3 ms·
Constraining other peoples freedom, or otherwise possible ways to harm other people in any form is not included into the freedom people push for. Your argument
by dathinab 6y ago
Constraining other peoples freedom, or otherwise possible ways to harm other people in any form is not included into the freedom people push for.
Your argument is kinda like saying if you prevent someone from hitting someone else your are against fredome because that person should be free to hit anyone they want to hit. Just that's a more subtle topic then hitting someone.
- throwaway69123 6y agoYour analogy isnt fair because we are talking about people doing things on private property, not violently assulting people.
- naikrovek 6y agoSo brave to hide behind a throwaway. I want the freedom to walk down my driveway and check my mail without being automatically recorded. That's the type of freedom being stepped on, here.
- throwaway69123 6y agoThe irony of someone complaining about surveillance and throw aways in the same sentence.
- naikrovek 6y agoOne reply, two paragraphs, three sentences. Counting is simple, I'm sure you can do it if you really try. You are not understanding what people are telling you, and at this point you seem quite determined to avoid understanding many things. So, you probably have some stake in this somehow. Ah yessss downvote me instead of debating. Just tells me I'm right.
- lopmotr 6y agoEverything in your comment is an insult. That's probably why it's downvoted.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago“People doing things on private property” doesn’t quite capture it — we’re talking about creating a giant mesh surveillance network for the police state.
- throwaway69123 6y agoUntil someone passes a law that permits the police to use this without permission and/or requiring people to own such devices, concern over this is hysteria.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoNo. A police state is a police state, even if some subset of the population decides they want it for whatever reason.