And what, pray tell, might those circumstances be, Mr. “I’ve Got Supersecret Cites I Dare Not Divulge”?
The problem is that life’s not that simple. You’re not going to get a handful of simple laws to govern the lives of 300+ million people. To harken back to a simpler time is naive. The world is complicated, we’re not going back to a time when any guy off the street can read and understand a contract, or be able to defend himself in a court. You need lawyers and well-trained experts for that, and more than one. This whole spying thing, despite my dislike of spying, isn’t without its merits
Tell me that you would respond to the likes of 9/11 or OKC or even smaller bombings like in Boston with “meh, our laws are good enough, nothing needs to change”. Even if you believed that, there’s probably 100000 people who believe otherwise and they will vote and get people into power who thinks that spying on your computer is of little consequence compared to being blown up
Then which governments are you sticking up for? Where will you travel to, if not a western government, so that nobody will look into your computer or tap your phone calls?
This is a non-answer. If you think the US Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks just say so, or drop the subject. It can only serve to make you look like a fool.
Too late.
So in other words, you have none.
I think this is naive.
So you think they spy for your protection?
Yes, it’s scary isn’t it.
This isn’t fair; I didn’t raise the subject.
This also isn’t fair… but try looking at this wikipedia page, then combine that with the fact that these drugs are often forcibly administered. Now do you think there are cites for them being used as torture?
Not liking the insults.
Side effects are generally comparatively rare. You’d do better to inflict harm by drugging someone with something that specifically causes the desired effect instead of offering them a therapeutic drug and hoping they feel yucky accidentally.
You could link to any listing of side effects for nearly any medication and claim that clearly it’s intended to do harm to the person taking it. Heck, even placebo can cause side effects, including ones targeted to the type of malady the person suffers, such as tachycardia in heart patients.
So, no, that’s not supportive of antipsychotic drugs being used for torture at all.
Could you, perhaps, give an example of governments that met this criteria? Particularly where the number of governed was larger than could gather in one place?
That’s precisely my problem. We’re in the process of dismantling things like right to privacy, transparency (which was already vastly insufficient to begin with), accountability (ditto) , due process even, in the name of heightened security. Our model of society seem to be turning away from democracy and looking with envy toward police state.
Well, then, since the surveillance state didn’t work in any of those cases, obviously it needs to be removed and replaced. I’m glad we’re on the same page here.
I have no problem with them collecting the data, but reviewing it seems to have crossed the* need a warrant* line.
You say that as if democracy and security were mutually incompatible.
I think this is also naive! 
Yes. The government isn’t an otherworldly entity. It is made up by humans. Humans who say “Hey, I don’t mind if they look into my computer if they can prevent an attack”. So of course they are doing it for your protection. Whether they are successful or not is another question
Not really. Different times. Its irritating, but ultimately I don’t spend any time worrying about it or protesting it. If I can do absolutely nothing and expend no effort, then sure, I would change the situation. But it doesn’t rise to that level for me
There’s a happy medium between completely open libertarian-style society and police state that we can travel to without being overly worried that things will fall in one extreme or the other. Maybe, given technology’s advance, we’re past the point where a person can simply disappear off the radar. There are too many cameras, microphones, and recording devices not only in the hands of the government but being used by millions of people that your concept of privacy needs to change, we can’t be stuck in the past. I see technology as the biggest factor in this progression because it’ll be easier and cheaper to sift through more and more data. And if it prevents one attack, somebody out there, possibly family members or elected officials of someone who was hurt in an attack is going to ask why we aren’t using it
Not removed. They have been replaced with even more severe intrusions. The logical result of failing to prevent an attack isn’t to dismantle the security apparatus to make it easier for the next attack. Its to reform security so that the next attack would be harder by being even more intrusive. Somewhere out there, there is a perfect point where intrusiveness is balanced by security. Who’s to say we’re close to that or not? Maybe we need to let domestic spying be even more intrusive, or less, but who’s to know?
If "if"s and "and"s were pots and pans, there’d be no trade for tinkers.
[QUOTE=Abraham Lincoln]
How many legs does a cow have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it so.
[/QUOTE]
Been there; done that; didn’t work.
[QUOTE=Albert Einstein]
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
[/QUOTE]
Then maybe we need to be more intrusive? Also, considering that no big attacks have happened is perhaps proof that some of it has worked.
Einstein would disagree with you that we are doing the same thing. Did we have some of the more intrusive aspects of the NSA monitoring 12 years ago? Has technology stayed static? Of course not! One can easily draw a conclusion that it is working and that we weren’t intrusive enough in the past
That is what has been tried and failed. To suggest more of the same indicates… well, Einstein said it, I didn’t.
I await the argumentative marathon (hopefully less explosive than the Boston one conducted under the modern surveillance regime) you offer in support of this… shall we say “counterintuitive”… conclusion.
Oh, BTW, have you had an MRI lately?
That doesn’t make logical sense. You’re essentially saying that, because a set of stairs was not high enough to reach a platform, and adding one more stair still doesn’t make it high enough, then it means that no matter how many stairs are added, it will never be high enough. That is false. Eventually, if we get up all our freedoms, we can have almost an entirely foolproof nation, we just don’t want to go that far. However, adding more security, ie. more stairs, will help us to reach that goal even if a singular security apparatus would be insignificant
I’m not going to argue with you in the way you expect me to. There is a degree of security we can get by giving up a set amount of rights. It follows that we have different tolerances to what is acceptable. You simply see any more restrictions on your rights as an exaggerated North Korean nightmare while I don’t believe we’re nearly that far along
I am aware that lists of side effects often appear worse than they really are, but this case is different: in that article, and elsewhere, you will find cites to them significantly reducing brain volume (a universal effect, not a rare side effect) and causing akathisia, tardive dyskinesia and the life-threatening neuroleptic malignant syndrome at far higher rates than would be permitted for any other type of drug. Of course, causing someone great suffering with forced medication is life-threatening anyway: they are more likely to commit suicide. There are also many reports of psychiatrists continuing treatment despite blatant harmful effects; or dismissing as delusional reports of subjective harmful effects. The harmful effects of these drugs (and other psychiatric treatments) are so common, cause such anguish, and have been so heavily concealed by the medical establishment, that it is quite clear: they are intended for torture, and they are used for torture.
It would be difficult to give historical examples, wouldn’t it! I think it true nonetheless, and perhaps oral histories may tell of some. The early Roman empire and Han dynasty China certainly did those things far less than is done today, while governing many millions.
Hey just wanted to bump this to clarify some things. When I posted this:
I did not mean to imply that I hated western culture or the people of western countries. As I said, I hate western governments, and the reason I hate them is because of their corruption. If you don’t know what corruption is, look it up in the dictionary. If they stop being corrupt, I won’t hate them anymore.
Also, when I said “I will spend every day of my life trying to bring you down”, I did not mean that I would plant bombs, shoot guns or commit murder, and I have no intention of doing things like that. This was really just an empty threat made in anger, after having been stalked by police cars and ambulances through various countries. I do hope to bring down corrupt governments through words, logic, science, music, art and love, though.
I think the people of my society think I am a terrorist, and I guess writing things like this, and my government reading them, contributes to that. Also, I think the ISIL stuff which came along after this thread has kind of re-contextualized these words, to make them sound like those of a terrorist. I think that ISIL is a group that is told what to do by the CIA or someone, I don’t think it’s a real thing, and maybe they actually used some of my ideas to concoct the lie. I am not a terrorist. I am just a guy that has chronic fatigue syndrome and plays viola and like to think the things he’s not allowed to think.
The city I live in I have lived in for most of my life, and am from the same ethnicity and culture as most of the inhabitants, but just because I appreciate other cultures, and think dark people are just as good as white people, and speak up about corruption, I am considered suspicious and dangerous. They won’t let me have friends or have a girlfriend. I text-messaged a young woman I have a romantic interest in some feminist stuff, saying she didn’t have to do what men told her, and now my mother has stolen my phone. I think they think I am going to “steal their women”.
So, there’s one example of what incredible misery the terrorism lie is causing, and I ask for it to end.
Need to rewrite.