http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsxxsrn2Tfs&feature=related
Seriously long, but broken up into segments. Truly fascinating.
Seriously long, but broken up into segments. Truly fascinating.
Privacy is dead; Get over it, A talk by PI Steve Rambam
- Thread starter LordOfShadows
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
gamerwiz09
Grandmaster Knight
Sounds like an interesting subject to make videos about; I'll be sure to check them out later.
I'll add though, privacy is a man-made invention. It is not a right, nor is it a concept existent in nature. It is something certain cultures invented, and isn't even a universal concept. This is supported by the fact that the word is untranslatable in some languages.
I'll add though, privacy is a man-made invention. It is not a right, nor is it a concept existent in nature. It is something certain cultures invented, and isn't even a universal concept. This is supported by the fact that the word is untranslatable in some languages.
You wander into a tiger's territory and try telling it thatgamerwiz09 said:
gamerwiz09
Grandmaster Knight
Invasion of privacy =/= trespassing.Archonsod said:You wander into a tiger's territory and try telling it thatgamerwiz09 said:
tyrannicide
Knight
Very interesting, thanks for the link. Appears this dates two years back already, and there was another HOPE conference just recently.
Interesting, although I do not agree with the "get over it" part. And Rambam's argument is fallacious when he says that it's "okay to use these things against bad guys", because those who use it are the same as those who define what a "bad guy" is. And I'm not talking about Google.
Interesting, although I do not agree with the "get over it" part. And Rambam's argument is fallacious when he says that it's "okay to use these things against bad guys", because those who use it are the same as those who define what a "bad guy" is. And I'm not talking about Google.
gamerwiz09
Grandmaster Knight
I'd beg to differ. And so did John Locke. He came up with 3 natural rights. Life, Liberty, and Property. Animals (and don't pull the humans are animals **** again, you know what I mean) don't kill each other for no reason. They also demonstrate the concept of Property (Territory, food, living space, etc), and being wild animals they also have a fair amount of Liberty.Vilhjalmr said:
I'd say since they're present elsewhere in nature, they apply to us as well. Privacy isn't in nature though. Everyone takes a **** where they want, and there's no agreement that if you want something kept private that others will go along with it.
tyrannicide
Knight
Probably a bit OT:
Liberty is the Liberty to decide what rules apply to you. It implies a minimum of power over nature, of leeway if you will. In effect, as a practical concept it can only exist in societies.
LOL. So if one animal takes the other's food and territory (which they always try to do), the bereaved will be able to sue the bereaver and get set to its right? If not, what's its right actually good for, other than as fap material for Locke and jurists?gamerwiz09 said:
None whatsoever. They are entirely subject to the necessities of nature.gamerwiz09 said:
Liberty is the Liberty to decide what rules apply to you. It implies a minimum of power over nature, of leeway if you will. In effect, as a practical concept it can only exist in societies.
gamerwiz09 said:
And what if privacy is man made? How is that an argument against it or make it any less relevant? I don't know why there's always someone in every thread espousing the whole "unnatural = dismissable/unworkable" argument. If you're so against the work of rationality and human empathy over nature, go parachute in Kenya and get eaten by the local fauna. Then while you're crying over your newly amputated arm you'll realise how nice man made inventions are.
Going by the definition of "Right": "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement". Let's scrap "legal, social or ethical" and replace it with "natural", so that it is consistent to the idea of rights coming from nature (even if that'd be a bit of cheating favouring you in the first place), let's analyse...
What difference does it make whether there's a reason or not behind the killing when claiming the existence of a right to live? Humans also kill for reasons (namely money, hate, war, etc), more often than not, but that doesn't mean we can claim there's a right to live if killing for any of those reasons was allowed. I don't see entitlement. No, I don't think you can call it a right by saying animals don't kill with no reason.
(Edited the first line as it needed a rephrasing quite badly)
If an animal thinks it's tough enough to **** with another one, it won't hesitate to **** all over that other's territory. Otherwise it buggers off and minds its own business. That's purely out of convenience, not entitlement of any kind.
tyrannicide said:
I would slaughter my own kind too, if I was bored.mdk31 said:
gamerwiz09 said:
Animals are for the most part, irrational, or at least not as rational as humans. Why should laws based upon their calibre be relevant to us?
Besides, just because their natural, doesn't mean it's a good thing, nor that we should adopt it.
Are you applying their rights to us, or are you applying our laws to them?
Why should we give a floundering flipper about "natural" "rights" if we're inherently different, as you say, from animals? Likewise, we're not all that natural either. Even if we were, if it was evident that there is a natural right to kill equally sentient beings for amusement, and take things that do not belong to you because you're bigger, I'm pretty sure our society wouldn't want to adopt these things anyway.
They're perfectly rational, unless they're insane. You just need to note that the rational response to something tends to differ depending on whether you've got six inch claws designed for disembowelling at the end of your limbs or not.Swadius said:
Our laws to them. Most don't demonstrate a good understanding of things like property, in the wild what an animal will consider part of it's territory tends to change all the time.
Generally the idea of rights is that they're the things you don't need to go to court to defend, otherwise they'd simply be legal activities. Although in reality rights tend to be the things they can't stop you doing or you can't prosecute for even if someone wanted to. I can't see many people launching a lawsuit because someone breached their right to life for example.tyrannicide said:
Erm, no it doesn't. Under that argument I'm currently being oppressed by my lungs, stomach and bowels, and unless I somehow manage to free myself from the bonds of hunger, breathing and the need to **** I'll never be free.
Liberty generally has two aspects - the freedom to do what you take it upon yourself to do, or as Hobbes puts it "a free man is he that is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do", and freedom from tyranny or external coercion. Nature doesn't come into it, because nature is not a conscious entity and thus unable to coerce or be a tyrant, and the people who originally came up with the concept weren't bat**** insane.
Freedom from nature is another concept entirely, and one usually associated with religion. See transcendence.
It is. Most animals demand privacy, and if deprived of it you tend to start seeing the same kind of stress symptoms you get in humans in the same situation. Though this relies on the definition of privacy as the ability to avoid sharing time, space or part of your life with others. Obviously a cat isn't going to be overly concerned at you watching it take a piss or a ****, but then for cats pissing on something is another way of saying you own it, and ****ting on something is another way of saying **** you.gamerwiz09 said:
Similar threads
- Dev Thread
