User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 101

  1. #81
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Incorrect unless you concede that every detail about a person is in that person's best interest to remain hidden. A decrease in privacy means an increase in the information about that person, which means that whoever has that information has an advantage over that person. Privacy is a defense mechanism and it should not be emphasized only by those with something to hide, but rather by everyone with something to lose.
    Again, has more to do with an imbalance of privacy than a lack of privacy. In a world where everyone knows everything about everyone else, it is only the people who have done "wrong" who truly suffer. In a world with absolute privacy, it is those who have done "right" who suffer. However, I will concede that sometimes what our society defines as "wrong" is itself wrong and oppressive, so undue suffering will take place when full disclosure is combined with misplaced values.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  2. #82
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Again, has more to do with an imbalance of privacy than a lack of privacy. In a world where everyone knows everything about everyone else, it is only the people who have done "wrong" who truly suffer. In a world with absolute privacy, it is those who have done "right" who suffer. However, I will concede that sometimes what our society defines as "wrong" is itself wrong and oppressive, so undue suffering will take place when full disclosure is combined with misplaced values.
    This makes the most sense to me and I find it to be true.

  3. #83
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Again, has more to do with an imbalance of privacy than a lack of privacy. In a world where everyone knows everything about everyone else, it is only the people who have done "wrong" who truly suffer. In a world with absolute privacy, it is those who have done "right" who suffer. However, I will concede that sometimes what our society defines as "wrong" is itself wrong and oppressive, so undue suffering will take place when full disclosure is combined with misplaced values.
    Oh I agree completely. I see privacy as something that would ideally become obsolete as society matures. Total transparency between all humans would be one of the greatest achievements imaginable.

  4. #84
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Oh I agree completely. I see privacy as something that would ideally become obsolete as society matures. Total transparency between all humans would be one of the greatest achievements imaginable.
    Hive mind FTL...

    Also the death of privacy is one of the most frightening aspects of our tech arms race.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Hive mind FTL...

    Also the death of privacy is one of the most frightening aspects of our tech arms race.
    A hive mind would make accomplishing a majority of tasks dependent on multiple people incredibly easy. I doubt humans will ever develop a genuine hive mind, but if they did, it would only allow us to progress more rapidly than ever before. Until then, the best we can do is volunteer information willingly, and only a fraction of the sum of information will ever be shared between any given two individuals even if those individuals are extremely close-knit. Privacy is only important at this point in time because people have the capacity to use information gained through a lapse in privacy for selfish gains at the expense of that exposed individual. A total lack of privacy would render these advantages obsolete, because everyone could access this advantage. Tearing down barriers between people is not disarming them, it is empowering them.

    It is logical to oppose a decrease in privacy at this point in time, but a lack of privacy is an ideal end goal to strive for.

  6. #86
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR View Post
    I have nothing to hide, therefore I have no reason for privacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    In a world where everyone knows everything about everyone else, it is only the people who have done "wrong" who truly suffer. In a world with absolute privacy, it is those who have done "right" who suffer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Oh I agree completely. I see privacy as something that would ideally become obsolete as society matures. Total transparency between all humans would be one of the greatest achievements imaginable.
    Yikes. Really? That's downright terrifying. A desire for privacy doesn't imply any insidious secrets. People whose "secrets" are exposed most absolutely *can* suffer if those details are made public. There are too many examples to count, but just take the witness protection program. Certainly someone who stands up to a violent criminal has nothing to hide, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    However, I will concede that sometimes what our society defines as "wrong" is itself wrong and oppressive, so undue suffering will take place when full disclosure is combined with misplaced values.
    This is the tip of the iceberg, but on the right track, I think. The very idea of "misplaced values" makes my point. Who decides what positions are indicative of "misplaced" values? What about positions where reasonable people can come to different conclusions?

    You almost have to posit that violence, manipulation for personal gain, and taking advantage of others would have to be eliminated from society before a true lack of privacy could lead to the utopia you seem to believe in. If history has taught us anything, it's that such a thing is beyond the realm of possibility. And would you really want to eliminate the diversity of ideas that would require? There's a reason that nothing's perfect. Perfection implies a completeness of uniformity that itself denies perfection.

    One other thing... a lot of the elements in society that are advocating or working toward the reduction in personal privacy are doing it for... personal profit. That alone is proof that humanity isn't ready for such an idealistic position on perfect transparency (and almost certainly never will be).
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #87
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    This is the tip of the iceberg, but on the right track, I think. The very idea of "misplaced values" makes my point. Who decides what positions are indicative of "misplaced" values? What about positions where reasonable people can come to different conclusions?

    You almost have to posit that violence, manipulation for personal gain, and taking advantage of others would have to be eliminated from society before a true lack of privacy could lead to the utopia you seem to believe in. If history has taught us anything, it's that such a thing is beyond the realm of possibility. And would you really want to eliminate the diversity of ideas that would require? There's a reason that nothing's perfect. Perfection implies a completeness of uniformity that itself denies perfection.

    One other thing... a lot of the elements in society that are advocating or working toward the reduction in personal privacy are doing it for... personal profit. That alone is proof that humanity isn't ready for such an idealistic position on perfect transparency (and almost certainly never will be).
    If reasonable people come to different conclusions, then one or both of them are wrong. Either that, or they aren't discussing the same abstract concept.

    It's not that I believe in a utopia, I am simply suggesting that we do not have to fear knowledge, only the imbalance of knowledge. In a world where everyone's actions were known, how could a person be violent, manipulate, or take advantage of another person without everyone else knowing about it and preventing it? Do you believe that humans are not inclined to help one another?

    There would still be a diversity of ideas. Lack of privacy doesn't mean that people won't be capable of independent thought.

    Perfection is relative. The degree to which something is perfect is measured by how well that thing represents an ideal. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "Perfection implies a completeness of uniformity that itself denies perfection."

    You are saying that because people are motivated by personal gain that they aren't ready for transparency? I'm not sure how that follows. Define "ready" in this context.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  8. #88
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Oh I agree completely. I see privacy as something that would ideally become obsolete as society matures. Total transparency between all humans would be one of the greatest achievements imaginable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    A hive mind would make accomplishing a majority of tasks dependent on multiple people incredibly easy. I doubt humans will ever develop a genuine hive mind, but if they did, it would only allow us to progress more rapidly than ever before.
    Progress towards what? Not only the death of privacy but the death of the individual?

    Thank God not everyone thinks this way!

    Privacy is only important at this point in time because people have the capacity to use information gained through a lapse in privacy for selfish gains at the expense of that exposed individual. A total lack of privacy would render these advantages obsolete, because everyone could access this advantage. Tearing down barriers between people is not disarming them, it is empowering them.
    Maybe you want to live in a goldfish bowl. It's not something I aspire to. I have less than zero interest in what other people are thinking and doing. I already know waaaay more than I could ever wish to.
    You do realise you are advocating totalitarianism?
    Even if what you propose were possible (and it is not), one still has to protect the privacy (and the innocence) of children and the vulnerable.
    But privacy isn't just about protecting oneself from exploitation. It's about valuing identity.
    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    This is the tip of the iceberg, but on the right track, I think. The very idea of "misplaced values" makes my point. Who decides what positions are indicative of "misplaced" values? What about positions where reasonable people can come to different conclusions?
    Right. That's how it starts.
    You almost have to posit that violence, manipulation for personal gain, and taking advantage of others would have to be eliminated from society before a true lack of privacy could lead to the utopia you seem to believe in. If history has taught us anything, it's that such a thing is beyond the realm of possibility. And would you really want to eliminate the diversity of ideas that would require? There's a reason that nothing's perfect. Perfection implies a completeness of uniformity that itself denies perfection.
    Given impossible utopian dreams in which knowledge <> power and power is not abused and everyone upholds the law; given that it might be impossible to exploit or manipulate people through what you know about them, would you want to live in a world where nothing is sacred, where nothing is private and intimate?
    Isn't that also the death of intimacy?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  9. #89
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    If reasonable people come to different conclusions, then one or both of them are wrong. Either that, or they aren't discussing the same abstract concept.
    Life isn't this simple. You're saying that people's conclusions, which can be based on personal preferences, must be either "right" or "wrong". Even if your measure is logical consistency (and for many, many people on many, many topics, that's not the only consideration), it's still possible to come to different conclusions. Take a (vastly) simplified version of the basic American political divide. Do we have higher taxes and more public services, or lower taxes and fewer public services? Both positions are logically consistent and can be fiscally responsible. Reasonable people advocate both options. That doesn't make one position universally "right" and one "wrong".

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    It's not that I believe in a utopia, I am simply suggesting that we do not have to fear knowledge, only the imbalance of knowledge. In a world where everyone's actions were known, how could a person be violent, manipulate, or take advantage of another person without everyone else knowing about it and preventing it? Do you believe that humans are not inclined to help one another?
    I bolded your statement about the imbalance of knowledge because I do think that it's an important point (but not the only one). The lack of privacy that's starting to come into being *is* imbalanced. It's not a position of "everyone's actions were known" -- it's one based on a model where your personal private actions will be used to take advantage of you, or be sold to those who will try to take advantage of you.

    Additionally, your position completely ignores topics where an action runs into the "tyranny of the majority" (Morgan's point about totalitarianism is spot-on). An example: "everyone should be required to make their sexual orientation and proclivities completely public". After all, if everyone knew everything, nobody would have anything to hide, right? Well... unless your preferences (while legal with consenting adults, of course) happen to be in the minority, and others could use that information to discriminate against you. Note that we're not talking about anything that harms or effects others directly. It's just a measure of "ew, you like *that*?" History is replete with examples where that sort of thing is enough to trigger persecution, etc.

    I'd say that humans are inclined to help one another... as long as we see those others as part of our social group, that they share our central core beliefs and sense of who we are. While they obviously can change and grow, those groups aren't that large. People *are* altruistic, but it's not universal. It's the same reason that we are more comfortable telling more personal details of our lives to our friends than we are to strangers, and are more initially comfortable with strangers that we see as more similar to ourselves that strangers we see as more dissimilar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    There would still be a diversity of ideas. Lack of privacy doesn't mean that people won't be capable of independent thought.
    Nope, it doesn't. But it does discourage it, particularly the application of those thoughts. Complete transparency would *strongly* encourage people to comply with "accepted" behaviors in all aspects of their lives. Especially those with something to lose, or who count on relative strangers for significant parts of their livelihood (that's basically everyone in a modern industrialized society).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Perfection is relative. The degree to which something is perfect is measured by how well that thing represents an ideal. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "Perfection implies a completeness of uniformity that itself denies perfection."
    But the whole "if everyone knew every detail of everyone's personal lives, the transparency would prevent injustice" argument relies on the perfection of an ideal being realized in total. Which isn't going to happen. What I meant is that I see perfection as an all-encompassing multidimensional ideal -- and that a monoculture of anything, be it thought or behavior, is inherently lacking, and weak. Take an example from ecology -- monocultures are much more susceptible to disease and predation than diverse ecologies are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    You are saying that because people are motivated by personal gain that they aren't ready for transparency? I'm not sure how that follows. Define "ready" in this context.
    I wouldn't phrase it quite like that, but yes -- this is more or less what I'm saying. If it comes down to using personal details of other people's lives in order to get ahead, and it absolutely does come down to that, transparency isn't compatible with where we are as a society. Furthermore, I don't believe that we, as biological human beings, will *ever* get to the point where our perceived social groups will be large enough to encompass everyone that would need to be included in our modern, uber-connected society in order to make transparency any less than tragic.

    Long-rant over
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #90
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Life isn't this simple. You're saying that people's conclusions, which can be based on personal preferences, must be either "right" or "wrong". Even if your measure is logical consistency (and for many, many people on many, many topics, that's not the only consideration), it's still possible to come to different conclusions. Take a (vastly) simplified version of the basic American political divide. Do we have higher taxes and more public services, or lower taxes and fewer public services? Both positions are logically consistent and can be fiscally responsible. Reasonable people advocate both options. That doesn't make one position universally "right" and one "wrong".
    I think you're missing the nuances of my point. If the people have different preferences, then they are aiming for different goals, and thus are not discussing the same abstract concept when they argue. I agree that if goals are very loosely defined, and if they aren't given much consideration, then there may be different ways to achieve them.

    Using a very absurd example, suppose I wanted to get down from the second story of the building, and my only interest was getting down. I could take the stairs, the elevator, jump out a window, break the floor and jump through the hole, etc. Now, if I were to refine my goal to include staying alive, and not causing harm to the building, and getting down as quickly as possible, etc, the choices narrow.

    I do concede that if the point is very loosely defined, there are multiple solutions. But when competing solutions are contrasted, there are sufficient differences that, when other preferences are noted, will cause one to always be superior (within the context of certain preferences.

    Does this make sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    I bolded your statement about the imbalance of knowledge because I do think that it's an important point (but not the only one). The lack of privacy that's starting to come into being *is* imbalanced. It's not a position of "everyone's actions were known" -- it's one based on a model where your personal private actions will be used to take advantage of you, or be sold to those who will try to take advantage of you.
    I agree. Don't take my exploration of privacy as an abstract concept to mean I am in disagreement about there being potential dangers in the real world. I'm not sure whether these dangers are anything worth worrying about, however, as neither me or anyone I know have suffered as a result... yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Additionally, your position completely ignores topics where an action runs into the "tyranny of the majority" (Morgan's point about totalitarianism is spot-on). An example: "everyone should be required to make their sexual orientation and proclivities completely public". After all, if everyone knew everything, nobody would have anything to hide, right? Well... unless your preferences (while legal with consenting adults, of course) happen to be in the minority, and others could use that information to discriminate against you. Note that we're not talking about anything that harms or effects others directly. It's just a measure of "ew, you like *that*?" History is replete with examples where that sort of thing is enough to trigger persecution, etc.
    I agree. Without sufficient exposure or education, people will be prejudice.

    [QUOTE=kelric;1373955]

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Nope, it doesn't. But it does discourage it, particularly the application of those thoughts. Complete transparency would *strongly* encourage people to comply with "accepted" behaviors in all aspects of their lives. Especially those with something to lose, or who count on relative strangers for significant parts of their livelihood (that's basically everyone in a modern industrialized society).
    Doesn't this happen already? We are all influenced by are environment, and are simply a product of our genetics and upbringing. There is absolutely no way to escape the notion that we are not really in absolute control of our own development.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    But the whole "if everyone knew every detail of everyone's personal lives, the transparency would prevent injustice" argument relies on the perfection of an ideal being realized in total. Which isn't going to happen. What I meant is that I see perfection as an all-encompassing multidimensional ideal -- and that a monoculture of anything, be it thought or behavior, is inherently lacking, and weak. Take an example from ecology -- monocultures are much more susceptible to disease and predation than diverse ecologies are.
    I am really having trouble understanding what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that lack of privacy will lead people to lose their individuality?

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    I wouldn't phrase it quite like that, but yes -- this is more or less what I'm saying. If it comes down to using personal details of other people's lives in order to get ahead, and it absolutely does come down to that, transparency isn't compatible with where we are as a society. Furthermore, I don't believe that we, as biological human beings, will *ever* get to the point where our perceived social groups will be large enough to encompass everyone that would need to be included in our modern, uber-connected society in order to make transparency any less than tragic.
    Transparency would have to come gradually, as we are a nation raised in privacy and, as a result, such a sudden exposure to the real nature of ourselves would cause many to suffer mental damage. Just think of how many grandmas would die of heart attacks when they find out all their lovable grandsons are touching themselves at night?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. What do you think about the massive tax evasion story out of Panama?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-15-2016, 07:32 PM
  2. Replies: 398
    Last Post: 11-11-2015, 03:30 AM
  3. What do you feel about the phenomenon of spoilers or complaints about the same?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-10-2015, 09:28 PM
  4. Why do YOU care about the presidency?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-17-2012, 09:41 PM
  5. How do you feel about the future of gaming?
    By uncommonentity in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-03-2011, 11:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO