Weird News

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The point at which it leaves your brain. That's why personal interviews with people's family, friends, and acquaintances are a routine part of background checks for security clearances. Anything you say; or, write can somehow be used against you by anyone possessing knowledge of what was communicated regardless of how it was obtained.

That is the obvious privacy issue. And the relevant point (since her sex obviously was irrelevant).

1) You control the release of what you write. 2) What others say about you is only hearsay - their opinion; not yours. 3) Secret recordings are not hearsay and are not controlled by you. These three completely different concepts should be defined by universal rules for privacy ... that do not exist.

Abdul-Jabbar's commentary properly identified a second issue here. We do not condemn someone for violating CA's (reported) privacy laws ... that do not exist in all states or many other nations. The word 'niger' causes so much emotional distress but a fundamental violation of privacy does not?

Obviously what is written and publically released is completely different from private thoughts explored in a private setting. Secret recordings of a person making exploratory statements in an uncontrolled emotional outburst (regardless of whether he believes them or not) should be a major privacy violation. For all we know, one might be practicing in private for a future acting role or to explore someone else’s thought patterns. Recording is a problem only made worse by the many who say no such privacy rights exist in the Constitution.

Instead you were all caught up in a misogyny issue that is irrelevant. You saw misogyny rather than an obvious violation of privacy - which was his obvious point. So yes we agree. Your point was misogyny so that Abdul-Jabbar's obvious privacy complaint was completely ignored.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yabut, yabut, she's still a bitch.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by tw

...The word 'niger' causes so much emotional distress...

The African river, or, the African republic?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

... 1) You control the release of what you write. ...

Not if it's stolen.

Originally Posted by tw

... 2) What others say about you is only hearsay - their opinion; not yours. ...

Not if they're quoting you. Hearsay is admissible in the court of public opinion (especially if corroborated by other people or polygraph), administrative proceedings, and judicial proceedings under various circumstances (e.g. death bed statements, absent victims as a judge ruled in the Drew Peterson case).

Originally Posted by tw

... Secret recordings are not hearsay and are not controlled by you. ...

You have complete control over what's secretly recorded. Just keep your mouth shut when you feel like saying something you know you might regret if it went public. Additionally, there's a room within a room for everything.

Originally Posted by tw

... These three completely different concepts should be defined by universal rules for privacy ... that do not exist. ...

It all goes to one concept: Too many people today believe that the end justifies the means for the expectation of universal rules of privacy to be grounded in reality.

Originally Posted by tw

... Abdul-Jabbar's commentary properly identified a second issue here. We do not condemn someone for violating CA's (reported) privacy laws ...

There are people who don't condemn Snowden for violating secrecy laws. It goes back to the one concept stated above.

Originally Posted by tw

... Obviously what is written and publically released is completely different from private thoughts explored in a private setting. Secret recordings of a person making exploratory statements in an uncontrolled emotional outburst (regardless of whether he believes them or not) should be a major privacy violation. ...

Not if one has a whistleblower mentality that allows for violations without condemnation.

Originally Posted by tw

... For all we know, one might be practicing in private for a future acting role or to explore someone else’s thought patterns. ...

For all we know, one might be practicing in private for a future terrorist action or to explore someone else's pain thresholds.

Originally Posted by tw

... Recording is a problem only made worse by the many who say no such privacy rights exist in the Constitution. ...

I bet that scares the Bejesus out of those who would pick and choose what rights people should have based upon their own interpretation of Constitutional Amendments. You know, the ones who can dish it out; but, can't take it.

Originally Posted by tw

... Instead you were all caught up in a misogyny issue that is irrelevant. You saw misogyny rather than an obvious violation of privacy - which was his obvious point. So yes we agree. Your point was misogyny so that Abdul-Jabbar's obvious privacy complaint was completely ignored ...

I see you didn't comprehend this previous post. Let me 'splain it to you:

Originally Posted by sexobon

Kind of gives one the impression he doesn't believe that the end always justifies the means.

The "end" refers to exposing racism. The "means" refers to by violating privacy. The way I worded it was in consideration of Abdul-Jabbar's statements and the following observation:

Originally Posted by DanaC

Guy has a way with words!

You see tw, I addressed Abdul-Jabbar's concern, along with his way with words, with a way with words of my own. By the time I responded to you, I had already moved on to whimsy. In the future, please do try to keep up. It's the least you can do after subjecting people to so many useless opinions.

[tw]

This topic has two distinct issues. First was obvious - potential racism.

Abdul-Jabbar identified a second issue - violation of privacy.

During Nam, those who could not deal logically hyped 'ends justifies the means' and 'means justify the ends'. They needed rhetoric to muddy discussion due to nothing useful, correct, or relevant to contribute. They choose to throw everything in a big pot. Sexobon has done same.

Since he confused Abdul-Jabbar's comment with misogyny, he must confuse privacy with other issues such as racism. Even adding a possible thief into the soup. He even wants to throw Snowden into the pot so that you will ignore irrelevant misogynist comments. Apparently confusing issues justifies his actions.

He admits to doing this facetiously for personal entertainment. Ignoring that Abdul-Jabbar defined a second and relevant issue. Abdul-Jabbar’s comments are admirable and commendable. He mentions an issue we still have not addressed.