What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
170 Comments
- jkdrum, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I see no Proof in the article. It’s Just an empty accusation.
You’re an Idiot if you believe the following.
1) The Government does not spy on you.
2) Only administrations of Republican presidents are responsible for spying.
3) Democrat administrations don’t spy.
4) Think taking legal action against the government will prevent spying.
5) Refuse to believe that every other country in the world spys on its citizens.
6) Place any value other than Null on the ACLU and their antics.
7) Thinks Government spying is “news” never ben done before. - FoneJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"ACLU has NEVER backed NAMBLA. Please cite a source that supports your argument."
Their own website... read it and weep for America...
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"ACLU has NEVER backed NAMBLA. Please cite a source that supports your argument."
Are you retarded?
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029 - nene7070, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4i looked up the "straw man argument". I found:
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man
1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
How is listing the NAMBLA as something they supported an example of this fallacy? Explain please. (i might be stupid here- help me out!) - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6*YAWN* Another day, another "OMG!1! Bush stole my freedom!?!!!1!" post. This place is getting as bad as Kuro5hin.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The same group that is defending NAMBLA? You want me to take this frigging group of ***** seriously? This story is so stupid that I have to question the state of mind of the people who dugg it."
Have read how NAMBLA was defended? The ACLU defended the groups right to keep their website, which at the time simply contained a statement of purpose (that is no incriminating pictures etc). In any case this isn't relevent to this discussion.
"How could a single individual know that a) they were spied on by the NSA and that b) the NSA did so without a warrant? Remember, the government CAN listen to your phone calls, under certain scenarios, with a warrant, etc."
Serveral methods, whistle blowers, lawsuits, and FOIA requests. For example the ACLU success sued TSA for information it had previously refused to release under FOIA about it's "no fly" list.
"Further, if you're a protestor, and you've organized a mass protest, say in DC, the government is not allowed to look in your general direction, without it being called spying? If you have a 100,000 people marching, the police will of course be present. But if they bring a video camera, in case something happens and they need to analyze is later on, that's spying?"
If it was just recording the even their likely wouldn't have been a problem, but there is more to it than that. At a Denver Colorado war protest the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force recorded names and license plate numbers particapants who didn't commited any crimes . FBI has used counter terrorism resources to infiltrate these political groups without evidence for little more than criticism of government policy. In FBI documents uncover by the ACLU thru FOIA show that the FBI has expanded the definition of “domestic terrorism” to include citizens and groups that participate in lawful protests or civil disobedience. FBI has kept illegal dossiers on these groups and some of their members. - Barnstormer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I can't believe there are people who would excuse the surveillance of protest groups. If enough people think that the post 9-11 world is that much different, then the terrorists truly have won.
When I was young I witnessed my oldest brother being arrested after the FBI tapped our phone. Yes, draft evasion was illegal at the time, so yes they were justified under the law. He would not have been targeted, though, if he wasn't an active member of an anti-war group.
When dissent is a crime, or when the government considers treats its own citizens as an enemy, then we've lost everything that America stands for. Game over. - gluon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I agree, obviously vegans are terrorists. I think next we go after green-eyed people.
- crazyfan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release
http://www.aclu.org/info/18852res20040107.html#3_4 - crimson117, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Well, according to Bush, "They [the terrorists] hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.". Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
Therefor, Bush's plan is to eliminate our freedom. Thus, the Terrorists will no longer hate us.
Sound good? - misfit410, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"-bzzzzzzzt, wrong! Every president before who did it actually used the special court to obtain a warrant, unlike dub-yuh who continues to thumb his nose at the constitution:"
BS
Clinton "BENDED" FISA to actually break into the homes of American Citizens and gather intel, Bush
used it to spy on INTERNATIONAL PHONE CALLS, that is not Domestic, it is INTERNATIONAL as one party is in another country. That link does not show any PROOF, it shows ACLU has a bunch of pinkos screaming that the NSA "Might" have spied on them.
for Clarity, the 4th amendment talks about protections from illegal search and seizure.. this means coming into your home and taking something(like Clinton Authorized without a warrant), phone lines and internet do not fall under private property. - nene7070, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Its groups like the ACLU have turned the Christmas season to the "holiday season" and christmas trees to "holiday trees" (happened in Boston). I knwo the ACLU had little to do with that particular thing, but it is similar to what theyve done in the past.
let the flaming begin. - triphop, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Example of "Straw Argument" with built-in logical fallacy:
Fact: ACLU Supports NAMBLAs right to express its opinion
Fallacy: ACLU Supports NAMBLA
Straw: All ACLU positions are junk because they support NAMBLA.
The fallacy is not accidental - culture warriors do this kind of intellectual dishonesty all the time. - jayboogie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think the ACLU is so bad. They did defend Rush "the pill popping right winger" about his medical records.
- KC311Man, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Key phrase in the article:
"two dozen people who fear they have been spied upon"
They FEAR they were spyed on? Oh, so you don't actually have any evidence.
Nice... - DogzOfWar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7How could a single individual know that a) they were spied on by the NSA and that b) the NSA did so without a warrant? Remember, the government CAN listen to your phone calls, under certain scenarios, with a warrant, etc.
Further, if you're a protestor, and you've organized a mass protest, say in DC, the government is not allowed to look in your general direction, without it being called spying? If you have a 100,000 people marching, the police will of course be present. But if they bring a video camera, in case something happens and they need to analyze is later on, that's spying? - falseintellect, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2things like "other presidents did it too!" is not a defense. personally i'm as angry when a democrat president does it as I am if bush does it / did it.
and im not sure why people 'hate' the aclu so much. there are a few things they have done that are questionable. however, for the most part they defend people's rights, no matter how unpopular that person/group is. do you hate criminal attorneys as well? biased they may be, but they probably defend mostly left causes because the right doesn't give a ***** about the constitution. and that always seems odd to be because they seem to be the ones who say they would die for their country, etc but they are OK with giving up their rights in exchange for stopping terrorism. i dont care if its the most insignificant right in the world; if you give it up for them terrorism works. - jscro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The same group that is defending NAMBLA? You want me to take this frigging group of ***** seriously? This story is so stupid that I have to question the state of mind of the people who dugg it."
That's right, and lawyers defend murderers, rapists, child molestors, and every other kind of scum on this earth. It's called the justice system, and without it, we're all *****.
You need to understand your freedoms and rights, it's no wonder we're losing more of them everyday.
Turn off Bill O'Reilly. - krack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3 They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up. - zeppo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Sheesh like there isn't a FBI agent or equivalent at KKK meetings or anti abortion type meetings... But those groups are right wing type terrorist activity so its peachy keen to spy on them
- OutcastJiob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"When you're a law student, they tell you if say that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough."
That last option is the best summary of government I have ever read. - Aslan72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Part 2:
I've got no problem with people fighting a war on terrorism that makes the writers of 24 look like sunday school teachers, but it needs to not be totally secretive and it should errode freedoms. Doing domestic spying is a sliperry slope in the truest sense of the words. - swindmill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4There is so much misinformation going around DIGG (and the public in general) about the ACLU, that it is almost humorous. For the most part, the "ACLU haters" here have absolutely no idea what the ACLU does, how they do it, or what principles they base their actions on. One example (out of many possible) would be this:
"The problem I have with the ACLU is they don't just protect our constitutional rights, they "protect" rights they believe people should have. Such as defending NAMBLA, being against bag searches at airports, or "protecting" people from the words "In God We Trust", while at the same time ignoring other people's rights to fly on an airplane without bombs, freedom of religion, etc. "
First, the ACLU (or anyone else) cannot protect constitutional rights they THINK we should have. In order to even get to court you must have a legitimate case, or for ACLU purposes, a legitimate constitutional argument. Second, the ACLU didn't defend NAMBLA, they defended the free speech rights that NAMBLA was being denied. The group at issue was irrelevant. Third, the ACLU has never taken a case concerning "in god we trust", however, there is a legitimate argument to be made that the use of this by the government is unconstitutional, which I won't spell out here. Fourth, flying on an airplane without bombs is not a constitutional right of any kind, nor a right, generally speaking. On the other hand, flying on an airplane without the government taking a practically nude scan of your body is such a right. Lastly, freedom of religion is a right, and that is precisely one principle the ALCU stands behind. However, allowing a judge, or school teacher to hang a copy of the 10 Commandments on the wall of a government building is to deny the religious freedoms of every individual that utilizes that building.
I could have made a complete ass out almost any "aclu hater" on here, but that just happened to be the first I came across that struck me as completely retarded. The lesson is, don't come on here talking all this ***** when you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is obnoxious.
I hope at least a couple of you ass clowns were able to read all that - swindmill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Is it ok to hypocritically censor someone if they support Bush? I'm asking a serious question here."
Absolutely not, but when the support is offered in a senseless statement it should be rated as spam regardless of who the support is for. In my honest opinion, there are far more Bush supporters on here who are absolutely clueless as to what's really going on than there are clueless critics. Criticizing generally requires one to state what is wrong with what's at issue, whereas pledging support for anything labeled as "anti-terrorism" requires no thought at all.
Consider other variables - Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7What proof do they have besides some anti bush people claiming they were spied on?
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Guess what. The people in the protest and the visible anti-government groups are not the people who are going to go commit terrorist acts.
Terrorists want to be successful in their goals of disrupting the society which they want to terrorize. They're going to do their best to keep a low profile until they commit their act.
Case in point: the London bombers. These are people who, for the most part, never showed any real anti-western sentiments. In fact, even their families had no idea what they were planning.
For the government to be spying individuals who attend protests shows either their intent to abuse the power they have been given (or they have taken), or shows complete incompetence.
In either case the longer these people are in office the more scared for my freedom and for my safety I become. - keyboardashtray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Those who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety"
Back in the 60's the FBI also kept tabs on Martin Luther King, and in the 70's John Lennon (not comparing the two). The act of spying in and of itself is a form of intimidation and an attempt to suppress free speech, regardless of any follow up action. Not to mention a tremendous waste of resources: How does this keep us safe?
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"
All these folks trashing the ACLU just don't get it. The right to free speech isn't there to protect popular speech, it's there to protect all speech. The ACLU would defend the rights of someone to say the ACLU is crooked and evil, if that persons right to say it came under attack. That is the mark of integrity.
The ACLU is actually a very conservative organization, at least by the traditional definition of conservative (from when conservative meant strict adherence to the constitution).
The ACLU is about protecting the constitutional rights of Americans. If you say the ACLU is Left Wing, it says a lot more about the Right Wing then it says about the ACLU. - ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@crazyfan
The yahoo article, if it is correct, makes it sound more like he is just a professor. So what if he agrees/disagrees with terrorists? As shocking as that may be, that is what freedom of speech is about.
What happens in situations like this is that they open a door. They say, "We are only going after terrorists." But who decides who is a terrorist? It's not someone up top, it's middle tier officials who deal directly with the FBI field agents and such. Maybe it's the agents themselves. When you make something subjective like that it can lead to all kinds of hardships. What if they decide that anyone who has red hair is a terrorist? Asinine and ludicrous, but stranger things have happened. - aeix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Lame.... I'd like to see their "proof"...
Every president since LBJ has been doing this... it's just now bad because Bush did it? - dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@nlatimer:
So everyone that disagrees with bush's administration is a drug trafficker or fraud? (or did u not read the description) - senfo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I've often wondered if "You're either with us or against us" could be used to classify somebody as terrorist. The definition is so broad that it could label anybody that opposes the war, as a terrorist.
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@IraqManiac - "I ***** hate the ACLU they like try to embarrass, disturb, backstab and offend the United States so ***** them. *****."
You hate an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Constitution? Uh huh.... - thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1most americans are sheep.
(i.e. everyone has a myspace account I need one too.)
most americans are ignorant.
(i.e. as long as its not happening to me I'm fine with it)
therefore people will take advantage of this stupidity and do what they please. - KlipschFan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sure the ethically challenged who support this administration are threatened by Quakers and Greenpeace and PETA. I'm also quite certain that when Clinton lied they were standing in line with a noose to lynch him. I'm also quite certain that this group of people napped during American History 101.
Give Bush a BJ, so we can finally rid the world of this neo conservative Taliban fascist.
Moreover the ACLU is defending the drug addled gasbag AKA Rush Limbaugh because they believe that the power of the "State" should not extend into patient medical records. The ACLU believes that government intrusion into your bedrooms or doctors' offices is Wrong.
As for the "not technology" arguments I agree, BUT make a hard news section and it would alleviate that problem. I have suggested it in E-mails to Digg. I welcome that addition because the truth will prevail. If I'm wrong and Bush is God's gift to Black New Orleans residents, I'll have to eat my words. Something tells me that I'll still be hungry! - redbike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh my god! A political post on a technology site??? But all of my technology (linux vs microsoft/ *nix etc is politics-free.)
Give me a break. All technology is political, dittohead.
Even hummers and diebold voting machines, yes, even the toaster that was manufactured in a sweat shop. - brandonnn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Said infra172, "It has been proven that liberal organizations such as Code Pink are actually raising money and sending it to terrorists in Iraq. 'During the last week of December 2004, Medea Benjamin announced in Amman, Jordan that Code Pink, Global Exchange, and Families for Peace would be donating a combined $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Fallujah, Iraq.'"
Probably a bit worthless posting this here now, but if you actually track down the source of this information, you'll see it's been selectively reworded:
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=35412
"Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange told a news conference in Amman that they had sent 600,000 dollars' worth of humanitarian aid to residents of the Iraqi town of Fallujah displaced by last month's massive US-led assault."
Unless you're under the impression that every Iraqi civilian is a terrorist insurgent, given that the now-stated goal of the war is a humanitarian gesture of freedom and democracy for the long-oppressed Iraqi people, I'm surprised more war supporters wouldn't embrace the groups' efforts. - rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love the ones who say "they can spy on me all they want, I'm not doing anything wrong."
Yeah, that's just great. Wrong and Right can be easily redefined by the government... any government... any old time they please.
Be careful what you roll over for.
Oh, yes, and they ALL do it... not just Bush. Deal with it. - dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@SyDIGG:
As i said earlier:
It relates to the issue of privacy, and considering another recent story about Google, I think it is tech related. Once the government justifies using standard means for surveillance, they will begin to use the Search Engine search logs to become Big Brother. - TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Amazing how few of you actually look at the article: "The American Civil Liberties Union has released two documents from the FBI and DeKalb County Homeland Security related to an anti-war protest and a vegan protest that it says show those agencies spied on Georgia residents."
I live in New York City. The police use video cameras as a threat at protests -- they get two photo/videographers to capture images of individuals in the crowd at anti-war marches. Now, the City lost a lawsuit quite a few years ago about this and now are supposedly no longer doing this -- and if you ask them, they'll swear up and down they do not do this, because they are enjoined not to do this. Well, go to any protest and you'll see those guys there still -- but you NEVER see them appearing on the news media, if you were there you can see the image pan and then get cut off "coincidentally" just before they show the people with the cameras "who aren't supposed to be there". - KC311Man, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3/,,|,_
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html
"In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children."
There's your proof from the horses ass and they can say they don't advocate it all they want but if I were to support the KKKs right to burn crosses, not only would I be stupid, but it would be a big stretch to say I don't advocate what they do. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3crimson, I don't how many times i have used that logic
less freedoms for people in the USA, means the terrorists will love us more! - ,,|,_, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech."
- KC311Man, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4/spirion
There's NO proof in that article. It's all rooted from their professor telling them. Sounds pretty fictitious to me.
"But last spring, their professor informed the class 'that one of his contacts in Washington, I assume it is with the NSA, had hooked into our e-mails.'" - 8ight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5card carrying aclu member and proud of it! keep up the good fight... you too can help and also be a card carrying member.
http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FJ_donationhome - Brak710101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Wow. If your not doing anything illegal who cares if your being spied on? I could care less if they listen to my phone calls, I'm not hiding anything.
Heck, if I dissapeared they may be first to know and wonder "Where'd he go? He was alive and well yesterday!" And end up finding I was taken as a hostage and save me.
Quite frankly, I invite the NSA and FBI (Note: Notice I don't blame/point fingers at President Bush) to watch me. I seriously CARELESS. - whiteguy013, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Well obviously, only terrorists would ever question the Bush administration...
- Aslan72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3My favorite quote from the speech he gave on Monday was
"If I was doing anything illegal, do you think I'd tell congress about it?"
the implicit idea there was that:
1) he could be doing something illegal
2) he has no problems keeping it quiet
: - lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Bush used it to spy on INTERNATIONAL PHONE CALLS, that is not Domestic, it is INTERNATIONAL as one party is in another country. That link does not show any PROOF, it shows ACLU has a bunch of pinkos screaming that the NSA "Might" have spied on them
-Allegedly. Since Bush claims it was only International calls that were traced, everybody has to take his word for it. There was no oversight, hence we don't know whether the spying was committed against the Kerry campaign or your next door neighbor. We all agree that spying on Bin Laden's cousin who lives in Houston is warranted and later documented via FISA. We should all agree that mysterious spying with no documented oversight is illegal. - liddy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lame as hell. Keep non tech stories off digg.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It's not surprising, this wouldn't be the first time the government has abused power. The ACLU has several stories about the Joint Terrorism Task Force being used to surveil anti-war protesters etc.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is