This is the sound of the point flying right over your little head.Samuel wrote:Or the evil totalitarian government can just refuse zoning. There are much easier methods for cracking down.Nice Black/White fallacy you have there. Nice way to ignore the obvious possibility of people who are just doing something that isn't socially accepted, but otherwise requires moving through public spaces. (just to name something off the top of my head, people going to adult entertainment like strip clubs) Remember, anyone who seeks privacy is conspiring to commit crime!
Again, why does crime stem from privacy? Why should we revoke the right to privacy just to satisfy your apparent paranoia of criminals? Answer those questions rather than beating around the bush, fucknut. Also, your argument is inconsistent. You insist that privacy is not a right, yet you are reluctant to apply this philosophy to peoples homes. Why?The right to live is the highest right. Anything that cuts down on crime helps that. Or do victims of crime not take precidence over your paranoia?Oh for the love of-- stop posting this strawman and actually address my points. You said that privacy violates peoples rights. Which rights? The only "right" it violates that I can think of is the right to poke your nose where it doesn't belong. While your proposal wouldn't put camera's into peoples homes, and I never said it did, the principal behind it (that people do NOT have a right to privacy) is exactly the same. You said that you don't think people have a right to privacy, yet you nevertheless contradict yourself by allowing for it in peoples own homes. Why? Why contradict yourself, Samuel? I am attacking the blanket statement, not your stupid proposal.
And we are supposed to believe your Utopian values apply to real life... why? You still made a Black/White fallacy, own up to that fact.Yeah, obviously the fact you can help said minorities by catching people commiting crimes against them, but no- we have an evil government that will only use this to oppress people, even if you make it so that things can't be hidden! Right...And everyone who wants privacy is a de facto criminal now, huh Samuel? Never mind gays and minorities. Never mind people doing stigmatized activities that aren't against the law. Never mind that people don't have a right or need to stick their nose into other people's business, not even the government unless they have shown probably cause.
But if he is looking through my window constantly, he would be brought up for stalking. What do you think 100% 24/7 surveillance is like, Sammy?And the government doesn't need probable cause in public. A police officer doesn't nee a warrent to look through your car window.
I'm not making an argument, I'm asking a question you dumb shit-fucker! Answer it!Tradition is not an argument.I don't follow. Its in the books, Samuel, we have a right to privacy. On what grounds, legal, ethical, or logical do you think we should revoke that law?
But not having it can have physical consequences on people, so removing the right to privacy is immoral. What part of this is so fucking hard to understand?It is amoral. It is a desire that does not physical affect others. This is pretty simple.Good grief. How is it immoral, you donky-cock?
But that reduction is based on the removal of a right that is currently on the books, and which we have shown logically can lead to nasty consequences if it wasn't protected by law. There is a practical limit to the amount of power we can give to the government, no matter how much we fantasize about benevolent tyrannies who can protect us from hypothetical criminals by taking away our right to privacy in public spaces.You don't believe that increasing the rate of convictions and successful arrests will reduce crime. I honestly don't know how to respond to that.Furthermore, prove that privacy increases the crime rate. Merely saying that it does won't cut it.
So I take it... concession accepted?
The goal posts will remain where they are, thank you. You said, and have been saying, that I think that utilizing your public surveillance system will lead to government oppression when I only said that government oppression in the future is not off the table. That is a Strawman, imbecile.Yeah, a complete strawman to point out your arguments are BS because the "government can use it to opress us" doesn't apply because the government can already do that, but cheaper. They don't need a widespread camera system to crack down on unwanted people- just cameras in strategic places.I never said that it would, you strawmanning piece of shit. Stop trying to put words into my mouth, and start coming up with coherent arguments that don't rely on your own say-so.
And as I already said above, this is a measure that would 1) make resisting a tyranny needlessly difficult and 2) make the slide to using oppressive measures easier for the shitpieces who would want such an abusive government because there is already a precedent set for essentially stalking all citizens at all times in their own country, no warrants necessary. After all, all the measures that you noted are very visible, and the oppressors have to either cover up what they are doing or provide some flimsy justification for why they are doing it. But with video tapes giving them constant soft power through 24/7 intel gathering all the decisions can happen behind closed doors and at the cover of he night. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Arguing with you is like punching a brick wall bare handed, it seems to accomplish nothing but a bruised fist.