Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]
Privacy
    #9063147 -

Some would say privacy is the right to hide your business from others. While some would contend privacy is the right to be left alone, not necessarily clandestine. Whats your take?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: acromonium]
    #9063229 -

I'm not quite sure what exactly is your question? :confused:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #9063581 -

well to me its both, you have the right to hide your business and the right to be left alone. Unless of course your part of society, then you have none of these rights


--------------------
When you make your peace with authority, you become authority
                                    Jim Morrison

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: TheAxis]
    #9063670 -

when not private
comments and review are assumed to be welcome
sometimes you really need to be free of such activity.
even if it is just sitting alone
undisturbed.
not just a right
a necessity


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: acromonium]
    #9065009 -

Privacy is hardly a "right" for a social species like humans.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: Sleepwalker]
    #9066296 -

The mind is public property.

Read an advertisement without intending to and you will understand what I mean.

Privacy is a nice notion, stemming from a want to have your space respected, perhaps. In practice it is a shallowly endorsed reality; the rich man somehow deserves a wider birth of privacy than the poor. The man who lives in the street deserves none at all.

Private property itself stems from the idea of privacy; exclusive belonging. Upon closer analysis privacy is simply an excuse to prevent the necessity for genuine respect of personal space, and a justification for domination of nature. Perhaps privacy isn't a nice notion after all, perhaps it is an unreasonably selfish one.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #9066340 -

Quote:
The mind is public property.

Read an advertisement without intending to and you will understand what I mean.


I read an advertisement and I didn't understand what you meant. :shrug2:

Quote:
Privacy is a nice notion, stemming from a want to have your space respected, perhaps. In practice it is a shallowly endorsed reality; the rich man somehow deserves a wider birth of privacy than the poor. The man who lives in the street deserves none at all.


I'm not sure this statement is accurate at all. I really don't see how the rich man "deserves" more privacy than the poor. Care to provide with a few examples?

Quote:
Private property itself stems from the idea of privacy; exclusive belonging. Upon closer analysis privacy is simply an excuse to prevent the necessity for genuine respect of personal space, and a justification for domination of nature. Perhaps privacy isn't a nice notion after all, perhaps it is an unreasonably selfish one.


This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Excuse for what and to whom do we address this excuse and why do you think we need a "justification" to dominate the nature (which is a very vague term anyways as it pertains to anything)?
Of course the need for privacy is selfish, as well as the need to make yourself known, exposed to the public, or any other need, desire or preference we might have. :smirk:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #9066399 -

Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
The mind is public property.

Read an advertisement without intending to and you will understand what I mean.


I read an advertisement and I didn't understand what you meant. :shrug2:



And after you invested in your decision to focus your eyes;
did you decide which words ran through your head?
Or did the writer of the advertisement?

Quote:
Quote:
Privacy is a nice notion, stemming from a want to have your space respected, perhaps. In practice it is a shallowly endorsed reality; the rich man somehow deserves a wider birth of privacy than the poor. The man who lives in the street deserves none at all.


I'm not sure this statement is accurate at all. I really don't see how the rich man "deserves" more privacy than the poor. Care to provide with a few examples?



"Deserving" as in the social constraint, not the existential truth. Existential truths exist through actualization. Social constraints will keep you out of the mansions of the rich, where they afford more time and space for privacy. Social constraints will keep the man on the street from protesting if his space is violated.

In existential truth perhaps neither will find privacy, or perhaps both will... there are too many variables to count.

Quote:
Quote:
Private property itself stems from the idea of privacy; exclusive belonging. Upon closer analysis privacy is simply an excuse to prevent the necessity for genuine respect of personal space, and a justification for domination of nature. Perhaps privacy isn't a nice notion after all, perhaps it is an unreasonably selfish one.


This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Excuse for what and to whom do we address this excuse and why do you think we need a "justification" to dominate the nature (which is a very vague term anyways as it pertains to anything)?
Of course the need for privacy is selfish, as well as the need to make yourself known, exposed to the public, or any other need, desire or preference we might have. :smirk:


It makes sense. I can never tell if misunderstanding is a part of your argument, or if I am more cryptic than I realize...

The right to privacy is an excuse for maintaining personal space by "reasonable force" as opposed to coming to a consensus of respect with parties who would otherwise violate it. I think the need for justification of the domination of nature is becoming more apparent as the results of our treatment of it become more visible.

And yes, we want to be selfish; even wanting to be selfless is a selfish want, although it is wanting to be conflicted in parallel.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #9066437 -

You guys really go deep in here. My thought was on the fact that in america we fight for the right to keep our activities and beliefs private. Privacy in some other realms means the right to be left alone no matter who knows what.

So is privacy

(a) the right to hide

or

(b) the right to be left alone

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #9066497 -

Quote:
And after you invested in your decision to focus your eyes;
did you decide which words ran through your head?
Or did the writer of the advertisement?


Ummm... mine.
When you read a book, who's thoughts run through your head? Even though you are reading someone else's formulation of words and descriptions, it is still your interpretation that makes it all comprehensible for you.
Or does this thing only applies in the case of an advertisement or commercial? :smirk:

Quote:
"Deserving" as in the social constraint, not the existential truth. Existential truths exist through actualization. Social constraints will keep you out of the mansions of the rich, where they afford more time and space for privacy.


A big house or well protected house doesn't necessarily guarantee that the owner will have more privacy than someone with a small house with a shitty door. You perhaps forgot to take to consideration that there are other things which come in play, such as one's preference, determination, mind frame and the chosen social life style. There are instances in which plenty of rich people prefer to spend most of their time around others, with the intention of improving their relations, and this means that their privacy is close to nothing, as well as there are poor people that spend most of their time with people they trust and can be themselves around them, or all alone if that's what they want.
How rich one is doesn't indicate in any way the quality of their privacy, or what's their level of tolerance of the public.

Quote:
Social constraints will keep the man on the street from protesting if his space is violated.


What's that even supposed to mean? :lol:

Quote:
In existential truth perhaps neither will find privacy, or perhaps both will... there are too many variables to count.


You not wanting or not being able to take to consideration all the other variables, doesn't change the real status of this matter one bit. It is only your wrong understanding of it, and I am pointing it out.

Quote:
It makes sense. I can never tell if misunderstanding is a part of your argument, or if I am more cryptic than I realize...


No, it's your arguments that don't make sense, just because they are not supported by how things really go.

Quote:
The right to privacy is an excuse for maintaining personal space by "reasonable force" as opposed to coming to a consensus of respect with parties who would otherwise violate it. I think the need for justification of the domination of nature is becoming more apparent as the results of our treatment of it become more visible.


So the degree in which we look for excuses and justifications is directly proportional with the visibility of our treatment towards the nature? And what are supposed to be looking for? :sherlock:

Quote:
And yes, we want to be selfish; even wanting to be selfless is a selfish want, although it is wanting to be conflicted in parallel.


Then why mention that the need for privacy is a selfish act, in the first place, since everything else is also selfish?


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #9066705 -

MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
And after you invested in your decision to focus your eyes;
did you decide which words ran through your head?
Or did the writer of the advertisement?


Ummm... mine.
When you read a book, who's thoughts run through your head? Even though you are reading someone else's formulation of words and descriptions, it is still your interpretation that makes it all comprehensible for you.
Or does this thing only applies in the case of an advertisement or commercial? :smirk:



Choosing an example where the act of reading is perpetually voluntary does help obscure the fact that the words forming in your mind are the choice of the writer.

Not all reading is done voluntarily, have you ever seen a billboard?

Quote:
Quote:
"Deserving" as in the social constraint, not the existential truth. Existential truths exist through actualization. Social constraints will keep you out of the mansions of the rich, where they afford more time and space for privacy.


A big house or well protected house doesn't necessarily guarantee that the owner will have more privacy than someone with a small house with a shitty door. You perhaps forgot to take to consideration that there are other things which come in play, such as one's preference, determination, mind frame and the chosen social life style. There are instances in which plenty of rich people prefer to spend most of their time around others, with the intention of improving their relations, and this means that their privacy is close to nothing, as well as there are poor people that spend most of their time with people they trust and can be themselves around them, or all alone if that's what they want.
How rich one is doesn't indicate in any way the quality of their privacy, or what's their level of tolerance of the public.



The man owning the larger house has the voluntary recourse of asking other parties to leave a larger vicinity. I am not trying to make a more complicated point than this.

Do you really not think there is no difference between the "quality of privacy" of a shack on a busy street and a secluded mansion?

Quote:
Quote:
Social constraints will keep the man on the street from protesting if his space is violated.


What's that even supposed to mean? :lol:



This "I don't understand you" game is awkward...
What it means is the man on the street has no socially legitimate recourse to enforce his privacy if others wish to invade his space (stand in his alley or whatnot).

Quote:
Quote:
In existential truth perhaps neither will find privacy, or perhaps both will... there are too many variables to count.


You not wanting or not being able to take to consideration all the other variables, doesn't change the real status of this matter one bit. It is only your wrong understanding of it, and I am pointing it out.



Understanding can not be wrong, it can only be different. I don't understand how I manage to draw such narrow minded comments from you when I post my meaning openly...

In life there are an endless number of variables, obviously we could spend out time adding thousands of variables to the argument, if failing to understand the other party is what we are after...

I wonder what the "real status" of the matter is; you should enlighten me, bring me up to the status of your correct understanding.

Quote:
Quote:
It makes sense. I can never tell if misunderstanding is a part of your argument, or if I am more cryptic than I realize...


No, it's your arguments that don't make sense, just because they are not supported by how things really go.



Alright, well I suppose I hadn't considered the fact that how things really go is only visible to you. My apologies, I will recognize your eyes as the correct ones next time.

This type of non-specific retort tends to reinforce my suspicion that you are intentionally "not understanding" my point of view.

Quote:
Quote:
The right to privacy is an excuse for maintaining personal space by "reasonable force" as opposed to coming to a consensus of respect with parties who would otherwise violate it. I think the need for justification of the domination of nature is becoming more apparent as the results of our treatment of it become more visible.


So the degree in which we look for excuses and justifications is directly proportional with the visibility of our treatment towards the nature? And what are supposed to be looking for? :sherlock:



Our degree of excuses and justifications is directly proportional to our felt need for them. In this case the need arises as our treatment of nature becomes more and more popularly seen as a mistreatment.

We can look for whatever we want, I am looking for motives.

Quote:
Quote:
And yes, we want to be selfish; even wanting to be selfless is a selfish want, although it is wanting to be conflicted in parallel.


Then why mention that the need for privacy is a selfish act, in the first place, since everything else is also selfish?


Because privacy and selfishness are tightly linked. All things are connected, their relativity can still be a subject of exploration.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: acromonium]
    #9066737 -

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

What's wrong with having a camera in your living room if you're not doing anything illegal?


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: acromonium]
    #9066743 -

acromonium said:
You guys really go deep in here. My thought was on the fact that in america we fight for the right to keep our activities and beliefs private. Privacy in some other realms means the right to be left alone no matter who knows what.

So is privacy

(a) the right to hide

or

(b) the right to be left alone


This is an interesting dichotomy;
Can privacy be for one of these things but not the other?
How can we make privacy a right to be left alone without making it a right to hide what you are doing while alone?


Certainly someone who wishes to invade privacy could claim privacy was not a right to hide something, and use the speculatively hidden object as an excuse to deprive one of the right to be left alone.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #9066800 -

Quote:
Choosing an example where the act of reading is perpetually voluntary does help obscure the fact that the words forming in your mind are the choice of the writer.


Are you aware of the fact that the same book can and does create different thoughts and reactions in different people? Even the same paragraph can create a wide variety of thoughts in different persons, so how does what you say apply to this?
Are you suggesting that the writer chose differently for each and every one of us? Is he perhaps a mind-reader? :strokebeard:

Quote:
Not all reading is done voluntarily, have you ever seen a billboard?


Good, cause I wasn't talking about the intention or lack of intention when it comes to reading something, you're the only one who mentioned that. I was talking about us consciously choosing, how we feel about whatever we might read.

Quote:
The man owning the larger house has the voluntary recourse of asking other parties to leave a larger vicinity. I am not trying to make a more complicated point than this.


I am, because your point is not an accurate one because you are making a gross over generalization.

Quote:
Do you really not think there is no difference between the "quality of privacy" of a shack on a busy street and a secluded mansion?


Perhaps usually there is a difference, but one that doesn't have any relevance to this topic, since one knows what one has to deal with when one finds oneself on a busy street, as well as one knows that being secluded has the potential of offering one much more privacy.
And since one knows what could happen in both situations, one is being able to take the decision that fit one's best interests.
Obviously, if you choose to be on a busy street, privacy wasn't one of your top concerns.

Quote:
This "I don't understand you" game is awkward...
What it means is the man on the street has no socially legitimate recourse to enforce his privacy if others wish to invade his space (stand in his alley or whatnot).


"His" alley?
Oh, I'm pretty sure that, if it was HIS alley (as in legally his), the law would support his right of enforcing his right to property.
As far as your example goes, it is quite evident to me that the alley wasn't in his property in the first place, otherwise you wouldn't have said that he "has no socially legitimate recourse to enforce his privacy".

Quote:
Understanding can not be wrong, it can only be different. I don't understand how I manage to draw such narrow minded comments from you when I post my meaning openly...

In life there are an endless number of variables, obviously we could spend out time adding thousands of variables to the argument, if failing to understand the other party is what we are after...

I wonder what the "real status" of the matter is; you should enlighten me, bring me up to the status of your correct understanding.


I not even once claimed that I am the one who knows the real status. All I have said was that the conclusions you're trying to take are very simplistic and superficial.

Quote:
Alright, well I suppose I hadn't considered the fact that how things really go is only visible to you. My apologies, I will recognize your eyes as the correct ones next time.

This type of non-specific retort tends to reinforce my suspicion that you are intentionally "not understanding" my point of view.


Yes, it was more a figure of speech than anything, but this is a debate forum and intentionally challenging the claims of the others are more than welcomed.

Quote:
Because privacy and selfishness are tightly linked. All things are connected, their relativity can still be a subject of exploration.


So where you were going when you said that the need for privacy was selfish? Was this statement leading to any discernible conclusion?


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: deCypher]
    #9066809 -

The Cypher said:
If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

What's wrong with having a camera in your living room if you're not doing anything illegal?


So you only have something to hide when you're breaking the law? And you know this how?


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #9066820 -

MushroomTrip said:
The Cypher said:
If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

What's wrong with having a camera in your living room if you're not doing anything illegal?


So you only have something to hide when you're breaking the law? And you know this how?


Leave off the only part and you've got it.  It's an exasperating piece of logic, but I see no fallacy--privacy is only necessary when you've got something to hide.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: deCypher]
    #9066856 -

The Cypher said:
Leave off the only part and you've got it.  It's an exasperating piece of logic, but I see no fallacy--privacy is only necessary when you've got something to hide.


I think the conclusion fails to reflect upon the ideal, which I would hope you agree with, that human beings are independent entities that are free to have private property in which they may make independent decisions regarding that private environment, as long as those decisions do not infringe upon the basic rights of others? I think the process that led to this conclusion simply neglected to contemplate that the only reason someone would prefer privacy over being forcefully observed by another party is due to the desire to hide something. The inherent right within a society based upon reason would be that humans shouldn't be forced to live a certain way, as long as that way doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: fireworks_god]
    #9066865 -

What about the sentiment that sometimes a little freedom must be sacrificed to protect our security?

Surely having a camera to overhear possible terrorist activity is worth the trivial nuisance of being observed?


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: deCypher]
    #9066876 -

The Cypher said:
Leave off the only part and you've got it.  It's an exasperating piece of logic, but I see no fallacy--privacy is only necessary when you've got something to hide.


What about the need to feel safe?
If you share the space with many other people, how can you trust them? How can you be sure that your safety or belongings are not in danger?
Also, what about one's aware choice of spending their time totally alone because this is what they feel like, or with one or more people, chosen by them, without having to communicate in any other way with the others?
I am sure that by now you realized that the list of examples could continue for quite a while, so yes, I really think that what you said doesn't apply to everybody, and not even to the majority perhaps.


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Privacy [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #9066890 -

MushroomTrip said:
The Cypher said:
Leave off the only part and you've got it.  It's an exasperating piece of logic, but I see no fallacy--privacy is only necessary when you've got something to hide.


What about the need to feel safe?
If you share the space with many other people, how can you trust them? How can you be sure that your safety or belongings are not in danger?
Also, what about one's aware choice of spending their time totally alone because this is what they feel like, or with one or more people, chosen by them, without having to communicate in any other way with the others?
I am sure that by now you realized that the list of examples could continue for quite a while, so yes, I really think that what you said doesn't apply to everybody, and not even to the majority perhaps.


Now you're bringing the element of other people into the equation.  Suppose we just take my original scenario: a harmless camera mounted in your living room, so some government worker can overhear your living room conversations and observe your house for any possible terrorist activity.  This isn't the same thing as another person; and in fact, you wouldn't have to communicate with anyone if you're concerned about possibly violating any alone-time.  In fact, you wouldn't have to do anything differently from what you normally would--as the only cause for worry would be if you're doing something illegal in front of the camera.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Community Property
( 1 2 all )		 Huehuecoyotl 1,908 20 12/08/04 10:44 PM
by kadakuda
* This post is a pre-emptive strike Mixomatosis 1,384 15 10/11/04 03:25 AM
by Zekebomb
* The ethics of intellectual property rights wyldeman007 1,163 14 07/11/08 06:33 AM
by redgreenvines
* Lunar "Property" for Sale - Strip Mining the Moon.......
( 1 2 3 all )		 PhanTomCat 2,648 41 05/10/07 12:20 AM
by Cracka_X
* Purple is an emergent property
( 1 2 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 3,084 30 09/16/08 07:37 PM
by falcon
* Property dblaney 669 5 03/01/06 01:46 PM
by Silversoul
* How do you protect privacy in the astral? Jalruza 1,835 17 12/21/05 02:17 PM
by Vulture
* Wacky website predicts next Terrorist Attack
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 4,432 32 04/23/04 08:44 PM
by Swami

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
6,091 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 29 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.