What do you think is really going on? Let's get a little political here.

I assume you've all heard of the recent Vermont power grid "hacking" story. A few days ago a Vermont utility company found a russian virus on some guy's computer and (part of) the press extrapolated the fact, turning it into a so-called proof of a Russian conspiracy to hack the US power grid... That title was a fucking clickbait, and I just knew it. But not just your average buzzshit clickbait, a serious fucking one this time. When you read the article it became clear: pure bullshit. No evidence whatsoever, all that happened is that they found a regular virus on a random guy's computer, which happens a million times a day everywhere in the world. A few hours later they retracted, a lot of other sites and agencies stated that there was no such thing as a power grid hack attempt. Those media outlets jumped to conclusions to serve their own agenda, it seems.

Now regarding the "hacking" of the US election. Several US government agencies are claiming it's real. Are we being lied to? Are the FBI and homeland security and others all following orders of a higher instance or do they have actual evidence?
So far, they haven't shared much with the general public. Last week they released a document, which I read, but if you read it too you will find that it's absolutely empty of evidence. All it states is "we found some IP addresses in the logs" and "we found a bit of code that was used before". That amounts to nothing at all.

So why do they keep going on about this?
Do you think these agencies have insights they cant share with the public? could they have informants within the russian goverment? that's one of the few things I can think of that they would never be able to reveal. Or maybe it is just more political bullshit... but what's the point? Trump will take office soon and all this Russia crap isn't working. Apparently Trump has something to say on the subject that he will reveal on tuesday or wednesday. I wonder what that may be.

 

[Eightcoins]

Thats pretty much my opinion towards the election

 

[Eightcoins]

okay wtf is this,why did this get posted 4 times
please delete
Thats pretty much my opinion towards the election

 

[TotalInsanity4]

After rethinking the argument I'm having with @TotalInsanity4 (who is still salvageable, we'll make people out of him with some luck) I noticed that I may have come off as a tad unfeeling or unfair and that my position needed some clarification. As I said, I lean on the side of equal opportunity, however I don't believe that Affirmative Action is a reasonable solution to the various problems facing minorities. If we consider blacks as an example specifically, to make my position clearer, the reason why their scores are generally lower and their prospects on the job market without such policies are markedly worse as a result is because they overwhelmingly live in areas of perpetual poverty, in neighbourhoods riddled with crime, they're brought up in broken up, single-parent households and attend terrible public schools with high drop-out rates. Pretending that their performance is better than it really is relative to another person is idiotic - that doesn't solve the root cause of the issue. Besides, those issues don't just affect black people - white, asian or native poor kids perform just as poorly in their future lives. The solution here is better funding for urban development, a stronger police presence to ensure safety, better public education with a stronger curriculum, an increased, not decreased level of requirements for college education and an overall higher level of education in terms of quality. The reason why a college degree has become what a high school diploma used to be isn't because the standards of the job market increased, it's because the standards of public schooling decreased and college degrees started being handed out willy-nilly, ultimately lowering the degree's value. If everyone finishes college then it just doesn't matter - it's just a piece of paper. It is the government's job to address the issues of the public sector and invest in areas of relative poverty, it is not the government's job to treat people unequally based on their colour of skin, sex or other characteristics under the premise that that'll somehow rub off on the rest of their community - it won't. Even with all of those issues addressed by the government, such areas cannot escape the grasp of poverty if the communities themselves do not trigger a change in their culture, which is probably the most important factor here. If the community wholeheartedly believes that it is being persecuted, it will never rise above that. This is not something a government can wave a wand at and fix - families need to instill certain values, children need to be taught to believe in themselves, to believe that they are equal, to believe that they are protected just like everybody else and to believe that their success is in their hands, and it needs to happen at a young age. The United States of America is one of the only countries on Earth that was established with the rights of an individual, not a collective, in mind. It is, and always has been, the Mecca for individuals who want to make their dreams come true through hard work, dedication and entrepreneurship. If you take that cult of the individual away and replace it with various labels translating to "bonus points", you are chipping away the very foundation of the country. The government should create, or at least attempt to create equal opportunities, the government has a responsibility to modernise and invest in run-down areas to catch them up with more prosperous ones, but it should not force an equal outcome upon its citizens - the outcome is up to the individual, always.

For the record, I never mentioned skin color, I was specifically referring to poverty in general. I do appreciate the clarification, though, because it makes your argument seen significantly less heartless. And yes, I agree with most of what you're saying in terms of where funding should go to improve the situation, with the exception of funding for police; before any budget raising goes to them, they need to improve either their training for situations under pressure, their entry requirements, or both

Edit: I also still stand by taxpayer-funded college and healthcare, as well

 

[Lacius]

And you're asking me a gotcha question. The fact that we have the institution of marriage around is irrelevant to the question of whether people should have equal access to it. If you're asking a stupid question when you already know my position, don't be surprised to get a stupid answer. I'll make this easier for you - if you ask me "should everyone have equal access to it?" I'll say yes, by which I mean the legal institution of marriage shouldn't exist, thus nobody should have access to it. That's technically equal access - no access at all, equally across the board. If you want to ask the cartoonish question of whether homosexuals should have access to it just to fuck with me, I'll say "No", because nobody should ever get married, homosexual or otherwise, period. If you're asking for the requirements of marriage then first we need to define the purposes of the union, and then the requirements will form themselves before your eyes.

It's not a gotcha question. It's not a stupid question. It's not a cartoonish question. Given the world we live in, it's the question.

To truly understand your opinion though, I am going to ask a cartoonish question now: If you were a president, governor, etc., and you received a bill on your desk banning opposite-sex marriage but leaving intact same-sex marriage, would you sign it?

People have an equal opportunity of success *under the law* and should not be discriminated *by the state*, the only contradiction you're seeing is rooted in the idea that equality should be enforced with a gun to everyone's temple - an idea I do not share. You *have* equal opportunities *today*. Protections against people not going along with eachother shouldn't exist and you can't force one group to actually embrace another - you're only building resentment. Forcing me to pretend to like someone I can't stomach or else, whatever the reason may be, is punishing me for wrong-think, which is totalitarian. If I'm an employer, I have freedom of choosing who to employ in *my* establishment - you can judge if you want, but you can't punish me. If you don't like the way I run my business, don't do business with me.

I contest the idea that Affirmative Action is there to nullify preferential treatment that'd otherwise exist. The government has no right to be selective in how to treat citizens as we're all supposed to be equal under the law. A private citizen can, which doesn't make it not frowned upon. If you're the Dean of Harvard and you have three SAT score sheets, you should treat them equally - the higher the better, and may the best win. If you dock the score of the Asian kid, keep the white kid's score intact and add a couple of points to the black kid's score, you are a fucking racist, I don't care why you're doing it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

America is having an extremely hard time understanding that you can't fix racism with more racism - "reverse racism" isn't a thing, it's just racism. If you give someone preferential treatment because they're a little browner than everybody else and thus they'll be a good addition to your diverse team, you're playing the identity politics game and you've become exactly what you purport to hate, you just dressed it up nicely.

I understand your points of view, but they are contradictory. If you believe people should generally have equal opportunity but you don't think government should be big enough to step in when people don't generally have equal opportunity, you have to pick which worldview is more important to you since they conflict. In your case, you've apparently picked the latter. I pick the former.

I feel like you are being pretty disingenuous in terms of your argumentation with regards here.

It is completely valid to personally advocate for a certain ideal system yet also be against such policy that would enact such a thing in a certain way or period. To say otherwise is simply foolish. This is because there are countless questions that must be asked such as is such a bill ethical, Constitutionally sound, or productive? It can have the intent of providing a framework such as to end discrimination but it may not pass the other tests.

Now I must say I have no problem with race, gender, or sexuality being used to discriminate in terms of whether it comes to private people and organizations acting in business from a legal or ethical standpoint. Why? Because criteria is purely subjective and people should be free to set it up however they want to as the only opinion that matters is that of the business owner who initiates the steps of the process. This is not to say I agree with such processes but is thier right to do so.

I agree. A person can advocate for a certain point of view with regard to how he or she thinks things should be, and that person can also be against policy conducive to that worldview. That doesn't mean there isn't a contradiction. See above on how a person with opposing worldviews has to prioritize one over the other.

I generally believe people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not violating other people's rights. When a violation of someone's rights occurs, I have to weigh case-by-case whose rights are more important. In the case of a business discriminating against potential employees/customers, I believe the rights of the latter are more important, and that's not even factoring in the historical precedent for the kind of metaphorical dystopia that exists for certain groups of people when that kind of discrimination is allowed to exist. I know we disagree on this. We don't need to rehash this part of the conversation.

 

[Foxi4]

For the record, I never mentioned skin color, I was specifically referring to poverty in general. I do appreciate the clarification, though, because it makes your argument seen significantly less heartless. And yes, I agree with most of what you're saying in terms of where funding should go to improve the situation, with the exception of funding for police; before any budget raising goes to them, they need to improve either their training for situations under pressure, their entry requirements, or both

Edit: I also still stand by taxpayer-funded college and healthcare, as well

Training goes without saying, however I oppose the idea that police officers are out there specifically gunning for black people - they're there because the area is poor, and they're needed there more than anywhere else. I disagree with tax payer-funded college and healthcare because other citizens shouldn't be burdened by your good and bad decisions - the country needs a truly free market solution which would give people choice in terms of education and healthcare coverage, at that point it's up to them to make good or bad decisions on their own. Both fields need to be competitive as well to ensure lower prices and higher quality of service. Those a minor disagreements though, at least we found some common ground.

 

[Deleted member 420418]

I'm not exactly sure about the problem, I honestly think there just trying to kick Trump out.

 

[the_randomizer]

I'm not exactly sure about the problem, I honestly think there just trying to kick Trump out.

People are still upset that Clinton didn't win. If she won, I would be going on my share of diatribes, that's for sure. She was a proponent for that stupid TPP,which would've been a huge violation of our rights (it seemed "innocuous" but there were things they were going to do to the internet and violate many rights and laws to get their way). That's the only real reason I didn't want her elected, not gonna lie.

Criminalizing console modifications, sites like GBA Temp would've been affected by stricter copyright laws, jailbreaking phones would've been made illegal, the list goes on on why the TPP was a very very bad idea.

 

[Lacius]

People are still upset that Clinton didn't win. If she won, I would be going on my share of diatribes, that's for sure. She was a proponent for that stupid TPP,which would've been a huge violation of our rights (it seemed "innocuous" but there were things they were going to do to the internet and violate many rights and laws to get their way). That's the only real reason I didn't want her elected, not gonna lie.

I'm not here to rehash old Trump vs. Clinton arguments from last year, but Clinton was against the TPP.

 

[the_randomizer]

I'm not here to rehash old Trump vs. Clinton arguments from last year, but Clinton was against the TPP.

I thought she was only saying that for the sake of saying it, and would've gone back on her word once she was in power. I've heard she was against it too, but who knows. Politicians, no matter the party, cannot be trusted.

 

[Lacius]

I thought she was only saying that for the sake of saying it, and would've gone back on her word once she was in power. I've heard she was against it too, but who knows. Politicians, no matter the party, cannot be trusted.

Not to be rude, but I can't have a discussion with someone when we start from a position of facts not mattering because one feels like something else is true. Clinton was against the TPP. To say "she can't be trusted when she says that" means we can't talk about it anymore.

 

[the_randomizer]

Not to be rude, but I can't have a discussion with someone when we start from a position of facts not mattering because one feels like something else is true. Clinton was against the TPP. To say "she can't be trusted when she says that" means we can't talk about it anymore.

Whatever you say, I personally couldn't care less about politics anyway. I'll simply leave the thread or something. I still think people are bitter about her losing the election. If she won and others lost, people would still be bitter no matter who won or lost. No one is ever placated.

 

[RevPokemon]

Not to be rude, but I can't have a discussion with someone when we start from a position of facts not mattering because one feels like something else is true. Clinton was against the TPP. To say "she can't be trusted when she says that" means we can't talk about it anymore.

But in the case of Clinton and the TPP her change of opinion was absolute bullshit. By all accounts, her story is extremely contradictory as Tim Lee mentions https://www.vox.com/2015/10/7/9474151/hillary-clinton-tpp-flip-flop . So it is safe to say she clearly supported the TPP much as how Trump supported action in Syria.

 

[Lacius]

But in the case of Clinton and the TPP her change of opinion was absolute bullshit. By all accounts, her story is extremely contradictory as Tim Lee mentions https://www.vox.com/2015/10/7/9474151/hillary-clinton-tpp-flip-flop . So it is safe to say she clearly supported the TPP much as how Trump supported action in Syria.

I didn't want to rehash this conversation, so I'll be brief. The version of the TPP that Clinton rejected during the 2016 campaign didn't even exist when she wrote in her 2014 book that she hoped the TPP would set a gold standard. Even if we pretend she flip-flopped, she was still against the TPP.

 

[RevPokemon]

I didn't want to rehash this conversation, so I'll be brief. The version of the TPP that Clinton rejected during the 2016 campaign didn't even exist when she wrote in her 2014 book that she hoped the TPP would set a gold standard.

The problem with your view is that as Lee stated, the issues that were problematic were already in the "Gold standard" version of the bill and in the case of medical patients actually got better. So because of this, her position is extremely questionable to anyone as Lee showed.

Even if we pretend she flip-flopped, she was still against the TPP.

The issue is about genuinely flip flopping (which can be a good thing subjectively) and saying so to get the voters of which Clinton did.

 

[Lacius]

and saying so to get the voters of which Clinton did.

You can't possibly know that, so I'm even more disinclined to participate in this conversation than I already was.

 

[RevPokemon]

You can't possibly know that, so I'm even more disinclined to participate in this conversation than I already was.

Yes, you can really know that. The realistic options are

1. Agree that the TPP was ultimately not up to her high standards and thus she changed her mind (which as Lee noted is unlikely)
2. She was wrong about the TPP the whole time and it was always bad so now she came out against it (which her remarks imply otherwise)
3. Her policy change was due to get voter support from the left wing of the Democratic Party

So out of those the only one that is not contradictory is the last one.

 

[Lacius]

Yes, you can really know that. The realistic options are

1. Agree that the TPP was ultimately not up to her high standards and thus she changed her mind (which as Lee noted is unlikely)
2. She was wrong about the TPP the whole time and it was always bad so now she came out against it (which her remarks imply otherwise)
3. Her policy change was due to get voter support from the left wing of the Democratic Party

So out of those the only one that is not contradictory is the last one.

Options 1 and 2 are both very likely, despite Lee's points. I'm ending my participation in the conversation here.

 

[Foxi4]

It's not a gotcha question. It's not a stupid question. It's not a cartoonish question. Given the world we live in, it's the question.

To truly understand your opinion though, I am going to ask a cartoonish question now: If you were a president, governor, etc., and you received a bill on your desk banning opposite-sex marriage but leaving intact same-sex marriage, would you sign it?


I understand your points of view, but they are contradictory. If you believe people should generally have equal opportunity but you don't think government should be big enough to step in when people don't generally have equal opportunity, you have to pick which worldview is more important to you since they conflict. In your case, you've apparently picked the latter. I pick the former.


I agree. A person can advocate for a certain point of view with regard to how he or she thinks things should be, and that person can also be against policy conducive to that worldview. That doesn't mean there isn't a contradiction. See above on how a person with opposing worldviews has to prioritize one over the other.

I generally believe people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not violating other people's rights. When a violation of someone's rights occurs, I have to weigh case-by-case whose rights are more important. In the case of a business discriminating against potential employees/customers, I believe the rights of the latter are more important, and that's not even factoring in the historical precedent for the kind of metaphorical dystopia that exists for certain groups of people when that kind of discrimination is allowed to exist. I know we disagree on this. We don't need to rehash this part of the conversation.

I think you already know my answer, you know me enough, but I'll entertain the hypothetical notion of me being governor for a moment and answer anyways. Everything depends on the definition of marriage we accept as valid and codify. If a marriage is supposed to be a union between two people for the express purpose of establishing a family unit and bearing children, homosexual relationships are de facto excluded from that definition for obvious biological reasons, thus I would not sign it as it would be in violation of pre-existing law - that's the case in my home country and I don't have an issue with that. It's a calculated investment of the state that lowers the bar for married couples in terms of taxation, as well as some subsidies for ease of finding a dwelling, with the return being the prospect of new citizen/s. That's not the definition used in the U.S. though, so I have to use the less palatable definition of marriage for the heck of it, which is fine - I can't change that, it's up to the federal government. With that said, I can proceed to the document itself. Marriage and family units are a morality conundrum more than anything else and I believe that it is not the government's job to enforce morality upon its citizens, especially if that entails enforcing your own moral code, which is subjective by definition. I see politicians as public servants first and lawmakers second, thus I would consider my role as one of servitude. Since it's the community that decides its rules of engagement, I would consult with the citizens of the state themselves - launching a survey is simple enough and gives a clear indication of what the people want. If the result was positive, I would sign it happily since my personal opinion is inconsequential - I was elected to represent the interests of my state and my state directly made a decision. If it was negative, I would postpone signing the document and await the reaction of public opinion. If I receive substantial backlash, I would re-evaluate as a mistake might've been made in the polling process. If I don't, I wouldn't sign the bill - that's the will of the people who entrusted me with my position. It's a simple enough breakdown - what I feel about marriage shouldn't have any impact on legislature that gets written into the law. Should the federal government step in and create a nation-wide rule regarding marriage equality, it would be enacted accordingly without question, although I certainly wouldn't be happy with the state stepping in as I'm not a fan of obtuse social engineering.

As for my point of view on equal opportunity, you once again fail to acknowledge the argument that's being made - you see a contradiction where there isn't one. The government should invest in *public* spaces to ensure that opportunities are there, however it has no right to enforce arbitrary moral rules on individuals. There's absolutely no contradiction on my end, rather a conflation of values on your end. You conflate the ideas of equal opportunity under the law and equal treatment by private citizens, to me they're two completely different and unrelated issues. The government should guarantee that there's a road in front of your house and nobody prohibits you from using it because it's a public resource and a part of national infrastructure that all citizens fund and should have equal access to, but it cannot ensure that you'll catch a taxi on that road because the taxi is owned by a private individual and the government has no claim on private property or on the privately operated business. Catch a different taxi. Catch a bus. Be sure to complain to the owner - that driver should be fired if the offense is egregious. I'm sorry that your driver was an asshole, but that's not my fault. This is the exact same case as Johnson's Nazi Cakes - you believe that an establishment should be forced to engage in business with a customer they do not wish to associate with (which I find unconstitutional and a direct violation of freedom of association) because of some magical "social contract" (which is entirely made up and non-binding) whereas I believe that it's entirely up to the owner to provide or refuse any business, the free market provides in either case - Uber and Lyft emerged for a reason. Again, equal opportunity does not entail equal outcome.

You make the argument that such instances should be decided on a case-by-case basis, I don't, because I don't think it's the government's job to force people to co-operate. The government should never be used as a gun pointed at individuals - people are smart and they can govern themselves in small groups very effectively. There's no such thing as someone's rights taking precedent over another person's rights - a right is inalienable. Your rights are not any more or less important than mine. If citizens have freedom of association then they are free to choose who they associate with and if the government interferes and violates those rights, it is breaking its own rules and should be held liable for overstepping its authority.

 

[Lacius]

I think you already know my answer, you know me enough, but I'll entertain the hypothetical notion of me being governor for a moment and answer anyways. Everything depends on the definition of marriage we accept as valid and codify. If a marriage is supposed to be a union between two people for the express purpose of establishing a family unit and bearing children, homosexual relationships are de facto excluded from that definition for obvious biological reasons, thus I would not sign it as it would be in violation of pre-existing law - that's the case in my home country and I don't have an issue with that. It's a calculated investment of the state that lowers the bar for married couples in terms of taxation, as well as some subsidies for ease of finding a dwelling, with the return being the prospect of new citizen/s. That's not the definition used in the U.S. though, so I have to use the less palatable definition of marriage for the heck of it, which is fine - I can't change that, it's up to the federal government. With that said, I can proceed to the document itself. Marriage and family units are a morality conundrum more than anything else and I believe that it is not the government's job to enforce morality upon its citizens, especially if that entails enforcing your own moral code, which is subjective by definition. I see politicians as public servants first and lawmakers second, thus I would consider my role as one of servitude. Since it's the community that decides its rules of engagement, I would consult with the citizens of the state themselves - launching a survey is simple enough and gives a clear indication of what the people want. If the result was positive, I would sign it happily since my personal opinion is inconsequential - I was elected to represent the interests of my state and my state directly made a decision. If it was negative, I would postpone signing the document and await the reaction of public opinion. If I receive substantial backlash, I would re-evaluate as a mistake might've been made in the polling process. If I don't, I wouldn't sign the bill - that's the will of the people who entrusted me with my position. It's a simple enough breakdown - what I feel about marriage shouldn't have any impact on legislature that gets written into the law. Should the federal government step in and create a nation-wide rule regarding marriage equality, it would be enacted accordingly without question, although I certainly wouldn't be happy with the state stepping in as I'm not a fan of obtuse social engineering.

In Scenario 1A, you didn't sign the first bill because of the view that marriage is intended to foster procreation and child-rearing. If a second bill came to your desk banning sterile people, postmenopausal women, etc. from marrying, would you sign it?

In Scenario 1B, you conducted a public opinion survey and hypothetically signed the first bill outlawing opposite-sex marriages. If a second bill came to your desk outlawing discrimination against trans people in matters of housing, employment, consumerism, etc., would you conduct another public opinion survey and then sign the bill into law if the survey came back positive?

Your response to Scenario 1B was a cop-out, so I'm going to offer you another scenario (Scenario 2). There's a proposition on the ballot, and you're just a citizen. The proposition is nearly identical to the bill I described that bans opposite-sex marriage. Would you vote Yes, No, or abstain?

As for my point of view on equal opportunity, you once again fail to acknowledge the argument that's being made - you see a contradiction where there isn't one. The government should invest in *public* spaces to ensure that opportunities are there, however it has no right to enforce arbitrary moral rules on individuals. There's absolutely no contradiction on my end, rather a conflation of values on your end. You conflate the ideas of equal opportunity under the law and equal treatment by private citizens, to me they're two completely different and unrelated issues. The government should guarantee that there's a road in front of your house and nobody prohibits you from using it because it's a public resource and a part of national infrastructure that all citizens fund and should have equal access to, but it cannot ensure that you'll catch a taxi on that road because the taxi is owned by a private individual and the government has no claim on private property or on the privately operated business. Catch a different taxi. Catch a bus. Be sure to complain to the owner - that driver should be fired if the offense is egregious. I'm sorry that your driver was an asshole, but that's not my fault. This is the exact same case as Johnson's Nazi Cakes - you believe that a business should be forced to engage in business with a customer they do not wish to associate with (which I find unconstitutional and a direct violation of freedom of association) because of some magical "social contract" (which is entirely made up and non-binding) whereas I believe that it's entirely up to the owner to provide or refuse any business, the free market provides in either case - Uber and Lyft emerged for a reason. Again, equal opportunity does not entail equal outcome.

I acknowledged your argument more than once. There is, however, a contradiction in your two worldviews. You were able to prioritize one worldview over the other.

With regard to this specific topic, our disagreement boils down to our views on the role of government, and there's not much point in continuing to discuss it. You value small government over people's well-being and equal opportunities, and I value people's well-being and equal opportunities over the concept of small government.

You make the argument that such instances should be decided on a case-by-case basis, I don't, because I don't think it's the government's job to force people to co-operate. The government should never be used as a gun pointed at individuals - people are smart and they can govern themselves in small groups very effectively.

I hope you realize you're forming an argument against having a publically funded police force. A publically funded police force, courts of law, etc. are forms of the government forcing people to cooperate. Police officers, federal officers, etc. literally point guns at individuals.

There's no such thing as someone's rights taking precedent over another person's rights - a right is inalienable.

First, there are very few, if any, rights that are actually inalienable. The universe doesn't care whether or not you have a right to life, free speech, etc.

Second, when I talk about one's rights, I am just talking about one's ability to do something.

Your rights are not any more or less important than mine. If citizens have freedom of association then they are free to choose who they associate with and if the government interferes and violates those rights, it is breaking its own rules and should be held liable for overstepping its authority.

People's rights are in conflict all of the time, and some are indeed more or less important than others. Does Person A's right to play his or her stereo loudly outweigh Person B's right to not have to listen to Person A's loud music? Does Person A's right to free speech outweigh Person B's right to not experience mass panic when Person A falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded room? It's dangerous to dogmatically make absolute statements about rights. Everything has to be taken case-by-case.

There's also no general freedom of association that I'm aware of. I'd need an example of what you're talking about.

 

[RevPokemon]

You value small government over people's well-being and equal opportunities, and I value people's well-being and equal opportunities over the concept of small government.

The issue is that you are assuming this when in his (and mine) view the opposite is true to some extent as the well being of the people is hamper by the trampling of their rights.

People's rights are in conflict all of the time, and some are indeed more or less important than others. Does Person A's right to play his or her stereo loudly outweigh Person B's right to not have to listen to Person A's loud music? Does Person A's right to free speech outweigh Person B's right to not experience mass panic when Person A falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded room? It's dangerous to dogmatically make absolute statements about rights. Everything has to be taken case-by-case.

Well the first issue that must be considered is whether or not it is a right. In the case of discrimination there is no right to not be discriminated against by basis of skin color or sexuality but there is a right to freely associate and also private property rights.

In cases however where there are both legitimate then the agressor is at fault.

 

[pasc]

Hmm. How about we turn this around:

"Yes, they hacked it and tried to help Hilary... but it didn't help enough"

Good, my "j/k post" of the week is now estabilshed.

Bye