Yesterday I was shooting real life guns

[Noremac]

Alpha, I like how you call me narcissistic, then call me textbook paranoid, make up your mind.

I see you've tried to dismiss my entire post by finding one thing wrong with it and mocking it.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. In this specific case it's a fallacy because psychologically these things commonly occur in tangent, and you're showing symptoms of both.

You've also failed to prove that cameras and computer taps are actually bad but I'll give you props on repeating the same thing over and over and over again, even though we already knew that it was happening.

Unfortunately I have to inform you that the presence of cameras doesn't prove anything in this context and is beside the point on weather or not they're actually hurting anything for anybody other than the paranoid.

Can you please start trying to argue within the means of acceptable logic?

I already made the point I don't think myself as too high and mighty to be watched, I just simply don't like being spied on, I like to keep my life private and not open to the world, its just as simple as that.

Im not paranoid, as I stated earlier, because im not afraid at all of any of this happening in US, its all in Britain.

I repeating some things because snarf didn't seem to get it the first damn time I told him, he just wants to "win" just like WombRaider said.
Snarf also likes to constantly repeat the same thing "YOU PARANOID ME RIGHT" in his posts, how bout you say something about that?

I will continue to argue within acceptable logic if Snarf does to. You don't see him as being illogical just calling be paranoid as his only statement in every single one of his posts?

Again, hes just stupid. Its as simple as that. Hopefully you aren't if you will listen to facts and proof and not just say "HURR DURR PARANOID HURR" like snarf loves to do in every statement he makes.

[Snarf]

I think it is obvious at this point that you are not going to provide any actual proof. You are obviously very paranoid as the purpose of the cameras has and always will be to catch crime. Deterring that fact and going completely off tangent will not change the intentions of the system.
Also the fact that you will take a post from wombraider and continually use it to back yourself up is pathetic.

[Noremac]

I think it is obvious at this point that you are not going to provide any actual proof.

See alpha, he didn't see any of the links I posted.

It just goes through his mind.

And what you are doing Alpha is you are just finding slight flaws in my arguments to try to discount my posts.

You got pissed at me for finding a flaw in your post, how bout you get pissed at snarf for finding 1 flaw in TheLichKings post?

In all honesty, Snarf your being a dumbass...I mean really how big of a sheep do you need to be to go with having cameras everywhere watching your every move. Noremac makes some good points and has some evidence to back it up. You need to sit and think for a minute about what your arguing for and what your arguing against.

Am I supposed to take advice from someone who does not know the difference between your and you're?

You are arguing agaisnt him also.

Why are you even in this Alpha?

[Snarf]

See alpha, he didn't see any of the links I posted.

Everyone saw your links, they are hardly proof.
As I said before, it is clear you will take any "proof" regardless of its status as a realistic cite. You don't care how old your "proof" is or who it comes from as long as they agree with your stance you will use it to push your flawed argument and regularly ignore points made in everyone else's posts so you may insult them and strawman them so their argument looks weaker.
You mock me for strawman but at least I was using it jokingly, you regularly use it to prove a point and that is beyond sad.

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

I should probably directly state my stance on this as a point of reference.

I support cameras in certain situations. Areas where there's heavy activity in street gangs or public nuisances should be regularly monitored. Cameras are hardly a good replacement for active police patrols, though.

You can see from the violent crime rates in New York City that increased police presence in fact did improve the quality of life for law abiding citizens. I am opposed to the somewhat overbearing weapon laws in that area, though, as citizens themselves statistically do a much better job than police officers at preventing crime and disarming people who are willing to enforce the law is working against public interest.

At the same time that I support the police, I support citizens arrests AGAINST police at times where acting officers take things out of hand. One thing I love about this country is that anybody has the right to intervene in the instance of police brutality, especially in the cases of an officer prematurely drawing his weapon against somebody who doesn't warrant such measures. (i.e. Cop pulls a gun on somebody who doesn't have a weapon)

The ideal solution in my opinion is more rights for civilians and police, and harsher punishment for organized crime and repeat offenders. I also support stricter gun control in the form or closer monitoring of weapons and ammunition, but never in the way of outlawing weapons.

[TheLichKing]

In all honesty, Snarf your being a dumbass...I mean really how big of a sheep do you need to be to go with having cameras everywhere watching your every move. Noremac makes some good points and has some evidence to back it up. You need to sit and think for a minute about what your arguing for and what your arguing against.

Am I supposed to take advice from someone who does not know the difference between your and you're?

Really? your only comeback was me making a simple spelling mistake?

[Snarf]

There is nothing else in your post that warranted a response.

[Noremac]

I should probably directly state my stance on this as a point of reference.

I support cameras in certain situations. Areas where there's heavy activity in street gangs or public nuisances should be regularly monitored. Cameras are hardly a good replacement for active police patrols, though.

You can see from the violent crime rates in New York City that increased police presence in fact did improve the quality of life for law abiding citizens. I am opposed to the somewhat overbearing weapon laws in that area, though, as citizens themselves statistically do a much better job than police officers at preventing crime and disarming people who are willing to enforce the law is working against public interest.

At the same time that I support the police, I support citizens arrests AGAINST police at times where acting officers take things out of hand. One thing I love about this country is that anybody has the right to intervene in the instance of police brutality, especially in the cases of an officer prematurely drawing his weapon against somebody who doesn't warrant such measures. (i.e. Cop pulls a gun on somebody who doesn't have a weapon)

The ideal solution in my opinion is more rights for civilians and police, and harsher punishment for organized crime and repeat offenders. I also support stricter gun control in the form or closer monitoring of weapons and ammunition, but never in the way of outlawing weapons.

I agree with you alpha, only except for restricting guns I just about agree with everything else you said. Putting cameras in high crime areas where they serve a purpose may actually help things.

So I see we are at an agreement alpha.

I don't think cameras should be placed on every single streetcorner and inside homes (like in britain).

High crime areas, yes.


Snarf, you calling me names and insulting me every post trying is beyond sad.

Again, A brick wall of a person you are. Open your mind a little bit.

[TheLichKing]

There is nothing else in your post that warranted a response.

So...you admit to being a sheep who is willing to submit to the "Big Brother" type governments?

[Snarf]

There is nothing else in your post that warranted a response.

So...you admit to being a sheep who is willing to submit to the "Big Brother" type governments?

Sure if you admit to butting into a conversation that you have no intentions of contributing to IE shitposting. If you want to do shit like that go to some other board and stop screwing up this section of the forums.

Snarf, you calling me names and insulting me every post trying is beyond sad.

Again, A brick wall of a person you are. Open your mind a little bit.

This is what you do for every single post, my last one was far from a direct insult but if I actually cared to prove a point I would go around to every one of your posts and pick out every single insult you did and you would find that there was one in every single post. If you are going to try and act as if you are superior to someone because you don't resort to insults maybe you shouldn't resort to insults.
Also I am more than open to changing my mind when people actually provide logic and reasoning in their posts rather than old articles from 1997, nobody said cameras should be EVERYWHERE. You are just jumping to conclusions.