Taboo Topics (Heavily moderated)

[Reyo]

Except your full picture is just vague nonsense. Stick to the topic so people actually understand what your point is. The saying "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit," doesn't work for debates.

I was more than willing to stick to the original topic (which was about the NSA taping into our communication feeds, which was something I discussed in my last comment), but Then there were concerns with what that would do for Revolution, and then why Terrorists would then somehow be able to circumvent the system while revolutionaries wouldn't, and then about how terrorists are crazy psychopaths with no goals or intentions. I go off on these tangents because each of these tangential topics aren't just pertinent, but it seems you've chosen these topics for why my point of view is incorrect, and I'm defending against it to the best of my own ability like you'd think anyone would do in a topic meant specifically for argumentative discussion.

Here's each tangent and how they related to the original topic:

1. Misuse of technology: This was the original topic where everyone's problem is that the government is just going to use this technology to fuck over innocent people by snitching on the miscellaneous, irrelevant crimes we commit every day instead of sniffing out domestic terrorism. First I tried to explain that it wouldn't be in the government's best interests to do that since Johnny's plan to bomb a bridge is much more pertinent to their interests than how much weed Jack smokes in a weekend. The rebuttle to this was pretty much just "well companies are bad and always fuck us over!" which is where I brought up the fact that revolution needs to take place ASAP if these companies really are as bad as you say they are (and to be honest, that was more to show you how rediculous all of this defeatist talk is in how companies are bad, always, 100%, but then revolution was picked up and dragged out for some reason.)

2. Revolution: That's when it became a matter of how impossible it would be to have this revolution with this technology in place. I've explained how that wouldn't be true. Then it became an issue of "Well why would you willingly make it harder to rebell on yourself?" and I explained that it's because the technology isn't originally for stopping acts of revolution, but domestic terrorism.

3. Terrorism: After that, it became a matter of the previous point becoming irrelevant since terrorists would easily circumvent it since they're crazy, violent, and random. That's when I had to explain that terrorists aren't just random, crazy suicide bombers looking for chaos. There is a political ploy in all of the chaos, and that the only difference between terrorism, and any revolution, is that terrorism has no problem using innocent civilians in the cross fire.

So really the problem isn't that I'm trying to bullshit my argument together, the problem is you apparently can't follow an arc, mistaking the flow of the conversation for attempts to change the topic.

[Syobon]

You just did the same thing again, stretching out something that can be summarized in a single paragraph into a giant post. Maybe consider that if multiple people have this problem (and I know it's not just me and Madican), that it's your writing and not your audience?

[Reyo]

You just did the same thing again, stretching out something that can be summarized in a single paragraph into a giant post. Maybe consider that if multiple people have this problem (and I know it's not just me and Madican), that it's your writing and not your audience?

Now what you're doing is using the guise that other people agree with your point of view, therefore I must be incorrect (which isn't really even logic) and instead decided to make the discussion about how I'm arguing my point of view, and, ironically, about how I've stopped arguing the main point.

You're kidding me with this, right? Would you much rather I sit here and give you single sentence replies that amount to "I disagree"? I can do that, but it'd be against the rules, because as a general rule: longer arguments >>>> shorter arguments.

I can make this about how my argumentative techniques are in fact valid and you're making absolutely no sense in what you're trying to say, but I have a feeling you're just going to then yell at me further down the road for having lost the original topic (still about how the NSA is going to snoop on our privacy for negative reasons) and honestly I don't have the patience for that.

[Brekkjern]

The difference between a terrorist attack and a revolution is that a terrorist attack isn't aimed at seizing power in a country. A terrorist attack is successful if it causes fear. A single person can fairly simply get hold of weapons or the materials to create a bomb. The only other thing you need to plan is how, where and when. Typically a crowded area with political/social significance. In general, the terrorists don't have any issues with dying for the cause so getting away with it isn't all that big of an issue. However, as police is usually instructed make you surrender before shooting you (this seems to be the general rule), there are ways of getting out of it without dying.

A revolution is only successful if it causes a change in policy or removes the current rulers from power.

By design, the american government is spread out, so if you want to seize power, you would have to seize most (if not all) county, state and federal buildings related to upholding the law/defence of the country. This includes the Pentagon, The White House, Senate, military bases and/or infrastructure designed to strategically move troops into the affected area. You would most likely need to seize major TV and radio broadcasts to inform the public of your motives. All of this has to be done at the same time or a state of martial law will quickly be enforced and the plan would not work at all as the military is already mobilized.

Now as we know the targets you can start to guesstimate a number of people required to do such a massive operation and since this is technically illegal, you are going to be shut down before you even get to the halfway mark of gathering enough troops. If you get the aid of militias, you would probably be shut down before you have come to an agreement with their leaders as cops sure as hell have them under surveillance.

I just thought I should throw this out there so most of us are on the same page on what the difference in scale, logistics and methods of a terrorist attack and an armed revolution would be.

[Reyo]

That is all true, but I can't help but feel that it's more accurate to describe the individual terrorist events than terrorism as a whole. From what I remember, there's the initial motivation, and then the use of terrorism to achieve that motivation. Like in the middle east, the attacks that happen overseas aren't just to cause chaos. They happen because the insurgency group(s) don't want the United States occupying the land they're trying to control. Again, it's why the fight has become about getting the locals to agree with us than killing everyone.

As for those individual attacks, yes they would have an easier time cgetting around the surveillance than a much more logistically based revolution, but it would still be harder on them to accomplish their goal since you'd still need supplies, and plans to pull the individual attack off. Even if you were working alone, your habits change, your shopping changes, and your social habbits change, which is what the technology would pick up on. Right before the Virginia Tech shooting, there was a fuss over the guy posting pictures of himself posing with guns in both nonserious, and very serious manners. While that alone doesn't mean much, if you combine it with other factors like "He's never done that before" "He just bought those" and "He's stopped participating in his schoolwork" and it becomes a case of "He might be planning something."

So yes, with that you are correct in saying that a Revolution as a whole would be harder to hide than individual acts of terrorism, but those individual acts of terrorism would still be easier to predict, and the motives behind that terrorism would be harder to make happen as well. And in the end, the whole point of this technology was to sniff out these individual acts of terrorism, and not necessarily to stop future revolution. The point on the revolution was more to say that it needs to happen regardless if these companies that are making the technology so negative really are as evil as they're said they are, and yes preferably before the technology goes out.

[Syobon]

You just did the same thing again, stretching out something that can be summarized in a single paragraph into a giant post. Maybe consider that if multiple people have this problem (and I know it's not just me and Madican), that it's your writing and not your audience?

Now what you're doing is using the guise that other people agree with your point of view, therefore I must be incorrect (which isn't really even logic) and instead decided to make the discussion about how I'm arguing my point of view, and, ironically, about how I've stopped arguing the main point.

You're kidding me with this, right? Would you much rather I sit here and give you single sentence replies that amount to "I disagree"? I can do that, but it'd be against the rules, because as a general rule: longer arguments >>>> shorter arguments.

I can make this about how my argumentative techniques are in fact valid and you're making absolutely no sense in what you're trying to say, but I have a feeling you're just going to then yell at me further down the road for having lost the original topic (still about how the NSA is going to snoop on our privacy for negative reasons) and honestly I don't have the patience for that.

No, I was simply asking you to make your points more concise, I wasn't addressing the validity of your arguments at all. I was adding that I wasn't just asking for me. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension as well.

I feel like this isn't going to go any where any more at any rate now, so I'll try to summarise the main point one last time.

The reason there is strife between your government and "terrorists" at it's core boils down to the protection of the rights of both sides. If you take away your own rights just to fight that battle more efficiently, what are you really fighting for?

[Reyo]

Tell you what, since your argument has come down to just yelling at me for talking too much and insulting my reading comprehension, I'll just stop, concede defeat, and continue this discussion when someone's willing to actually discuss.

I can only assume that's what you want since that's what most people who get to this point want.

[Shad]

No. Syobon isn't yelling at you. Syobon is asking you to make your points clearer, and you answered by saying he wanted you to shut up. There is a huge difference. Don't act like a victim. You are also making assumptions, which is completely counter-productive when discussing something.

If, however, you are at a point where the only thing you can say is "stop insulting me!" when you're not being insulted, I do think you should stop discussing things with Syobon, yes.

[Syobon]

Why ‘I Have Nothing to Hide’ Is the Wrong Way to Think About Surveillance

[Reyo]

No. Syobon isn't yelling at you. Syobon is asking you to make your points clearer, and you answered by saying he wanted you to shut up. There is a huge difference. Don't act like a victim. You are also making assumptions, which is completely counter-productive when discussing something.

If, however, you are at a point where the only thing you can say is "stop insulting me!" when you're not being insulted, I do think you should stop discussing things with Syobon, yes.

Did you read anything with the discussion, or did you just swoop in and decide to pass judgment without doing so? There was a point where I was still discussing the main point, and making it very clear yet all I got in response was "You're talking too much." which makes absolutely no sense in a discussion thread.

Seriously, I have no idea how I can make my points any clearer than this.

1. Misuse of technology: This was the original topic where everyone's problem is that the government is just going to use this technology to fuck over innocent people by snitching on the miscellaneous, irrelevant crimes we commit every day instead of sniffing out domestic terrorism. First I tried to explain that it wouldn't be in the government's best interests to do that since Johnny's plan to bomb a bridge is much more pertinent to their interests than how much weed Jack smokes in a weekend. The rebuttle to this was pretty much just "well companies are bad and always fuck us over!" which is where I brought up the fact that revolution needs to take place ASAP if these companies really are as bad as you say they are (and to be honest, that was more to show you how rediculous all of this defeatist talk is in how companies are bad, always, 100%, but then revolution was picked up and dragged out for some reason.)

2. Revolution: That's when it became a matter of how impossible it would be to have this revolution with this technology in place. I've explained how that wouldn't be true. Then it became an issue of "Well why would you willingly make it harder to rebell on yourself?" and I explained that it's because the technology isn't originally for stopping acts of revolution, but domestic terrorism.

3. Terrorism: After that, it became a matter of the previous point becoming irrelevant since terrorists would easily circumvent it since they're crazy, violent, and random. That's when I had to explain that terrorists aren't just random, crazy suicide bombers looking for chaos. There is a political ploy in all of the chaos, and that the only difference between terrorism, and any revolution, is that terrorism has no problem using innocent civilians in the cross fire.

They're 3, concise paraghraphs with their own subject matter where the ending of each paragraph leads ninto the beginning of the next one. Tell me, how much more clear should I get?

[Shad]

I did not say I thought you points weren't clear or correct (I think they are), simply that Syobon didn't ask you to stop talking. Whether or not you think his request is relevant or not is your problem, and if you think you do not need to make it clearer, then you do not have to. That however doesn't mean you should antagonize Syobon because he cannot understand you: he's trying to.

I would like it if you stopped assuming stuff, too. I am not the kind of bumbling fool that talks about something without reading what is happening first. That's insulting.

[Syobon]

@Reyo, That post is after we asked though, so not the best example. Still a rather pointless, cumbersome post since it 'summarizes' the previous discussion (which was unnecessary) while generalising and straw-manning our arguments, with a hypothetical over-illustrative example thrown in for good measure.

Also, the tangent on the similarities between revolution and terrorism was indeed unnecessary because it added nothing to the discussion. Any one who knows the term propaganda is well-aware of the heavily loaded word 'terrorism' and it's use to spur fear into populace. It was beside the point that this technology is not only detrimental to 'terrorism' but to any form of democratic revolution and protest.

Perhaps you are still not convinced though, so allow me to grab another, more blatant example from a previous post of yours.

Also it's funny that you go off on this side-rant about the word terrorism when it's the fear for this terrorism that seems to lead you to defend these extreme measures.

I've been instructed in how they think from both the military and a handful of psychology classes. As for the philisohical parts, that's just regular philisophical bullshit. And you can understand how a group of people think and feel, but still fear for any terrible actions they may want to take on you or your family/friends (example: the Nazis. The history channel has more than just dissected how they thought and felt during the 1940's. They weren't insane either, just terrible, terrible xenophobes.)

What is the point of this paragraph? Are you trying to appeal to your own authority by mentioning your classes? What does philosophy have to do with this discussion? How is the History Channel relevant? Why do you bring up the Nazis being xenophobes?

I'm going to assume in good faith there are good reasons why you brought these things up, but I'm saying that I as a reader have difficulty discerning what point you're trying to make. Now perhaps you don't care whether I understand you or not, and that's fine too, I'm just saying I can't respond to you if I don't know what you're talking about.

[Reyo]

I did not say I thought you points weren't clear or correct (I think they are), simply that Syobon didn't ask you to stop talking. Whether or not you think his request is relevant or not is your problem, and if you think you do not need to make it clearer, then you do not have to. That however doesn't mean you should antagonize Syobon because he cannot understand you: he's trying to.

I would like it if you stopped assuming stuff, too. I am not the kind of bumbling fool that talks about something without reading what is happening first. That's insulting.

Here's the thing, though. No attitude, no intentional antagonization.

I understand it when someone is long winded for the point of distracting you from the main point. That's not what I tried to do, and it gets a little frustrating when I try to prove that, yet apparently it's not convincing enough. Look at it from my perspective. I'm having a pleasant conversation on a topic I find interesting when all of a sudden the opposition starts using the length of my arguments as a reason why I'm wrong rather than the content of said argument. I'm not yelling at...her because she's yelling at me, I'm yelling at her because it feels like she's stopped with the discussion to instead give me shit on how I discuss rather than what I'm discussing. The first time I was told to make my point clear and cut down my response, I was a little annoyed, but I did it (in the quote I gave you before) thinking "OK, maybe I am being long winded." But then it kept happening, eventually with a stab atmy reading comprehension.

As for the insults, I do have a bit of a confusion there. Usually when someone feels insulted, it's the one who did the insulting who's at fault, and not the one who feels insulted for "playing the victim." It confuses me because I can only assume you told me you feel insulted because I'm supposed to feel remorseful for unintentionally hurting your feelings when I'm supposed to schuff off something that's a stereotypical problem in text based discussions.

@Reyo, That post is after we asked though, so not the best example. Still a rather pointless, cumbersome post since it 'summarizes' the previous discussion (which was unnecessary) while generalising and straw-manning our arguments, with a hypothetical over-illustrative example thrown in for good measure.

Also, the tangent on the similarities between revolution and terrorism was indeed unnecessary because it added nothing to the discussion. Any one who knows the term propaganda is well-aware of the heavily loaded word 'terrorism' and it's use to spur fear into populace. It was beside the point that this technology is not only detrimental to 'terrorism' but to any form of democratic revolution and protest.

Perhaps you are still not convinced though, so allow me to grab another, more blatant example from a previous post of yours.

Also it's funny that you go off on this side-rant about the word terrorism when it's the fear for this terrorism that seems to lead you to defend these extreme measures.

I've been instructed in how they think from both the military and a handful of psychology classes. As for the philisohical parts, that's just regular philisophical bullshit. And you can understand how a group of people think and feel, but still fear for any terrible actions they may want to take on you or your family/friends (example: the Nazis. The history channel has more than just dissected how they thought and felt during the 1940's. They weren't insane either, just terrible, terrible xenophobes.)

What is the point of this paragraph? Are you trying to appeal to your own authority by mentioning your classes? What does philosophy have to do with this discussion? How is the History Channel relevant? Why do you bring up the Nazis being xenophobes?

I'm going to assume in good faith there are good reasons why you brought these things up, but I'm saying that I as a reader have difficulty discerning what point you're trying to make. Now perhaps you don't care whether I understand you or not, and that's fine too, I'm just saying I can't respond to you if I don't know what you're talking about.

I wrote out that paragraph because you asked me why I would go on a tangent on terrorism despite fearing it, and I explained that fearing something doesn't mean you can't understand it, and then I showed that I did, in fact, understand it. I did that because it's better to show you know something rather than just just say you know it. That was me trying not to be someone who was just mindlessly discussing something without knowing what I was saying. If you were in a discussion with someone on the state of the economy, you wouldn't say that mentioning his experience with economic processes was an appeal to his authority would you?

So in order:

1. Given above.
2. No.
3. Philosophy is the entire point of discussion.
4. The History Channel was a part of the metaphor to explain how you can hate what someone does/did, yet still understand and know everything about them. It was also a comedic stab at the fact that, 10 years ago, all you'd see on the History channel was everything on World War II.
5. Because the Nazis were the critical part of the metaphor being compared to terrorists...and because they were xenophobes.

[Syobon]

the opposition starts using the length of my arguments as a reason why I'm wrong

I never did that though, I merely said that I couldn't figure out what your point was. Also I'm a dude, don't let the avatar mislead you.

[Reyo]

the opposition starts using the length of my arguments as a reason why I'm wrong

I never did that though, I merely said that I couldn't figure out what your point was. Also I'm a dude, don't let the avatar mislead you.

I kept stating the point. The problem was that my point included more than just "I don't mind the invasion of privacy." It includes things like the implications on both terrorism and revolution.

Also, if you're going to say that my discussions are too long and full of fluff, I have no problem in shortening them, but then we end up with issues of "generalizing" and "straw-manning" since more content allows for more complicated ideas to be expressed.

Also, I am a bit confused on just how I was straw-manning your argument in the first place.

EDIT: Also get a manlier avatar this confusion happens too much with people...