I'm trying to say that even with the abuses that are inherent to such a system, maybe we can get some use out of it. If we're already paying the price, why not get some value returned? Why not save a few lives? Why not find the Elliot Rogers and Omar Mateens and get them help before their insanity becomes violent?

I'm not saying that any of it is alright. I'm saying that we might as well get some of what we're paying for, if we have no choice about paying.

By saying "let's use it since we have it," you are literally saying there is a part of you that thinks it's alright.

This happens now anyway. When I say it i'm Alex Jones on his worst day, when KB says it he's our wise elder statesman.

You and kleinbl00 often have a lot of very interesting viewpoints. Both are worth listening to and considering. What kleinbl00 has that you lack tends to be eloquence and insight. That doesn't mean I always agree with him and that doesn't mean what he says doesn't anger me sometimes. I often lack the knowledge and insight to argue on his level.

What you have that kleinbl00 lacks is an abundance of energy and a strong desire to see what you think might be wrongs, righted. In short, your idealism is a counter balance to his cynicism. That doesn't mean I always agree with you and that doesn't mean what you say doesn't anger me sometimes. I just don't have either the passion or tenacity to argue on your level.

Because there seems to be a belief held in plural on this site that no sane person is capable of holding beliefs that would drive them to violence against another person. The consensus seems to be that if a person is willing to inflict violence upon others, they have to be crazy. They can't possibly have a principle or ideology or whatever that's guiding their actions. If 'crazy' is the word we need to use, then 'crazy' is the framework I'll adapt to, if it amounts to the same outcomes.

I think our friends and peers deserve more credit and respect than reducing their arguments to something so easily dismissable. I see a lot of smart people saying a lot of smart things on this website, including you, and I can pretty much guarantee you they all understand these issues are much more nuanced.

My point is this. Today you've said this . . .

People who don't want Big Brother Merkel deciding if they get to receive messages from people known to propagate bad-think

and a little later you said this . . .

My interest is in anti-social actors of every creed. I believe that with current technology they can be found and stopped before they commit violently anti-social acts.

You're not a hypocrite and I know that, so don't think that's what I'm trying to say here. What I am doing is pointing out that the issue of over reaching governments is worthy of concern but at the same time we should encourage our governments to keep us safe in a just manner. The issues are nuanced and they leave us emotionally and philosophically conflicted, and the fact that you made both statements in the same day illustrates that so well.

I don't want to make you defensive. What I do want is some idea of where you think we should draw the line, and why. The fact that you're willing to even remotely advocate a surveillance state makes me both concerned and curious.

Lastly . . .

Did you see a 'keep government out of my emails' party on the ballot? Because I sure as hell didn't.

I'm still waiting for a "swords into ploughshare" candidate. Just because a candidate doesn't share our worldviews on a certain subject, it doesn't mean our concerns are suddenly dismissable. It just means we have to figure out which candidate we think will best lead us in the direction we want to be going.