Jason #fundie

Jason #fundie fstdt.com

A) Wrong according to the Christian majority that allows you to live in its country, and

B) Invasion of privacy is acceptable for a parent who thinks his or her child is doing something wrong, and needs to be corrected for his or her own benefit. It's the same deal with the government - you don't have the right to privacy at all, so I would advise you not to bite the hand that feeds you.

45 comments

old comment by King Duncan

@Dulli Dog
Fourth amendment, indeed. It protects you against unreasonable search and seizure by the Fereral (and implicitly State) government. Not exactly the same, but close I guess.
On to the 9th amendment. Can't seem to find actual text, but if I remember, it was one of those "cover my bases" sort of things. Just because certain things were banned explicitly, doesn't mean to say that other things are OK for the government to do. Sort of expands it to protect your privacy.
On the other hand, I have heard arguemnts along the lines of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" being an intentionally ordered set. Life being most important, and overriding the other two when reasonable. We can't kill people just to make others happy, or protect someone else's freedom. Kinda makes sense, death is the most irrevocable thing we know of. Secondly, freedom vs happiness; We can't ban activities just because some people are upset by them, freedom is more important.
Now, if I was to put "privacy" in there somewhere, it would be most likely under "happiness" since privacy certainly makes people happy, but it doesn't help you continue to live, or help you be free (typically).
It makes sense.
It would be much easier if the whole privacy issue was directly addressed (and prioritized) in the constitution.

old comment by Quoter

I'm posting something I found on the Internet:
"When people talk about the rights that have gone down the toilet thanks to the
Bush administration, Stupid doesn’t understand what they’re talking about. “What
rights? What freedoms?”

You see, Stupid doesn’t get it. He thinks habeas corpus is a hip-hop band out of
Chicago, and he doesn’t listen to that crap (especially since Rush Limbaugh told
him that HC once opened for the Dixie Chicks). As for having his phone tapped
and his mail read, Stupid doesn’t have a problem with that because he’s got
nuthin’ to hide. Stupid doesn’t care if Agent Mike is tracking what websites he
goes to (unless, of course, Agent Mike tells his mother how many times he’d
logged-on to Topless Co-eds Gone Wild, in which case he might be tempted to
rethink his position).

As far as Stupid is concerned, as long as he doesn’t care that his rights are
being violated, that means nobody’s rights are being violated because who’s
more important than Stupid, when all is said and done?

Of course, when Bush or anyone else in his administration refuse to turn over
emails, documents, etc., Stupid never makes the connection with the concept of
innocent people having nuthin’ to hide. Stupid firmly believes that if George W.
Bush has something to hide, it’s because Jesus specifically told him to hide it
an invocation of Savior-Client privilege, if you will.

And speaking of Jesus, there’s another topic that Stupid will tell you about at
length. You see, apparently the Prince of Peace is no longer in effect, and real
Christians have moved on from that ol' New Testament guy they once revered. As
far as Stupid is concerned, there’s a new Jesus in town and he’s packin’. He’s
about to premiere his Second Coming with guns a’blazin’, going after homosexuals
and abortionists et al. In other words, Jesus is coming back to set the record
straight having obviously forgotten to condemn gays and abortion the first
time around.

Like I said, you can’t argue with Stupid, because he knows he’s right."

I think it's from some leftist blog but still it fits.

Jason #fundie fstdt.com

45 comments

Confused?