I don't much care what was considered humane at the time, or how many prisoners would agree.

I didn't suggest that time can be reversed. However, I do believe that death is the worst of them all, with permanent physical damage being second. Permanent physical damage could keep you from doing things you'd normally be able to do (although I'm not aware of the government doing this). Forever.

There's unidentified Gamemakerlessness coming from all over your bootysnap!

All hands on Gamemakerdom! Return to Gamemakerdom!

I could only assume they were talking about something worse (with that just being an example), since that wouldn't deter crime. In fact, compared to spending time in prison or jail, that would be quite a bit better. At any rate, the person certainly didn't correct any supposed misunderstandings.

I've been spying on your ass as of late. The security camera I placed in your undies has allowed me to come to the following conclusion: you don't use Gamemaker.

You need to return to Gamemakerdom, a perfect world where everyone uses Gamemaker. Return to it. Fill your pathetic life with joy once more.

Again, a stupid argument. Obviously we must, to the best of our abilities, prevent innocents from being imprisoned. But sometimes it will happen anyway. No system is perfect.

But that can be fixed. If we merely imprison someone, they can later be let out (and perhaps somehow compensate them). If we kill them or inflict permanent damage upon them, that absolutely cannot be fixed. There is a difference, and to anyone even trying to argue honestly, that difference should be plainly obvious.

I could only shake my head at them. Subhumans. Worthless, vile things. They weren't even worthy of receiving my gaze.

The treacherous monstrosities of which I speak are, of course, those that do not use Gamemaker.

"Why do these... things... not just switch to Gamemaker?"
"Because they're pathetic, worthless beings. We are the Enlightened Ones. They will never understand our true greatness. They will never arrive in Gamemakerdom."
"Ah. You're right. The only thing to do is to shun, torture, and humiliate them until we absolutely obliterate all such existences."

Gamemaker: The next level of programming.

Ridiculous. The government isn't here to permanently injure its own citizens. That is the difference between actual criminals and the government, and that is why we have due process. If the government hurt its own citizens left and right, people would lose faith in it and it would undoubtedly be a government that isn't for the people.

The government punishing someone isn't the same thing as criminals hurting others, and you'd be foolish to argue that.

"It's better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer."

As much as possible, I subscribe to that notion. Especially when talking about things such as the death penalty.

A police state? Perhaps not. A corrupt government? Definitely. TSA, Patriot Act, "for the children" excuses left and right, free speech zones, NDAA, completely idiotic wars...

No. Between a bad solution and no solution, I'll take no solution.

We must never let the government violate our freedoms and privacy for security. Ever. I don't live in fear; I recognize that terrorists make up only a minuscule portion of the population and that my chances of dying in a terrorist attack are slim to none. Collective punishment (searching/spying on everyone) is never an answer.

Nah. I don't care for the "to stop the terrorists" excuse, either.

For me, freedom comes first. There is no reason to shut them down (just like there's no reason for the TSA or Patriot Act).

But I agree that the whole, "I can't think of an explanation, so none exist." argument isn't logical.

In addition to the other guy's points, there's also the fact that the government isn't supposed to violate your rights. The government is supposed to uphold the people's rights, not violate them. A government that violates them can no longer be considered a government for the people, and that is a dangerous situation.

So would I. In fact, I even said I'd prefer neither. They're simply wasting their time with this nonsense.

I'd prefer neither, but if I had to make a choice, I'd prefer that it wasn't the government violating people's rights. That's certainly not the kind of thing I'd expect from a decent government.

No, they can't. Anyone with "common sense" wouldn't be working with the TSA, an organization designed to infringe people's freedom and privacy in exchange for a false sense of security.

You're only letting the TSA stick around longer. If you protest by not flying (if you have the option to), then eventually they'll get the message. I stopped flying completely.

The TSA is a piece of garbage that needs to be completely abolished. Freedom and privacy > security.