>dedicates his life to free software, partially because it can protect your privacy/stop people from collecting your data without your consent
>except if that data is a video of you being raped as a child, CP should be legal for the greater good™, even if the children involve never consented, because it might slightly reduce rapes
So the government recording how often I order from my local pizza place without my consent is too far, but distributing ACTUAL CP without the consent of everyone involved is just fine? Why the fuck do you guys idolize this guy?
>>54674681
[citation needed]
>>54674681
> it can protect your privacy/stop people from collecting your data without your consent
That's not why he dedicated his life to free software.
>>54674681
>Why the fuck do you guys idolize this guy?
it's just a meme relax
>>54674702
Let's not pretend Stallman doesn't care about privacy.
>>54674696
>DR:So is child pornography not a good enough reason to censor the Internet?
>RS:Certainly not, certainly not a good enough reason. There are videos I’ve seen that shocked and disgusted me, but I don’t want to censor them. I do not advocate censorship just because I or you find them disgusting.
>Some people say they want censorship of child pornography because making those movies was a crime. Well that may be so, but not always because sometimes when they say “child” they’re talking about people aged 16 and 17, who in parts of the US can legally get married.
>But forget that lie for a moment. Consider for instance the collateral murder video that also depicts a crime and it was made by the vehicle in association with the people who were carrying out. Should that be censored around the world? I think that when businesses make child pornography and when it involves real sexual abuse of real children, then they’re carrying out a crime and anyone participating in the business of distributing that film is involved in it. So there’s a reason other than censorship to prosecute any of them.
>But those who simply redistribute [child pornography] are in the same position of people who redistribute the collateral murder video. They’re not participating in the crime and there are a lot of films that depict murders except nobody really got killed. And there are a lot of films that depict the harm of animals except none really got harmed so if somebody was really torturing an animal, we would stop it. But depicting that without actually doing it we consider okay…but there’s no need to censor depictions of that.
online_only_richard_stallman_-_no_censorship_good_censorship/
>>54674681
>consent of everyone involved
That's where you are wrong, my SJW friend. It's 2016.
http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/361173/online_only_richard_stallman_-_no_censorship_good_censorship/
God I fucking hate what they did to Androids copy function. Half of the time it only copies half of the URL.
>>54674681
>>54674681
I have no fucking idea why, but I cannot get through the first line of your post.
I really want to, I desperately want to contribute to this thread and somehow call out your bullshit and call you a faggot, but I'm having a really hard time doing that right now.
But fuck it, you're a nigger.
>>54674779
>Well that may be so, but not always because sometimes when they say “child” they’re talking about people aged 16 and 17, who in parts of the US can legally get married.
Well he's right. Age of consent is 13 in japan. Consider this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLfV-bXDFxs
>>54674681
Daily Stallman hate / spam thread?
I'm sure people will stop using Free software if you vilify an important figurehead Pajeet!
>>54674827
But he thinks nothing should be censored. Including the videos of five year olds being raped and all that stuff.
>>54674848
> Including the videos of five year olds being raped
Citation pleasse
>>54674848
Because Information Wants To Be Free
>>54674827
Holy shit I picked the 15 y/o too
>>54674860
>I think that when businesses make child pornography and when it involves real sexual abuse of real children, then they’re carrying out a crime and anyone participating in the business of distributing that film is involved in it. So there’s a reason other than censorship to prosecute any of them.
>But those who simply redistribute [child pornography] are in the same position of people who redistribute the collateral murder video.
He didn't distinguish between 16 year olds consensually having sex and five year olds getting raped.
>>54674848
>>54674890
Why do you need other people to tell you what you should watch?
Oh wait, You just want to tell other people what they can watch.
>>54674716
Of course he cares about privacy. Your initial premise is still false however, since that's just a small side effect of freedom.
>>54674902
Nope, I clearly said partially. As in that's not the whole reason why he cares about free software.
>>54674899
>ou just want to tell other people what they can watch.
Nope. I simply believe that people who did not consent to having their video taken should have it freely distributed on the internet.
>>54674890
He didn't mention 5 years of age either. Nice try
What's with the sudden SJW invasion in /g/?
>>54674911
>I simply believe that people who did not consent to having their video taken should have it freely distributed on the internet.
I also believe in this anon
consent is a dying ideal that will not weather the tide of technology
when cameras are smaller than the eye can see, and high-speed wireless internet is everywhere, perhaps people will finally stop fighting for it
>>54674779
God damn that faggot. I hate him more and more. Doesn't he realize that legalizing the distribution of CP CREATES FUCKING DEMAND, WHICH WOULD DRIVE SUPPLY UP?
It's like he doesn't understand basic economics.
>che poster
>freetard
Oh right.
>>54674899
It's not people telling you what you can or can't watch. It's controlling the supply as tightly as possible.
>>54674918
He doesn't have to explicitly mention five year olds. Child pornography includes everyone from 0 to the age of consent in your jurisdiction. So by saying CP should not be censored, he's implicitly saying he's OK with videos of five year olds being raped distributed on the internet.
>>54674890
>B-But he didn't distinguish the age
You sound exactly like a raging feminist
>B-But they didn't distinguish female quota
>>54674681
>orders pizza often
>wants cp to be illegal
I see a contradiction there
>>54674779
It's more of an exercise in philosophy than an actual stance of "cp is totes okay"
>>54674933
He clearly said the age dilemma of 16-17 y/o. Are you that much deluded?
>>54674937
>You sound exactly like a raging feminist
Jesus Christ have you ever wandered outside of your little ideological bubble on the internet? You realize conservative Christians are probably the most vehemently anti pedo and anti feminist people out there?
>>54674951
He's still a hypocrite for wanting to protect people's privacy, unless it's CP that they didn't consent to being in.
>>54674962
And then right after that, he said "forget that". He thinks that CP should be just as legal as videos of murder and other crimes.
>>54674993
If murder videos are legal why won't a rape video be?
>>54674681
Sounds like he was speaking against censorship.
Not advocating child pornography.
>>54674931
>increasing supply increases the demand
what
there are a limited amount of people who want to look at CP. it's not an "untapped market", people who want it can easily find it.
>>54675010
Issues of consent are nullified with a dead person. Do you think a rape victim wants to live the rest of their lives knowing sweaty neckbeards on /g/ are jerking off to the video of them being raped?
>>54674911
You're still wrong! Privacy wasn't one of the reasons he started the free software movement, that's an issue that has only cropped up later, when people got more and more access to the internet. You're trying to discredit stallman by diminishing his cause to a simple side effect of freedom such as privacy.
>>54674779
>>54674779
he's right.
the solution to stopping CP isn't blocking it on the clear net (it will still get distributed on the deep web anyway), it's to actually catch the pedophile rapists and arrest them.
it's technically illegal in my country (germany) to say things like "heil hitler" out loud in public or wave a nazi flag, but i can still look up images of it on google, or say it on 4chan.
The problem of the kids' privacy extends to any and all nudes, by the way. If i upload a nude picture of my ex girlfriend on /b/, or a sex video of us together on xvideos, isnt that problematic as well? why is the privacy of a random child more important than the privacy of my ex girlfriend? theyre both human beings who had their nudes put on the www without consent. of course you could argue my ex willingly took the nudes, but only under the condition that theyre for me only.
>>54674967
>conservative Christians
The ones lost in an ideological bubble are them
>Believing in """"God""""
>2016
Wow nice, I like memes too
>>54674779
I agree with Stallman. These other faggots read too much between the lines. Of course, rape should be punishable...Stallman would agree with this.
It actually takes more subtle thinking to understand these concepts...
Unlike dumb shit stains like this >>54674931...
..Mr. Obvious I can't look beyond the conventional box because it's more comfortable to not think or even entertain original thought. GO AHEAD! REACT EMOTIONALLY LIKE A FUCKING MORON!!!
YOU GIVE ME CANCER MR. STRAIGHT LACE!
>>54675020
How can you be so naive? There is definitely a huge market for it
>>54675039
>Issues of consent are nullified with a dead person
So the problem is with taking video, not the murder?
Great
>>54675054
You seem to be quite proud of being an economically illiterate idiot. Making distribution legal will increase the supply, meaning more children will be harmed. It's a fact, you cannot argue against it, no mental gymnastics will be enough to reach the opposite conclusion. It's a basic fact, like someone arguing that you won't get hungry if you stop eating.
>>54675058
yes, but it's a market that's already satiated by the fucking shitload of CP that already exists and is constantly being made. making it illegal doesn't stop people from getting it.
>>54675120
Drugs without permissions are not legal but the supply is increasing.
These things do not follow the simple high school rule of demand-supply line, idiot. In real life there are more variables out there
>>54675120
You're not doing a very good job of providing a coherent argument. You don't even define what you mean by `supply.` You don't provide any supporting evidence that legal distribution will necessarily increase the number of children who are harmed. Please remember, we are dealing with trivially copyable goods here, not one-of-a-kind finely crafted pedophilic masterpieces.
>>54675120
maybe the demand for new material is so high because the current material keeps getting deleted?
>>54675157
>yes, but it's a market that's already satiated by the fucking shitload of CP that already exists and is constantly being made. making it illegal doesn't stop people from getting it.
Unfortunately I don't have any proofs because it would be quite hard to do a survey on this issue so this is just 100% my belief and not a fact, but I'm convinced that the majority of pedos will not download cp, at least not nearly as much as they would if distribution were uncontrolled by the government.
>>54674779
but he isnt wrong on any level
>>54674933
>He doesn't have to explicitly mention five year olds. Child pornography includes everyone from 0 to the age of consent in your jurisdiction
No, child pornography includes everyone under the age of 18, regardless of the age of consent. In my state, it's legal to fuck a 16 year old, but sexting gets both of you labeled as sex offenders. Yes, both. If you're a minor and you take naked/sexualized pictures of yourself, that is considered production of child pornography, and you can be prosecuted despite being considered the "victim".
>>54675172
>Drugs without permissions are not legal but the supply is increasing.
Because usually the "criminal" (not that I think using drugs is a crime) isn't faced with any charges, or he gets off with a slap on the wrist.
Try it in Japan, or Korea, or Singapore. If you remove the heavy punishments on drugs the supply and demand would jump through the roof.
>>54675197
You don't know what supply is and you think your argument is worth shit? Please, the adults are talking. Go jack off to loli porn.
>>54675208
No idea, I don't know that much about the cp trade.
>>54675039
I would desu
>>54675049
>Not providing a decent counterpoint, instead just insulting religion
Forget it, OP, you won't find any decent debate here. Or anywhere on the internet, really.
>>54675258
>Because usually the "criminal" (not that I think using drugs is a crime) isn't faced with any charges, or he gets off with a slap on the wrist.
http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ftp3.shtml
>>54675258
Drug dealers and are getting severe punishments and you cannot prevent their ever growing supplies.
In some countries even buying drugs without valid medical prescription is considered serious offense.
>>54675288
Religion is a myth. There is no such things as magic or god. It's 2016, fairy tails have no actual value
If a criminal wants to make evidence proving their guilt and distribute it publicly, shouldn't people who don't like the crime encourage that behavior? The list of people who got caught because they made a video of them committing a crime grows longer every day.
>>54675042
What matters more than why he started it is his current day activism.
>>54675054
>Of course, rape should be punishable...Stallman would agree with this.
Nobody disputed that. The point of the argument is what to do with the video once the crime has been committed. /g/ is full of manchildren who believe they should be able to freely masturbate to those videos, probably because they want to masturbate to girls their own age.
>>54674681
>g
>against cp
get the fuck out, normie
>>54675310
I'm talking about the users, not the dealers. The dealers keep coming because they are usually the dregs of society and there's always people like that willing to make a few quick bucks without regard for the long term. They are replaceable.
If people got the same punishment for smoking weed than they get for having cp, there wouldn't be nearly as many dealers. Most people that you know use drugs, how many of them get punished?
Why can't pedos be OK with drawings and computer animations? Why do they need to fap to actual children being raped?
>>54675074
The murderer is still punished though.
>>54675388
...Wait, so are they manchildren or children?
>>54675389
>2D loli
>cp
Nigga please.
>>54675226
Stop being this America centric. I used "age of consent in your jurisdiction" because the laws vary by country and subnational unit.
>>54674779
I'm done with that faggot.
He has become a caricature of himself
He's the worldwide sjw edgelord of tech.
>>54675431
>sjw edgelord of tech.
How? What does that even mean?
>>54675390
Both users and suppliers get punished moron. Chemist shop won't even let you have any drugs that are remotely powerful without prescription.
>>54675405
So is rape, what's your point? Welcome to the thread
>>54675349
>shouldn't people who don't like the crime encourage that behavior?
You're forgetting that the criminal is not the only person involved in the video. Normal human beings have what is called empathy for the victim who might not want their video of them being raped distributed freely on the internet.
>>54675459
>what's your point?
>>54675074 said that my problem is not with the murder, but it clearly is, it's just not what we were addressing in the first place.
>>54675461
Murder doesn't involve one person as well
>>54674886
we all did anon
>>54675482
But the victim is too dead to care if their murder video is distributed on the internet. That is not the case with CP. Murder victims are dead before the video even hits the internet, CP victims have to live ~60+ years with that shit on the internet.
>>54675480
You implied the consent of filming of the one getting murdered is nullified.
>>54675503
>Too dead to care
Wow should I kill someone and distribute his body mutilation video because he is too dead to care?
So lets say the NSA already has a file with your phone and internet history. Collecting that information was illegal, but they already have it. Would you want the government to delete that information? Or would you want them to keep it because MUH FREEDUMBS DELETING IT IS CENSORSHIP!!
>>54675537
No, you'll go to jail if you're caught doing that. But the video will not being treated as seriously as CP because your victim does not have to live the rest of their life knowing /g/ users are jacking off to it.
>>54675459
>Both users and suppliers get punished
They don't. Users in particular don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country
13.7% estimated weed users.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
6.98 incarceration rate
This means that even if all incarcerations were due to weed, most of them would go completely unpunished.
By the way, look at the % of weed users in developed Asian countries with tough laws on users.
>>54675503
>CP victims have to live ~60+ years with that shit on the internet.
so what
at least their experience, however tragic, is generating some value. People are being made happy because they are able to see the evidence. It is a sad thing that it happened in the first place but there is no undoing it, might as well make the most of what you have
>>54675561
>No, you'll go to jail if you're caught doing that
I'd go to jail if I get caught raping. You are just too dumb to make a distinct point
>>54675566
Do this.
Buy illegal narcotics
Store them in your house
Call DEA
See what happens retard
>>54674681
Because he's a functioning autist pedofile just like 90% of /g/
>>54675587
>People are being made happy because they are able to see the evidence
Yeah but the vast majority of people are unhappy because of that tiny minority that is made happy.
>>54675538
Notice how nobody responded to this? This was literally my whole point. /g/ gets their panties in a bunch when their information is collected without their consent (for good reason), but when CP is brought up, you have multiple pa/g/eets disregarding the privacy of the child.
>>54675598
>Because he's a functioning autist pedofile just like 90% of /g/
Thanks to this thread I realize that's sadly true. These fucktards will go to any length to defend their mental illness, they are no different from trannies or SJWs.
>>54675608
The target audience, however, is happy
>>54675629
I'm sorry no one took your shit argument seriously. Here's your pity (you)
Hint: Not everyone lives in the burgerland
>>54675625
That, too. The mental gymnastics of most people here are unbelievable. Worse than SJWs.
>>54675658
I am quite mad at the fact that people like you exist. On the other hand I take solace on the fact that laws defend people like me and not fucktards like you.
>>54675671
hahaha no need to get this much assblasted now that you don't have a proper argument.
Bye
>>54675689
Not even mad anymore, if anything I'm grateful to you for showing me the truth about this place. Not a stronger redpill than the one you didn't want to swallow.
>>54675461
If the victim is really not consenting, then that victim would want the victimization stopped as soon as possible. Publicly broadcasting the details of a crime has led to the termination of repeated abuse in several cases including this particular crime.
The way the law is set up now, if someone is flooding 4chan with captain picard forwarding those pictures to the fbi for further investigation is admitting to the crime of possessing those photos.
So your supposed empathy for the victim leads to the support of a law that makes it harder for the victimization to be ended. Maybe English isn't your first language. The word empathy means feeling someone elses feels. So if someone is suffering you want that suffering to end. The law you suggest is a result of empathy makes it more difficult to end suffering.
In reality the law is a result of a knee jerk reaction to disgust. It's basically stop liking what I don't like on an international scale.
>>54675756
>It's basically stop liking what I don't like on an international scale
And it's perfectly good to have those laws. Go live in Somalia if you don't like the way civilization works.
>>54675756
No, I actually know multiple rape victims. They definitely would not want their videos on the internet.
You're also forgetting that if it was legal to distribute CP, people who posted it wouldn't be committing a crime the police couldn't arrest them and force them to reveal where they got the CP from. If CP was illegal, anyone that posts it on the internet, if found, could be arrested and forced to reveal where they got it from which is an immense help in catching the perpetrators.
>>54675787
https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it
Lolbertarians will actually defend that.
>>54675756
>It's basically stop liking what I don't like on an international scale.
This.
Porn doesn't hurt anyone, rape does.
You can create porn without rape.
"Age of consent violation" and "Statutory rape" is not rape. They are excuses used by people who think young people have no agency or efficacy.
Any adult will tell you they were perfectly capable of rational decisions about their body and behavior at age 14, 16, whatever. But then they will turn around and defend "age of consent". It's just saying "everyone else is dumber than me and needs hand-holding".
>>54675447
He just resembles the most comically extremist sjws in the way he laboriously sticks together exuses for an immaginary cause which projects a skewed sense of victimhood on criminals who asked for nothing.
>>54675853
>I DINDU NUFFIN IM A GUD BOI CP DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY
It's lovely seeing faggots like you go to jail. Like the Subway scumbag. You're probably too much of a coward to download cp so you wish it were legal.
>>54675900
lmao
>This much buttblasted
Time to check your privilage, tumblrina
>>54675809
>They definitely would not want their videos on the internet
So if they were getting Fritzled they'd rather continue the experience than than be embarassed by having nudes on the internet. There's more going on here than rape. They're retarded too.
>people who posted it wouldn't be committing a crime the police couldn't arrest them and force them to reveal where they got the CP from
The police can still ask where you got it from. It would be just as effective as asking them now. Over an anonymous dark web, officer.
The law doesn't stop the videos from being on the internet. The law keeps it underground and harder to find.
If the people who are against privacy and information freedom because muh captain picard were half as big of advocates of rape victims as they claim to be they would be buying pizza with butt coins and posting screen caps in public places with "if you've seen me contact fbi at <phone number>" But they're not victim advocates. They're people who don't like people who like what they don't like.
>muh libertarians
>muh somalia
nice strawman. If only I had a brain.
>Drawing of a child murderer on the wall
What did he mean by this?
>>54676012
>So if they were getting Fritzled they'd rather continue the experience than than be embarassed by having nudes on the internet. There's more going on here than rape. They're retarded too.
You're missing the point. Would you want the NSA to delete your personal information that they have because it was collected without your consent? If you would want them to delete it, you are a hypocrite who believes it is OK to infringe on people's privacy for the "greater good", except when it concerns you.
>The police can still ask where you got it from.
Not without a warrant. The government is going to be flooded with lawsuits from people who did nothing illegal in this scenario, but are complaining that you have effectively made it legal to spy on pedos (even the ones who never laid a finger on a child) more than other people who also did nothing illegal. What you're proposing inherently has a double standard.
Now tell me, why has not a SINGLE CP defender ITT responded to my point about if the NSA should delete your personal information? Is it because they know they're hypocrites?
>>54676125
>The police can still ask where you got it from.
>Not without a warrant.
This shows how much you know about the legal system. In the US a cop can ask you just about any question any time. If it's not a custodial interrogation he doesn't even have to give you a miranda warning.
>The government is going to be flooded with lawsuits
Do you know how fast you were going? Oh man I'm contacting my lawyer right now. I'm going to be rich. There's no way he got a warrant between the time he turned on his light bar and asked me that question.
>What you're proposing inherently has a double standard.
That doesn't make it wrong. There are all kinds of double standards when it comes to comparing acceptable government and private citizen behavior. What about the double standard that it's okay for the FBI to host a darknet site distributing CP after arresting the owners for doing the same thing with the same exact address? Oh it's okay big brother knows what he's doing.
My main objection to the NSA collecting shit tons of data is the cost. They're using my tax dollars to keep those HDDs spinning and those mainframes intercepting and decrypting data. They should be spending money on HUMINT not SIGINT. We had enough SIGINT to stop 9/11 but not enough HUMINT to connect the dots.
Show me how pizza on a privately owned hdd increases the national debt and then your hypocrisy argument will at least make a little sense.
>>54676307
>In the US a cop can ask you just about any question any time.
But you don't have to answer every question. Probable cause is a very complex issue, they can't just do whatever they want because you didn't answer a question.
>What about the double standard that it's okay for the FBI to host a darknet site distributing CP after arresting the owners for doing the same thing with the same exact address? Oh it's okay big brother knows what he's doing.
Are you really this dumb? You don't see why law enforcement needs special privileges like not going to jail when evaluating evidence in order to determine if someone has committed a crime?
>My main objection to the NSA collecting shit tons of data is the cost.
This is a bullshit cop out and you know that. Life is not all about money. 99% of people are pissed at the NSA mostly because they care about their privacy, the waste of money is a secondary concern. I've never seen a thread on /g/ where the primary complaint about the NSA and "botnets" (that aren't really botnets but are bad, privacy invading things) is not the national debt, but their privacy being invaded.
>Show me how pizza on a privately owned hdd increases the national debt
You've reduced a complex moral issue to if it just contributes to the national debt or not. I think you literally have autism.
>>54674779
>but not always because sometimes when they say “child” they’re talking about people aged 16 and 17
Hes right, 17 year old is considered child porn
And legally pedophilia too (depending on state and country law)
>>54676400
> You don't see why law enforcement needs special privileges like not going to jail when ...
Are you really this dumb. I say that a double standard is not always wrong and give that as an example and you're saying I don't understand it. I specifically chose it because it is in support of your quit liking what I don't like philosophy so we could get over the double standards are bad fallacy.
>But you don't have to answer every question.
That's always the case unless you've been granted across the board immunity.
>Life is not all about money.
The government is though. Everything in the government boils down to money. That's where the double standard for government versus private citizen comes from. I don't tax you to pay for my hard drive so you have no right to tell me what I put on it. The government does tax me to fund the NSA, therefore I have the right to have a say in what goes on it.
Everything in the government boils down to the money. A new law doesn't mean shit if there's no money to enforce it. Ever notice what a big shit storm it is whenever someone decides to shut down the government? Protip: it's not about any moral problem with obstructionism. It's because if they can't get a budget passed they can't give money to the people they want to give money to. Do you think the North had more abolitionists because cooler climates make you more moral? No it's because the industrial revolution had kicked in and the South still had an economy based on agriculture. It's easy to be against slavery when your economy won't collapse without them.
>I think you literally have autism.
First strawmen now ad hominem.
>>54675405
Computer simulations are illegal though, because they can get realistic.
>>54676751
>Computer simulations are illegal though, because don't like what I don't like has nothing to do with the victim.
fixed
>>54676733
>I say that a double standard is not always wrong and give that as an example and you're saying I don't understand it.
And I'm saying that the context makes it not a double standard.
>That's always the case unless you've been granted across the board immunity.
What I was taught in government class in high school on the day the cop comes into class to give a lecture on this stuff, is that you can refuse to answer the questions of the police unless they have probable cause.
>Everything in the government boils down to the money.
No. This is a very one dimensional view of the world.
>First strawmen now ad hominem.
Autistic people think differently than the rest of us. It is a relevant distinction to make during a debate. Autistic people tend to see things in black and white and have less sympathy/empathy for others. It is not worthwhile to talk about morals with people who have a condition limiting their understanding of human emotion.
>>54676751
It depends on your jurisdiction. In most places, sexual drawings of minors are legal.
>>54676733
>Do you think the North had more abolitionists because cooler climates make you more moral? No it's because the industrial revolution had kicked in and the South still had an economy based on agriculture. It's easy to be against slavery when your economy won't collapse without them.
Yeah, many Union officers were as, if not even more racist than their Confederate counterparts. It all came down to economic and political dominance of North on South, the darkies were merely a pretext
>>54676849
Oh, and you didn't even answer my question fully. The government already spend the money on the servers and recorded your info without your consent. We're not talking about future monitoring, we're talking about if they should delete what they already have. So do you want them to delete what they've already collected without your consent, or would you regard that as censorship as you do with CP?
Every time stallman is brought up on his views about pizza. It always turns into a 100+ post thread, what are you hiding anons?
>>54676849
>on the day the cop comes
If cops knew the law we wouldn't need district attorneys with law degrees. Probable cause is what's needed to perform a search and seizure. A subpoena is what's needed to compel testimony and is invalid if the testimony can be used to incriminate you or a spouse. A cop can't make you say shit except practically your name. You can refuse to provide your name but they'll hold you until they figure out who you are if they can make a half ass argument about why you're a suspect.
>No. This is a very one dimensional view of the world.
I'm sorry to red pill you on this but maybe you've heard it before "money makes the world go 'round." Gay marriage, liking the wrong flavor pizza, abortion, intelligent design, etc are all just playing on emotions to get reelected. Politicians only care about 2 things. One is getting money to the people they want it to go to. Two is getting reelected so they can control future money. Notice how they argue and make a big fuss when it comes to any of the get out the vote issues and nothing gets done but when it's time to give the banks a trillion dollars of practically 0 interest loans they all fall in line after whining about it for a few hours just to act like they don't want to.
We live in a world that runs on numbers. Everything in the world behaves according to a mathematical model. I'm sorry if you don't like that but it's true. The government will expend about 3500000000000 dollars this year. There are 435 representatives, 100 senators, 9 scotus justices, and one president who represent the three branches of the organization that controls that money. T
>Oh, and you didn't even answer my question fully.
Yes I did. You're on /g/. If you think systems administer and power themselves, can't be used for something else, or can't be sold you don't belong here. Keeping that data isn't free. It represents real expenditures and opportunity costs.
>>54677328
hat's 545 people with a 3.5x10^12 spending power. That's $6,422,018,348.62 per person per year. How does a person who evolved in a world where survival is largely dependent on the distribution of resources not allow that to dominate their action? Protip they can't. If controlling enough resources feed their entire family for generations didn't trump whatever morals they had, their genes wouldn't have made it this far.
>>54674779
I'm ok with this.
>>54677328
>If cops knew the law we wouldn't need district attorneys with law degrees. ]
They still have to know the law to a certain degree to do their job, or else they'll be shitty cops.
>I'm sorry to red pill you on this but maybe you've heard it before "money makes the world go 'round."
That does not mean it is the sole reason government exists.
>We live in a world that runs on numbers.
Spoken like a true autist.
>one president who represent the three branches of the organization that controls that money.
The president is only one branch of government, he does not represent the other two. I'm sorry you fell for the campaign propaganda where they make it seem like they'll be able to change things about every branch of government, but it simple isn't true.
>Yes I did. You're on /g/. If you think systems administer and power themselves, can't be used for something else, or can't be sold you don't belong here. Keeping that data isn't free. It represents real expenditures and opportunity costs.
This is literal autism. The cost of maintaining your specific data is virtually zero. You also keep ignoring that 99% of people who oppose the NSA primarily do it because they're mad about their privacy being violated, they wouldn't care about the $5 a year it takes to maintain their specific data file if it wasn't being used for nefarious purposes.
But let's say hypothetically it cost the government literally nothing to maintain the data they've already collected. Would you still argue that deleting it is censorship?
>>54677380
>How does a person who evolved in a world where survival is largely dependent on the distribution of resources not allow that to dominate their action?
We did not evolve in a world with money. Money only existed for the last few hundred years, modern humans have existed for ~200,000 years. Other forms of motivation and controlling the distribution of resources besides money do exist. Have you ever done a favor for a friend or family member and then they paid you back by doing a favor for you at a later date? Congratulations, you've just proven my point.
>>54677504
> else they'll be shitty cops
Shitty cops? No that would never happen.
>The president is only one branch of government, he does not represent the other two.
Learn to read. The list of people comprising the 3 branches is what I'm referring to. That's why I divided the budget by roughly 500 people to come up with roughly 6 billion per person.
>Spoken like a true autist.
Spoken like a STEM major you mean. I remember back when the autism thing was starting 4chan used to make fun of people who self diagnosed autism. Now they make diagnosis based on anonymous image board posts. I hate to break this to you but you can be reduced to a system of equations.
>The cost of maintaining your specific data is virtually zero.
As opposed to zero. I'm not talking about my data alone. I'm talking about all the data they're collecting because they can. Maintaining a searchable database with millions of terabytes of data is not anywhere near
>Would you still argue that deleting it is censorship?
No because censorship is about usage not storage. I don't think the government or a corporation has rights. People have rights. Therefore a government has no rights to infringe. I'm using a double standard because your apples are different than my oranges.
Frankly if it cost nothing to maintain the data say dig a hole in the ground and put the hard drives in it then my only complaint would be the money lost by not selling the hard drives.
>Congratulations, you've just proven my point.
I can't figure out if you're trying to argue for or against my point. There is a reason why I used the word resources not money though. Money is just an abstraction for resources. If someone owes you 6 billion worth of favors and you can collect on it then your odds of survival just went up dramatically. Natural selection isn't going to let genes that don't pay attention to 6 billion in favors over feelings make it very far.
I support FOSS
But Stallman political views are deeply inane
>>54674951
>exercise in philosophy
>>54677812
>No that would never happen.
#blacklivesmatter amirite?
>That's why I divided the budget by roughly 500 people to come up with roughly 6 billion per person.
You don't understand anything about government. The federal level is not the only level. You have literally thousands and thousands of people who have some level of control over tax dollars. Even for things as mundane as forestry, there are government officials that decide how to spend your tax dollars. (ironically enough forestry is what set a lot of court precedents with the national park systems that make lolbertarians butthurt to this day).
>Spoken like a STEM major you mean. ... I hate to break this to you but you can be reduced to a system of equations.
I don't need any more proof that you have autism. Thank you and goodnight.
>No because censorship is about usage not storage.
Tell that to Stallman, who argues that deleting information (in this case CP) is censorship.
>Money is just an abstraction for resources.
When the 2008 financial crisis hit, a lot of money disappeared but no resources did.
