|
Posted by Neredbojias on 03/25/06 20:48
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.
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?
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|