4 ms·
The argument is not favoring one versus the other. The argument is that being exposed to any peeping tom is bad, no matter who it is. If no one can't prove to
by patentlyUnsafe 9y ago
The argument is not favoring one versus the other.
The argument is that being exposed to any peeping tom is bad, no matter who it is.
If no one can't prove to me that there are no peeping toms at all, then a hotel room with a peep hole is still a shitty hotel. But as second class citizens, for all of us, choosing a room with a peep hole is compulsory. Gee, who's fault is that?
Sorry. If I have to sleep in a room with a peep hole, it really doesn't matter much to me who does the heavy breathing on the other side of the wall. I'm supposed to pretend it's not there anyway, and so I shall.
Can the Chinese arrest me and throw me in jail? No. But, for sure, I could get thrown in jail, based on the contents of an electronic device. Are the people who conspire to imprison me friends? Wait, what are they peeping on us for?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> The argument is that being exposed to any peeping tom is bad, no matter who it is This is not the argument I refute. I specifically state what I am refuting: "the Chinese having all my information is better than the Americans." Two things being bad doesn't make them equally bad. Buying a Huawei phone to safeguard against the NSA is akin to leaving one's door open so there is no peephole for peeping Tom to look through. Yes, within a narrow construction, one is correct. But practically speaking, now both the peeping Tom and the person who opened the door can see in.
- patentlyUnsafe 9y agoI want a room without a peeping tom. If that’s not an option, then I sincerely no longer care about my own safety.