Should people have a right to privacy?

[General Zod]

I suppose you'd argue that someone grabbing a live power line to find out what happens is being rational as well.

Now you're being silly. What would be "rational" about deliberately electrocuting yourself? If you had half a brain, you'd KNOW what would happen would kill you.

It really does help if you think before you post. Using your earlier logic the person pissing on the lake doesn't know what will happen when their piss hits it, yet anyone with half a brain would know it would melt.

[brianeyci]

Yawn just for laughs. Just because something doesn't harm anybody, that doesn't mean it should be a right. Might as well say watching porno is a right, or jerking off is a right. Yeah, everybody should be able to do it, but that doesn't mean they're rights that should be enshrined as sacred.

The Guantanmo Bay detainees are having their rights violated. Telemarketers calling you up and bothering you or the police putting cameras on intersections is not violating your rights.

You're the kind of stink that thinks everything's that legal and doesn't harm anybody should be a "right." So drinking a can of pop becomes a right, wearing any clothes you want whenever you want is a right.

Do you even know what a right is. How dare you put your petty insecurities on the same level as real rights violations you moron. There are people in this world who are having their rights violated seriously, and you belittle them by declaring your need to be alone a right. What part of that do you not understand.

[brianeyci]

Guess who else tries defending irrational arguments with logic? Fundies. Ever notice how much they try and convince people their magic sky pixie exists using bad logic and get smacked down for it? Same thing here.

That's a good point. JustForZero reminds me of fundies arguing that gay marriage will result in polygamy. Even if it was true, polygamy is not even remotely a realistic concern. Let's say privacy is not a right. Does that mean the government will suddenly put cameras in showers, or can legally do so as JustForFun000 says. Of course not, there will still be privacy commissioners, there will still be auditors, there will still be laws against releasing information to the public about individuals and the electorate will still be up in arms about cameras in showers. What does happen, is privacy, smoking, drinking, driving is not put on the same level as say, sexual harassment, racism, censorship, etc.

The dilution of the meaning of the word right is not a trivial problem. Teenagers and morons go around saying this or that is a right, wearing the right clothes is a right, being rich is a right, etc., and don't realize the ridiculousness of putting say owning a piece of entertainment on the same level as medical care. And they don't care about real rights violations like the White House trying to tell the Onion not to use their logo. Seems stupid right, who cares if the Onion's told not to use the White House logo in a parody (freedom of the press), I care about my "right" to drive, smoke, eat junk food, own guns. What a joke.

[Lord Zentei]

Brianeyci, just a friendly point: you might want to use proper punctuation in your posts. In particular, you need to remember your question marks: the lack thereof rather makes you look like a bit of a doofus (which is a bit ironic when you are flaming someone else for being a dumbass).

[Justforfun000]

Only in a very loose layman's sense. You cannot use purely logical arguments to defend everything the way you're trying to do.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

This is PRECISELY what I've been saying and I agree with you. How did we get around to this full circle if we've been thinking opposite? Maybe it was Nitram....

Except wait..I wasn't trying to use logic. I mean...jesus I hate this because the fault here is probably the definition of words. Ok, my points were trying to use logic in the same type of very loose layman's sense. I mean it may not be textbook logic as a formula, but what other word could I use for sensible or reasonable? Things can be both of those things to people but not necessarily logically defensible. Do you agree?

It really does help if you think before you post. Using your earlier logic the person pissing on the lake doesn't know what will happen when their piss hits it, yet anyone with half a brain would know it would melt.

No that's not true. You could know what would happen, but you might want to watch how much it would melt. See how much steam you can create. Sure it's insignificant, but it might be what you desire. That's all.

Yawn just for laughs. Just because something doesn't harm anybody, that doesn't mean it should be a right.

Strawman. Besides that, it also does not mean that it should be illegal either. In general if something is not "illegal", its a "right" to do it from one perspective. Colouring that you move on to individual people and how your actions would affect them ethically. People here have a very bad habit of trying to make the other persons position look much more one sided and simplistic than is usually presented. Considering the words are there to see along with many clarifications and exceptions addedalong the way, there is no excuse for this.

Might as well say watching porno is a right, or jerking off is a right. Yeah, everybody should be able to do it, but that doesn't mean they're rights that should be enshrined as sacred.

And again, did I say that? The term a 'right' can still be loosely interpreted as something you are allowed to do. I can turn to anybody in central park who yells at me to get the fuck out and say "I have as much a right to walk through here as you do". And that is TRUE. There isn't any need for further explanation or exceptions at this point. IF you were a murderer on the lam, you probably would have LOST the right to walk through the public park and it would be illegal as you are supposed to be in custody. That's just one example of many exceptions to the rule.

If this entire goddamn argument has been wasting my time over the insistence on the word 'right' as being a sacred enshrinable law instead of the looser definition I'm going to be quite annoyed. I never professed it be THAT kind of automatic right, and if that's what people were thinking they should have narrowed that down immediately and presented it forth as the main crux of a challenge first.

The Guantanmo Bay detainees are having their rights violated. Telemarketers calling you up and bothering you or the police putting cameras on intersections is not violating your rights.

I agree totally with you here. Is it possible we aren't really in disagreement at all?

You're the kind of stink that thinks everything's that legal and doesn't harm anybody should be a "right." So drinking a can of pop becomes a right, wearing any clothes you want whenever you want is a right.

Yup. That's what happened at least with you. $&*#%&

I was referring to the looser sense of the word. What a waste of time.

Do you even know what a right is. How dare you put your petty insecurities on the same level as real rights violations you moron. There are people in this world who are having their rights violated seriously, and you belittle them by declaring your need to be alone a right. What part of that do you not understand.

You jumped to conclusions. In any event, you're still off on "my" private insecurities. It is a given that most people would argue in favour of having a private household first and foremost with the only reason it changing being a threat to society or participating in illegal activities that justify the loss of such privacy.
Just in case you actually do still think that that example is still not important enough to be a right, how would you argue against me OR the court if I recorded you having a shower against your wishes?

[General Zod]

Except wait..I wasn't trying to use logic. I mean...jesus I hate this because the fault here is probably the definition of words. Ok, my points were trying to use logic in the same type of very loose layman's sense. I mean it may not be textbook logic as a formula, but what other word could I use for sensible or reasonable? Things can be both of those things to people but not necessarily logically defensible. Do you agree?

It sounded as if you were trying to justify a position using rational explanations. That certainly seemed like the use of logic to me.

No that's not true. You could know what would happen, but you might want to watch how much it would melt. See how much steam you can create. Sure it's insignificant, but it might be what you desire. That's all.

Bullshit. Now you're backpedaling and trying to change the conditions. In both cases you are performing an action to find out what happens. By your reasoning, the one that results in injury is irrational even though there is no way of knowing the outcome of either beforehand. It should not require significant effort to comprehend that the outcome of an action does not determine how rational that action is.

[Dark Flame]

The Guantanmo Bay detainees are having their rights violated. Telemarketers calling you up and bothering you or the police putting cameras on intersections is not violating your rights.

You're the kind of stink that thinks everything's that legal and doesn't harm anybody should be a "right." So drinking a can of pop becomes a right, wearing any clothes you want whenever you want is a right.

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents here.

The Guantanamo Bay "detainees" do not have rights. Their rights ceased whe they committed terrorist acts.

He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once posessed. -Ralph Peters
No More Gitmos

That's a good article to read.

And just so you know, wearing whatever you want is a right, it's called free speech. Unless people don't have a right to express themselves through their clothing, or lack thereof.

I care about my "right" to drive, smoke, eat junk food, own guns. What a joke.

Owning guns is also a right, as far as I'm concerned. Not even referencing legal documents, I'd say that a right to defend yourself in an effective manner is one of the core rights of all people everywhere, unless they forfeit that (and other) rights.

[Justforfun000]

It sounded as if you were trying to justify a position using rational explanations. That certainly seemed like the use of logic to me.

So you can't be rational without using textbook logic? If you are motivated by an emotional reason to do something, that is a rational reason to act on it. Is this necessarily "logic"?

Bullshit. Now you're backpedaling and trying to change the conditions. In both cases you are performing an action to find out what happens. By your reasoning, the one that results in injury is irrational even though there is no way of knowing the outcome of either beforehand.

What in holy hannah are you talking about? Of COURSE you would know touching a live wire would kill you unless you're a fucking idiot! What possible information could be justified along with that knowledge to attempt such an experiment?
In contrast, pissing on ice is not going to harm you and so whatever jollies you get from the experience will be benign.

[Lord Zentei]

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents here.

The Guantanamo Bay "detainees" do not have rights. Their rights ceased whe they committed terrorist acts.

And you assume that the detainees at Guantanamo are all terrorists? Wrong, buddy, they are all terrorist suspects. There is a distinct difference.

[Dark Flame]

And how did they get to be "suspected"? I don't know all the particulars, but I would hope that the people that are being sent halfway across the world to be detained are not just the Average Joes of Iraq. They are combatants, and the combatants in Iraq are not good poeple.

The article I linked to explains it better than I can.

[Justforfun000]

And how did they get to be "suspected"? I don't know all the particulars, but I would hope that the people that are being sent halfway across the world to be detained are not just the Average Joes of Iraq. They are combatants, and the combatants in Iraq are not good poeple.

You would think that would be the case, and indeed if the military actually used common sense in who they detained indiscriminately, it might be accurate. Watch the documentary "Road to Guantanamo" and you'll see what I mean.

[Lord Zentei]

And how did they get to be "suspected"? I don't know all the particulars, but I would hope that the people that are being sent halfway across the world to be detained are not just the Average Joes of Iraq. They are combatants, and the combatants in Iraq are not good poeple.

The article I linked to explains it better than I can.

Not all suspects are guilty. Hence, due process.

[brianeyci]

What a tangent. I'm tempted not to reply at all, but since you're new let's see where this goes.

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents here.

The Guantanamo Bay "detainees" do not have rights. Their rights ceased whe they committed terrorist acts.

No More Gitmos

That's a good article to read.

Irrelevant to the current discussion. Prisoners certainly have rights, even terrorists have rights. The first bolded part talks about the Geneva Conventions, legal documents. Why should this matter at all.

He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once posessed. -Ralph Peters

In this those days, no one could have imagined that enemy combatants might one day attack Americans on native soil. In fact, COUNTDOWN has obtained a partially redacted copy of a colonial “declaration,” indicating that back then, depriving us of trial by jury was actually considered sufficient cause to start a war of independence based on the, then fashionable idea that “liberty” was an inalienable right.

And just so you know, wearing whatever you want is a right, it's called free speech. Unless people don't have a right to express themselves through their clothing, or lack thereof.

You obviously miss the part when I said "whenever you want." When you put wearing whatever you want whenever you want as a right, then teenagers with the same logic say they're not obligated to wear uniforms or that dress codes are a violation of "free speech." What a joke.

Owning guns is also a right, as far as I'm concerned. Not even referencing legal documents, I'd say that a right to defend yourself in an effective manner is one of the core rights of all people everywhere, unless they forfeit that (and other) rights.

Since when does the right to defense, safety, turn into the right to defend yourself. What reasonable societies and reasonable people do is allow trained professionals to defend society's citizens, with the knowledge that restricting the number of lethal weapons in the hands of people lowers the amount of crime. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but you certainly cannot say that gun ownership is a worldwide universal right. If so, then people's rights are being violated all around the world. Gun ownership is a regional issue.

[Dark Flame]

Lord Zentei and Justforfun both make good points. However, I still hope that the US military is intelligent enough to only incarcerate people that they know are illegal combatants.

And I've never heard of this documentary, I will look into it.

And brianeyci, what's wrong with the article talking about the Geneva Convention? He's establishing the meaning of "legal combatants", which those fighting against Americans in Iraq, are not.

On the subject of dress codes, I think that within reason (which can be very controversial), students should be able to wear whatever they want. I don't like the idea of uniforms at all. People are individuals, we should teach our school-age children to be themselves, and not conform to everyone else.

What's the difference between defense and defending yourself? They seem the same to me.
The trained professionals cannot be relied upon to defend people on a minute-to-minute basis, that has been proven in the courts. The police are not obligated to protect each individual person from harm.

And why would it not be a universal right? Are people's rights in America different than those in Russia or Iraq or Somalia? The practicalities may be different, but all people should have the opportunity to have an effective means of self-defense.

*tangent cap off* And now since this is getting off topic in regards to the original post, I will refrain from this particular discussion

[brianeyci]

ghetto edit: Dark Flame, what you and the people who don't object to the Guantanmo detentions don't seem to understand, is even if by the letter of the law they're non-combatants and un-uniformed, the Bush Administration is extraordinarily short-sighted in their policy, hurting America.

What was the Geneva Conventions intended to do? Obviously, to make sure that your soldiers are not treated badly when in enemy captivity. Now if you really buy this global war on terror bullcrap, nobody is safe, the enemy is intent on killing Americans, and your front-line "soldiers" are your very citizens, who have to keep an eye out for suspicious behaviour. If your citizens get captured by the enemy, are they more likely to get tortured and killed if the enemy knows about your soldiers committing atrocities on their comrades? Of course. Which is why Americans are executed more often, and foreign nationals of other countries are released more often. Guantanmo contributed more to terrorism than it prevented terrorism, giving countless terrorists propaganda material to motivate their base.

In short, the spirit of the convention is being violated by this legalistic wrangling. The convention is dated obviously. Don't confuse people bringing up the convention with legalism. The people who are trying to get the Guantanmo detainees out have read the convention, and are perfectly aware that in a legal sense those detainees may not have a claim. But it just so happens the convention is the most expedient means to getting them out. Human rights lawyers obviously have to work with a flawed document and flawed system. But that doesn't mean you on a personal level have to accept the convention as the be all end all to rights, or more appropriately human rights.

[Aaron]

Some of the detainees in Gitmo were sent there because they were handed over for no reason other than there was a bounty on Taliban and AQ fighters and the Northern Alliance literally just handed guys over and said "here's an AQ or Taliban fighter give me cash", with no supporting evidence. I've been told that some of these guys have since been released but it's indictive of just how broken the system really is.

[General Zod]

What in holy hannah are you talking about? Of COURSE you would know touching a live wire would kill you unless you're a fucking idiot! What possible information could be justified along with that knowledge to attempt such an experiment?
In contrast, pissing on ice is not going to harm you and so whatever jollies you get from the experience will be benign.

Do I have to break out a thesaurus? Please try not to be such a fucking retard. In both hypotheticals it is being assumed that neither individual making a move out of curiosity will know the result of their action. Is this sufficient explanation or do I have to start using monosyllabic words?

[Aaron]

Heres a news article on the subject:


AP

AP: Gitmo Detainees Say They Were Sold


They fed them well. The Pakistani tribesmen slaughtered a sheep in honor of their guests, Arabs and Chinese Muslims famished from fleeing U.S. bombing in the Afghan mountains. But their hosts had ulterior motives: to sell them to the Americans, said the men who are now prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000, the detainees testified during military tribunals, according to transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit.


It's obvious. They knew Americans were looking for Arabs, so they captured Arabs and sold them — just like someone catches a fish and sells it.

Guantanamo prisoner
A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.

"It wouldn't surprise me if we paid rewards," said Schroen, who retired after 32 years in the CIA soon after the fall of Kabul in late 2001. He recently published the book "First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan."

Schroen said Afghan warlords like Gen. Rashid Dostum were among those who received bundles of notes. "It may be that we were giving rewards to people like Dostum because his guys were capturing a lot of Taliban and al-Qaida," he said.

Pakistan has handed hundreds of suspects to the Americans, but Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told the AP, "No one has taken any money."

The U.S. departments of Defense, Justice and State and the Central Intelligence Agency also said they were unaware of bounty payments being made for random prisoners.

The U.S. Rewards for Justice program pays only for information that leads to the capture of suspected terrorists identified by name, said Steve Pike, a State Department spokesman. Some $57 million has been paid under the program, according to its web site.

It offers rewards up to $25 million for information leading to the capture of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

But a wide variety of detainees at the U.S. lockup at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, alleged they were sold into capture. Their names and other identifying information were blacked out in the transcripts from the tribunals, which were held to determine whether prisoners were correctly classified as enemy combatants.

One detainee who said he was an Afghan refugee in Pakistan accused the country's intelligence service of trumping up evidence against him to get bounty money from the U.S.

"When I was in jail, they said I needed to pay them money and if I didn't pay them, they'd make up wrong accusations about me and sell me to the Americans and I'd definitely go to Cuba," he told the tribunal. "After that I was held for two months and 20 days in their detention, so they could make wrong accusations about me and my (censored), so they could sell us to you."

Another prisoner said he was on his way to Germany in 2001 when he was captured and sold for "a briefcase full of money" then flown to Afghanistan before being sent to Guantanamo.

"It's obvious. They knew Americans were looking for Arabs, so they captured Arabs and sold them — just like someone catches a fish and sells it," he said. The detainee said he was seized by "mafia" operatives somewhere in Europe and sold to Americans because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time — an Arab in a foreign country.

A detainee who said he was a Saudi businessman claimed, "The Pakistani police sold me for money to the Americans."

"This was part of a roundup of all foreigners and Arabs in that area," of Pakistan near the Afghan border, he said, telling the tribunal he went to Pakistan in November 2001 to help Afghan refugees.

The military-appointed representative for one detainee — who said he was a Taliban fighter — said the prisoner told him he and his fellow fighters "were tricked into surrendering to Rashid Dostum's forces. Their agreement was that they would give up their arms and return home. But Dostum's forces sold them for money to the U.S."

Several detainees who appeared to be ethnic Chinese Muslims — known as Uighurs — described being betrayed by Pakistani tribesmen along with about 100 Arabs.

They said they went to Afghanistan for military training to fight for independence from China. When U.S. warplanes started bombing near their camp, they fled into the mountains near Tora Bora and hid for weeks, starving.

One detainee said they finally followed a group of Arabs, apparently fighters, being guided by an Afghan to the Pakistani border.

"We crossed into Pakistan and there were tribal people there, and they took us to their houses and they killed a sheep and cooked the meat and we ate," he said.

That night, they were taken to a mosque, where about 100 Arabs also sheltered. After being fed bread and tea, they were told to leave in groups of 10, taken to a truck, and driven to a Pakistani prison. From there, they were handed to Americans and flown to Guantanamo.

"When we went to Pakistan the local people treated us like brothers and gave us good food and meat," said another detainee. But soon, he said, they were in prison in Pakistan where "we heard they sold us to the Pakistani authorities for $5,000 per person."

There have been reports of Arabs being sold to the Americans after the U.S.-led offensive in Afghanistan, but the testimonies offer the most detail from prisoners themselves.

In March 2002, the AP reported that Afghan intelligence offered rewards for the capture of al-Qaida fighters — the day after a five-hour meeting with U.S. Special Forces. Intelligence officers refused to say if the two events were linked and if the United States was paying the offered reward of 150 million Afghanis, then equivalent to $4,000 a head.

That day, leaflets and loudspeaker announcements promised "the big prize" to those who turned in al-Qaida fighters.

Said one leaflet: "You can receive millions of dollars. ... This is enough to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life — pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people."

Helicopters broadcast similar announcements over the Afghan mountains, enticing people to "Hand over the Arabs and feed your families for a lifetime," said Najeeb al-Nauimi, a former Qatar justice minister and leader of a group of Arab lawyers representing nearly 100 detainees.

Al-Nauimi said a consortium of wealthy Arabs, including Saudis, told him they also bought back fellow citizens who had been captured by Pakistanis.

Khalid al-Odha, who started a group fighting to free 12 Kuwaiti detainees, said his imprisoned son, Fawzi, wrote him a letter from Guantanamo Bay about Kuwaitis being sold to the Americans in Afghanistan.

One Kuwaiti who was released, 26-year-old Nasser al-Mutairi, told al-Odha that interrogators said Dostum's forces sold them to the Pakistanis for $5,000 each, and the Pakistanis in turn sold them to the Americans.

"I also heard that Saudis were sold to the Saudi government by the Pakistanis," al-Odha said. "If I had known that, I would have gone and bought my son back."

EDITOR'S NOTE: Chief of Caribbean Services Michelle Faul has covered the prison at Guantanamo Bay since it opened in January 2002. Associated Press writers Paisley Dodds in London and Matthew Pennington in Islamabad, Pakistan contributed to this report.

[Justforfun000]

Do I have to break out a thesaurus? Please try not to be such a fucking retard. In both hypotheticals it is being assumed that neither individual making a move out of curiosity will know the result of their action. Is this sufficient explanation or do I have to start using monosyllabic words?

Good grief! I give up. For the thousandth fucking time, and this is in reference to ALL of the discussions in the last few days, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

"In both hypotheticals it is being assumed that neither individual making a move out of curiosity will know the result of their action."

Where the fuck did I say that? I never ONCE set conditions about what those two hypothetical scenarios would only know or NOT know about the result of their actions. You mentioned an absurd, lethal scenario that practically any human being above the age of 5 would be aware of, in comparison to Rye's example of a guy pissing on ice, so I called your example a very bad analogy. So I await your apology for calling me a fucking retard.

[brianeyci]

I'll try to relate my rebuttal to Dark Flame to "what is a right" since it seems the confusion here is what is a right.

About the uniform issue -- there are very real reasons why you would want uniforms, so school does not become a fashion contest. School is about education, not who has the most money to buy Tommy Hillfiger.

About the guns -- the right to defense does not automatically translate into the right to self-defense. I assume you accept that everybody has a right to medical care. That does not automatically translate into a right to perform medical operations on yourself, or to be a doctor. Obviously you see the problem in this. Whoever delivers the service does not matter, as long as the person gets the service. You bring up practical objections. This is irrelevant, because in other parts of the world the police do an adequate job in protection.

If we use the meaning of rights as in enshrined in constitutions, then in America arguably there are rights to gun ownership and in other countries there are not. Don't confuse that with me accepting that there's different kinds of universal rights.

In short you have a quintessential American view of things. Children should be taught to be individuals. Guns are a right. Etc. I can understand how you were baited by my words, but it wasn't my intent to bring up a gun control debate or Guantanmo debate or individuality versus collectivism.

[General Zod]

Do I have to break out a thesaurus? Please try not to be such a fucking retard. In both hypotheticals it is being assumed that neither individual making a move out of curiosity will know the result of their action. Is this sufficient explanation or do I have to start using monosyllabic words?

Good grief! I give up. For the thousandth fucking time, and this is in reference to ALL of the discussions in the last few days, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

"In both hypotheticals it is being assumed that neither individual making a move out of curiosity will know the result of their action."

Where the fuck did I say that? I never ONCE set conditions about what those two hypothetical scenarios would only know or NOT know about the result of their actions. You mentioned an absurd, lethal scenario that practically any human being above the age of 5 would be aware of, in comparison to Rye's example of a guy pissing on ice, so I called your example a very bad analogy. So I await your apology for calling me a fucking retard.

It would help if you'd at least learn how to make consistent arguments. If someone's pissing on the ice to find out what will happen then it pretty damn well implies they don't know the consequences of their action. Perhaps I should just make a new fucking scenario for you to get the fucking point I'm trying to make and stop focusing on whether or not you think I'm putting words in your mouth.

[Justforfun000]

It would help if you'd at least learn how to make consistent arguments. If someone's pissing on the ice to find out what will happen then it pretty damn well implies they don't know the consequences of their action. Perhaps I should just make a new fucking scenario for you to get the fucking point I'm trying to make and stop focusing on whether or not you think I'm putting words in your mouth.

There is nothing inconsistent about my argument. You misinterpreted it. You have never done anything just to see how it plays out?

Let me give YOU another example. I take a ball and throw it up in the air ten times. I know it's going to go up so far and gravity will bring it back down. What I DON'T know is how far I'm going to throw it each time, or exactly how it's going to look while I'm doing it. Same analogy with the peeing on the ice. I know it's going to melt the ice somewhat. I might be curious to see how deep a hole I can make. Or maybe even see if I have enough of a stream to write my name.
The fault of your scenario is that YOU assumed (and you know what they say about "assume"), that my saying they want to see what happens meant that they didn't know what would happen AT ALL and so you extrapolated it to your example.

Now can we please return to the actual point of the thread instead of wasting time on misunderstanding each other?

Fuck, I don't even know where we're at in this now.

Ok, lets focus exclusively on the personal privacy issue since it's been dragged on anyway.

Lets try to come from your point of view here. Would you object to someone invading your bathroom whether in person or remote viewing to watch you shower, clip your toenails and have a shit? If so, then how would you defend the "right" to be able to do these things without someone forcing you to do them in a public manner?

[General Zod]

Lets try to come from your point of view here. Would you object to someone invading your bathroom whether in person or remote viewing to watch you shower, clip your toenails and have a shit? If so, then how would you defend the "right" to be able to do these things without someone forcing you to do them in a public manner?

I've never once said that it was acceptable dumbass. The fact that you can't figure out that I'm simply pointing out holes in your argument and not defending violating peoples privacy is not my problem.

Just so my earlier point gets through your skull, think of any hypothetical you want where the outcome is unknown. Anything at all. They can be completely unrealistic for all I give a shit.

In the event that the outcome is unknown, such as mixing chemicals or sticking your hand down a hole, how do you judge whether or not it's rational? It's impossible to judge whether something is rational by an unknown factor.

[Stark]

Everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist, not just a suspect! This is why they're detained without trial, and any fears about wrongful imprisonment can be handwaved away because he HOPES removing rights and due process won't result in any abuses. Simply bagging them, trying them, and imprisoning them would be too hard. Keep them for five years without even announcing charges, they're all terrorists!

[Justforfun000]

I've never once said that it was acceptable dumbass. The fact that you can't figure out that I'm simply pointing out holes in your argument and not defending violating peoples privacy is not my problem.

I've lost track of what your point was anyway since it's so far back. So what is a good argument for personal privacy in your home besides caring about it? I believe it was you that said personal uncomfortableness was not a good reason, so what is?

In the event that the outcome is unknown, such as mixing chemicals or sticking your hand down a hole, how do you judge whether or not it's rational? It's impossible to judge whether something is rational by an unknown factor.

Ok, fine. So? I didn't have any arguments of this nature in my posts. You and Rye did.