|
|
Posted by Connie Pierce on 03/25/06 21:29
In article <MPG.1e8f3e62f0e7917498985c@news.isp.com>, Neredbojias
<invalid@neredbojias.com> wrote:
> With neither quill nor qualm, Connie Pierce quothed:
>
> > In article <MPG.1e8e4597daf64324989850@news.isp.com>, Neredbojias
> > <invalid@neredbojias.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh man... You expect me to debate all that stuff?? If I were into
> > > debating, I would've verbally leeched my way into public service.
> >
> > No, I don't. Too much caffiene and being insulted made me pretty hyper.
> >
> > >
> > > You make some good, valid, logical points. There are also some not.
> > > But my main point is to not throw away what freedoms we have left simply
> > > because some of us are too short-sighted to see the danger in doing so.
> >
> > But that's my point . . . what could be construed as a minor or
> > annoying sacrifice of freedom, could be a lifesaver for others. For one
> > thing, our gov isn't proposing putting VCs on every corner - only the
> > corners with rampant, violent crime. And it HAS worked on street
> > corners all over the US. Crime down in areas as much as 76%. For a
> > woman who gets to see her baby/teenager one more day, that's a BIG deal
> > and she's grateful for the camera.
>
> Well, I'm sure surveillance can reduce crime considerably and I don't
> doubt that there are places where it may be a very beneficial thing.
> What I was saying is that overall, perpetual surveillance is _not_ a
> good thing, and the idea that if all public areas were constantly
> videotaped it would stop the criminal from criming doesn't wash. There
> are diverse reasons why this is so which could be debated indefinitely,
> but it _is_ part of the right to privacy not to be continually watched
> even in public.
>
> > My problem was that you didn't see the people it could HELP. You just
> > saw you and felt sorry for you. In MHO, that's not reaponsible anything
> > - and to me, THAT'S pretty frigging dark science fiction of you. Or
> > maybe top-rung Communism (AKA fuck the little poor guy).
>
> Did you expect me to promote an opinion not my own? Furthermore,
> illicit laws may help a few people in the short-run but they are
> invariably a long-term detriment to society.
No, but you have to understand that your opinion may not wash in
certain circumstances. In the circum. of the crime-ridden streets, the
best choice might be to have those cameras. It's certainly cut down on
drive-bys and gang violence.
Mainly, the person who takes a limo to work everyday might not complain
about higher gas prices, but the lil guy driving a 30 yo Pacer - well
for him, it HURTS. In the case of being searched at the airport, it
might be a pain in the ass, but it COULD prevent a hijacking (no
flaming, anyone, please for that one - just putting another example out
there). EOS, you have to weigh your inconvenience in one hand and the
lives it could save in the other. To me, at the risk of being flamed or
accused of being mindless, I'd rather suffer a bit of delay and
irritation vs not preventing someone else's suffering or death.
That's why I spoke of someone picking their nose on the street and
being VTd as being a consequence of stupid behavior. If ten guys are
caught picking their noses on tape (and being laughed at for it - and
yeah, I'd laugh - c'mon, it's gross!!), but 2 kids get to grow up (not
being shot like dogs in the street by a Crip or Blood - those there are
PLENTY more gangs out there), I look at those ten guys and shrug.
But I only got defensive (and probably insulting) because you didn't
ask WHY I thought the way I did. You accused me of being a mindless
puppet who just listens to political rhetoric. If you had ASKED instead
of flaming the crap out of me, I would have explained why. But instead,
not only did you accuse me of being mindless, you called me "dark" and
so on.
>
> On another subject, I was terrifically surprised at O. Hatter's reply to
> one of the posts in the thread. I really didn't think he had that much
> sense and wisdom in him. You seem to know him better than most so I'll
> ask you why does he go into "cuss-word/sarcasm mode" so often? It makes
> him look like a child and/or fool. I _know_ he is better than that, but
> he seems to like to make himself look ridiculous. Any ideas?
Yeah, I have a couple. Hat can be an utter ass, but as I've said (and
gotten HUGELY flamed for), he's also intelligent and well-thought out
sort of guy. Can he be arrogant? Yep. Can he be an ass? Yep, again. But
the basics of his intelligence ARE there and ARE considerable.
Personally, I think when it's related to art, talent, or technical
skill, he expects attack. How many people here have given him
reasonable answers to his requests for critiques? Very, very few. Most
say "Yeah, your site sucks." They don't say, "Oh, well I like this, and
this, but don't do this because of this." Fred, in another thread, gave
reasonable critique and suggestions to Hat's design and didn't get
flamed for it. Connection? I think so.
Just MHO. And watch, yet again, I'm sure I'll get flamed for it. I hope
you're wearing an asbestos suit. ( :
--
C Pierce
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|