Got off work and finished eating dinner. I really don't like my job, too anxiety-inducing.

Das can vouch for me, and he's definitely not an NSA agent after #Loligate2015

If was I

Ren and Luke are going to do a fusion dance to turn into the ultimate Jedi?

It's okay Ender, You'll do fine with being the new monarch

You only say that because she's shifting the focus away from you.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 15, 2015, 01:04:21 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 15, 2015, 01:03:02 PM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 15, 2015, 12:57:53 PM

I'm not. Halloween is stupid.

uh actually it would be YOU who is stupid

Horror is objectively the literal worst genre, meaning that Halloween is also the worst holiday by association tbh fam

kys

lead by example fam

I'm not. Halloween is stupid.

You kill God. For the ultimate sin, he curses you to be participate in and scribe the destruction of universes in which you have no way to avert for all of eternity.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 15, 2015, 12:35:35 PM

Quote from: challengerX on October 15, 2015, 12:24:11 PM

Or you can just ask them and cut out the filler.

I don't think that's possible with Verb; pages upon pages of his arguments are more about semantics and definitions than the topic itself. If you just ask him "what do you mean by x" and argue on that, it saves hours of time on pointless bickering. Really, most of his positions require fillers (and filters) to discuss in the first place.

people should just learn what shit means tbh

You can't tell me that you've never argued that a dictionary definition was wrong before. To discuss a point you're making people have to learn your definition first, and that's simply not possible unless someone who experienced a similar discussion with you or you yourself tell them.

That's exactly what you were doing this thread.

I disagreed with him on privacy, explained the need to acknowledge the oppositions views in an opinionated debate, and suggested a compromise. That's not coddling, that's politics.

I really don't care about whether or not you "argue with Verb all the fucking time" because you're not an active member here and there's no way for you to prove that or for me to disprove that. Your actions worst people outside this site are irrelevant.

Do you even browse Gaming? I had a multi-page rant against him on the topic of PC vs Consoles. I've argued with him about everything under the sun: drugs, privacy, literature, natalism, feminism, political efficacy, the definition of obscenity, and so on and so forth. Half of them have been on Sep7agon; I don't expect you to read every post I make, but that doesn't mean your statement was malformed.

Fact is you guys have a little circle jerk conversation and then Verbatim is like "see? You need to kiss my ass like she does".

Again, I don't see the circlejerk; I started off by suggesting he be conscious of other opinions, then explained my personal views on privacy (even excluding human corruption, as he requested). After a few posts, I compromised it to a position somewhere in the middle. That's pretty much my stance for everything, moderate ones.

Yeah no. Verbatim is completely wrong and what he supports is completely against everything I bleieve and everybody else should believe in: Freedom.

And that's fine for you to believe. By all means, argue that point. I just don't hold it.

If I don't seem aggressive enough when I talk to Verbatim, it's because I've been arguing with him for about five years now. I've just learned how to approach subjects without getting massively butthurt during conversations. I just don't have any views thag are ever directly opposite of his, like you have; I just gravitate towards the center in debates. I also try to constantly broaden his views and introduce him to alternative sources of information or entertainment to that end.

You don't "win" against Verb by yelling at him. To be honest, the only kind of victory there is in a debate is having someone change their mind, if just a little. It means you've taught them something.

True, but I'm sure you see the problem there. An old guy leading a little girl to his home may look highly suspect, but it could just be his granddaughter or something. And maybe he happens to be single/his wife is deceased. I dunno.

It wouldn't be perfect, is my point--and though that doesn't make it unacceptable, it's still a minor caveat.

But it would provide enough evidence to get a warrant and search his home, which is how property searches should be done. Besides, there are always blind spots in buildings, and false walls seem to be a popular with the sick and twisted.

unfortunately, this hinders the ability to survey all criminal activity (ie. pedophiles could still lead children to their homes), i still think that's the most reasonable way of going about it

Thats only if public surveillance is inefficient; otherwise, you'd have video evidence of him leading a child to his property or personal vehicle.

I just don't get that mindset, at all.

I understand where your perspective comes from on this. You are open about everything, you don't keep (your own) secrets. But the reality is that most people aren't like you in that regard. People like to have their secrets, whether they are illegal or not. Using a persona is draining; not having the option to be actually be alone is just the opposite of contentment for me.

Which is why I wouldn't oppose the system so long as I could opt-out, or have choice in where the cameras were located. I don't care about a camera on my doorstep, or the garage, or whatever-- but I wouldn't want one in my living room or bedroom.

So... on second thought, no, I'd be against that.
But only because it imposes on other people who might not agree with me.

Would you concede that a consent-based private surveillance system (where public surveillance is a guarantee, but you'd have to consent to it being installed on your property) would be the best option? Assuming surveillance will happen in some form regardless.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 15, 2015, 08:17:41 AM

There's nothing wrong at all with thinking surveillance is good; after all, it just shows you have high political efficacy. However, that doesn't mean that the opposite opinion isn't also acceptable. It's about disagreeing with the perspective, but at the same time acknowledging that someone else may fundamentally have different views of the subject.

I just don't get it, though. You take human corruption out of the equation, and people are still gonna be against it. For no other reason than, "It makes me uncomfortable."

Why does it make people uncomfortable? If they could just admit that they're paranoid, and therefore irrational, then that would be okay. But they don't.

Even if you take human corruption out of the equation, there's still the issue that people just like to be alone sometimes. Dramatis personae is exhausting, and being away from eyes is how someone like me "recharges". Having a camera in my house, for example, would end up with me either avoiding that area of the room when I could (like Winston and his apartment) or being really frustrated. I, as an example, can't unwind in front of other people. That's just how I am, and I doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way.