Forum fun...

[Krazeh]

I am grasping it very well thank you. I just don't hold your point of view and i wouldn't mind it.

So you wouldn't mind having the State in complete control of your life? Because that's the logical end result of slowing giving up freedoms in pursuit of "security".

Full surveillance wouldn't harm me in any way, this whole privacy malarky is just a cooked p concept anyway.

And how do you figure that? Are you trying to say that the whole idea of privacy and personal space is a modern invention and something that hasn't been part of human society before that?

 

[old.Tohtori]

So you wouldn't mind having the State in complete control of your life? Because that's the logical end result of slowing giving up freedoms in pursuit of "security".

And how do you figure that? Are you trying to say that the whole idea of privacy and personal space is a modern invention and something that hasn't been part of human society before that?

No one was talking about complete control, which is the paranoia kicking in right there.

The issue of privacy, as it is used in modern discussions and reasonings, is a cooked up concept, yes. It's not a simple concept of privacy and personal space anymore, it's overblown and over the top.

 

[Jail Bait]

Your point?

It is the same.

No Freedom

 

[old.Tohtori]

It is the same.

No Freedom

Sure, another extreme pov that holds no ground.

Surveillance is eactly the same as being locked up in a 2 square concrete hole.

How on earth didn't i see that before, oh lordy.

 

[Krazeh]

No one was talking about complete control, which is the paranoia kicking in right there.

Claiming that freedoms are secondary to safety only leads to logical one conclusion, complete State control. That's not paranoia, it's simply having your eyes open and actually being able to understand the society we live in.

The issue of privacy, as it is used in modern discussions and reasonings, is a cooked up concept, yes. It's not a simple concept of privacy and personal space anymore, it's overblown and over the top.

I'm sorry, but having surveillance cameras watch me while I walk down the street is very much about the simple concept of privacy and personal space. As a law abiding citizen I should be entitled to walk around without having the State record my every action for posterity, that's all to do with my personal privacy and is a very simple concept.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Claiming that freedoms are secondary to safety only leads to logical one conclusion, complete State control. That's not paranoia, it's simply having your eyes open and actually being able to understand the society we live in.

I'm sorry, but having surveillance cameras watch me while I walk down the street is very much about the simple concept of privacy and personal space. As a law abiding citizen I should be entitled to walk around without having the State record my every action for posterity, that's all to do with my personal privacy and is a very simple concept.

It's not a logical conclusion as it's not even true.

Saying "guns are dangerous" doesn't mean "all guns should be destroyed", neither does saying "safety over freedoms" claim that total control is the only option.

It is paranoia if you think that every security measure leads to total control, which you seem to do.

Forget your privacy, since it would become a null point when -everyone- would be under surveillance. They wouldn't be targeting you, they would watch over everyone.

And full surveillance would deter crimes. Maybe not stop them or deter 50% of them, but one crime less is still one crime less.

You still haven't said what is the harm of surveillance, outside your precious privacy?

 

[Jail Bait]

Sure, another extreme pov that holds no ground.

Surveillance is eactly the same as being locked up in a 2 square concrete hole.

How on earth didn't i see that before, oh lordy.

You won't see it if you have never been FREE

 

[old.user4556]

This thread is the biggest load of jingoistic fuck-wittery I've ever read.

However, please continue.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You won't see it if you have never been FREE

Sarcasm really isn't in your general area of vision is it?

 

[Jail Bait]

This thread is the biggest load of jingoistic fuck-wittery I've ever read.

However, please continue.

If you like this then you should see the US forum then

 

[old.user4556]

Oh I could imagine.

One of my favourites that I read is "if we didn't help your sorry asses in WW2, you'd be eating sausages and under a nazi regime".

Well, some of us in the UK have German ancestory, so maybe if you hadn't intervened in WW2, I'd be a fucking rich land owner with whores sucking my cock every night instead of arguing on the internet with retarded Yanks.

See how fuckwitted that statement sounds?

 

[Ch3tan]

Can we please not have the privacy and freedoms argument with toht again please? And don't quote him while doing it please. He's a retard who takes an opposing view just to get a rise.

Freedom should be second to nothing.

 

[Jail Bait]

Oh I could imagine.

One of my favourites that I read is "if we didn't help your sorry asses in WW2, you'd be eating sausages and under a nazi regime".

The only thing different now is that it is a different REGIME

 

[mooSe_]

Can we please not have the privacy and freedoms argument with toht again please? And don't quote him while doing it please. He's a retard who takes an opposing view just to get a rise.

Freedom should be second to nothing.

All new posters have to have some kind of argument with toht before they become full members

 

[old.Tohtori]

Can we please not have the privacy and freedoms argument with toht again please? And don't quote him while doing it please. He's a retard who takes an opposing view just to get a rise.

Freedom should be second to nothing.

Learn to ignore.

*hands toys back*

Good baby.

 

[throdgrain]

Tell you what though, he can argue, the ol' Finnish feller

 

[Jail Bait]

Tell you what though, he can argue, the ol' Finnish feller

Like arguing with my Grandfather Maki

 

[Airhead]

Oh I could imagine.

One of my favourites that I read is "if we didn't help your sorry asses in WW2, you'd be eating sausages and under a nazi regime".

Well, some of us in the UK have German ancestory, so maybe if you hadn't intervened in WW2, I'd be a fucking rich land owner with whores sucking my cock every night instead of arguing on the internet with retarded Yanks.

See how fuckwitted that statement sounds?

Actually it's not fuckwitted at all. The paternal branch of my ancestry immigrated here from Germany in the mid 1920s, and they were part of a very strong German-American movement who felt we should be allied with Germany in WW2.

Luckily they smelled of sausages and talked funny, so we did the right thing and continued our traditional allied relationship with GB, in spite of the fact you smell of Bangars and talk funny.

 

[rynnor]

I thought I would assemble some quotes to illustrate why you dont argue with Toht

No one was talking about complete control, which is the paranoia kicking in right there.

Full surveillance wouldn't harm me in any way, this whole privacy malarky is just a cooked p concept anyway.

Freedom should always be secondary to safety. Not gonna enjoy that freedom of yours if you're dead.

As you can see the problem with Toht is he forgets what hes said and engages in circular arguements - its much like arguing with a net savvy Finnish goldfish (if they have such a thing - it would probably be in a smoking hut but I digress).

Tell you what though, he can argue, the ol' Finnish feller

Not in a reasoned way though alas - a swedish friend told me all Fins were mad and perhaps he was onto something

 

[old.Tohtori]

As you can see the problem with Toht is he forgets what hes said and engages in circular arguements - its much like arguing with a net savvy Finnish goldfish (if they have such a thing - it would probably be in a smoking hut but I digress).

the problem with your quotes is that they show nothing of such.

Full surveillance isn't complete control for one. You keep forgetting context, or just think up some imaginary one of your own.

So how sbout you tell exactly HOW it's circular.

Otherwise i could jsut take three quotes from you and say that you're incoherant.

 

[rynnor]

So how sbout you tell exactly HOW it's circular.

Easy - the bottom one can easily be extended to complete control because you can raise a safety arguement against every freedom there is thus your later quote (at the top) is wrong.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Easy - the bottom one can easily be extended to complete control because you can raise a safety arguement against every freedom there is thus your later quote (at the top) is wrong.

But that's you assuming and putting context where there is none. You're putting meaning to my posts that isn't there and you're taking quotes that are not connected to one another in any way, trying to make it look like i'm saying things that are countering.

I never talked about total control, but if total control would be required to keep an equally important amount of people safe, then yes it would be necessary.

Similar to marshall law.

This was never discussed however and as such, you're example is flawed.

The first post was towards the paranoia of one freedom lost being equal to total control. Had nothing to do with "safety over freedom", which again you took into extremes(which makes anything look stupid) when in context it's clear that "within common sense" is applied to it.

In short;

You're seeing things that aren't there and putting extremes into places where they are not meant.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Toht you are a woman; you need to feel protected and coddled. You speak for no one but yourself.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Ben Franklin

Real men relish freedom and the risks it entails.

 

[Tom]

rynnor I disagree with you more than most people on here but take a tip from me—don't engage in an argument with him, you'll not convince him of anything but the fact that he "won".

 

[old.Tohtori]

Toht you are a woman; you need to feel protected and coddled. You speak for no one but yourself.

Real men relish freedom and the risks it entails.

Ofcourse i speak for no one but myself, maybe that's YOUR problem when you try to speak for other people.

I don't need to be protected, but i don't hold on to the illusion of freedom with such naivity either.

rynnor I disagree with you more than most people on here but take a tip from me—don't engage in an argument with him, you'll not convince him of anything but the fact that he "won".

Again another person who thinks something is happening when it's not, most liekly due to having to come up with a reason to an irrational stance. You see, i never try to win anything. I discuss things, i give my opinion and i rarely tell ANYONE that they are wrong in their own opinion.

You, on the other hand, have the child like compulsion to change my mind.

So who's playing to win? Mirror, meet Tom.

 

[rynnor]

But that's you assuming and putting context where there is none. You're putting meaning to my posts that isn't there and you're taking quotes that are not connected to one another in any way, trying to make it look like i'm saying things that are countering.

They are quotes covering 3 pages of this thread that represent you holding two views that are not compatible which is why your discussions end up circular because you do not hold a consistent viewpoint even over a short period of time in a single thread.

 

[old.Tohtori]

They are quotes covering 3 pages of this thread that represent you holding two views that are not compatible which is why your discussions end up circular because you do not hold a consistent viewpoint even over a short period of time in a single thread.

You screaming that doesn't make it true.

Read what you quote with some thought nxt time.

My viewpoint is consistent, you just assume i mean something else.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Of course, you, like most on your side of the pond, believe that rights and freedoms are "granted" to you from some authority too...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Of course, you, like most on your side of the pond, believe that rights and freedoms are "granted" to you from some authority too...

Never said anything to that extent, but how nice of you to try that.

 

[Tom]

Of course, you, like most on your side of the pond, believe that rights and freedoms are "granted" to you from some authority too...

What, like your precious invisible mystical fairy bearded bloke in the sky, whom for most of your population, exists? Your rights and freedoms also allow a majority of your population to believe that evolution is a myth.