This is the greatest thread I've ever seen.

Just look at them.

Fucking waiting.

Though I hope Turkey is right about there being ways around having to choose one over the other.

There certainly are. You need security as a pre-requisite for liberty. The problem is when the government becomes capricious, and starts bypassing national laws and the judicial system.

Look at Iraq, under Saddam they had significantly more rights and freedom, as well as security.

The people of Iraq had only the freedoms Hussein felt they like should have. That's not liberty or security, that's living under the capriciousness of a tyrant.

You seem to still be mistaking people's opinions in this thread (or at least mine) for an absolute declaration of no short-term variability. We're talking, primarily, about long-term trade-off. Of course liberty and security don't totally collide, and as variables like technology improve it can increase the governments capacity to protect both or favour one. Not to mention, you have a very warped sense of "security". The Soviets had high security? I'm sure even the humblest CHEKA officer would take issue with that idea.

Like I said earlier, the government can pose just as much a threat as some outside influence like the Taliban or ISIS and in its pursuit of security it can often cement itself as an entity of danger itself. The question is not a consequential one, but rather about the impact governmental intentions can have. To say the Soviets had security - or that my nation has security improved by adding journalists to a list of domestic terrorists - is to make a complete mockery of the entire idea.

Happy Puritans-fucked-off-on-the-Mayflower Day from Bongistan.

No, leave education to the schools.

With a national standard, of course.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 27, 2014, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 27, 2014, 09:16:41 AM

I think it's very easy for people that have, for the most part, never faced a serious threat from another power, to say that liberty is far more important than security.

I think it's very easy for people that don't, for the most part, realise that their own government can pose a significant threat to their well-being.

Sentence fragment. All I'm saying is that we've got a bunch of relatively wealthy, free, and safe people in this thread saying they'd take liberty over security no matter what, and that just seems incredibly juvenile to me.

I should clarify that when I use the word "liberty" I don't mean total autonomy, like in Somalia where you can pretty much do whatever you like and the only consequence is having people return the favour.

Some measure of security is necessary for liberty - one needs to have a means to live when bargaining for employment, for example. However, in the game of balancing the two, I think most people here are saying we shouldn't sacrifice our liberties for the government to protect us from those who would do us harm. One, because it is self-defeating, and secondly because lost liberties are hard to recover.

I actually think it's right the U.S. gov't want to send Manning and Snowden to the gallows, but their revelations still show the government is going too far in pursuing security is an aim.

What the fuck is even going on with this shit? I feel like I've completely missed most of it.

According to Dustin, it was himself who donated that $200.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 27, 2014, 02:26:12 AM

I feel confused that you're not defending the government. If you become a famous politician when you get older, you're not going to throw away all the opportunities you'll get for supporting larger government so that you could please the populace. Or are you just pretending to be anti-gov to confuse us because you've secretly been manipulating us this whole time?

My incentives as a citizen aren't the same as my incentives as a politician, so I won't pretend to know how I might act in the latter situation. I will say, however, that being able to criticise past and current governments for their shortfalls, regardless of your genuineness, is a good thing to have in your arsenal.

What about verbal bullying in schools?

Should be dealt with better by the schools themselves.

Verbal assault is a criminal offence, however, and should be. But we should be careful to distinguish from "I'm going to kick your ass" and people just expressing things in an inflammatory way.

I asked Cheat if SecondClass' harassment of Noelle improved the site because it generated more revenue from the ads and the refreshes.

Now that's funny, I'll give you that one.

Why didn't you use my #oyvey banner? You're basically the most Jewish guy here.

Don't believe what Kiyo tells you. She's one of them MUSLAMIC LOVIN' SHANIQUA LAW FOLK

Probably had a good reason

Now you're just being an idiot.

Intentionally, I suspect.

Security is more important.

The communists will take your livelihood! A suspension of your liberties is but a temporary and worthwhile trade-off to secure the Reich and its people.

canttellifserious