This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Mass Surveillance
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Laihendi
What Laihendi said holds up in that situation as well.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Okay, Laihendi can't really tell what you're arguing with him about then. People who willingly give up their freedom are being willingly oppressed... what Laihendi said before still holds up.
I don't think you know what oppression means.
Take moving into college dorms. I remember when I did, I had to sign a form, which stated I would not do X, Y, and Z. I gave up freedoms, because I knew that I'd benefit from living in the dorms and was fine with the trade off. Does that make me oppressed? Not at all.
Post by
Laihendi
The exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
Exactly. And not every act of authority is burdensome, cruel, or unjust.
Back to the dorms. One of the things was drinking alcohol in the common areas (it was prohibited). I freely gave up that. It wasn't burdensome, cruel, or unjust.
Post by
Laihendi
An invasion of privacy is cruel and unjust.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
An invasion of privacy is cruel and unjust.
Freely giving it up isn't an invasion, nor cruel, nor unjust.
You don't see to understand what freedom, there very thing you think you're defending, entails. You're not really free if you can't give that freedom up.
Post by
Laihendi
People can let themselves be subjected to unjust and cruel things.
You're not free if you do give that freedom up...
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
People can let themselves be subjected to unjust and cruel things.
And they can also let themselves be subjected to just and humane things
You're not free if you do give that freedom up...
If you chose to, then yes you are.
Post by
Laihendi
And lack of privacy is not just or humane.
No... if you give up freedom, you're not free, because you gave it up. You can't choose not to have something and still have it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And lack of privacy is not just or humane.
It is if it's needed or wanted by the individual.
Laihendi is just rattling off assumption after assumption, giving no thought to what he's saying.
No... if you give up freedom, you're not free, because you gave it up. You can't choose not to have something and still have it.
Laihendi is talking in two tenses, I'm talking in one.
Post by
Laihendi
You can give someone help without taking away their privacy. Laihendi is pointing out an obvious flaw in your argument. If you willingly give something up, you don't have it anymore. If Laihendi willingly gives you $5, he doesn't have those $5 anymore. If you choose to give up freedom, then you aren't free anymore.
And now you're resorting to little insults.
Post by
Adamsm
It wouldn't happen on the scale the OP is thinking; most private companies wouldn't accept that from the government, and there are laws from having things like put into suburban areas.... and seeing as those areas take up a large amount of city landscapes now....
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You can give someone help without taking away their privacy. Laihendi is pointing out an obvious flaw in your argument. If you willingly give something up, you don't have it anymore. If Laihendi willingly gives you $5, he doesn't have those $5 anymore. If you choose to give up freedom, then you aren't free anymore.
And now you're resorting to little insults.
Pointing out flaws in an argument is not the same as insulting.
The act of giving of one's freedom is itself an act of freedom. If Laihendi denies that, he either doesn't understand English or doesn't understand what freedom is.
Let's use an analogy, because logic isn't working.
Laihendi is about to fall down a cliff, clinging to just a tiny branch. I walk along and see him. Now I know that every person has a freedom of person that prevents me from invading their personal body space. Laihendi calls out for me to help him.
I can:
A) Respect is freedom of person and stay away from him.
B) Acknowledge that he is giving up that freedom in order to save his life, and go and save him.
C) Start talking to him in the third person until he falls.
Here's another analogy:
I go to Laihendi's house. Laihendi has the right to private property and thus the right to keep me out. He invites me in.
I can:
A) Respect his private property and walk away.
B) Acknowledge that he is giving up that freedom in order to help develop a friendship, and come in to the house.
C) Start talking to him in the third person until he slams the door in my face.
And another:
Laihendi realizes that he is getting overweight, so he tries to go on a diet. But his cravings are too much, so he comes to me and asks that I padlock his fridge and only open it when I feel Laihendi should eat.
I can:
A) Respect his freedom to eat whatever he wants whenever he wants it.
B) Acknowledge that he is giving up that freedom in order to lose weight, and do as he asks.
C) Talk to him in the third person until he thinks I'm making fun of his weight and goes hang himself.
Post by
Laihendi
Saving someone from falling off a cliff is not taking away their freedom, unless they are attempting to commit suicide. If you walk into Laihendi's private property with his consent, you are not invading his privacy... what's your point?
And yes, the act of giving up your freedom is an act that is possible because of freedom. You had to be free to give it up in the first place. But once you've given it up, you no longer have that freedom. In order for Laihendi to give you $5, he has to have $5 in the first place. But once he gives you those $5, he no longer has them anymore.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Saving someone from falling off a cliff is not taking away their freedom, unless they are attempting to commit suicide. If you walk into Laihendi's private property with his consent, you are not invading his privacy... what's your point?
Does Liahendi have freedom of person or not? If he does, then yes, any permission Laihendi gives for me to touch Laihendi is him giving up that freedom.
Does Laihendi have freedom to manage his own property? If he does, then yes, any permission he gives me to enter in, is abridging that freedom.
And yes, the act of giving up your freedom is an act that is possible because of freedom. You had to be free to give it up in the first place. But once you've given it up, you no longer have that freedom. In order for Laihendi to give you $5, he has to have $5 in the first place. But once he gives you those $5, he no longer has them anymore.
But that doesn't take away the fact that he was free to give it to me.
Just like giving up one of my freedoms doesn't take away the fact that I was free to give it up.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Any cameras all their predecessors that are on or directed at my property will be destroyed.
Heh, Google Street View? Traffic camera across the street? Papparazi?
I'm curious how you'd accomplish that task :)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Papparazi?
Because the world is dying to know if DoctorLore has stretch lines.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.