15 ms·

Generally, I try to avoid criticising others but this logic is really disturbing and dangerous and I am very worried about people who stand behind it. It hasn't

Generally, I try to avoid criticising others but this logic is really disturbing and dangerous and I am very worried about people who stand behind it. It hasn't gotten us anywhere. It never will.

dexen 8y ago
Nonsense. Terrorists do use the air to convey voice; air is their primary communication medium for propagating their terrible ideas, and arranging their despicable plans. If we denied them access to air, to stop their voice communication, it would severely limit their ability to harm us. Isn't saving even just one child's life worth it? And don't worry about the terrorists without air not being able to talk about the legal, daily matters. Relevant institutions are already equipped to handle deaf and mute people. They could also just use internet or other service. Just deny them air so they can't talk, okay? It's the common sense solution. /s Slippery slope is a thing, especially when actors with under-handed intentions ask for simplistic, ham-fisted solutions. Once a precedent is established for censorship or snooping, it's pretty hard to draw, and defend, a line in the sand.
- xkarga00 8y ago
  Does this mean that we should sit back and enjoy the show because "actors with under-handed intentions" and "precedent"s? Wake up. We can only get through collectively.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    > Does this mean that we should sit back and enjoy the show because "actors with under-handed intentions" and "precedent"s? No. > We can only get through collectively. Yep, but we shouldn't do it by throwing away the freedom we try to defend
reitanqild 8y ago
Trying to understand your argument: Are you saying that you think banning perfectly normal everyday things "because terrorism" is ok, ... or did you miss the invisible sarcasm tag?
- xkarga00 8y ago
  None of the above. What the parent comment is sarcastic about is a line of argument people use, especially politicians who want to promote their agendas.

Generally, I try to avoid criticising others but this logic is really disturbing and dangerous and I am very worried about people who stand behind it. It hasn't gotten us anywhere. It never will.

dexen 8y ago

Nonsense. Terrorists do use the air to convey voice; air is their primary communication medium for propagating their terrible ideas, and arranging their despicable plans. If we denied them access to air, to stop their voice communication, it would severely limit their ability to harm us. Isn't saving even just one child's life worth it? And don't worry about the terrorists without air not being able to talk about the legal, daily matters. Relevant institutions are already equipped to handle deaf and mute people. They could also just use internet or other service. Just deny them air so they can't talk, okay? It's the common sense solution. /s Slippery slope is a thing, especially when actors with under-handed intentions ask for simplistic, ham-fisted solutions. Once a precedent is established for censorship or snooping, it's pretty hard to draw, and defend, a line in the sand.

xkarga00 8y ago
Does this mean that we should sit back and enjoy the show because "actors with under-handed intentions" and "precedent"s? Wake up. We can only get through collectively.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  > Does this mean that we should sit back and enjoy the show because "actors with under-handed intentions" and "precedent"s? No. > We can only get through collectively. Yep, but we shouldn't do it by throwing away the freedom we try to defend

reitanqild 8y ago

Trying to understand your argument: Are you saying that you think banning perfectly normal everyday things "because terrorism" is ok, ... or did you miss the invisible sarcasm tag?

xkarga00 8y ago
None of the above. What the parent comment is sarcastic about is a line of argument people use, especially politicians who want to promote their agendas.