Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

jonathanmh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–337 of 337 posts

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#331

Post by newjersey »

beeboop wrote: post #299
newjersey wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I strongly oppose the drone strikes. Nobody should be killed by the state (except I guess by soldiers in self defense). I especially so not like the idea of killing someone probably at home in pajamas eating Cheerios at five pm in the evening local time. I don't think there is any justification for that even if the person in question is a flight risk and has been the mastermind behind millions of death. S…

I think your concern about lack of due process should be more focused on the tens to hundreds of thousands of civilian bystanders the US has killed since 2001. We are killing dozens of women and children overseas every week and chalk them up as collateral damage.

I am honestly not worried about collateral damage. If someone is shooting at you, you shoot right back at them regardless of whether they are standing behind a hundred babies. That is not a problem.

When we talk about collateral damage in case of unprovoked attacks, we are minimizing the issue. If we are not willing to risk our soldiers to capture people who are not firing at us, then we should not try to capture or kill those people. I think it is pretty simple. If they are worth killing with a drone, they are worth sacrificing the lives of our soldiers in an attempt to catch them dead or alive. Whether there is any collateral damage is not the issue.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#332

Post by beeboop »

newjersey wrote: post #331
beeboop wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your concern about lack of due process should be more focused on the tens to hundreds of thousands of civilian bystanders the US has killed since 2001. We are killing dozens of women and children overseas every week and chalk them up as collateral damage.

I am honestly not worried about collateral damage. If someone is shooting at you, you shoot right back at them regardless of whether they are standing behind a hundred babies. That is not a problem. When we talk about collateral damage in case of unprovoked attacks, we are minimizing the issue. If we are not willing to risk our soldiers to capture people who are not firing at us, then we should not try to capture or…

> If someone is shooting at you, you shoot right back at them regardless of whether they are standing behind a hundred babies. That is not a problem.

You very well might be a sociopath.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#333

Post by newjersey »

beeboop wrote: post #332
newjersey wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am honestly not worried about collateral damage. If someone is shooting at you, you shoot right back at them regardless of whether they are standing behind a hundred babies. That is not a problem. When we talk about collateral damage in case of unprovoked attacks, we are minimizing the issue. If we are not willing to risk our soldiers to capture people who are not firing at us, then we should not try to capture or…

> If someone is shooting at you, you shoot right back at them regardless of whether they are standing behind a hundred babies. That is not a problem. You very well might be a sociopath.

I am not a very smart person so I looked up the definition of sociopath.

> Hare also provides his own definitions: he describes psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy

Well, I might be a sociopath. Don't get me wrong. I think babies are very cute and would go out of my way to save an infant's life. However, I cannot command others to imperil their own lives to maybe not kill an infant.

Not to derail the topic too much but it bothers me that people think the collateral deaths of "innocent women and children" in an extrajudicial drone strike are worse than the death of the target. The collateral damage would not have happened if we didn't shoot in the first place. I am not saying we should be isolationist or even that we should not exercise restraint in use of force (even in self defense), far from it. I am just asking that we approach the topic as rationally as we can.

Now, we should be clear as to why we try to save infants and small children first in an emergency. Here is the article that made me think about this http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2015/01/children-ar... but it makes sense what I read a while back. It is not because they are more important (far from it, society has much more invested in growing up a working adult) but because the infants and children are more vulnerable. It made a world of sense when I thought about it this way. When it comes to a fire, I can see how a healthy adult can survive longer suffocating in a smokey room as opposed to an infant. I think a trained fireman or a nurse can do triage pretty will without someone screaming in their face "why won't you attend to my baby first?"

In most situations, we would probably care for infants and young children before anyone else. However, like with everything in life, we should think about why and not just what. A person who has killed millions of people has the same right life as a newly born infant and we shouldn't try to sidestep difficult questions and scream "why won't you think of the children" just looking for an emotional response.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#334

Post by cromwellian »

Grishnakh wrote: post #302
cromwellian wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer, but aren't you supposed to be notified of warrants? Sure, they could knock on your door and break in to serve a warrant if you're not home, but aren't they required to notify you they've done so? First google search returned this: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_...

No, you don't have to be notified. Have you never heard of a wiretap? They've been doing wiretaps for as long as telephones have been around (about a century now, I think). Obviously you don't have to notify a suspect that they're being tapped. As for your link, that's completely irrelevant: that only talks about when officers are allowed to enter your home when you're there . It doesn't even mention what the law is…

You might be right, but telling me to get facts from Hollywood cop shows is a rather strange assertion. I mean, seriously, these shows regularly show cops doing all kinds of things, like torturing suspects for information.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#335

Post by keehun »

MicroBerto wrote: post #197
keehun wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could say the same about Bernie? Or would you disagree?

Would agree, but I'm not confident in his chances of defeating "the chosen one"...

How come? Polls & numbers (whatever value they have this early on in the "general" cycle) state otherwise. In fact, it looks like Bernie has a much better chance at the moment than Hilary... Don't you think Trump would dominate 24/7 news cycle on digging up Hilary's old wounds? What does he have on Bernie? "He's a communist you're voting for a communist!"?

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#336

Post by gcb0 »

krapp wrote: post #223
gcb0 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in other words, we are OK with the man elected to represent us for a few years to live like an alien. there will probably not be a single American that thinks a bomb proof car in a exaggeration.

>there will probably not be a single American that thinks a bomb proof car in a exaggeration. Everyone in the world knows the President's car is a mobile battle fortress. I saw an entire show about it on the History Channel. That's not because he's detached from the people, though, it's an unfortunate necessity of office. The last time an American President rode around in public in a convertible, it didn't end well f…

> unfortunate necessity of office

and you just proved my point.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#337

Post by Grishnakh »

cromwellian wrote: post #334
Grishnakh wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you don't have to be notified. Have you never heard of a wiretap? They've been doing wiretaps for as long as telephones have been around (about a century now, I think). Obviously you don't have to notify a suspect that they're being tapped. As for your link, that's completely irrelevant: that only talks about when officers are allowed to enter your home when you're there . It doesn't even mention what the law is…

You might be right, but telling me to get facts from Hollywood cop shows is a rather strange assertion. I mean, seriously, these shows regularly show cops doing all kinds of things, like torturing suspects for information.

They've only been showing that crap on cop shows since 9/11. And yes, TV shows aren't always perfectly reflective of reality, but they usually do get things nominally right to a decent degree.

You can't tell me you really think wiretaps are something that never have happened.

Post reply on HN