3 ms·
First you mention ways in which surveillance could result in violence, then you equate violence and surveillance. Doesn't your own argument indicate that they
by jamesgeck0 13y ago
First 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.