New(?) argument against police cameras in public

[Pablo Sanchez]

Paragraphs are good for breaking up text into discrete, digestible bits, but that doesn't mean you should give every fucking sentence its own paragraph.

No your both just being fucking stupid. The point I was trying to make and missed both of you was that governments do what they want when they want. If the people say no to cameras but the government decides it is better to have them because they do good then who is in the right. Morally the people at least in America at one point were supposed to be from where the governments power sprang. So if they say the cameras go then they should go.

The United States has no mechanism for a national referendum, but of course at the same time there is no federal body that could mandate the placement of a pervasive surveillance system. It would have to be done at the state, county, or municipal level (the city government of London is responsible for the CCTV there, IIRC). In states such as California where citizens are allowed to vote on ballot initiatives, they could indeed vote to have camera surveillance removed, and it would have the force of law.

On the other hand the government could easily show that with enough cameras there is less crime and society is safer. Soth both sides are making a moral arguement. The people say we are the roots of all things and what we want is what should happen and the government is saying they should stay because we know they do good.

Your argument is convoluted and nonsensical, and it falls apart on the grounds that the utility of a decision is not determined on the basis of it being the choice of "the people." "The people" are fully capable of making terrible, immoral, and unethical decisions as a mass and have done so many times in history (racial segregation in the South, just for one example). This is actually the major reason that we have the Bill of Rights.

[Darth Wong]

I see that Timotheus' idea of a "moral argument" is to simply appeal to popularity. Wow, how original. And then he goes and attacks the entire board for allowing flames; perhaps he wishes he could experience what it's like to be banned?

[Ghost Rider]

Because its purely a moral question. Governments do what they want all the time while ignoring what they people say.

So wait, to answer question asked, you give a non sensical philobabble answer to your idiotic hypothetical?

Are you this fucking stupid or are you trying?

No your both just being fucking stupid.

Punctuation is your friend. That out of the way, the reason I asked this will be clarified in your latter statements.

The point I was trying to make and missed both of you was that governments do what they want when they want.

I see, you're one of these idiots who do not grasp that governments, except very few forms have this level of sweeping power. So, if you can, please point out which ones within democratic society have shown this level of power on this particular regard?

If the people say no to cameras but the government decides it is better to have them because they do good then who is in the right.

I see, you do not understand the ability of state, city, and local district voting does. It follows the ignorance you showed before.

Morally the people at least in America at one point were supposed to be from where the governments power sprang. So if they say the cameras go then they should go.

On the other hand the government could easily show that with enough cameras there is less crime and society is safer.

Soth both sides are making a moral arguement. The people say we are the roots of all things and what we want is what should happen and the government is saying they should stay because we know they do good.

Incoherent babbling aside, you are not making a moral arguement. You are presenting your particular skewed view and falls apart on the fact that both sides are capable of making horrible and irrational choices. We've seen this with variety of movements involving Blacks in America as well as women.

So can you make a readable retort, or better yet, statement that you want to present and not buzzwords you picked up from TV?

[Zixinus]

The fact that you cannot talk without personal insults shows your lack of arguement strength

Yes, its harder then my penis. And my penis can fuck concrete. Your're just jello.

and I know the verbal equivalent of penis length through insults is the norm here but your still weak for it. [/quote

Oh, like I need YOUR judgement.

*looks at post again*

Dude, I wasn't even TRYING to really insult you. I just assumed that like our previous anarchists, because that's what I get from your reply.

Okay, you know what? Forget it.

That in no way invalidates attempts to improve it and in no way gives it right to do what it wants when its citizens think otherwise. Unlike where you were born I live in a country that was founded on the concept that the power of the government flowed from the people.

The people whom elected officials to make policies. If those people think that using such a system is OK, then the government thinks that the people thinks its okay. National votes rarely happen.

The "power of government comes from the people" phrase may sound great, but the fact is, that it doesn't quite work that way in reality. An "every citizen deceides policies" Athenian stlye of government isn't the one that your county is based on because no country in the modern world works like that.

You have representitive government in the better cases.

This is what's called "appeal to popularity" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... arity.html) and has nothing to do with the question whether such a system is moral or not.

Here you argue that because people reject such a system, it is immoral.

The truth is, that it doesn't matter whether people love it or hate it, it can still be just as immoral.

Because such a system doesn't do more then follow a person around and confirm alibi, they are morally right because they only do what a plaincloth policemen already does, just better and city-wide. Unless they intrude upon private property, there is no reason why they should be banned.

This is why your hypothetical is a red herring: both yes and no answer supports your argument and assumptions.

[Prometheus Unbound]

I see that Timotheus' idea of a "moral argument" is to simply appeal to popularity. Wow, how original. And then he goes and attacks the entire board for allowing flames; perhaps he wishes he could experience what it's like to be banned?

*raises hand*

Isn't what's "moral" decided by the masses?

[Ghost Rider]

I see that Timotheus' idea of a "moral argument" is to simply appeal to popularity. Wow, how original. And then he goes and attacks the entire board for allowing flames; perhaps he wishes he could experience what it's like to be banned?

*raises hand*

Isn't what's "moral" decided by the masses?

Ah, I see...a retard that doesn't fucking grasp the meaning of appealing to popularity.

One day, you'll learn that because it is ONE of the means of understanding and devices that creates morality, it is not the only one, and by no means the definitive one.

[Prometheus Unbound]

I see that Timotheus' idea of a "moral argument" is to simply appeal to popularity. Wow, how original. And then he goes and attacks the entire board for allowing flames; perhaps he wishes he could experience what it's like to be banned?

*raises hand*

Isn't what's "moral" decided by the masses?

Ah, I see...a retard that doesn't fucking grasp the meaning of appealing to popularity.

One day, you'll learn that because it is ONE of the means of understanding and devices that creates morality, it is not the only one, and by no means the definitive one.

Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with Timotheus' post, I was asking a question.

[Rye]

I see that Timotheus' idea of a "moral argument" is to simply appeal to popularity. Wow, how original. And then he goes and attacks the entire board for allowing flames; perhaps he wishes he could experience what it's like to be banned?

*raises hand*

Isn't what's "moral" decided by the masses?

Not really. The masses can be wrong about morality just like individuals can. Morality has a clear evolutionary function (survival and social behaviour) and can thus be determined relative to how well that function is performed.

[Ghost Rider]

*raises hand*

Isn't what's "moral" decided by the masses?

Ah, I see...a retard that doesn't fucking grasp the meaning of appealing to popularity.

One day, you'll learn that because it is ONE of the means of understanding and devices that creates morality, it is not the only one, and by no means the definitive one.

Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with Timotheus' post, I was asking a question.

No dipshit, if you cannot come up with something more then one line spam shit, then expect a response that treats you like a fucking idiot.

Your statement alone was retarded on a fucking juvenile level because it relates to the discussion only a tangental point and then tries to think it is either pithy or witty.

So either come up with something that isn't expressed by a five year old or participate.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Ah, I see...a retard that doesn't fucking grasp the meaning of appealing to popularity.

One day, you'll learn that because it is ONE of the means of understanding and devices that creates morality, it is not the only one, and by no means the definitive one.

Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with Timotheus' post, I was asking a question.

No dipshit, if you cannot come up with something more then one line spam shit, then expect a response that treats you like a fucking idiot.

Your statement alone was retarded on a fucking juvenile level because it relates to the discussion only a tangental point and then tries to think it is either pithy or witty.

So either come up with something that isn't expressed by a five year old or participate.

If you don't feel you're qualified to answer or if you're not interested in the question, simply ignore it and move on.

[Twoyboy]

Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with Timotheus' post, I was asking a question.

No dipshit, if you cannot come up with something more then one line spam shit, then expect a response that treats you like a fucking idiot.

Your statement alone was retarded on a fucking juvenile level because it relates to the discussion only a tangental point and then tries to think it is either pithy or witty.

So either come up with something that isn't expressed by a five year old or participate.

If you don't feel you're qualified to answer or if you're not interested in the question, simply ignore it and move on.

If you paid attention you'd know that he answered your question in his first response. You were too busy focusing on the insult to notice.

The topic of morality being defined by the masses has been covered here so many times it's not funny. Try reading a bit before you ask stupid questions next time.

I suppose if you believe morality is defined by the majority, then you also believe slavery was moral throughout much of human history? As Zuul stated, the masses can be as wrong about morality as the individual.