Wow, giving Texas and co ideas
Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women
191–200 of 217 posts
Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women
#192Another AI achievement. Frankly, I didn't see any useful application of AI yet, just evil.
Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does prevent state violence the same way nukes prevent world wars. State violence rarely looks like soldiers vs citizens, because soldiers would rebel if they were given such an order. What tyrannical states do is they employ a third party, gangsters or cartels, that are given a carte-blanche to terrorize citizens. See what happened in Hong Kong: CCP hired Triads, those attacked citizens, while the riot police sta…
What happened in the United States when cheap guns began flooding the streets? A: Tactical teams with automatic weapons, sometimes snipers or air support now serve warrants and raid moderate risk suspects. We don’t have a tyrannical government. The US unrest scenario is different than China as the citizenry is neutral or pro-government, but you have a vocal minority. We have reactionary political parties that use arm…
I'm far more worried about BLM-style riots. Iirc, in Seattle they even managed to cordone off parts of the city, called them "autonomous zones" and declared themselves kingpins of the square, while the gov forces were ordered to not engage. The local citizens who lived there had to get over it. Only when BLM kingpins killed someone the gov forces had to engage.
Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used the word "objectively" to close the door to moral relativism. However, I can defend the use of the word more thoroughly. I base my morality on the well-being of conscious creatures. What constitutes well-being is open to debate, but whatever it is, it will be facts about the state of the brain/physiology of conscious creatures in the physical universe. If you admit the physical universe is objective basis for…
> What constitutes well-being is open to debate > actions that decrease a creatures well-being can be thought of as objectively wrong Which results in the "rightness" and "wrongness" of those actions being open to debate, and therefore subjective. > I base my morality on the well-being of conscious creatures. Same as my moral compass. But I don't pretend that my definition of "well-being" is objectively correct and u…
> Which results in the "rightness" and "wrongness" of those actions being open to debate, and therefore subjective.
Poor choice of words by me...what I meant to say is that the full scope of human well-being is not yet known. Whatever it ultimately _is_ isn't open to debate, as whatever constitutes well-being will be facts about how the human organism can either flourish or fail to flourish.
If you can admit that a universe where every conscious being suffers as much as it possibly can for as long as it possibly can is bad, then the morality conversation can get off the ground. If the word "bad" is going to mean anything, it applies there.
Those who want compulsory veiling and it's associated punishments are _wrong_ to want it. I contend that this is true independent of culture.
Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
At what point do we allow people (in this case the Iranian regime) to have free will / self agency? And also - we usually don't allow ourselves to go 50 years back to explain someone's behavior. At least in court - that kind of testimony wouldn't have much value.
US Courts (and others) will lock up or send to death row some on evidence that they killed someone 50 years ago (and more) .. murder has no statute of limitations. US actions set the conditions (a foreign puppet ruler) for a people's overthrow which itself was usurped by the worst form of theocrats (your "Iranian Regime") who maintain power by murder (public hangings in squares, etc) .. and act which, again, US Court…
> US Courts (and others) will lock up or send to death row some on evidence that they killed someone 50 years ago (and more) .. murder has no statute of limitations.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was no one will excuse what Ted Bundy did because his parents had a divorce or were mean to him when he was a kid. While we acknowledge that stuff that happened decades ago still might have an effect today, we tend to attribute people with self agency. I think we should do the same with the current Iranian regime or all countries for that matter.
Also, these theories will never be verifiable. I don't see what's so interesting in exploring them then. This might be because of what the U.S did, or it might be because of what Iraq did (one million people died in the Iran-Iraq war), or simply it might be bad ideas in the minds of religious fanatics - or a million other things or a combination of them. What do we do with it then?
Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women
#196This is the true mass surveillance dystopia. When cameras get weaponized to enforce arbitrary dressing rules. Looking at how common cameras have gotten in public places like CCTVs in UK I can't shake the feeling that civilians are just one bad election away from getting hammered by the establishment.
I also feel for iranian women. One can't but wonder what life would look like if Iran dumped the derelict religious practices and just went with a more common sense approach to religion and equality.
Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are essentially at a point where you are saying “if I don’t like your outfit I’m going to legislate it.” You might be cool with that, but I’m not.
That’s a really bad faith argument. What’s up with people attempting to summarise someone else’s thought in the worst possible way and putting words in their mouths? Some forms of dress and undress have laws. Others don’t have laws but are still bound by social contracts. The person you are replying to is clearing trying to compare these and pointing out responsibility may come down to the wearer in both cases and wo…
You always know you're in for a wild ride when a comment starts with "it sounds like you are saying"
Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do the people which get offended by nazi uniforms are fragile as well ? The topic is much more complicated than "fragility" as you are dismissively trying to portray it. We wear clothes in civilised societies for a reason, and different types of clothes have different types of societal effects. Your freedom ends where the the freedom of the next person's begins.
There's a bit of a difference between a religion, and a regime that, in its ten years of power, managed to kill tens of millions and start the largest and bloodiest war of all time.
Surely most religions have a larger body count over the years than that, if that's the criteria?
Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happened in the United States when cheap guns began flooding the streets? A: Tactical teams with automatic weapons, sometimes snipers or air support now serve warrants and raid moderate risk suspects. We don’t have a tyrannical government. The US unrest scenario is different than China as the citizenry is neutral or pro-government, but you have a vocal minority. We have reactionary political parties that use arm…
Can you name just one example of a US armed "militia" intimidating a voter?
Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're talking about fatalities then stats for gun deaths don't reinforce the argument that they are an unalloyed good, or that reducing their prevalence is impossible.
You seem to be arguing a point that was made by no one present in the conversation. That aside, if you want to talk statistics, your biggest threat comes from the guns in the hands of your own country's police or military authorities. Sort of like the cameras under discussion.
I'm arguing against apathetic statements like restricting gun access is a "fatal distraction"