Sanity
Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
You seem to know a lot about schizophrenia, joe
Not to hard to look up on the APA's DSM 5 on the understanding of schizophrenia, Sanity.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
(BTW, you answered my post twice, utilizing two completely different personalities)
There is having a one track mind, then there is 'studying a concept from several viewpoints'. 'Group Think' is caused when people look at something and have the inability to consider alternatives. Even when the path they are on is proving destructive or impassible. Having someone that points out alternative, yet logical and/or informed directions helps.
You do have a bad habit of considering only one path before, during and at the end (with mental/emotional roadblock) on a subject matter. Even when others concern alternatives, you 'stay the course'. That is obsession. But your not quite obsessive with things. Its more of developing concepts that are just not part of rational thinking. That "...all cellphones are being tracked [by the government]..." when I pointed out the more likely reality that is dynamically very hard to achieve even with current technology if not impossible or improbable.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
I did some checking and I was in fact mistaken about centralized medical records, were not there yet. Thats just a gleam in socialists' eyes at this point
Centralized medical records (if your using the 'liberal' understanding) means a hub local to the individual. Meaning if you live in one town; those records would either be within a short driving distance of you or at a the closest medical facility. That's sort of a pre-90's understanding before the internet allowed the possibility of records being kept in a more centralized and guarded location. Right now, someone can access your complete medical history....
....From China and India.
Do you really want someone from outside the United States being able to have that level of easy access to your medical file? I could understand if you were involved in a deadly accident while on vacation in another country. But why should your doctor have to access those records from a database in China? Do American servers suck that much?
Likewise I would like access to such information being restricted only to my primary physician and anyone else they alone feel should/need access to it. Not some guy in another state trying to sell me some medical equipment....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Youre wrong about your Google history though, and other web activity. Google the corporation stores the data and it is therefore accessible
Further,
quote:
In an interview with the Atlantic almost five years ago, the search empire’s dark lord himself, Eric Schmidt, said, “Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.” He said, “I would argue that implanting things in your brain is beyond the creepy line … at least for the moment until the technology gets better.”
Then things got even creepier when Schmidt said, “We don’t need you to type at all because we know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less guess what you’re thinking about.” Then he paused and asked, “Is that over the line?”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2015/04/20/why-google-is-new-evil-empire/
This latest 'crazy' comes from an organization that typically lies and publishes misleading information. An you believed them at face value? On one hand you dont trust a government organization at all (i.e. the US Government); yet give another government organization that has little to no responsibility of being held fully accountable and responsibility for any and all of its actions/miss actions towards you (i.e. FOX)?
While your slamming google much the way FOX is doing; remember that many conservative and libertarian think-tanks and organizations use that information too. Including conservative and libertarian individuals whom are not part of some organization. Doesn't it sound pretty hypocritical of a conservative/libertarian whom is against how Google does things, uses Google to search for information about someone else in conjunction with pushing a conservative/libertarian ideology?
If its not "OK" for anyone to do it, then its not 'OK" for conservatives and/or libertarians whom are bitching about it, to do it either!
You dont want companies to track where you go to? Join with the liberals in passing laws that restrict that flow of information and data collection. Of course you would be at sharp odds with the 'profit-demanding' GOP....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Anyone who cares to do a little checking will find that Google is very powerful, leveraging its dominance for illegal financial gain, it is in bed with certain politicians...
As for cell phones:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fbi-releases-cell-phone-tracking-for-dummies-plus-4999-redacted-documents
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/4771117/cell-phone-tracking-to-solve-crimes
These are just a few of the things we know about, and my concern isnt so much about where we are at now, thats just you trying to slime me with your 'paranoia' accusation. Your typical far left fallacious debate tactic of appealing to emotion
My real concern, as opposed to your straw man construct, is where we are going.
An where are we going oh Mr. Prophet?
Do you not understand that there are quite a few liberal organizations and groups of people that debate this stuff? Even before the concept of cloning was placed on mainstream media, it had been talked about for years in the academia and liberal circles. Technology is rising at a rate higher than the concept of "this is good, but how do we use it fairly, ethically, morally, and within the US Constitution'. And well beyond Congress's ability to react in an intelligence and informed manner.
One of the current concepts I've been studying is "as technology allows for more efficiency over human workers; what do we do with the inevitable unemployment rising?" The question comes from the starting point of "is it a requirement for people to be working thanks to technology' and "Isn't technology suppose to make life easier on people's life schedule?'. In about 10-30 years, we will see more and more people in the unemployment line because some computer can handle their job performance. There are computers that can operate heavy machinery to replace railroad tracts. Something that would take hundreds of workers weeks for a fifty mile stretch, can now be performed with just twenty in a two week period.
Imagine how long it would take us to create a pyramid found in Egypt with modern technology and equipment? Would take at most 100 workers a few weeks to accomplish. An that's taking into account the manufacturing of blocks, transportation, storage, usage, and placing of blocks. And that new pyramid would be built to withstand earthquakes and every other weather phenomenon known to mankind. Not to mention more efficient use of the space within with lightning, air circulation and internet hook up. Do the pyramids in Egypt have internet?
This sort of stuff is not being talked about by the general public yet, Sanity. So what your getting at is not a new concept. Its been debated for easily fifteen years now. It comes down to the 'haves' verse 'have nots'. In this particular case its 'the mighty corporations and profit' verse 'everyone whom is not a shareholder or corporation owner". And those corporations have the majority of power even though they are outnumbered 100,000 to 1 numerically by an individual count. That should show you just how much political power the average American has verse corporations.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
And this isnt directed at you joe, because you seem to be so ideologically driven that you are incapable of understanding many basic things such as this. This is for others who may be reading... More intelligent people, and others who may be reading. The lurkers...
Perhaps I understand all to well, because it was a 'new topic' like five to ten years ago to me.
But I'm amused by your 'Pot calling the Kettle Black' reference....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Look at the timeline of things. Not so long ago, my fathers' generation, if you made a serious mistake in your life you could move to another area and start over with a clean slate
Which is what many criminals did. Just moving from place to place while attacking the good citizens.
You can still do this, but would have to move to another nation entirely. Like Somalia....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Now days everyone is assigned a number, the feds want your DNA on record, and facial recognition technology is poised to permanently delete any remaining hope of a little anonymity
An yet, there has been a debate on both concepts in liberal circles for about twelve years now....
Should go visit MIT if you really want to be scared shit-less on 'whats on the horizon'. Like any technology, Sanity, it has a good and evil purpose. I think we all want the good purpose while heavily restricting if not banning all together the evil stuff. Imagine a million nano-sized bots that could enter the human brain and repair damage tissue at a molecular level? Or help the brain produce more serotonin to help clinically depressed people? Or further understand how to treat or cure many afflictions of the human mind and body? Those would be good things? Now imagine those same bots being used to turn down or 'off' ones emotional or aggression motivations? You would never think of picking up a firearm for the rest of your life. Sounds pretty sci-fi, doesnt it?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
What do you think Google glasses are about. Recognize anyone, anywhere
Incorporating technology into everyday usage items. What is the Occulus Rift designed to accomplish? How about car that drives itself in a wide network of other vehicles coded to the same traffic system?
Your scared of technology all together. Not in weighing the pros and cons of technology and its usage by people.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
This is where we are at. Not paranoia, reality
An what is reality?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Now as to my concerns, as stated above - where are we going with all of this? I agree that, as long as we can trust our government the current creepy surveillance state is not all that bad. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we are putting bad guys who sell funny looking cigarettes behind bars left and right, hoo fucking ray
Do you actually interact with the government on a common basis? Like visiting the local public library? Going to town hall? Visiting your state capital building? Meeting potential candidates for public office before the election? Even do all this with the Democratic Party? You might find that these people have many rational fears of how government might or might not do something. Yet, corporations are not held to this standard and in many cases can operate outside of it. I find your paranoid rests with government but not with corporations equally. I would venture a guess it has much to do with your background and dealings with people.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
But if our government somehow goes out of bounds, crosses that line into despotism, we are SO screwed. All of the new surveillance technology combined with all of the other power government has, the arms, the control of financial institutions and medical care, prison system, all of the new military grade technology that local police departments are acquiring... There would be no hope of turning things around
Yeah, because when some Republicans try to shut down the whole of the US Government over something petty; I can expect conservatives and libertarians to rise up and protect the nation, right? To make a massive protest over the people they help to elect to government, to not screw with the US Constitution. Because if the US Government was shutdown, your constitutional rights mean shit!
"...the arms...." : Is the government not allowed to purchase weapons to defend the nation from threats domestically and internationally? 'No' would mean we would not have a nation right now. So I will state that 'yes', yes they can have arms for the US Military and many other organizations.
"...the control of financial institutions...": Yes, Republicans reduced a pile load of restrictions and regulations between 2002-2006. This had the direct and dire effect on the US Economy between 2007-2012. Other threads have had a pile load of information explaining it if your curious.
"...medical care...": We the People do not have a say in how medical care should operate in the nation? Since when? Your against the ACA but have never read it completely. You have heard and spoken on here a pile of misinformation and lies pushed by conservative sources (i.e. FOX 'news') over the past few years. I know, because I was correcting all the lies with facts. I knew about policy cancellations two years ahead of when the issue cropped up on media sources across the nation. That's because I read the law and considered what would happen 'down the road'. The access and care in this nation needs to be vastly improved. Those that have read it and aren't a Republican agree: the ACA is a good step in the right direction.
"...prison system...": The government should not have total control of the prison system, eh? So private corporations can incarcerate US Citizens for any number of reasons and held to any sort of punishment they deem fit? That's what your arguing here. That you are 'OK' with some corporation capturing you in the dead of night and torturing you at some prison who-knows-where for years.
I think I have to disagree with you here. That our government, made up of US Citizens, whom are held accountable and responsible with power hold control of our prison system. An that we make a number of improvements on it.
"...all of the new military grade technology that local police departments are acquiring...": Completely allowable under the 2nd amendment. The local police department is a prime example of a modern day "...Well Regulated Militia...". As its purpose is "...the security of the free state". "The right to bear arms" allows said local police department to acquire any and all arms it feels is needed to accomplish the previous two parts.
I'm surprised so many conservatives and libertarians are unfamiliar with the 2nd amendment's actual use. Like the 3rd or 7th. The 2nd applies to militia groups regulated...BY THE PEOPLE...not a collection of thugs with guns whom are not held accountable to anyone for any reason. Police forces acquire gear because the threats they now have to deal with use such military gear against the public. All those rants of "The criminals have guns, so I should have guns" works in the same way with police forces dealing with criminal individuals and/or organizations. What is the main difference between police forces and the individual? We can keep tabs through government on how and why the police operate.
"...There would be no hope of turning things around.": This argument has been in use at every generation since mankind started. We hear about it more often due to the rate of change in technology. The founding fathers were worried of an evil government taking over and ruling with tyrannical might. And for good reason. They could observe that happening in Europe. Fast forward to 2015. Governments big and small could act tyrannical towards US Citizens. So could a cabal of a few very wealthy individuals. Or mega-corporations. Or religious institutions. Or any combination of each of them.
When the majority of US Citizens are engaged in government directly, we see the greatest good of government (which is ourselves) produce good things. When people are lethargic, distrusting, passive, submissive of government, we get bad government. Further the thought of government handling things is deteriorated. Less people follow and obey laws, less regulations are followed, and so on. Now what would a group of individuals gain by undermining the public's view of government? To give the viewpoint that government is evil, tyrannical, not useful, and keep people uninformed of reality. What would those tyrannical people have to gain by that? Its what the GOP/TP are trying to do right now.
Their masters are not you. They want you to be a slave. Making roadblocks to voting is one way to accomplish that. Creating higher levels of mistrust is another. Keeping you uninformed of facts and reality is another. To even having Republicans/Tea Partiers behave like immature children and then 'sell' the idea that all the Democrats do that. Like Wayne La Pierre from the NRA stating President Obama will use an executive order to nullify the 2nd amendment. Anyone whom is intelligent, educated, and sane understand the President cant nullify any of the 27 amendments by an executive order. But to those that are not intelligent, educated and/or sane.....it could happen, right?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Simply an observation, for which someone like joether thinks I deserve to be humiliated
Let's see, how many times has Kirata attacked me on this site? How many of those times did you come to my defense and state Kirata was out of line? "Quite a few" and "None" are the answers. I've told a few of the liberal folks on here to stop attacking one of the conservative or liberterian folks on here. Tell them they are out of line, or attacking the poster and not the position.
You deserve humiliation because your viewpoints are unsound, unintelligent, unreasonable, and just fucking plain silly. Yeah, there are nuggets of good ideas, good thoughts, and good points. For every one of those is like fifteen 'fucked up shit' items. An I have pointed out in the past when you made a good argument. Sometimes I just skipped over it in a thread. Ever notice that I dont quote....ALL...of someone's quote at times? The careful observe has noticed this. They even asked me about it. Like government, you have to pay attention to things.
You are insane, joether.
_____________________________
Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out
|
RE: Dept of Justice unveils $20M police cam program - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread