@boomzilla said:
Why does foreign imply different race?It doesn't, but it's the same line of reasoning. Other countries: bad, therefore people from other countries: also bad. How can you tell? Easy, if someone looks caucasian and speak-a the english all is well. If not, welp, can't trust that person.@boomzilla said:
Now, maybe in your UN world of human rights and unicorn fartsAll of my wat. Only an American can be this ignorant towards the UN.@boomzilla said:
you trust everyone...*equally* (joe.edwards gets this), knowhere in the UDHR does it say you can/can't trust anyone. But it legally prohibits tragedies such as Abu Ghraib and Gitmo where people are deprived of their human dignity and rights (articles 5 and 11) and also prohibits discrimination (articles 1 and 2).@boomzilla said:
For instance, I would not hesitate to leave my kids with my parents or a sibling. But I would be much less likely to do the same thing with a random family that I did not know well. The same sort of thing applies to other countries.The analogy is flawed, because in this case your parents are abusing everyone's kids except maybe yours so you're a-ok with them. They're likely to abuse your kids too, eventually, but it'd be [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...]too late[/url].@boomzilla said:
It's possible that your European security apparatuses have so withered away that they don't spy on other countries, but I'm sure at least the French and British do so.The DGSE and GCHQ should be shut down as well, the fact that they run their own PRISM programs doesn't justify the NSA to run theirs.@boomzilla said:
I'm equally sure that we spend more effort looking at, say, Iran, than anyone in Europe.Are you merely speculating that or is there anything you can back that up with?@boomzilla said:
Of course, since a lot of people who want to do us harm are living or at least moving through Europe, there's reason to be looking at signals in friendly countries, too.That's a bold claim as recent events (school shootings, Boston) suggest that the people who want to do you harm are amongst you.@boomzilla said:
Not to mention the bad guy governments have operations there that may be more insecure than what's going on at home.From what we know, only the NSA has had its internal documents exposed so far. So I wouldn't bet on that, either.@boomzilla said:
Lots of things are indicative to you that are hidden from the rest of us.How do you mean 'indicative to me'?@boomzilla said:
the wastefulness of the program may be the best argument against itIf your representatives really care about your tax money (spending it, that is) perhaps, but I'm skeptical on that. @boomzilla said:
In fact, the mere collection may not be an actual violation of the lawIn fact, the NSA has overstepped their legal power.@boomzilla said:
it's still different than "innocent until proven guilty."Yes, but what I meant is that law enforcement only investigates criminal suspects. To investigate everyone means to consider everyone a suspect of crime.@boomzilla said:
It's like arguing that 2+2=5 is wrong because you can't divide by zero.It can be correct with operator overloading (operand *= 1,25).