S LAW. I hope that's clear. Comparisons to Nazis are quite valid when those comparisons actually exist, i.e., when governments are doing and saying the same things the Nazis did and said. Godwin's Law only applies to conversations that have very little if anything to do with Nazis or Hitler. I already gave you a good example, which you were either too daft to understand or too lazy to read. What you are doing is ignoring valid arguments by crying "Godwin's Law", "ad hominem," and "straw man," when in fact either no fallacy exists or the existence of the fallacy has no bearing on the truth of the argument. This is called an argument from fallacy. And I daresay most of your arguments are argument from fallacy.

>>I am referring to your assertions that i have mentioned it without someone else first saying "nazi"

That's not surprising considering that was never my assertion, you moron. Your ability to misinterpret concise sentences is astounding. My actual assertion was that you used Godwin's Law when it didn't apply, which it never has when you've used it.

>>i refuse to get into a politcal debate with you, so youve clearly found something else to be argumentative about.

Ummmmm..... dumb ass. You dragged yourself into this one. Stop asserting stupid crap as fact and I'll stop calling you out for it. A master of philosophy you are not. You should stop parading as one on this forum.

>>They need an ignore button on here so i don't have to listen to you drone on.

Coming from our reigning champion of censorship, I'm not surprised.

>>unfortunately, in order to read other peoples comments, im forced to read yours.

Inevitably, Maximum PC will post some article that someone disagrees with, be it an Apple article or a political piece, or something else. Then will come the ensuing rant about how Maximum PC shouldn't be posting these kinds of articles. On more that one occasion you have yourself empathized that they can choose not to read the article in question. You are always quite free to follow your own advice.

avatar

MaximumMike

triple post

avatar

MaximumMike

double post

avatar

JosephColt

You make some good points.

This is one fault with the internet, people can say whatever they want, but this also shows what they really are like on the inside. Anonymity is an interesting thing.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>This is one fault with the internet, people can say whatever they want,

You do realize that you're advocating for censorship right?

>>but this also shows what they really are like on the inside.

You should stop acting high and mighty. You are very derogatory in your own right. You're such a hypocrite.

avatar

JosephColt

"You do realize that you're advocating for censorship right?"

Totally, 100% wrong, you misunderstood my statement.

My statement was that the internet allows everyone to speak their mind freely, but also speak it how they cannot in real life. I doubt you would say many of the insults you've said to people online in real life, for example.

"You should stop acting high and mighty. You are very derogatory in your own right. You're such a hypocrite."

How does that make any sense, you didn't even get the point of my statement.

People can show their true faces online. In real life an individual will not say whatever he wants, most of the time, but online they will act for what they really are(many Xbox players are a good example).

avatar

MaximumMike

>>My statement was that the internet allows everyone to speak their mind freely, but also speak it how they cannot in real life. I doubt you would say many of the insults you've said to people online in real life, for example.

That's interesting. You suppose that I lack the courage to say in real life what I say on the internet. More unfounded generalizations about my character? I do believe that is the second time you have implied that I am a coward. Perhaps were we face to face, you would not be willing to take so many liberties with my character?

Honestly though, in real life this stuff isn't part of my normal conversation, but when the opportunity affords itself I am not much different face to face than I am on a message board. But fortunately, I don't have the displeasure of speaking with imbeciles in my day to day conversations. So, they do tend to be more pleasant.

>>People can show their true faces online. In real life an individual will not say whatever he wants, most of the time, but online they will act for what they really are(many Xbox players are a good example).

I don't know what's more sad, the fact that you don't realize that you're espousing censorship or the fact that you don't see the benefit to being able to say whatever you like on the internet.