-->
@3RU7AL
Because I am not claiming privacy does not matter, I am unconvinced that it is the most important.
REPORTING AN ALLEGED CRIME IS LIBELOUS SLANDER AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL
Posts
Total:
93
-->
@Theweakeredge
Just because you have the financial reports of somebody's taxes, that does not mean you have control of their finances.
You might be shocked to know what someone can figure out about you simply by carefully examining your financial records. [FOR EXAMPLE]
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because I am not claiming privacy does not matter, I am unconvinced that it is the most important.
Please present some semblance of an attempt at a counter argument.
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, I am not watching an entire video for you, explain your point.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Neither of these addresses my points, my first point said, "TALK ABOUT IT" as in, you should spread the FACT that this person had done something against the law, regardless of if the action was right or wrong. Explain what the "Liar's Dividend" is, and why it is relevant.
(1) simply viewing a video clip of something does not make it a FACT.
(2) The LIAR'S DIVIDEND is when someone spreads a story (often shocking or otherwise attention-grabbing) regardless of their intention at the time, IFF the story later turns out to be FALSE, the retraction NEVER gets the same attention as the initial LIE. This leaves the majority of people who read the original story with the impression that it was TRUE and those people continue to spread that story and may even openly disbelieve the retraction.
The difference between the number of people who believed the initial story and the number of people who even saw the retraction is THE LIAR'S DIVIDEND.
-->
@3RU7AL
You have made a claim, demonstrate it
-->
@Theweakeredge
Financial records, specifically spending patterns over time and specific dollar amounts can reveal any number of potentially embarrassing personal details.
-->
@3RU7AL
I would ask for a demonstration of this principle, if this is the case, there should be hard data for it. I also don't see how this defeats the ethical obligation of not supporting something which is immoral. Furthermore, IF there is conclusive footage of Dwayne stealing, as I supposed, THEN it is something which is PROVEN to be true. That is what a fact is.
-->
@3RU7AL
...So? What does that matter? Let me shut this down, this is a red herring and has nothing to do with my objection. Privacy does not equate to sovereignty it CAN, but it is NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE, in fact, it is not usually the case.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have made a claim, demonstrate it
Make a counter claim.
What do you think is "most important"?
It doesn't even have to be a very strong counter claim.
DO YOU PERHAPS BELIEVE THAT SECURITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRIVACY?
-->
@Theweakeredge
...So? What does that matter? Let me shut this down, this is a red herring and has nothing to do with my objection. Privacy does not equate to sovereignty it CAN, but it is NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE, in fact, it is not usually the case.
Please explain.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I would ask for a demonstration of this principle, if this is the case, there should be hard data for it. I also don't see how this defeats the ethical obligation of not supporting something which is immoral.
I have literally no idea what you're referring to.
Please be slightly more specific.
-->
@3RU7AL
No. I think ethical obligation is more important, I would not be so arrogant to assign something the most important.
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF there is conclusive footage of Dwayne stealing, as I supposed, THEN it is something which is PROVEN to be true. That is what a fact is.
Do you understand that VIDEO EVIDENCE CAN BE FAKED?
The "evidence" you describe in your initial example is NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, they can be, but that does mean that they are. In fact, the majority are conclusive, in fact - this is assuming that the video is credible, and the footage would be security.
-->
@Theweakeredge
No. I think ethical obligation is more important, I would not be so arrogant to assign something the most important.
How is a fundamental right to privacy in conflict with your ethical obligation?
Isn't it your ethical obligation to protect your own privacy and by extension the privacy of every individual sovereign human being?
-->
@3RU7AL
Your entire thing about what you can learn from somebody's taxes... it does not equate sovereignty to privacy, it is a red herring.
-->
@3RU7AL
Not more than it is to report something is immoral to the population - ESPECIALLY if the thing is harmful. Again, I am not claiming that privacy is unimportant, I am saying it IS NOT the most important.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you understand that VIDEO EVIDENCE CAN BE FAKED?The "evidence" you describe in your initial example is NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF.Yes, they can be, but that does mean that they are. In fact, the majority are conclusive, in fact - this is assuming that the video is credible, and the footage would be security.
It is impossible for you personally to prove the footage is authentic.
Your hypothetical cannot contain magic knowledge.
-->
@3RU7AL
Liar's Dividend
-->
@3RU7AL
False. You can actually pretty easily infer if such evidence was false or true.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Your entire thing about what you can learn from somebody's taxes... it does not equate sovereignty to privacy, it is a red herring.
Guess what happens when your tax records are audited?
ALL OF YOUR BANK AND CREDIT CARD RECORDS ARE LAID BARE.
-->
@Theweakeredge
False. You can actually pretty easily infer if such evidence was false or true.
How exactly do you "infer" this?
-->
@3RU7AL
So? Again, how is that linked to autonomy, does knowing the balance somehow give you access to their credit cards? For example - Donald Trump's Tax returns. IT was an overwhelmingly good thing that it was reported.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Liar's Dividend
Please explain exactly what this is in reference to.
-->
@3RU7AL
Present hard data to demonstrate the Liar's Dividend
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not more than it is to report something is immoral to the population - ESPECIALLY if the thing is harmful.
What principle is this based on?
What do you believe qualifies as "harmful" enough to justify violating the privacy of your neighbors?
-->
@3RU7AL
Privacy is important, I see no reason why it is so important to justify incriminating somebody for revealing true information. You are assuming that every claim that somebody is a criminal is untrue, you are also assuming they have intentions to make their reputation fall. It does not matter if their reputation does lower, only if they meant it to. That is the nature of crimes of words.
-->
@Theweakeredge
So? Again, how is that linked to autonomy, does knowing the balance somehow give you access to their credit cards? For example - Donald Trump's Tax returns. IT was an overwhelmingly good thing that it was reported.
It is leverage (for potential blackmail and or extortion) that could be used to compromise an official or even a lowly citizen into acting in a way they would not otherwise voluntarily choose.