20 replies to this topic

[Purifier]

"The end of privacy"? Wait-a-minute...what privacy? When did we ever have any of that? It's been so long I can't remember.

Seriously though, I don't think we had very much privacy in the first place. Does this really make much difference?

[lightly]

... that depends on how it might be used.      N.Y.C.  is considering a new stop and frisk policy.
   This thing could thoroughly search you without your knowledge.   That sounds new and different*

Edited by lightly, 15 July 2012 - 06:31 PM.

[Coffey]

odas, on 13 July 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Safer? Terrorists are a product of world governments establisht to scare us and move us like sheeps into the arms of the controling owners. Our future on this planet is being puppets.

I agree to a point, I ahte the whole "terrorist" BS.

But getting on a flight and knowing ther eis no psycho carrying a wpeoan isn't a bad thing either.

[Purifier]

lightly, on 15 July 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

... that depends on how it might be used.   N.Y.C.  is considering a new stop and frisk policy.
   This thing could thoroughly search you without your knowledge.   That sounds new and different*

Yeah but when your walking around drunk they do that anyway.


Naw, but seriously...I see where your're coming from. Not good. Really not good.

[and then]

Coffey, on 15 July 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

I agree to a point, I ahte the whole "terrorist" BS.

But getting on a flight and knowing ther eis no psycho carrying a wpeoan isn't a bad thing either.

I agree on both points.  I wonder how much of this creeping government control isn't needed just because of the state of our relationships in heavily populated areas these days.  People in general seem to have lost respect for their fellow citizens and crime is on a daily increase.  The only other option I see would be to allow people to be truly free in their actions and then clean up the messes that occur.   Somehow I don't think most people would agree to such a solution in the name of freedom.  I realize there is a middle ground but where is it?  What I think many of us overlook is that when those rules were written the people as a group were more homogeneous in their beliefs.  There was a grounding in faith of one kind or another and a pretty terrible price to pay for harming your neighbor.  Most of that doesn't exist today.  I'm not saying that the modern configuration is ALL wrong, just that it's a different world and if we want to hearken back to the good old days we need to remember that parts of them weren't so good.

[Paracelse]

and then, on 15 July 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

I agree on both points.  I wonder how much of this creeping government control isn't needed just because of the state of our relationships in heavily populated areas these days.  People in general seem to have lost respect for their fellow citizens and crime is on a daily increase.  The only other option I see would be to allow people to be truly free in their actions and then clean up the messes that occur.   Somehow I don't think most people would agree to such a solution in the name of freedom.  I realize there is a middle ground but where is it?  What I think many of us overlook is that when those rules were written the people as a group were more homogeneous in their beliefs.  There was a grounding in faith of one kind or another and a pretty terrible price to pay for harming your neighbor.  Most of that doesn't exist today.  I'm not saying that the modern configuration is ALL wrong, just that it's a different world and if we want to hearken back to the good old days we need to remember that parts of them weren't so good.

How to you explain this then (read here)