4 ms·
> So where it's convenient, i.e. US citizens cannot be spied on, the concept of a nation state is invoked, but then non-US citizens basically have no right to p
by maratd 13y ago
> So where it's convenient, i.e. US citizens cannot be spied on, the concept of a nation state is invoked, but then non-US citizens basically have no right to privacy, not even the ones their governments give them, because the US can look at anything. Not cool.
Look, when a dog bites the hand of its owner and then bites the neighbor, the greater outrage is that it bit the hand that feeds it.
You're not looking at this from an objective perspective, because you're the neighbor and well, understandably pissed.
Now me? I would put down the dog. But that's just me and it's probably not going to happen.
- goldfeld 13y agoUmm, no. From the perspective of the neighbor and the whole community, and from the perspective of an educated person who knows the limits of his rights, the greater outrage is that it bit the neighbor. It could have bitten the owner for a number of reasons, such as not having been trained well; the neighbor on the other hand had no choice, he never signed up for a dog but he got bit anyway--and further there's little he can do to prevent it from happening again. What makes you more anxious, when you lose something you owned or when you lose something a friend lent you? When the latter happens, all I wish for is that it were mine (or that it's an item easily replaceable with money.) It seems the government has long forgotten the good manners it's Founding Fathers taught it. I can only hope the American people at large have a bit more sense.