Zoom.

Post #2,656 by addison 7/23/01 11:23:59 PM Reply	Zoom. I don't know what else to say. But it almost seems like you've realised how badly you thought this through. But the progress might be false. Likely. But, you're changing your focus here. No. My focus is unchanged. I already explained before. Now, if they do turn their cameras to follow me, they are invading my privacy. If they take a picture, they've lost their camera to me. Which is illegal. Mob rule. Might makes right. And its me who's changing focus here? If I were constrained to only legal acts, the Fascists will have won. And when you violate the law, then society has a problem. Picking and choosing what law(s) you want to obey on a daily basis isn't a stable situation. If I decide you drive a nice car, I'll take it, golly, that's the same thing. "Lets sing.... B....I.....N....G....O......" Let's wait until you see my point. I think you forgot who you're talking to. Your point was that ATMs "only" covered "private" property (when I specifically talked about the ones on the street - which by definition covers the public street). Then you said "But it is the bank's private property. The ATM is on the bank's property. The camera is to record who uses the bank's property on the bank's property. The only thing I would see as similar is if the bank was aiming it's PRIVATE camera OUTSIDE of its PRIVATE property to capture the images of PRIVATE citizens who were NOT using the bank's facilities." And that's exactly the case at hand. So, are you now going to go spray paint over all of the ATM cameras now? Possibly. But I don't see what that has to do with my point. Individual privacy. Errrrr. Its kind of simple. You don't have an expectation of privacy on a public street. Deny it all you want, it doesn't change anything. You DON'T have it. Period. Anywhere. You're trying to change the focus to "private". We're talking PUBLIC. And I can take a picture of you. And if you break my camera, you're breaking the law. If the police put up cameras, and you break them, there's no difference. I asked to enumerate the difference, if you thought so. You didn't. But I still have rights to my image even when I'm on a public street. Don't believe me? Check out Hollywood.... They can't sell my image BUT you think it is okay for other people to RECORD my image? Believe you, holy shit, I already talked about it. Pay attention already. And, being an ex-journalist, I'm VERY aware of what you can and can't do (and it changes per state) with said images. And no, Hollywood can't sell your image in a movie, without your permission. But any paper in the nation can take a picture of you on the street and run it. On the front page. Even if you don't like it. Again, something that was LEGAL but wasn't RIGHT eventually become ILLEGAL. Because people fought to make it illegal. Your image and your actions are PRIVATE. Even when someone could film them from a public vantage point. Um. Do you remember what my point was? That if you want to do something about it, change the law. Now you're... telling me... to... Are you sure you're not sleepposting? *"But your argument is that you should be able to stalk somebody anyway, cause, hey, the law, its bogus, duuude."* News flash: People do stalk other people. Even though it is illegal. And they get jailed for breaking the laws. Late Breaking News: Yep. And... Errr. you're the one (see above) advocating breaking any law you don't like. (like stalking) Which is exactly what I drew the comparision to..... and... err. are you sure you're paying attention? OK. So I point out the analogous situation, and you don't refute it, but lecture me? Who's the one changing focus? "Yeah, FOCUS. You're changing it." I don't see how. (then you're not looking) "My focus was "I don't think its legal to use cruisers for speedtraps - should I then be able to firebomb them?"" Then state it as such. But I don't think you'll find much support for that position. But you can hold it. And you can act upon it. But you will be jailed if caught. I DID STATE IT AS SUCH. And I drew the parallel, and asked you to explain the difference. And you are.. telling.. me.. to.. tell you.. what I did? Yeah, you'll go to jail. Just like if [should] you destroy a public camera. If you disagree, then tell me, don't tell me the obvious. Cruiser - you have to live your beliefs. I don't believe they are the same and I will not support you when you are arrested. "My beliefs"? You're the one ripping cameras and stomping on them. You're the one telling me that shooting out cameras and ripping them down is legit. So when I point out an exact analogy - you now are giving me lectures on the law? Focus.. Right now, you don't have it. You'e changed your focus at least three times in that post alone. Again, to turn your argument back, installing cameras in everbody's homes would prevent crimes. No. That doesn't turn it back, its not my argument. I've been very clear on that. "Preventing crime" is your strawman, not mine. I'm only discussing public images. Public. Crime prevention isn't the focus. Having a discussion when the "opposition" isn't even reading what you're posting, much less continuing to make up positions isn't a lot of fun. Wasn't fun when Bob Lewis did it, isn't fun when you do it. So unless you wake up, (or whatever is keeping you from at least staying up with what I'm saying (and not trying to lecture me on what I just said)), I'm not going to try and force you to realise what you're saying. Addison
Post #2,659 by Brandioch 7/24/01 12:44:18 AM Reply	You're going to have to do better than that. "But it almost seems like you've realised how badly you thought this through. But the progress might be false." Because I disagree with your position does not mean that my position is badly thought out. "No. My focus is unchanged. I already explained before." Really? I seem to recall this discussion started about cameras, INSTALLED BY THE GOVERNMENT, being aimed at roadways to monitor traffic speeds and automatically issue tickets based off of registration records. But I see in your current posting, references to banks (privately owned) aiming their ATM cameras at private property and happening to catch public property in their viewing sector. But you haven't changed the focus of the discussion at all? Whatever. I can handle tangents. I said: "If they take a picture, they've lost their camera to me." You replied: "Which is illegal. Mob rule. Might makes right." What? Sorry. But I seem to have missed the mob reference. Are you saying that I have to get a group of people together to take the camera from the person that has violated my privacy? I don't see where _I_ stated such. So it must have been you. But you aren't changing the focus of the discussion. My point is ME. My point is MY RIGHTS. "Picking and choosing what law(s) you want to obey on a daily basis isn't a stable situation." Okay, simple question. Were the laws allowing slavery "right" or "wrong"? Another simple question. Were the people who opposed the laws allowing slavery "right" or "wrong"? "Society" is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. The LAWS of the society ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. I accept this. And I am free to act upon my beliefs. Again, I believe that the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS are the most important. You do not believe that. Which does NOT mean that my position is badly thought out. "Your point was that ATMs "only" covered "private" property (when I specifically talked about the ones on the street - which by definition covers the public street)." Fine. Whatever. If I think the bank is collecting information on me from its cameras I will take them out. You have not provided any evidence that they are. But your position requires them to be doing such. So, let's go with that hypothetical situation. If I believed the banks were violating my privacy with their cameras, I would take them out. Note the phrase "If I believed". Convince me that they are and I will act. Otherwise....... "So, are you now going to go spray paint over all of the ATM cameras now?" On the basis of YOUR word that they are? I'm sorry, but you have a seriously over-inflated sense of your position in my belief system. "You don't have an expectation of privacy on a public street." You don't. I do. That's where we disagree. (and the part about the banks spying on me). "Deny it all you want, it doesn't change anything. You DON'T have it. Period. Anywhere." Shall we talk about political prisoners in China? They don't have rights that we take for granted. Just because YOU don't think that I have that right, and the laws are not constructed to support that right, does NOT mean that I don't have that right. It's just being violated under the present regime. Do people in China have the right to protest for democracy? Well, that depends upon how you define rights. #1. Are they something that can only be granted by the government? #2. Are they inherent in the individual? You seem to believe #1. I believe #2. Again, this does not mean that I haven't thought out my position. "You're trying to change the focus to "private". We're talking PUBLIC." No. We're talking about a PRIVATE PERSON in a PUBLIC SETTING. I still have rights to my privacy while in a public setting. "And I can take a picture of you." Yes you can. "And if you break my camera, you're breaking the law." Okay, one last time. Freeing slaves was illegal. But it was right. What you don't seem to be able to understand is that I'm placing a higher value on "right" than on "legal". Again, freeing slaves. Illegal, but right. Protecting my privacy, illegal, but right. "If the police put up cameras, and you break them, there's no difference." Freeing slaves, illegal, but right. Freeing slaves, illegal, but right. Freeing slaves, illegal, but right. Did people who freed slaves spend time in jail? Yes. Did people who freed slaves spend time in jail? Yes. Did people who freed slaves spend time in jail? Yes. Do you understand YET that I'm placing a higher value on RIGHT than on LEGAL? So I don't care if it is "illegal" or not. Is it "right" or not? "But any paper in the nation can take a picture of you on the street and run it. On the front page. Even if you don't like it." And in China, they can jail anyone at anytime for speaking out against the state. Since when did "legal" equate to "right"? "Do you remember what my point was?" Yes. "That if you want to do something about it, change the law." Did you read anything in my post? Did you manage to MISS the part where I said that LEGAL is not the same as RIGHT? Did you miss the part about me believing that "right" is more important than "legal"? FUCKING OKAY. I ADMIT IT. IT IS ILLEGAL. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. THE LAW FORBIDS IT. I WILL GO TO JAIL. SOCIETY WILL INCARCERATE MY ASS. IT'S BUTT SEX TIME IN THE BIG HOUSE! ILLEGAL! CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF SOCIETY! ILLEGAL! I WILL BE ARRESTED! There, have I managed to convey the fact that I recognize what is illegal and what is not illegal in this country? Now, let's try one more step. I Don't Care What Is Illegal If It Is NOT Right. If I believe the law is not right I will violate that law. (insert repetative rant about recognizing that I have violated a law and will go to jail if caught violating the laws of society). "Now you're... telling me... to... Are you sure you're not sleepposting?" After reading my previous posts, you still feel the need to inform me that I'm going to jail if I break a law, and you think I'm the one asleep? Right..... "Late Breaking News: Yep. And... Errr. you're the one (see above) advocating breaking any law you don't like." Yep. You're definately asleep. Yep, I advocate breaking laws that you do not feel are "right" or "just". Yep, if other people did this, chaos could result, looting, rioting, dogs and cats living in sin. Oh, you mean people are ALREADY violating laws? And these people are being sent to jail when they're caught? Gee. I guess that means..........nothing. So, if I advocate breaking laws that I don't feel are right, then other people will break laws. But other people have been breaking laws since before I was born. But I'm advocating breaking the laws that aren't right. But others are breaking the laws. It's a connundrum without a solution. "Who's the one changing focus?" We start with the government putting up cameras to track vehicles and automate the ticketing system and we end up with you talking about banks aiming their ATM cameras in such a manner that people on the street might be taped. I'd say it was you who's changing the focus. "(then you're not looking)" Okay, I will accept that the banks are aiming their ATM cameras at the streets and deducting the cost of tickets from your account automatically. I do not know of a specific instance of this happening, but if you say it is....whatever. Re: firebombing cruisers you said: "I DID STATE IT AS SUCH." Okay, now we're away from banks and drifting towards police activity. Are the cops at the drive up teller in their cruiser when you firebomb it (the cruiser)? "And I drew the parallel, and asked you to explain the difference. And you are.. telling.. me.. to.. tell you.. what I did?" The parallel? If you believe that the cruisers are being used to violate your rights, then take them out. That is my position. BUT!!!!!!!! As I've said before, do not expect support from me for your activities as I do not see how they are being used to violate your rights. Act upon your beliefs. But don't even THINK that I will share your beliefs or support you in specific activities. "Yeah, you'll go to jail. Just like if [should] you destroy a public camera. If you disagree, then tell me, don't tell me the obvious." Well, at least you finally agree with reality. If I violate a law, I can go to jail. I said: "Cruiser - you have to live your beliefs. I don't believe they are the same and I will not support you when you are arrested." You said: ""My beliefs"? You're the one ripping cameras and stomping on them. You're the one telling me that shooting out cameras and ripping them down is legit." No I did not. "Legit" implies "legal". I am talking about "right" here. Do I really HAVE to go through the whole slavery / legal / right / illegal thing again? "So when I point out an exact analogy - you now are giving me lectures on the law?" A lecture on the law? What lecture? If you break the law, you can end up in jail. That's a lecture? "Focus.. Right now, you don't have it. You'e changed your focus at least three times in that post alone." I have it. You are the one that went from traffic cameras to bank ATM's to police cruisers to Sean Penn. My focus has been consistent, my rights take precedence over the laws of society. You are the one trying to find a flaw in that reasoning by wandering all over the map looking for examples. You brought up the ATM's. You brought up thecruisers. You brought up Sean Penn. I did not. Re: Cameras in homes: "No. That doesn't turn it back, its not my argument." Your point was that the cameras MIGHT film somebody committing a violent crime. My point was, if that was the goal of the cameras, putting them where the crimes are most likely to occure would be the logical procedure. You sacrifice a bit of privacy for more "security". What was that quote about rights and security and such? ""Preventing crime" is your strawman, not mine." Nope. You were the one that claimed the cameras MIGHT film a violent crime. I ddid not. The straw is back in your court. "I'm only discussing public images. Public. Crime prevention isn't the focus." Then do not talk about it in this discussion. "Having a discussion when the "opposition" isn't even reading what you're posting, much less continuing to make up positions isn't a lot of fun." I know. But I'm used to it. I just keep repeating the parts that the other person missed. Like when I have to repeat the parts about "right", "legal" and "illegal". Have I mentioned slavery yet? What about China? The imprisonment of political prisoners? Did I mention that? Slavery was legal, but it was right to oppose it. At least, that's what I believer. And many people who opposed slavery were jailed. People were jailed for breaking an unjust law. People acted upon their beliefs and were jailed for such because their actions violed the laws of society. "So unless you wake up, (or whatever is keeping you from at least staying up with what I'm saying (and not trying to lecture me on what I just said)), I'm not going to try and force you to realise what you're saying." Again, because I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand your position. Yes, if people did what I recommended, and some of those people held beliefs such as "ambulances interfere with my rights", then people could be injured. Or "police cruisers are infringing upon my freedoms". The police would be ineffective against crimes. Anarchy would result. Chaos. So? You believe that. I don't. Look at the rights we routinely exercise in this country. Now compare that to China. Are we an anarchistic state? Yet we have more rights. Are our police more or less effective? And so on.
Post #2,952 by addison 7/27/01 12:21:20 PM Reply	Why? I've stated my point, clearly. You've perverted what I said, tried to change the subject/focus, tossed straw on top of me. And honestly, you're better at that than I am at countering such things. So perhaps I might have to do "better", but I have "better" things to do with my time than try and keep you on track. Because I disagree with your position does not mean that my position is badly thought out. No, it doesn't [necessarily]. However, as evidenced by what you did say, its not well thought out, and you're flailing. But I see in your current posting, references to banks (privately owned) aiming their ATM cameras at private property and happening to catch public property in their viewing sector. Um. You're the one who changed the focus to that. When you said if someone [private person] takes your picture, you'll take their camera. So I asked, given your statement, what you were doing with those ATM cameras on the street? [Notice that I've not changed the focus, but merely asked you if you're doing what you say you will, (destroying the private cameras taking your picture today, on the street) or just talking] And you told me they didn't take pictures of people in public. Then I got you to realise that they do. Now you're trying to say that I changed the conversation. Sorry, bub. I didn't. I can't make you have a logical conversation. I've certainly tried. And I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your flailing. That's all that you can call it. I stand with what I said initially. Its a slippery slope when people break the law, because they feel it unjust. Because most people who you [may] disagree with, have a "reason" for doing what they do. Legal or illegal. In support, or in violation of the law. Which is what the "law" is. A codified, single set of rules that [is supposed to] apply to EVERYBODY. If you don't like the law, work on changing it. Breaking it to protest it is said slippery slope. You destroying a camera, a criminal shooting a cop - the distance between those is arguable. I promise you the criminal will have plenty of "justifcation" for his action. As I pointed out, slashing tires on the police cruisers is about on the same spot on the slope as destroying the cameras. If you feel the law is so wrong that its worth you spending your life in prison/dying for your beliefs, and you can't get it changed, by all means, by $DIETY, get out there and go wild. There are times when that is needed and required. Or was, and nobody did. (Tim McVeigh felt that to be the case, one might note.) But when you're talking about breaking the law, destroying public safety equipment to avoid a measly ticket for breaking the speed laws? I won't be there with you., bro, you're going that one, alone. Addison

Welcome to IWETHEY!