I don't understand why people argue with Verbatim. He's never been able to make any valid counter arguments. All he says is "fuck your argument, I personally don't care so it objectively doesn't matter".

If Verbatim and his arguments are legitimately stupid, then it should be easy to counter them and demonstrate why he's wrong. If it isn't easy to do so then there is the very real possibility that he may be right, or that the statement isn't one that can be disproven.

You're overreacting over a simple statement, Sandtrap. And you're bringing up incredibly easy, cheap examples.

In general, laws are only designed to protect us. Just because you disagree with a law doesn't give you the right to break it.

Sorry if that upsets you, but it's the truth.

What exactly defines them as cheap examples?

Please enlighten me to the grand category of what constitutes as "a cheap example." Trust me. I know that not all laws are horseshit. But a lot of them are. They're made by people who practically live in offices and eat paperwork for a living. People who don't have a fucking clue what it is to be down in the dirt, so to speak.

On your point about rights though. I don't give a shit if it's in my "moral" right. If it's stupid, fuck it. Maybe that's just where I come from Verb. But the only thing I have ever seen happen to people who follow shit laws, is trouble. Even laws in general, to be frank.

I don't put any faith in laws. They're not going to act as a shield to save your ass when you need them. They're not going to stop somebody from hurting you if they want to. They're just...... guidlines in civility and some actions that should make sense. Nothing more.

If most of the good laws weren't there, it wouldn't change how I act for the worse. Let's say if they removed drug laws, for instance. I wouldn't start anything. I wouldn't go out and murder people or hurt them or anything if they changed murder laws.

And I don't trust the government to make good laws. Nor any organisation. And the proof is in all of their history and actions. They're all fucking dumbasses. I'm not going to let them call the shots for me.

If I'm wrong for thinking that, then so be it. I'll follow the ones that make sense, and the ones that are fair.

But I won't let pointless red tape get in my way. And I sure as fuck won't play their rigged fuck-up of a game to try and change anything either because it's a waste of time.

Okay Verb. Here's an example, that's much less...outlandish. A hypothetical, for you to consider, if you will. Let's assume, that you have a family of your own. Wife and child. Your kid's adopted since you don't like babies.

Somebody comes in one day and does something terrible to them like raping them before killing them.

What would you do?

The lawful legal process, would have you dress up fancy, and go to court, and look that person in the eyes to make testimony against them.

Now, right there, there's a few things that can happen. The guy who raped and murdered your family might have a good lawer. He might not get life in prison. He might even get a long sentence with eligibility for parole. Let's assume that he gets life in prison.

You, as a taxpayer, are partially paying to incarcerate that man for life in prison. It's prison, obviously. But, because we're "good natured human beings," that guy is pretty well off now. He won't be paying taxes, won't be paying for his food, and is supplied rather nicely with entertainment.

Now, I don't know what you would do Verb. Which is why I presented it as a hypothetical to you.

But for me? Those laws, and that whole prim and proper bullshit? No. I wouldn't stand for it. If somebody did that to me, I'd kill them. And not quickly or nicely, either. And I wouldn't let anybody judge what happenes to that person for me, but me.

What's your stance on those laws, taking into account a hypothetical like that?

And don't drop the "cheap example" thing on this because it's a real common occurence.

I don't know what I'd do, but I do know that "revenge" isn't a great cause. Killing him wouldn't bring back my wife/son/daughter. It wouldn't solve anything. One murderer is dead--great. There's hundreds of thousands across the entire world.

When it comes to punishment vs. rehabilitation, I've always leaned more towards punishment. I don't think prisoners should be comfortable in prison. I don't think they should have entertainments or access to anything that could resemble a good, honest life. No--they're in prison, and they should be punished for the crimes they committed.

If I were to kill him, it would be for the sake of removing a detrimental person from society--it wouldn't be for revenge.

I apologize if my posts aren't lucid. It's 5 in the morning and I'm kind of trying to get this thread locked, because I'm pretty much done with it. Any conversations that are ongonig can continue in PMs if you so desire.

And it's obviously not enough.

People keep telling me that crime rates are going down--they should be nonexistent.

The presence of surveillance won't stop crime 100% though.  People still kill and rape people in prison and they are surrounded by cameras and guards.  Cameras might help in catching people after the fact but there would still be crimes commited.  Unless the cameras have lethal lasers that preemptively kill crimimals, a camera won't prevent a crime, and more than likely there won't be police near by able to intervene.

Quote from: Sly Instinct on October 16, 2015, 09:23:20 AM

Unless the cameras have lethal lasers that preemptively kill crimimals

I actually had something like this in mind at first.

Relevant.

Quote from: Cadenza on October 16, 2015, 03:38:31 AM

Quote from: challengerX on October 15, 2015, 07:28:40 AM

I don't understand why people argue with Verbatim. He's never been able to make any valid counter arguments. All he says is "fuck your argument, I personally don't care so it objectively doesn't matter".

If Verbatim and his arguments are legitimately stupid, then it should be easy to counter them and demonstrate why he's wrong. If it isn't easy to do so then there is the very real possibility that he may be right, or that the statement isn't one that can be disproven.

They are incredibly easy to counter hermano.

He asks why would the government abuse the surveillance system on civilians? Why? Because they're doing it right now with the NSA. You can bet your ass they'll do it with a much more sophisticated system.

Now, if you're stubborn and just keep saying "FUCK PRIVACY LMAO YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT" even though he has provided absolutely no sources or a valid argument to prove that, then of course it would seem that way to a simple minded person like you.

Fact is I'm right. And so are a bunch of other people in this thread.

1. The government would abuse it.
2. There would be no way to have a system which couldn't be abused.
3. It's a complete violation of privacy which is very important to human beings as I demonstrated saying it leads to suicide.

He has provided absolutely no counter arguments for any of those points other than "fuck privacy" and asking us to play along with a hypothetical in which the government isn't corrupt, in which case we might as well argue about sharks that shoot lasers out of their eyes.

I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that I myself was caught off guard by him quite happily supporting ideas that are almost the complete opposite of my own.

I'd recommend Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. One of my favorite books, and basically sums up the direction society is going in, at least in my opinion.

I hope you're not talking about censorship because the book isnt about censorship, and Bradbury would be rolling in his grave over that.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 16, 2015, 10:03:24 PM

Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on October 16, 2015, 09:53:10 PM

I'd recommend Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. One of my favorite books, and basically sums up the direction society is going in, at least in my opinion.

I hope you're not talking about censorship because the book isnt about censorship, and Bradbury would be rolling in his grave over that.

I'm pretty sure he means consensual censorship; the self-policing of thought and ideas.

It's not about censorship at all; Bradbury walked out on a lecture when the students he was speaking to continued to insist it was.

It's literally about TV; he saw a future where people stopped reading and thinking critically because it was easier to be entertained than do so. You could argue that is happening to some degree, but the book isnt about censorship.

He also hated the shit out of the internet for the same reasons.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 16, 2015, 10:20:24 PM

It's literally about TV

I know, but Bradbury is being a fucking puritan when he insists it's only relevant to that theme. Of course TV takes a role--it's the thing taking up so many people's time--but it's ridiculous to deny the undercurrent of self-censorship in the book; books are burned literally because they promote dissenting/uncomfortable thought, the whole situation came about (as Montag is told by the fire chief) because people's emotions were placed as paramount, and anything that upset anybody was immediately suppressed.

I hold the belief that there's no such thing as a fake take-away; if you walk away from 451 thinking "wow, censorship is really bad",  then that's cool.

He actually left out an entire chapter between the protagonist and the firechief that detailed why the Chief enjoys doing what he does, and it was a great chapter; but he took it out because it supported the notion that the book was about censorship. Puritan is an understatement; he was the lord over his dominion and pissed in the cereal of anyone who didn't see as he did.

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 16, 2015, 04:14:40 AM

I don't know what I'd do, but I do know that "revenge" isn't a great cause. Killing him wouldn't bring back my wife/son/daughter. It wouldn't solve anything. One murderer is dead--great. There's hundreds of thousands across the entire world.

When it comes to punishment vs. rehabilitation, I've always leaned more towards punishment. I don't think prisoners should be comfortable in prison. I don't think they should have entertainments or access to anything that could resemble a good, honest life. No--they're in prison, and they should be punished for the crimes they committed.

If I were to kill him, it would be for the sake of removing a detrimental person from society--it wouldn't be for revenge.

I apologize if my posts aren't lucid. It's 5 in the morning and I'm kind of trying to get this thread locked, because I'm pretty much done with it. Any conversations that are ongonig can continue in PMs if you so desire.

Would you abhor the idea of a prison library? Or of them having access to education programs?
Heck even TV is a good way to ensure that prisoners don't become fully engrossed in prison life, that screen is their only window into the current outside world. For some people that thing is the only way they know what's happened in the past 20 years.