• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Project M Social Thread Gold

Empyrean

Empyrean

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
2,604
Location
Hive Temple
NNID
Arnprior
Now I understand why hylian used this avi for 9 years. It's ****ing great ayyyy, and negative matches exceedingly well with the pm theme
 
Jaedrik

Jaedrik

Man-at-Arms-at-Keyboard
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
5,054
Comeback Kid said:
You made the argument you are ok with the logical consequences of your ideology, you took that extra step that I never forced you into. Stop assuming I meant any more than what I said.

Posting links this way and that is fine and good, but nobody should be expected to make your arguments for you and pick up the slack. If you can't explain your position logically, in as few paragraphs as is possible to make your point, then it isn't the job of everyone to take seriously every possible position taken by pseudointellectual lightweights on the internet. It is a time consuming process so make it snappy.
Click to expand...
I made no such argument.
My stance is that that is not the logical consequence of my ideology. I was attempting to point out that it should be obvious that we don't view it as the natural consequence, and that you by calling me names were closing yourself off to any discussion to the contrary.

Anyways, the principle of the viewpoint that "it's okay to violate privacy if it stops terrorism", is that it is okay to violate the natural right to not be coerced into sharing information if it stops someone else from performing morally illicit acts. Since it is impossible to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent without violation of the innocent, and thus making the violating party guilty of something morally illicit in and of itself, then it should not be done under any circumstance. One cannot be sacrificed for the sake of many. Nothing can ever justify something that is wrong.
But, that's a little silly to say, since killing is wrong, yet killing in self defense is right. Well, any confusion that arises from this is not properly understanding the distinction. Killing, in and of itself, is not right nor wrong. Killing must be qualified before a moral judgement may be passed. As to the why one is wrong and the other is right, we enter into the language of natural law and all its provisions.
Violation of privacy is wrong, for example, exactly because it is impossible to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent until the requisite information is garnered, and thus has a reasonable risk violating innocent persons' right to resist the use of force.

On to the 'practical' question, then. There is no proof that the observance of the public by, say, the NSA has indeed stopped any terrorist plots, besides their assertions, which they won't back up by revealing their information to us. That being said, it is not difficult to conceive of a surveillance industry being useful in this regard, and I'm willing to bet that the NSA actually has stopped some of these activities. Let's grant that the NSA were justified in its violation of the natural right. Then, from a practical point of view, it's also safe to assume that bad people can become in control of the NSA. Let's say that these bad people use the information garnered by the NSA to do other things which are bad, say, murder the person who his wife cheated on him with. On a practial level, it can easily be expanded to all other sorts of oppressive tendencies. Say the NSA uses their information to systematically blackmail the political opposition of the part in power? Or, perhaps, if the NSA were to use its information to slaughter the people of said political opposition?
Granted, these are extreme cases, yet they have been carried out in the past by authoritarian regimes. The point is that a warrant to do things which other people are not allowed to do is a serious moral hazard on a practical level.

Edit: More to the point, what if I said that I could go back in time and kill Stalin (who actually used the above mentioned extreme examples to the tune of 26 million deaths) as he was a baby? Sure, he has the potential to become evil, but at that point he is not actually evil, yet I have an absolute certainty that he will do it if I don't interfere? Of course I'd not be justified in killing him! People can't be guilty of crimes they haven't committed, ignoring all the logical impossibilities and paradoxes that come with time travel and dealing with human action (free will and all that stuff). To say that thousands will die if we don't violate the privacy of millions is a ridiculous claim, seeing how difficult it is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone will do something until they actually do it. And that's not to say that intending to do something bad isn't wrong. Then there's also the fact that they may actually find nothing, or that their information may be inaccurate, they'd have no justification from their point of view that way.

Thanks for the reassurance on posting links. I know I can't expect people to make my arguments for me, or to read the things I post. I can explain my position, but I fear it would just be paraphrasing my sources, so why not give credit where it's due and point to the source? Besides, I think they'd do a better job anyways.
 
Last edited:
KayB

KayB

Smash Master
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
3,977
Location
Seoul, South Korea
In other news, port priority affects Fox ditto chain grabs in melee in which the player with the higher port priority is able to do more chain grabs against the other player.

The reverse 20XX
 
Bazkip

Bazkip

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
3,136
Location
Canada
Though actually this is rather strange because this exact same scenario is how my whole Mudkip thing got started way back, on deviantART.

I guess this is my life now.
 
Comeback Kid

Comeback Kid

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
2,431
Location
Parts Unknown
MonK4 said:
I made no such argument.
My stance is that that is not the logical consequence of my ideology. I was attempting to point out that it should be obvious that we don't view it as the natural consequence, and that you by calling me names were closing yourself off to any discussion to the contrary.

Anyways, the principle of the viewpoint that "it's okay to violate privacy if it stops terrorism", is that it is okay to violate the natural right to not be coerced into sharing information if it stops someone else from performing morally illicit acts. Since it is impossible to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent without violation of the innocent, and thus making the violating party guilty of something morally illicit in and of itself, then it should not be done under any circumstance. One cannot be sacrificed for the sake of many. Nothing can ever justify something that is wrong.
But, that's a little silly to say, since killing is wrong, yet killing in self defense is right. Well, any confusion that arises from this is not properly understanding the distinction. Killing, in and of itself, is not right nor wrong. Killing must be qualified before a moral judgement may be passed. As to the why one is wrong and the other is right, we enter into the language of natural law and all its provisions.
Violation of privacy is wrong, for example, exactly because it is impossible to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent until the requisite information is garnered, and thus has a reasonable risk violating innocent persons' right to resist the use of force.

On to the 'practical' question, then. There is no proof that the observance of the public by, say, the NSA has indeed stopped any terrorist plots, besides their assertions, which they won't back up by revealing their information to us. That being said, it is not difficult to conceive of a surveillance industry being useful in this regard, and I'm willing to bet that the NSA actually has stopped some of these activities. Let's grant that the NSA were justified in its violation of the natural right. Then, from a practical point of view, it's also safe to assume that bad people can become in control of the NSA. Let's say that these bad people use the information garnered by the NSA to do other things which are bad, say, murder the person who his wife cheated on him with. On a practial level, it can easily be expanded to all other sorts of oppressive tendencies. Say the NSA uses their information to systematically blackmail the political opposition of the part in power? Or, perhaps, if the NSA were to use its information to slaughter the people of said political opposition?
Granted, these are extreme cases, yet they have been carried out in the past by authoritarian regimes. The point is that a warrant to do things which other people are not allowed to do is a serious moral hazard on a practical level.
Click to expand...
So you are against the entire concept of investigating likely criminal activity because a few innocent people might be unfairly looked at? Even if strong safeguards were put in place? Associating regularly with criminals and terrorists is already a sketchy thing, since those individuals provide not only moral support but also bankroll their operations. And proving this often requires you to look into their finances aka spy on their privacy. How you prove ANY crime often involves some kind of spying.

Mob bosses and gang leaders were most definitely put in jail thanks to police investigations where phones were tapped and their operations spied on by informants/undercover police officers.

I'm very, very happy those people aren't allowed to run free committing their conspiratorial crimes thanks to your very misguided principles. Even the most cursory logic makes this apparent.
 
Lizalfos

Lizalfos

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
3,483
Location
Greenville, SC
The_Wind_Waker_Movie_Poster_8.jpg

This is a thing.
More info
BUT WHO IS TINGLE?
 
Last edited:
WolfieXVII ❂

WolfieXVII ❂

stay woke
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
10,791
Location
Hall of Fame
NNID
tresxvii
3DS FC
4699-5598-8215
Lizalfos said:
View attachment 40614
This is a thing.
More info
BUT WHO IS TINGLE?
Click to expand...
Wait, seriously? :00
Naw that cast is too perfect
 
Last edited:
B.W.

B.W.

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
2,141
Location
Darien, IL
Lizalfos said:
View attachment 40614
This is a thing.
More info
BUT WHO IS TINGLE?
Click to expand...
Miyamoto.
 
Jaedrik

Jaedrik

Man-at-Arms-at-Keyboard
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
5,054
Comeback Kid said:
So you are against the entire concept of investigating likely criminal activity because a few innocent people might be unfairly looked at? Even if strong safeguards were put in place? Associating regularly with criminals and terrorists is already a sketchy thing, since those individuals provide not only moral support but also bankroll their operations. And proving this often requires you to look into their finances aka spy on their privacy. How you prove ANY crime often involves some kind of spying.

Mob bosses and gang leaders were most definitely put in jail thanks to police investigations where phones were tapped and their operations spied on by informants/undercover police officers.

I'm very, very happy those people aren't allowed to run free committing their conspiratorial crimes thanks to your very misguided principles. Even the most cursory logic makes this apparent.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. I am against the illicit investigation of likely criminal activity. There is a huge difference between 'unfairly' and 'wrongly'. If evidence is obtained by morally illicit means, then the obtaining parties must be subject to punishment in due proportion. Again, evil can never be justified by using it to stop a greater evil. If the safeguards are so strong as to make beyond reasonable doubt the fact that no innocent person would be violated, then it is acceptable, but mind it must be proven that they would only be investigating people who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then it becomes utterly redundant, since it is already proven at that point they are guilty.

But, say, if an undercover cop is invited into a high profile mobster meeting, that is, if they are not violating the property rights of the mobsters by being there under the mobster's consent (until, of course, they prove that the property isn't legitimately theirs, therefore can enter with the approval of the legitimate owners, who if cannot be found, then it is the natural right of the cop to enter), then they can utilize any information obtained legitimately.

You may not be okay with conspiratorial criminals committing crimes, and I'm not either, but I'm certainly not okay with institutionalized evil, aka those crimes committed against the natural law by the 'authorities'. They're the only ones running free in full approval of society.
 
Last edited:
Jaedrik

Jaedrik

Man-at-Arms-at-Keyboard
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
5,054
Lizalfos said:
View attachment 40614
This is a thing.
More info
BUT WHO IS TINGLE?
Click to expand...
Fantendo
No sources
Can't find it anywhere else on the internet.

IT'S A LIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
 
Saito

Saito

Pranked!
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
3,930
Location
Anywhere but Spain
NNID
Vairrick
3DS FC
1719-3875-9482
literally right on the main page of Fantendo
DISCLAIMER: This is a fanon wiki, meaning that its contents are created purely from the imaginations of its users. These articles do not depict actual games and should not be treated as if they do.
Click to expand...
Check your imagination privilege.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom