|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yenmor Member (Idle past 3677 days) Posts: 145 Joined: |
New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online | New York | The Guardian
quote: Am I right to be disturbed by this news?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, you are not right to be disturbed.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
It disturbs me and I live in another country almost.
You can not be free if there is some authority that has the right to investigate the books that you have been reading or consider the pictures on your wall. Sure, they asked nicely if they could come in but I wonder what they would have done if he had declined the warrant-less search. Terrorism is a heinous thing and we are right to stamp it out as we can but this approach is a massive breach of civil rights. Freedom and privacy are bound together and we shouldn't let fear erode them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Why would I have any worry about searching on most anything?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Like jar said, you needn't be concerned because this is a non-issue as far as privacy is concerned. This was due to an overzealous coworker or boss trying to be a hero.
quote:(bolding mine) "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
That's what they SAID.
The woman is also a journalist, ... so it could be journalists are given special attention, or, it could be, because of her being a journalist, some yo-yo was being vindictive to a public figure, and it was a coincidence. I would not be surprised at either scenario
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
I think we should distinguish between the right to investigate and the ability to investigate effectively. You can not be free if there is some authority that has the right to investigate the books that you have been reading or consider the pictures on your wall. In Canada, we keep all of our national secrets in the trunk of a car parked outside a hockey arena. If our security agencies are trying to investigate you, they're liable to wind up in my back yard by mistake. In other words, I'd worry more about stupidity than about intentional violation of rights. Edited by ringo, : pelling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
In other words, I'd worry more about stupidity than about intentional violation of rights. Our civil rights are there to protect us from the random stupidity and the ever creeping zeal of the authoritarians and the 'safety firsters'. There are some things more important than the illusion of security and freedom is one of them. It starts with things like arbitrary traffic stops to see if you are wearing your seatbelt or to sample your breath and leads to things like the RCMP searching your house without warrant or cause and taking your guns after you have been subject to a mandatory evacuation. It is frightening because after it goes far enough the only way back requires violence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Prototypical writes:
There's a saying that, "Nothing is ever foolproof because fools are so ingenious." Unfortunately, random stupidity often trumps the best-laid plans of civil rights advocates.
Our civil rights are there to protect us from the random stupidity.... ProtoTypical writes:
Oh oh. You're not one of those "They're going to take our guns!" nuts, are you?
... things like the RCMP searching your house without warrant or cause and taking your guns.... ProtoTypical writes:
Frankly, I find your attitude - the "requirement" for violence - more frightening.
It is frightening because after it goes far enough the only way back requires violence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Unfortunately, random stupidity often trumps the best-laid plans of civil rights advocates. Sure it does and that is why we shouldn't let it slide.
Oh oh. You're not one of those "They're going to take our guns!" nuts, are you? But they are taking away the guns! No, I would be just as disturbed had they taken bicycles or lawn chairs or all the copies of 50 Shades of Grey. It is the broader principal of not having to sacrifice your civil rights in order to assuage someone else's fear regardless of whatever it is that they are afraid of.
Frankly, I find your attitude - the "requirement" for violence - more frightening. It is not an attitude Ringo its an observation. I offer my feeble protest here in the hope that my children or grand-children never have to violently resist oppression. How else do you wrestle freedom back from decades of erosion and the relentless pursuit of absolute security? The peaceful means are available now but they wont always be if we do not exercise them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
Shall I quote Martin Niemoller?
It is the broader principal of not having to sacrifice your civil rights in order to assuage someone else's fear regardless of whatever it is that they are afraid of.quote:It's easy to sacrifice somebody else's freedom to protect our own security. That isn't likely to change. ProtoTypical writes:
Do you have an example from history where that has happened? I can't think of one off-hand. Most of the Great Losses of Freedom that I can recall came from revolutions, the very thing you're advocating.
How else do you wrestle freedom back from decades of erosion and the relentless pursuit of absolute security?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
It's easy to sacrifice somebody else's freedom to protect our own security. Isn't that what civil rights are meant to prevent?
Shall I quote Martin Niemoller? But that is my point. Even though they are not searching our houses yet doesn't mean that we shouldn't protest the violation.
, the very thing you're advocating. Hang on again. I am not advocating violent revolution (especially given all the security bots and nervous public servants that are listening). I am merely pointing out that violent revolution is the near inevitable result of ever decreasing freedom. The problem is that, after generations of freedom, we begin to take our freedoms for granted and we are increasingly led by our fears. We begin to prosecute people for things that they might do. It becomes a crime to possess the ability to commit a crime. We become liable for failing to prevent other people from doing stupid things. We end up with a grey world full of big warning stickers advising us about the dangers of string and plastic bags and where you get sued for serving coffee that is too hot. A world where we can not be trusted with lawn darts and perhaps, before long, pressure cookers and back packs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm saying we don't. Niemoller wasn't refering only to one specific situation. It seems to be human nature not to oil the wheel until the squeak annoys us personally.
Even though they are not searching our houses yet doesn't mean that we shouldn't protest the violation. ProtoTypical writes:
I asked you for an historical example where that worked. I am merely pointing out that violent revolution is the near inevitable result of ever decreasing freedom. If we "should" protest threats to our freedom, maybe we "should" also protest the idea that freedom can be won through violence.
ProtoTypical writes:
Well, that slope is slippery in both directions. Should we let people drive drunk because they haven't killed anybody yet?
It becomes a crime to possess the ability to commit a crime. We become liable for failing to prevent other people from doing stupid things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18299 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
trade unionists??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Thugpreacha writes:
I don't think trade unionists won the freedom to bargain collectively, etc. by violence. Violence was used against them and sometimes violence was met with violence but labour rights were gained through democratic means.
trade unionists??
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024