Police Tracking Your Every Move With License Plate Readers

[pcosmar]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Nuff said.
If you disagree you are welcome to GTFO.

 

[Becker]

Not at all! I am not anti-observation, I just recognize its limits.

And it's honestly despicable that you automatically assumed I do not know there are limits, or I ever said my method is perfect

The more observation the better, and the closer one comes to the truth that is defined by knowing ALL of the data.

Ok then, so why didn't you just say I need to observe more? Instead, you start by saying its dangerous.

There are actually many things. I depend on reliable communication far more than I do on observation. I do not observe the process that goes into making my food, but rely on the testimony of those who are producing it make about it.

communication is observation, and you rely on your trust based on previous experience to buy food. You rely on testimony, which you observe. You do not use blind faith as a substitute, which is my point.

When I learned how to drive a car, I depended on someone's reliable communication to explain to me how the car operates and how to maintain and drive it.

you could not have done it without eyes and ears. So that's still observing, this is YOU starting the semantic game. And if this isn't observation, then count it for the "what else I rely on" for me.

I did not study and observe myself how an internal combustion engine works - I didn't have time for that and I had reliable information instead I could depend upon. Most things I do on a daily basis are not a result of observation, but credible communication. But that does not mean I am anti-observation. I just recognize its limits.

so they are not based on blind faith or completely unobservable things either.

In relation to the cholesterol theory of heart disease, yes. We are in agreement on this.

Ok, we both agree that Society didn't create my legs. So who did?

nature, or God. Whatever you believe, but society can stop you from using your legs.

 

[Created4]

communication is observation

Most certainly not. You can't define your own English words and carry on a logical discussion.

so they are not based on blind faith or completely unobservable things either.

Not "blind" faith, but faith nonetheless. We use faith in our daily lives much more than we do observation.

nature, or God. Whatever you believe

The creation of my legs happened independent of my belief, so it was either nature or God, but it was not based on my belief. Therefore, since I did not create myself, and society did not create me, the Creator is the one who both possesses and bestows human rights. Society can only deny them or respect them, but it cannot create them.

 

[teacherone]

aahhh...nothing like philosophical masturbation in the morning....

 

[Travlyr]

you don't have rights just by you saying you do.

Right. My rights are inherent because I am here. I have just as much right to live my life as you do. I also have just as much right to be here as everything else. I have a right to eat, drink, and breathe in order to sustain life. I have a right to defend myself against anyone wanting to take my inherent rights away. I defend my rights because I understand them.

What if it worked well? Are you going to tell me even if it works well its still immoral?

You still don't have the right to force someone else to give you healthcare. Think about it. If you are doubled over in pain from a kidney stone, then how are you going to force the doctor to treat you? All he has to do is walk away. You are at a serious disadvantage. At that point you must rely on the doctor having compassion and a willingness to help without compensation. The doctor pays. Free healthcare is not free.

 

[Becker]

Right. My rights are inherent because I am here. I have just as much right to live my life as you do.

I don't claim to have a right to live.

I also have just as much right to be here as everything else. I have a right to eat, drink, and breathe in order to sustain life. I have a right to defend myself against anyone wanting to take my inherent rights away. I defend my rights because I understand them.

Why do you have to defend them if they're inherent?

You still don't have the right to force someone else to give you healthcare.

But you have a right to force people to obey laws they never agreed to? You have a right to force "rights violators" to be punished?

Think about it. If you are doubled over in pain from a kidney stone, then how are you going to force the doctor to treat you?

In other words, if we left the sick and suffering alone, we'd be giving them freedom and they'd disappear on their own.

All he has to do is walk away. You are at a serious disadvantage. At that point you must rely on the doctor having compassion and a willingness to help without compensation. The doctor pays. Free healthcare is not free.

But life is?

 

[Becker]

Most certainly not. You can't define your own English words and carry on a logical discussion.

Not "blind" faith, but faith nonetheless. We use faith in our daily lives much more than we do observation.

Ok. I will back the answer to your question.

I form my beliefs based on things I observe, and any other way OTHER THAN blind faith. So it is not solely observation, however, almost everything I do is directly or indirectly the result of observation, not blind faith or a priori.

The creation of my legs happened independent of my belief, so it was either nature or God, but it was not based on my belief. Therefore, since I did not create myself, and society did not create me, the Creator is the one who both possesses and bestows human rights. Society can only deny them or respect them, but it cannot create them.

Society can deny them, that's good enough for me.

 

[Travlyr]

I don't claim to have a right to live.

I do. I have a right to live and I defend that right. You can do whatever floats your boat. It makes no difference to me.

Why do you have to defend them if they're inherent?

I have to defend my rights against predators.

But you have a right to force people to obey laws they never agreed to? You have a right to force "rights violators" to be punished?

No, I will defend myself against predators. Collectively, it is smart to force those who violate the rights of others to pay restitution and/or keep them from continuing to violate the rights of others. Individually all I can do is defend myself. Along with liberty comes responsibility. Not everybody understands that.

In other words, if we left the sick and suffering alone, we'd be giving them freedom and they'd disappear on their own.

Weird. That is not what I said at all. What I said is that if you rely on others to give you 'free' stuff, then you are likely to be disappointed. You do not have the right to force others to give you free stuff. People give others free stuff out of empathy and compassion, but not because you expect it or demand it.

But life is?

Nothing is free. No matter what somebody has to put forth effort to accomplish anything. Leaches count on others not knowing that.

 

[Becker]

I do. I have a right to live and I defend that right. You can do whatever floats your boat. It makes no difference to me.

I have to defend my rights against predators.

Your actions admit they are not inherent, they are dependant on your ability to defend yourself.

No, I will defend myself against predators. Collectively, it is smart to force those who violate the rights of others to pay restitution and/or keep them from continuing to violate the rights of others.

Collectivism is sometimes smart, I agree.

Individually all I can do is defend myself. Along with liberty comes responsibility. Not everybody understands that.

Especially children and the disabled.

Weird. That is not what I said at all. What I said is that if you rely on others to give you 'free' stuff, then you are likely to be disappointed. You do not have the right to force others to give you free stuff. People give others free stuff out of empathy and compassion, but not because you expect it or demand it.

So if a child expects to be fed by his parents, or by any person other than his own work, he'll be disappointed, and he should be?

Nothing is free. No matter what somebody has to put forth effort to accomplish anything. Leaches count on others not knowing that.

I thought you said rights are free, what else does "inherent" mean?

 

[Travlyr]

Sheesh...

Your actions admit they are not inherent, they are dependant on your ability to defend yourself.




Collectivism is sometimes smart, I agree.



Especially children and the disabled.



So if a child expects to be fed by his parents, or by any person other than his own work, he'll be disappointed, and he should be?



I thought you said rights are free, what else does "inherent" mean?

Definition of INHERENT

: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit :

 

[heavenlyboy34]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Nuff said.
If you disagree you are welcome to GTFO.

Too bad that's gone down the memory hole for farrrr too many people.

 

[Hospitaller]

Nice fascist post O'Reilly...

He played the fascist card, this thread is now over and Becker is the winner

Unalienable rules of the internet

 

[Becker]

Definition of INHERENT

: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit :

how do you reconcile "essential character, belonging by nature or habit" with "I need to fight for it and even if i need to pay for it and it's not free"

 

[Travlyr]

how do you reconcile "essential character, belonging by nature or habit" with "I need to fight for it and even if i need to pay for it and it's not free"

What is so difficult to understand? I will defend my rights against aggressors who would like to take them from me... not fight to acquire them. Rights are a concept not a product. You don't buy them. Free or not free doesn't really apply to rights.