BELL SYMPATICO USERS BEWARE !
Jump to Page:
< Previous [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]
Posted on: 08-07-06 10:14:31
Quote:
Originally posted by mails4sagar
If the system continues to come to terms with reality in the manner that it is trying to do, the day is not far when they will be living and fighting with the same laws and ideals that are used by its enemies....
True. However we differ on a single point. You see the actions of western govts as 'Causes' leading to such a situation. I see it as 'Prevention' from such a situation. Basically we are on opposite sides as to wether a threat exists or not.
Quote:
Consider a simple example....the US has been unsuccessful in capturing the mastermind that it has been wanting "dead or alive"....
Clearly, whatever they have been doing hasn't worked.
History will judge that. This battle will take atlease a decade or more...maybe even a generation. Refer to my previous post about the battle being won or lost in mosques.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Quote:
Originally posted by jake3d
Quote:
Originally posted by mails4sagar
If the system continues to come to terms with reality in the manner that it is trying to do, the day is not far when they will be living and fighting with the same laws and ideals that are used by its enemies....
True. However we differ on a single point. You see the actions of western govts as 'Causes' leading to such a situation. I see it as 'Prevention' from such a situation. Basically we are on opposite sides as to wether a threat exists or not.
Quote:
Consider a simple example....the US has been unsuccessful in capturing the mastermind that it has been wanting "dead or alive"....
Clearly, whatever they have been doing hasn't worked.
History will judge that. This battle will take atlease a decade or more...maybe even a generation. Refer to my previous post about the battle being won or lost in mosques.
Jake,
I don't think we differ on what you think we differ on.
I agree that a threat exists, and infact, i think the threat is much much greater than what you PROBABLY think....
BUT, despite the huge threat, i still think that "blanket monitoring" is not the correct method of tackling the threat.
Totally agree with BL.......
"What I feel however is that there must be VERY strong resistance against aligning laws to circumstances. It must be done as a last resort. Otherwise, the laws don't mean much anyways.
I just feel there's a danger governments and the people will be tempted to give in too easily in the name of security. And then the war we're fighting to preserve "our way of life" is lost before it ever began."
What is happening currently is that we are giving in too easily to the threat, and in a way, the authorities are getting away with a lot, in the name of security.
If we continue to handle the situation in the way that we are doing right now, the battle will not be won in decades, and may not even be won in generations.
The battle will not, and cannot be won in mosques alone, coz what is more important is the keyhole through which the mosques are viewed by the "rest of us".......
(The personal examples cited by me earlier have had nothing to do with my religion.....)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible.
But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.
Quote:
Originally posted by mails4sagar
Jake,
I don't think we differ on what you think we differ on.
I agree that a threat exists, and infact, i think the threat is much much greater than what you PROBABLY think....
BUT, despite the huge threat, i still think that "blanket monitoring" is not the correct method of tackling the threat.
Totally agree with BL.......
"What I feel however is that there must be VERY strong resistance against aligning laws to circumstances. It must be done as a last resort. Otherwise, the laws don't mean much anyways.
I just feel there's a danger governments and the people will be tempted to give in too easily in the name of security. And then the war we're fighting to preserve "our way of life" is lost before it ever began."
What is happening currently is that we are giving in too easily to the threat, and in a way, the authorities are getting away with a lot, in the name of security.
If we continue to handle the situation in the way that we are doing right now, the battle will not be won in decades, and may not even be won in generations.
The battle will not, and cannot be won in mosques alone, coz what is more important is the keyhole through which the mosques are viewed by the "rest of us".......
(The personal examples cited by me earlier have had nothing to do with my religion.....)
Since we agree on the fact that there is a threat...I guess then we are differring on if the threat is from
The threat is then from
EITHER
a) a govt in a democratic society 'taking over' and imposing an authoritarian rule
OR
b) a few supremacists threatening our way of life and if emboldened...replacing it with their way of life.
I choose A cause it is the lesser of the 2 evils. Like I explained in a previous post(and which you glossed over)...democracy itself is the remedy for the side-effects of A.
My stand is quite clear. So is my perception of the threat and the compromises I am making in my ideals for the short term.
Mail4sagar...what exactly is your perception of the 'threat'? What exactly is your stand regarding the terrorists and their designs? Are they a threat at all? Or are they a lesser threat according to you than bell canada divulging your net browsing habits? What exactly is the remedy to B?
Provide some answers instead of rhetorical and moralistic ramblings about 'freedom' and 'mediocrity'. You and I are only as free as we are allowed to be by borders, laws, society, physics and finally our minds. Even the illussions of freedom are self-imposed and have differing standards/limits in different people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
In carrying on this discussion, I'm not sure if we recognize that Bell has not 'started monitoring'; rather they introduced a clause in the customer agreement that suggests that the 'reserve the right' to do that.
Bell and other telecommunications providers (and indeed other service providers) 'reserve the right' to do a lot of things that they do not actually do.
As I understand it, the entire ruckus that's been created has been in relation to section 14 of the customer service agreement http://service.sympatico.ca/index.cfm?method=content.view&content_id=5527&category_id=280 ; no law has been introduced that 'requires' that they do this (and if you look at the link, the amendments to the clause clearly suggest at the outset that they have no obligation 'to do so').
Is this all much ado about nothing?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mails4sagar
Jake,
I don't think we differ on what you think we differ on.
I agree that a threat exists, and infact, i think the threat is much much greater than what you PROBABLY think....
BUT, despite the huge threat, i still think that "blanket monitoring" is not the correct method of tackling the threat.
Totally agree with BL.......
"What I feel however is that there must be VERY strong resistance against aligning laws to circumstances. It must be done as a last resort. Otherwise, the laws don't mean much anyways.
I just feel there's a danger governments and the people will be tempted to give in too easily in the name of security. And then the war we're fighting to preserve "our way of life" is lost before it ever began."
What is happening currently is that we are giving in too easily to the threat, and in a way, the authorities are getting away with a lot, in the name of security.
If we continue to handle the situation in the way that we are doing right now, the battle will not be won in decades, and may not even be won in generations.
The battle will not, and cannot be won in mosques alone, coz what is more important is the keyhole through which the mosques are viewed by the "rest of us".......
(The personal examples cited by me earlier have had nothing to do with my religion.....)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we agree on the fact that there is a threat...I guess then we are differring on if the threat is from
The threat is then from
EITHER
a) a govt in a democratic society 'taking over' and imposing an authoritarian rule
OR
b) a few supremacists threatening our way of life and if emboldened...replacing it with their way of life.
I choose A cause it is the lesser of the 2 evils. Like I explained in a previous post(and which you glossed over)...democracy itself is the remedy for the side-effects of A.
My stand is quite clear. So is my perception of the threat and the compromises I am making in my ideals for the short term.
Mail4sagar...what exactly is your perception of the 'threat'? What exactly is your stand regarding the terrorists and their designs? Are they a threat at all? Or are they a lesser threat according to you than bell canada divulging your net browsing habits? What exactly is the remedy to B?
Provide some answers instead of rhetorical and moralistic ramblings about 'freedom' and 'mediocrity'. You and I are only as free as we are allowed to be by borders, laws, society, physics and finally our minds. Even the illussions of freedom are self-imposed and have differing standards/limits in different people.
I agree with jake3d that there is certain set of laws to sustain peace within the society. And they are absolutely important for existence. But question here is about the worth of the freedom we loose cause of the authorities intruding into our private lives and troubling us now and then with their various protocols.
Can we really avoid the danger of terrorism by these regulations and more importantly how much it gonna be implemented for the right reason and on the right person?
If it’s a confirmed yes I do not think anyone will have any problem to be abided by these laws. But till we are not sure that they will work the right way, the question remains about the significance of these laws. It’s simply the question of what we are getting if we are sacrificing our rights of freedom. One can stay safe from terrorism by just moving into a remote village which terrorists would not consider attacking. But how many of us will like to do that? If we do not consider that then the reason is it is simply not worth it. There can be a lot of crazy ways of avoiding a bomb or a bullet hitting us. But would we consider following them?
If someone is looking for a remedy of the terrorism and wanna discuss that then he should open a different thread and can very well invite opinions from the interested members. And I presume whoso ever provides a real affective mode gets the next Nobel Prize for peace. So lets not ask the remedy. As these precautions are just stand as precautions and not as a remedy or cure.
As mentioned by you in the same post “Even the illusion of freedom are self-imposed and have differing standards/limits in different people” – the perception (I won’t call it illusion) of freedom varies drastically from one individual to another. So the amount of the compromise one needs to do for even a smallest reason holds different values, which is in accordance to their personal parameters.
“The difference in our opinions arises from our basic needs. You just want to be alive. I, on the other hand want to be alive and free.”-
The above statement of BV justifies my view. So which is just a small sacrifice for someone for a bigger reason can be a lot more serious to another person.
And the question remains…how affective these rules are and how much they can protect us from terrorism. What are we getting in return for the harassments we are facing for the security reasons and by loosing our freedom and basic privacy?
The above post was my 1st post in this community. I have tried copy pasting the post of jake3d and tried to endorse my opinion touching his post. It seems I was not correct with the method, as the quote didn’t come the way it should come. My sincere apologies to all the CD members for the inconvenience caused due to my ignorance.
Wish everyone a lovely weekend.
Quote:
Originally posted by ambiguity
“The difference in our opinions arises from our basic needs. You just want to be alive. I, on the other hand want to be alive and free.”-
LOL! 'Alive and free'...one is a prerequisite is it not? I like to be alive and free too. In that order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Advertise Contact Us Privacy Policy and Terms of Usage FAQ Canadian Desi © 2001 Marg eSolutions Site designed, developed and maintained by Marg eSolutions Inc. |