I just can't see why getting molested at airports, having your communications spied on, and being recorded/tracked in public places could ever be a good thing. They all result people saying things such as, "I want safety, and I don't care if I have to sacrifice people's freedoms and privacy to get it!" We place limitations on governments because they are made up of humans who cannot be trusted, so why trust them with placing cameras in public places (Which I would oppose even if there were no slippery slope or potential for abuse.) and then blindly believing them when they say the cameras won't be used for anything else? It's not like history has countless examples of governments expanding their powers or anything.
But I do see them as a problem.
"Soon enough, they'll run a red light. Then we'll have everything we need to send them to Guantanamo."
Which assumes they're only used for their stated purpose.
Just in case my point isn't clear: the government is actually doing things that are really fucking bad, right now, but you're getting pissed off about red light cameras.
X being worse than Y does not mean that Y isn't bad. Yes, the government may be doing worse things, but that doesn't mean red light cameras aren't a problem.
Funny, because that's exactly the kind of thing I'd say about your unprincipled desire of freedom.
Then move to North Korea or something.
I started trying to critique the rest of your comment, but you're too far away from sanity for me to even get close.
I could turn that around and say that I believe you to be unprincipled for desiring privacy that strongly.
You could, but I would say that anyone who would say such a thing should probably isolate themselves from the rest of the world; can't have them ruining countries with their nonsense.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, I would not expect safety to be even close to a prime concern, and especially so when fundamental liberties and privacy are at stake.
The real world is a giant balancing game: if you lean all the way to one side you'll fall over.
I'd say that's utterly false. Extremes are not always wrong, and something being 'extreme' (which is subjective) does not even mean it is likely to be wrong, as most issues are subjective. I don't know if that's what you were trying to get at, but if not, then I have no idea what message you were trying to convey.
They aren't recording YOUR movements
You can try to pretend they aren't, but I don't buy it.
licensed piece of equipment on roadways built and maintained using public funds.
Well, SirGarlon's post above already summed up how I feel about all this.
There is no expectation of privacy when driving a vehicle on public roads.
I fully expect that governments not record my movements with cameras in public places.
Operating a vehicle (at least in the US) is heavily regulated, requiring registration of the vehicle, insurance, and licensed operators.
At this point your argument has become circular - assuming the proposition without proof.
What, you mean like what you've been doing the entire time? I simply stated my opinion; that is not circular.
It doesn't help that you keep resorting to the strawman of black and white reasoning either ("completely without brains" and "magical brainwashing rays").
Not so much a straw man as it is me not understanding your vague nonsense. When people mention nonsense about "role models" and how porn is somehow harmful, I can do little else but mock them.
I think your over-simplification is harmful.
I don't think it's an over-simplification at all. As I said, I do not find porn to be harmful in the least.
I would say that violent content does not necessarily make kids violent (note the difference between violent and aggressive) because there are tons of other role models for kids to learn from who do not interact violently
I don't think that's why.
But for sex, porn dominates the landscape of role models.
And? Look, I think most people are unintelligent, but I don't think they're completely without brains. Yes, even children.
That's like saying that if you say that people can get good ideas from television shows, you must also believe that violent content makes people more aggressive. Nonsense. If you believe that people can 'intelligently' decide what to take away from these shows, that bit of nonsense falls right apart.
Kids learn by watching and doing.
But they're not mindless. I think people often make the mistake of thinking that children are mindless little objects.
I think you are exceptionally naive to believe that a "5 second talk" could undo the kind of subconscious effect that watching porn over an extended period of time would have absent realistic sexual role models.
I don't believe that to be naive at all. I just don't believe in magical brainwashing waves, or anything such as that. I don't think porn is harmful at all.
You're just rambling now. This is not coherent. And your inability to talk about the government without saying "government thugs" just makes you look like a paranoid nutcase, in addition to looking like an autistic teenager.
And you're just a naive government cheerleader. Every government throughout history abused its powers in horrendous ways, and furthermore, the fact that we even limit what powers our governments have indicates that we believe they can't be trusted with certain powers. Why? They're corruptible humans. I have every reason to refer to them as "government thugs"; I believe distrust of government is a good thing.
No-one wants religious sites blocked. There is no demand for it.
So if people wanted religion censored, that would be okay? I can't say I agree with that. It is highly probable that many of the people who want this censorship would be angry if religious websites were to be censored, and that is because they only want things they don't like to be censored; when someone suggests censoring something they don't like, suddenly censorship is a problem.
You are in a tiny lunatic fringe, possibly its only member, for considering religion comparable to pornography.
Personally, I'd say pornography is harmless and religion can ruin lives, but that's not the point. The problem is that you missed my point completely.
It's amusing that you imagine there is anyone in the entire world apart from yourself who gives a damn about your opinion of who is intelligent.
It's amusing that you think I care about popularity, and that you even have to mention it.
The completely voluntary filter that lets people choose whether to turn on or not, that government consumer protection authorities insisted ISP's provide, and is provided at no additional cost.
If it's on by default, then it's restricting access to certain sites on the open Internet, which is open by default. I can't get behind such blatant censorship, no matter what you say. I don't think government thugs should even have a say in this to begin with.
And you never even answered my question. What would the problem be with censoring religious websites like they're doing to porn sites? The filter would be 100% "voluntary"; maybe it would be on by default, but you could opt out of it. What's the issue? And don't just say that people don't want those censored; that's not an answer.
The real question is: Why should the government be able to mandate that certain content be censored by default just because some people don't like it? Why not other content too? This is completely subjective.
You've got a bloody cheek calling other people irrational.
These anti-porn crusaders are, in fact, completely unintelligent.
The filter. The very thing that government thugs told ISPs to enable so that certain websites that irrational pieces of trash don't like would be censored.
Well, since you didn't respond to anything else I said...
Being opposed to censorship is different from being a teenager, a porn addict, or having Asperger's syndrome.