IANAP, however, the entire concept of performing 'experiments' on your child is repugnant to me.
629 karma · joined May 11, 2011
"What Steve does on the good side — like the music scenario [in which] we didn't bring just a music device called the iPod, we brought a whole music system: a store that sells it, a computer that manages and organizes it. And an iPod is just a satellite to your computer. Plug it in and it works. You don't have to do anything. You've got to admire Steve for that kind of thinking. Nobody's perfect. [Everybody is] going to have cases where they did something bad to somebody, said something nasty to them and maybe regret it later."
Specifically:
"[Everybody is] going to have cases where they did something bad to somebody, said something nasty to them and maybe regret it later."
I think that's a more enlightened point of view.
Source: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/steve-wozniak-on-...
Your use of the word 'anyone' shows that you are imprecise and therefor, not worth responding to. My response shows that I have poor self-control.
Given your dichotomy, my statement would fall under the banner of B, however, what I am really driving at is the fallacy of the inherent trust that we tend to place in institutions and political actors that are supposedly 'on our side'. This is a vector that can be exploited and as such, must be minimized at every opportunity. I am playing the role of skeptic here to contribute to a mainline of skepticism that may serve to ultimately enhance the authority that the EFF asserts when they claim to 'speak for us'.
You say this is 'obvious', however, I would argue that it can never be obvious enough and that it is not actually as obvious as you might think. I am very often bewildered by the trust people are willing to place in institutions. I am disturbed by this trust — by this weakening of the foundations of authority. My comment came from these emotional and intellectual underpinnings.