- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
- Messages
- 7,017
- Reaction score
- 2,980
- Location
- The greatest planet in the world.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.
Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?
liberty is everything .when you have this ,you can have everything too.
As a PROPONENT of the Patriot Act the phrase does not support my side of the discussion, so why would I use it?
I disagree. I would be more likely to agree if I felt that there was even a shred of common decency, morality, OR values left in the American citizenry at this point in time. I don't believe there is any amount of even one of those three things left in this country's residents at this point in history; and unfortunately this weekend's news stories shows that quite well.
Liberty is only truly useful when one can be trusted to do the Right Things with it.
I disagree. I would be more likely to agree if I felt that there was even a shred of common decency, morality, OR values left in the American citizenry at this point in time. I don't believe there is any amount of even one of those three things left in this country's residents at this point in history; and unfortunately this weekend's news stories shows that quite well.
Liberty is only truly useful when one can be trusted to do the Right Things with it.
You shouldn't just pick and choose what supports your side, you should base your side on the facts, your side of the discussion should be contingent on reason and facts, not the otherway around.
There NEVER WAS a golden age of common decency/morality or whatever.
in fact sometimes i cant decide whether the liberty is more important or not ,because it may depend on some conditions.yes i care about liberty and consider it indisputable must .if somebody is trying to harm you ,you cant have freedom unless you get rid of that threat
I disagree. I would be more likely to agree if I felt that there was even a shred of common decency, morality, OR values left in the American citizenry at this point in time. I don't believe there is any amount of even one of those three things left in this country's residents at this point in history; and unfortunately this weekend's news stories shows that quite well.
Liberty is only truly useful when one can be trusted to do the Right Things with it.
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.
Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?
Not that quote, but the line of logic yes. I've often stated that free is not safe and never meant to be safe, we shall never be "safe" as long as we're free. To yield freedom to "security" is foolish and can leave you with neither.
Does that mean you're OK with someone else deciding what the Right Things are, and forcing you to do them, or does it mean that you want to be the one deciding and forcing others to do them?
Some of both. I am a believer in a concept called Universal Morality, which I believe should be the basis for all government and laws; whether I like/agree with all of it or not.
So, if I'm the arbitrator of that universal morality, and I say that you are to obey your wife, let her make all of the important decisions in your life because that's the moral thing to do, then you'd be OK with it?
If one were to assume it worked that way, then it would be time for me to eat that specially made bullet on my dresser. There is always another option when one does not agree with the rules of society.
Now, thankfully Universal Morality doesn't need an arbitor... it has several THOUSAND years of history to back it up; but I think we both made our point.
No it doesn't Morality varies culture to culture, people to people. I think it's very evident from thousands of years of history that there is no such thing as a "universal morality" and what we believe is moral and immoral changes over time. As such, you shall need an arbitrator.
When one steps back and takes a look at the core principles of the major societies, cultures, and spiritual movements which humanity has brought forth in the last 4000-5000 years, you tend to find that there is not a huge amount of difference. It is those commonalities in the vast majority of those institutions which forms Universal Morality, Ikari.
The trouble with measures like the Patriot Act was that we gave up liberty (a lot or a little can be argued, but I say a lot) for no actual security.....
The trouble with measures like the Patriot Act was that we gave up liberty (a lot or a little can be argued, but I say a lot) for no actual security.
The trouble with measures like the Patriot Act was that we gave up liberty (a lot or a little can be argued, but I say a lot) for no actual security. We went nuts over the terrorist boogeymen when we should have just laughed in their faces. We are the mighty United States of America. They're a bunch of dicks hiding in caves, buying our secondhand weapons from a generation ago. There is literally nothing that Al Qaeda can do or could have done to destroy this country, unless we wallow in our fear and do it for them.
really? our security hasn't been increased due to the PATRIOT Act?
prove it.
for no actual security.
Wow...really? Tell me this is hyperbole and you aren't being serious. You truly believe that no aspect what so ever of the Patriot Act has been used in such a way that it provided additional security for an American that would've likely not occured or occured in the same time span had PATROIT not existed?
Wow...really? Tell me this is hyperbole and you aren't being serious. You truly believe that no aspect what so ever of the Patriot Act has been used in such a way that it provided additional security for an American that would've likely not occured or occured in the same time span had PATROIT not existed?
Note, all changes by PATROIT are not 100% relegated to Terrorist activities. A large portion of the law upgraded general survellience laws found in Title III of the 1968 OMNIBUS Crime Control and Safe Street acts and in the FIS Act. Those acts didn't apply JUST to terrorists. For example, expanding wiretapping laws to expliciately state how they work with email...something previously not found in such laws....was something updated in PATRIOT.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?