patrick.net

sbh says

Strategist says

Demanding your right to not have anyone listen in to your phone calls, when no one cares to listen anyway, is silly, especially when lives are at risk.

When lives are at stake, at what point is maximum security achieved? When half of our rights are surrendered? 3/4s of them? Clearly, in your view, rights become more valuable as they are eliminated.

I'm glad you asked that. My answer is - I don't know. It would depend on the threat.
We already sacrifice liberties like the right to go through red lights, take the law in your own hands, shout Fire in a theater, and what not. If the right you want hurts someone else, then that Right has to be questioned, compromised and even eliminated. When a terrorist is planning to hurt a bunch of school kids, that terrorists natural rights must be eliminated for the rights of children to live. It's a question of which rights take precedence
Please remember, the State is only trying to protect our rights from those who want to take it away. The long term rights of the people takes precedence over the short term.

sbh says

Strategist says

If the right you want hurts someone else, then that Right has to be questioned, compromised and even eliminated.

If this is the basis of your rights then you have no more claim to it than everyone. When the jihadist attacks us this is precisely his moral substantiation.

Please tell me, which rights do you support? Our rights where slavery is banned, or their rights where it is permitted?

sbh says

This is how Americans justified killing black voters.

Can you stop your nonsense? We are all Americans.

sbh says

This is how you justify torturing your wife.

I'm married with children. I am the tortured one. :(

sbh says

Strategist says

I'm married with children. I am the tortured one.

"If this is the basis of your rights then you have no more claim to it than everyone. When the jihadist attacks us this is precisely his moral substantiation."

Your short term memory doesn't serve you well.

SBH, you are starting to piss me off. I'm not seeing any rationality in your posts. What the hell is upsetting you?

sbh says

My point is you have no standard beyond your personal fear. A standard must be universal or it's just bullshit,

What???? My standard is MY standard. I don't give a crap what other standards are. The universal standard is, that God exists. So I have to have that standard?

sbh says

My point is you have no standard beyond your personal fear. A standard must be universal or it's just bullshit, the same way people felt fear of black people registering to vote so they killed them. The jihadists say exactly what you say. The only difference is they don't have your name. They have different children.

What you don't comprehend is this: I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE RIGHT.

I'm saying this: THEY HAVE YOUR STANDARD.

WHEN YOUR STANDARD IS BETTER THAN THEIRS YOU'LL HAVE MY SUPPORT. Not that it matters to you.

My standards are the best there is.
Can you elaborate and explain? Thanks.

sbh says

Strategist says

SBH, you are starting to piss me off. I'm not seeing any rationality in your posts.

Yawn, rationality is the last thing you apply to your standard. All that matters to you is your personal fear. From the other thread:

Strategist says

So what's your point?

sbh says

My point is you have no standard beyond your personal fear. A standard must be universal or it's just bullshit, the same way people felt fear of black people registering to vote so they killed them. The jihadists say exactly what you say. The only difference is they don't have your name. They have different children.

What you don't comprehend is this: I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE RIGHT.

I'm saying this: THEY HAVE YOUR STANDARD.

WHEN YOUR STANDARD IS BETTER THAN THEIRS YOU'LL HAVE MY SUPPORT. Not that it matters to you.

I think someone hacked SBH's username.

sbh says

OK, fine, but a standard mustn't be derived from the particular lest it just be desire. Remember, your standard needs to be applicable to everyone everywhere.

My standard is my standard. It does not need to be applicable to anyone or anywhere. The terrorists have their own pathetic standard. Is it applicable everywhere?
Now I'm pissed even more.

If I were on the jury - I could vote for the death penalty. I would even be willing to volunteer to be the one to pull the plug, trigger, administer the injection, etc This dude is evil.

sbh says

More than anything, my tortured friend, what you have just written should stand as the final and perfect edifice to the failure of your standard. It's harsh for me to call you a coward, I realize that, but I mean it strictly with respect to Kant's categorical imperative.

I'm an atheist. We are all flawed persons. What is the standard by which we must act? No standard can be but cowardice if it "need not be applicable to anyone or anywhere". Don't succumb to anger, rather, note that your anger is the natural rejection of what flaw lies in your reaction to the horrors of what these insane maniacs are willing to do here in the modern world. It appalls me too, more than I can tell you.

Ok, can someone PM Patrick? Let him know SBH's account has been hacked. This hacker appears to be very intelligent.