[OT] ideals 'n stuff (Re: [PATCH] Remove absolute paths from gpg.rc)
at this point, it would be quite a stretch to claim that this still has
something to do with mutt, so preferably skip over it if you are not
interested in discussing world security policy.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 05:32:55PM +0000, Dave wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:51:02PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > i even know for a fact, that many of your kind agree with using
> > heavy weaponry to "convince" others of these ideals.
>
> Many do, and many don't.
> At the end of the day, indirect Democracy has certain problems.
>
too big topic jump for me to follow ...
> On the other hand, a country trying to defend itself against
> terrorists in a world that doesn't care is in a rather unenviable
> position.
>
that's also quite a topic jump. anyway ...
what you (the "true americans") are not getting is, that you made those
terrorists yourself (some of them even literally, as we know), and that
the "war on terrorism" in afghanistan and iraq brought up tree times
more terrorists than what you were able to kill. it's sort of a law of
nature that idiotic actions provoke even more idiotic reactions.
pushing political (primarily economical) agendas under the cover of
idealism (which you are completely perverting even in your own country)
doesn't exactly help, either. the world simply doesn't buy the "leader
of the free world" story. think about it.
now, to set things straight, the rest of the western world isn't exactly
innocent, either - we a greatly benefiting from america's offenses
against human rights. and we already started paying that bill with
blood.
> > the problem with this attitude is that *a lot* of people have to
> > suffer from those idiots.
>
> A lot of people also have to suffer from the terrorists that these
> idiots are fighting.
>
oh, i don't doubt that there is a lot of idiots fighting terrorists. ;)
i must wonder though, where you got that assertion from. ;)
> > blind trust in unlimited freedom based on the assumption that the
> > bad things will go away by themselves eventually
>
> That's basically one of the main attitudes that lead to most of the
> world not really caring much about countries sponsoring terrorists.
>
its not. this may apply to john doe, but assuming that politicians think
that way is just silly. it's all about tradeoffs.
> I'd say that if your sysadmin is supporting crackers, you're in the
> unenviable position of being an agent of a terrorist.
>
i always found the recent legislation of equaling crackers (be it script
kiddies or professionals) with fanatics who bomb busses full of people
quite absurd, but hearing this from a quite intelligent person who seems
to actually believe this really makes me doubt the future of mankind.
> > the bottom line is that sometimes you have to limit some freedoms to
> > preserve other, more important ones. anything else is simply
> > irresponsible.
>
> I'd like you to elaborate on exactly which freedoms you propose to
> limit in order to preserve which other, more important ones.
>
one pretty important freedom would be the ability to use the program at
all, as opposed to facing a ddosed or even compromised system due to the
right of some idiot to open arbitrary attachments, don't you think?
> In my book, the most important freedoms are those of the system owner,
> if we start out from a worldview that recognizes the concept of
> private property.
> (If we don't, we can get into a lot of hot water in the real world.)
>
that's quite a stretch. *all* personal freedoms end where they start
to impact other people's freedoms. that's the very basis of society.
it's called the golden rule.
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.