4 ms·
Where in the world did we start talking about bombing in the comment above? He is talking about passive communications collection.
by res0nat0r 13y ago
Where in the world did we start talking about bombing in the comment above? He is talking about passive communications collection.
- belorn 13y agoPassive communications collection is extremely dangerous. If data get leaked, people are going to die left and right. If the data is somehow incorrect or corrupted, innocent people will die. Surveillance is violence. It is that simple.
- jamesgeck0 13y agoFirst you mention ways in which surveillance could result in violence, then you equate violence and surveillance. Doesn't your own argument indicate that they are separate concepts? It doesn't seem simple at all.
- belorn 13y agoThat is a very semantic way to look at it. If a bomb explode, people die. Thus I (incorrectly?) equate violence and bombs even if they are technically two separated concepts. Any weapon, be that information or bombs or what have you can technically be disconnected with the violence they create, but its a very dishonest thing to say when the army uses it in a war zone.
- happyscrappy 13y agoYou didn't equate bombs with violence, if you had you would have a chance of winning your argument. You equated intel to violence. Edit: Just to be clear so you can't try to weasel out of what you said, troops need to be fed so food is violence. Is that clear to you?
- belorn 13y agoIm commenting to "win an argument". If you want to believe that information that direct drones where to send missiles are equal harmless to food, then have a nice day.
- happyscrappy 13y agoSilence is violence. Talking is violence. Planning is violence. Shall I go on?
- lucian1900 13y agoCommunication collection is an act of violence, but of a much smaller degree than blowing something up, of course.
- chc 13y agoThis seems like a tortured use of language. I have a very hard time believing that my friend who enjoys people-watching at the park is doing violence to anybody.
- Zancarius 13y agoI suspect lucian1900 was being sarcastic. At least, that's how I read it. I'm not quite sure how anyone could make that much of a stretch with a straight face.
- happyscrappy 13y agoHopefully you are right, but the sister commenter actually believes it. People get confused.
- Zancarius 13y agoI saw that. Curiously, someone also downvoted you for your observation. I guess they're also touchy. ;) I admit I was having a little tongue-in-cheek fun. It's plausible that I'm wrong (and likely); perhaps lucian1900 was genuinely stating an honest opinion. If so, that's fine. Everyone's entitled to such things. I guess what bothers me the most is how arguments on the Internet quickly escalate to arguments from extremes. Suggesting simple eavesdropping (even if it can't be helped, some people are loud) is committing an act of violence is so absurd, it almost hurts me to even entertain it. Yet look how little time it took to reach that conclusion. I suppose that's what I get for being optimistic. Instead of rational debate, you have extremist, absurd language arguing from a stance no reasonable person would believe. Hence, I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt, believing that their motives were mostly humor and sarcasm. I have my doubts, especially since the argument itself seems so prevalent and so many other people in this thread are arguing the same thing. Maybe I need to go back to bed. It's almost like a live play from the theater of the absurd.