A perfect comment Zenaan. Very mature, wise and clearly in the bull's*-*eye. Thank you.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:19:59PM +0000, Tempest wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > thomas.hluch...@netcologne.de: > > You have. You might consider that intelligent services have large > > amounts of resources. If this is a planned attack from a group of > > interested people, they are able to do so. > > so they are all government agents/assets then in a grand conspiracy > against one person? "all"?!! Please! Classic dichotomy thinking! "It must be saintliness or abject evil." Can someone be human, make mistakes yet be constructive in this world, attempt to crack open some mind prisons for individuals here and there, and sometimes succeed, sometimes not reach own standards? Have personal things to handle, learn, improve on? Is a human who does make a mistake entitled to speak to it, or to remain silent, or to have a space where genuine communication with aggrieved one can occur? Did you read "The Weaponising Of Social Part 2: Stomping On IOError’s Grave"? If not, perhaps go and read it now... > > Wrong. We have a legal system and a generic rule: someone has to be > > assumed not guilty until the opposite is proofed. > > that rule only applies in a court of law. You apply the rules you choose to apply, in your own mind! Most of us are mostly in self imposed mind prisons, self censoring, endlessly bound in dichotomies, failing to bring empathy (a common Westerner failing these days), failing to bring nuance to our conversation, just leaping on a black or white lynch mob train. We HAVE to do better. > if you steal from me and are never taken to court, it's not a violation > of "due process" if i call you a thief, If you have facts proving the theft, then I agree with you. If you only have a feeling, or assumption, or "well he's the most likely one", then YES, that IS a violation of due process, due care to one another, due consideration of the types of conversations and society/ community we want to live in, to create by our conversations for our children to live in. If you can't live the law, the law is not real for you. If it's not worth living, then it is not true/ natural law. > nor is it defamation. You are binding yourself/ your conversation to an unnecessarily extreme legal think. How do you --want-- to live? Who do you want to be? How would you want people to think/ consider/ treat you in conversation in such circumstances, or are we really wasting our time trying to wear another's boots? The law should only be a backup for when people -fail- to live the law in their interactions - "the law" that goes beyond this is mostly artificial, against our interests, against common sense, and destructive of community. Please, let's try to lift the conversation. Now is the moment. Now is YOUR opportunity to live a higher ethic (by your own standard, not mine) - live the highest you are capable of and it WILL make for a better world. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
