OT 9/26/03 Ethics 101

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JoJo Gunn
"Right so lets feed the starving poisoned food so they will stop all their whining? Is that your point?"
The mind reels....... And Big Fred, some of us aren't going to sit idly by and let others tell us how to feel about our Country being attacked and our people being killed.
It's not ethical. ;)

---

Well something is reeling in Tennesee the picture of a revolving treadmill sans hamster is being poignantly painted.

At no time did I ever tell anyone how they should feel about any given topic. I brought the topic up only to point out yet another cost of war that's all. Since you brought it up please point out to me when Iraq attacked a U.S. force or territory since Desert Storm reached its completion and prior to the U.S. invasion.

of course, that comes from tenessee, "the volunteer state", and the general south, "shoot anything that looks funny" I live in Phlooriduh, I know. But its not as bad as American lethal injection execution, where they wipe the executee's arm with alcohol. I mean, afterall, you wouldnt want them to get an infection...

also, a while ago, i heard the US launched a satillite that could listen in on cell phone conversions. Good ol America, treat our constitution-given rights like currency

Funny you should bring up "constitution-given rights like currency" I was watching Investigative Reports on A&E tonight. The topic of all things was the I.R.S. and their misuse of power. I'm hope JoJo won't take too much offense if I bring up the topic of them thar Revenuers! One of the people victimized mentoned was the son of a couple driven to suicide over their speculative debt to the I.R.S. The agent from the I.R.S. actually told this kid at the funeral it wasn't over they would get the money from him!

All those persons we bring to this place are washed and cleaned
The execution of their sentences are relatively unimportant
By the time we are finished with them
There's nothing left in them but the sorrow for what they've done in love for Big Brother
It's touching to see how they love Big Brother
Rick Davies

“It wasn't until the founding of the UN that the world had a reached a consensus on Human Rights. Written incidentally by a Canadian and eloquently presented before the U.N. by none other than Eleanor Roosevelt in 1948.”

The only eloquent piece to come out of Canada was from Gordon Sinclair, (ah, but what a magnificent piece it was):

http://www.rcc.ryerson.ca/ccf/news/unique/am_text.html

Obviously you don't get out much and have taken offence where none was intended. I take it you're looking for an apology.

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America.

We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.

I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.

I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.

I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's Very Nice.

I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we Feel Your Pain.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this.

We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

"I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

Oh, so now Eleanor doesn't rank so highly? Oops, you're talking about her husband, ain't that right? ;)

Alrightey then, if you guys keep up this tone this thread will be closed before the mon am deadline. And everyone is asking why dont we have an off topic forum, well these posts in here are a good example.:mad: BJ

Well thanks BJ that's all the warning I need. While its been fun in a kind of irritating sort of way I'll offer up an olive branch and agree to disagree.

FEEL THE WRATH AND POWER OF CANADA!

Spooky don't go stirring the pot now. ;)

ok, but if you dont stir it once in a while, itll boil over...

To try and get this thread back on topic (and on-topic off-topic post :confused: ), we shouldn't be criticising any one particular country. All the western democracies have taken liberties with our freedoms since 9/11 (well I'm not sure about New Zealand - we never seem to hear much about them). And although these recent laws were all done in the name of anti-terrorism, they are so quickly subverted for other means. Just recently we had a case of the police using anti-terrorism laws against peaceful protestors:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3101886.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3097150.stm

My greatest concern is that far too many people will say "I've got nothing to hide", and so won't say anything when another law is introduced, and then another and another. One day we'll all wake up and find we're living in a world that we don't like at all. That's how the Nazis went from chucking Jews out of their jobs to murdering 6 million of them in 12 years - one law at a time.

And you also have to consider who the people are who want these additional powers - it's not the politicians I suspect, they're just people who can waffle on endlessly while evading every question put to them. It's the people behind the politicians, the civil servants, the security organisations, etc. that worry me. How many of them did we ever elect? Do they ever have to account to us for their actions?

I don't know what to think on the peadophilia issue. God knows I want these evil b%$£^&s caught and that filth off the Internet. If it means I have to give up a certain amount of privacy to attain that noble end than I for one would be prepared to accept that. But only if it could be clearly explained why extra surveillance powers are the only way. An awful lot of these people have been caught using existing powers and old-fashioned good police work. History seems to repeatedly show that when authorities are given an inch they'll take a mile, and I think we should demand of our lawmakers that any extra powers that are given regarding Internet surveillance should be overseen to ensure that abuses don't occur.

Also, it would appear that at least one of the RIAA lawsuits is a case of mistaken identity. We can laugh about that and say how stupid thy are, but it wouldn't be so funny if you were arrested in front of your neighbours for child pornography because someone got the wrong IP address. Mud sticks. And with the amount of dynamic IP adresses assigned every day, that's a mistake that will happen. More than once.

BTW Calpitor, I would never take anything you post as a personal attack. You and I don't always agree, but I always find your arguments well reasoned, and I absolutely believe in your right to say what you think.

Wow you scored a lot of good points here: dynamic IP Adresses, authorities are given an inch they'll take a mile, lot of these people being caught using existing powers and old-fashioned good police work, Mud sticks.

The one thing I would question is "we should demand of our lawmakers that any extra powers that are given regarding Internet surveillance should be overseen to ensure that abuses don't occur."

This strikes me as being a bit of a vicious circle. Who is watching the watchers watching the watcher ad infinitum. Eventually you have to put your trust in someone. Canada's Intelligence Community is, quite possibly on purpose, so confusing your head would spin as soon as you look at it in this regard. C.S.I.S. officially charged with safe guarding State Secrets watches the R.C.M.P. primarily to authenticate not only the data but how it is gathered. C.S.I.S. in turn is, you guessed it is watched by the R.C.M.P.

Hi all, and especially Calpitor:

To get back to the first post , "My question is how reasonable is your expectation to privacy while being connected to the net?"

Mine are very reasonable. I expect my connection to the internet to enjoy the same rights to privacy as other communications devices that I use, such as telephone, cable or whispering in my babe's ear. Choose to use wireless and your on your own.