And now the continuation:
GF:
You've become tedious. I have made the distinction between CCTC and direct link police-state surveillance.
Your inability to comprehend is not my fault.
Also, your tedious quibbling about CCTV does not address Jamie Scott's endorsement of increased police-state surveillance. You MUST be cognitively impaired.
How can Jamie Scott be an anti-statist AND a fascist? Simple: pander to the fear and vanity of the masses by attacking the state and then substitute your new order based on your definition of "truth." Study the history of the demagogue.
You really aren't much of a challenge. Witness your inane attempt at wit: "As you keep moving the goalposts, I still keep making touchdowns."
What "goalposts" are you talking about?! Go on and praise yourself all you want: nobody else will.
My Response:
-What "goalposts" are you talking about?!
Culled from your previous posts:
You start with the vague assertion that Mr. Scott does "endorse police-state surveillance", with no definition or detail.
In your next post, you flesh it out more by equating police state status to "a live link between store cameras to police departments" and then go on to establish what weight it should have without qualifying it by stating "Robberies are one thing, but police-state surveillance is infinite;y worse". Then you expand your accusation without supporting detail to say "Jamie Scott is dangerous and undemocratic."
In response to the to the fact that is requires willing participation (business owners) and is confined in scope (to the place of business) you said "Optional, shmoptional!" Ignoring that in a true police state, surveillance is mandatory and controlled by the state.
The live link is controlled by the business owner, from page 7 "If there is a hold up, then a button on the floor triggers a red screen at the detachment and the crime is recorded while the units are dispatched." Not only is this surveillance not mandatory, the control resides with the citizen, not the state.
You then make a superfluous negation of the equivalence of CCTV and live links with "CCTV is not directly hooked up to police stations", when the only significant difference is the "when", not the who(is being filmed), what(actions are filmed), where(is the filming taking place), why(are we doing it) and how(is it being accomplished).
You then go on to give detail as to why one's ability to commit a crime should have more weight than one's ability to deter it by saying "I value my privacy and civil rights".
You then accuse Mr. Scott of hating government and politicians by saying "Scott builds a political platform around hatred of government and the demonization of politicians."
-"The issue is not CCTV,... INSTANT connections to the police... Jamie Scott endorses a police state".
You again reiterate that it is the live link that gives the camera's it's police state status then 'ipso facto', Jamie Scott endorses a police state, when it had already been demonstrated that there is no qualitative difference between CCTV and a live link, the thing that you are predicating your entire argument on.
-"This IS a black-and-white issue: the POLICE have no right to spy on me ANYWHERE."
You then make the absolute statement that this is a black and white issue. Police are also citizens, any right extended to a citizen is automatically extended to the police. The right does not disappear because he represents a government authority. Also any right granted is not unlimited, you have no absolute right to privacy, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy (for instance, in your home, on your property, in the bathroom).
-"You've become tedious."
So now I've become tedious. Whereas you are arguing absolutes and wishful thinking, I am arguing reality, which you have little defense. I've given you every opportunity to prove that the law surrounding the issue is 1) non-existent 2) incorrect and you have done neither. I suspect you find it tedious because you might have to do some work, rather than fend off these arguments with your usual diet of insults and disdain.
Look how you've changed what I asked in this last statement:
"How can Jamie Scott be an anti-statist AND a fascist? Simple: pander to the fear and vanity of the..."
When I clearly asked how can one endorse a police state and be anti-statist? How can one endorse a state, but oppose the idea of a state? You went ahead and substituted "fascist" for "police state" so you could answer the question without looking like a fool for saying what amounts to an oxymoron. Even you acknowledge in your answer that it amounts to replacing one state with another state, not no state.
In Summary:
You accuse Mr. Scott of endorsing a police state, hating government, being undemocratic and being an anti-statist.
You base this accusation solely on the live link between business owners and local police detachments, control of which rests with the business owners.
You failed to show a significant qualitative difference in the live link vs. CCTV (refer to the who, what, when, where, why, and how), but you continued to hold on to this notion till the end ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
You failed to show how a voluntary agreement entered into by two parties advances the police state, as no additional powers are granted to the police, nor are any additional rights restricted for the citizens.
You attempt to bolster support by declaring your right to privacy as absolute, which does not exist in law.
You ignore the law surrounding the matter.
GF:
Have you noticed that the more you write the more ridiculous you look? Obviously not.
You spend far too much time puffing yourself up and manufacturing credibility for your buddy Jamie.
Anyone reading this exchange knows what a frothing loon you are.
I have shown time and again that Jamie Scott endorses police-state security.
You think it's no big deal. The rest of us beg to differ.
Yawwwwwwwn! I have better things to do than teach you lessons in honesty and logic.
My Response (which was flagged probably because I hurt his ego):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:2012-02-13 16:29:54
PostID:2850236178
Title:(politics) Rex9: Jamie Scott
-Have you noticed that the more you write the more ridiculous you look?
Says the failure.
-You spend far too much time puffing yourself up and manufacturing credibility for your buddy Jamie.
I don't need to puff myself up, you do a wonderful job for me.
-Anyone reading this exchange knows what a frothing loon you are.
I'm quite confident that isn't the case and will stand by this exchange.
-I have shown time and again that Jamie Scott endorses police-state security.
You did no such thing and that is your problem. Talk about a frothing loon!
-You think it's no big deal. The rest of us beg to differ.
Who is the "rest of us"? The silent majority? I've only heard from you and Mr. All Caps. He was about as convincing as you are and he wrote waaay less.
-Yaaaaawn! I have better things to do than teach you lessons in honesty and logic.
Of course you do. Par for the course; you offer nothing and when challenged you then run away. Perhaps if you read more from the library and read less of your own hype we could someday have an interesting discussion. Until that day.
GF (does he sound alittle hurt? Also notice how he truncated the entire message except for the first part, this becomes a tactic he employs later):
Rex9: Jamie Scott
Date: 2012-02-13, 4:29PM PST
-Have you noticed that the more you write the more ridiculous you look?
Says the failure.
------
Really? This is the level of your ability to argue?! Wow! You and Jamie Scott deserve each other.
I'll let others on this forum put you in your place. You clearly have conceded defeat, and I have better things to do.
My Response:
-Really? This is the level of your ability to argue?! Wow! You and Jamie Scott deserve each other.
I find that with you it doesn't matter what level one argues, you respond the same way, with patronism and disdain. My plan, as always, is to expose the flaws in your argument then wait for the eventual tirade in which you throw a tantrum. Mission accomplished.
-I'll let others on this forum put you in your place. You clearly have conceded defeat, and I have better things to do.
I am willing to discuss with anyone. You are more interested in trading bon mots than discussion which I am game for as well, but you have clearly given up. Declaring victory and running away doesn't make it so.
This ends our first exchange, but it starts up again shortly.
No comments:
Post a Comment