Edward Snowden: American Hero

#251
#251
PKT_VOL said:
Under this line of thinking, EVERYTHING is a risk. Not only a risk, but of equal risk. That is incredibly short sided.
Click to expand...

Why is it short-sighted?

PKT_VOL said:
I have no problem with the government protecting choice, liberty, and autonomy. I just don't understand, especially in the 21st century, how a state can adequately "protect" choice, liberty, and autonomy AND have compete transparency. Something has to give.
Click to expand...

Well, you cannot protect choice and autonomy while infringing on choice and autonomy of the individuals' choice and autonomy you are protecting.

PKT_VOL said:
Again, you believe all thinks are equally risky. Cray cray.
Click to expand...

And, I've offered an argument for those that do not see life as infinitely valuable.
 
#252
#252
therealUT said:
So, because you do not like the consequences of math and logic, you just opt to abandon then?

As I stated earlier, if you are speaking if risk, you are speaking of value and that is quantitative. If you think life is non quantitative, then it is not a value. If that is the case, then there can be probability but no risk. If there is no risk, then why should I care?
Click to expand...

Because going around spouting off about "infinite risks of equal value" and using that line of thinking to ignore any potential decreases in the probability of risk is completely ridiculous and not how real people behave or address problems.

You want to completely abandon the notion of classified information and programs because, in your mind, there's "infinite risk" and thus no point in attempting to assuage those risks if it comes at any cost to absolute liberty whatsoever. That is simply ridiculous.
 
#253
#253
notabed22 said:
Because going around spouting off about "infinite risks of equal value" and using that line of thinking to ignore any potential decreases in the probability of risk is completely ridiculous and not how real people behave or address problems.

You want to completely abandon the notion of classified information and programs because, in your mind, there's "infinite risk" and thus no point in attempting to assuage those risks if it comes at any cost to absolute liberty whatsoever. That is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Why should I care about how "real people behave or address problems" if I am not a real person? If I am a real person, then you are mistaken (if you meant to imply "all real people"; if not, then you're just counting noses in a popularity contest)?
 
#254
#254
therealUT said:
Why should I care about how "real people behave or address problems" if I am not a real person? If I am a real person, then you are mistaken (if you meant to imply "all real people"; if not, then you're just counting noses in a popularity contest)?
Click to expand...

Don't be coy; there are innumerable issues on which people disagree, and then there are issues that an extraordinarily overwhelming majority of people can come to a consensus.

By "real people," I am not being literal and saying every single authentic human being; instead, it should be fairly clear that I'm colloquially referring to the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the country (you know, like someone asking you "are you a real person" in a facetious manner after you do something really bizarre). If someone suggested that a cow be the leader of the United States, regardless of whether they attempted to justify their suggestion via mathematical reasonings, they'd be proposing something so obscure and ridiculous that they wouldn't be a "real person."

By suggesting that there be no classified information and compete and absolute government transparency, you're not being a real person regardless of (or, let's be honest, in large part due to) your attempted rationalization of that proposal with logic and mathematics. You're being an *******.
 
#255
#255
notabed22 said:
Don't be coy; there are innumerable issues on which people disagree, and then there are issues that an extraordinarily overwhelming majority of people can come to a consensus.

By "real people," I am not being literal and saying every single authentic human being; instead, it should be fairly clear that I'm colloquially referring to the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the country (you know, like someone asking you "are you a real person" in a facetious manner after you do something really bizarre). If someone suggested that a cow be the leader of the United States, regardless of whether they attempted to justify their suggestion via mathematical reasonings, they'd be proposing something so obscure and ridiculous that they wouldn't be a "real person."

By suggesting that there be no classified information and compete and absolute government transparency, you're not being a real person regardless of (or, let's be honest, in large part due to) your attempted rationalization of that proposal with logic and mathematics. You're being an *******.
Click to expand...

So, you were just counting noses. Thanks for clearing that up.

Also, feel free to address my evaluative criticism of PRISM, if you so choose. Further, understand that the heads of the NSA and CIA are aware of the weaknesses to which I have pointed. Then ask yourself, what is the value in continuing this program? I guarantee the value does not come from stopping terrorism, in the context of which it is widely perceived.
 
#256
#256
There are two countries, CA and CB.

CA govt based on life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (kinda USA-ish).

CB govt based on militaristic oppression (kinda North Korea-ish).

CB plans to invade and conquer CA and install their govt. CB has the resources to do this.

If the CB invasion is successful, kiss liberty goodbye.

CA knows this and invents a defense system, rendering CB's invasion plans useless.

CA's defense system has an Achilles Heel that, if known to CB, would render it useless.

Does CA create and maintain a state secret, thus limiting liberty or allow CB to invade, thus losing all liberty?
 
#257
#257
Danl said:
There are two countries, CA and CB.

CA govt based on life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (kinda USA-ish).

CB govt based on militaristic oppression (kinda North Korea-ish).

CB plans to invade and conquer CA and install their govt. CB has the resources to do this.

If the CB invasion is successful, kiss liberty goodbye.

CA knows this and invents a defense system, rendering CB's invasion plans useless.

CA's defense system has an Achilles Heel that, if known to CB, would render it useless.

Does CA create and maintain a state secret, thus limiting liberty or allow CB to invade, thus losing all liberty?
Click to expand...

Fight in the light.
 
#259
#259
Danl said:
There are two countries, CA and CB.

CA govt based on life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (kinda USA-ish).

CB govt based on militaristic oppression (kinda North Korea-ish).

CB plans to invade and conquer CA and install their govt. CB has the resources to do this.

If the CB invasion is successful, kiss liberty goodbye.

CA knows this and invents a defense system, rendering CB's invasion plans useless.

CA's defense system has an Achilles Heel that, if known to CB, would render it useless.

Does CA create and maintain a state secret, thus limiting liberty or allow CB to invade, thus losing all liberty?
Click to expand...

A better question is who has the hottest chicks?
 
#260
#260
Obsessed said:
I've wondered myself the same exact thing. Some speculate his patriotism is what led him down this path. Others on the other hand believe the CIA is behind it. Retaliatory actions to the Obama administration for going after them. Which at first seems crazy, but on the other hand, all the other scandals right now? Who knows ??
Click to expand...

One has to think IF this is true, and that is a large IF, and this doesn't "damage" him enough, what scandal is lurking next?
 
#262
#262
Did the Chinese get ahold of him?

NSA hacks China, NSA leaker Snowden claims - CNN.com

U.S. intelligence agents have been hacking computer networks around the world for years, apparently targeting fat data pipes that push immense amounts of data around the Internet, NSA leaker Edward Snowden claimed Wednesday to the South China Morning Post newspaper.
Click to expand...


His previous comments (take them for what they're worth) indicate he only wanted to notify the public. But saying the US hacks China goes against that.
 
#263
#263
Has anyone given any thought to this being a political usage of a classified program. I keep putting Maxine Waters statement together with Prism and all I get is DNC political gain.
 
#268
#268
Maybe he made a deal with the Chinese / Hong Kong. Leak US hacking, avoid extradition. Maybe a coerced deal. Who knows...he did this to himself when he fled to Hong Kong.
 
#272
#272
therealUT said:
Fight in the light.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which choice that is.

Do you preserve a lot of liberty, for you and everyone else, but compromise your perfect ideal?

Or do you preserve your perfect ideal, briefly, and succumb to the total loss of liberty for you and everyone else?
 
#273
#273
Danl said:
I'm not sure which choice that is.

Do you preserve a lot of liberty, for you and everyone else, but compromise your perfect ideal?

Or do you preserve your perfect ideal, briefly, and succumb to the total loss of liberty for you and everyone else?
Click to expand...

To be free you have to accept risks. I would rather accept the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack than have the govt in my business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#274
#274
hog88 said:
To be free you have to accept risks. I would rather accept the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack than have the govt in my business.
Click to expand...

In the scenario it is not a "risk" that the bad guys would win and strip you, if you survive, and your family of their liberty. It is a given.

It is a "risk" in the scenario that your liberty would be further eroded beyond this one "state secret".

Is your answer still fight, die, and sentence your family and everyone else to a life without liberty?
 
#275
#275
Danl said:
I'm not sure which choice that is.

Do you preserve a lot of liberty, for you and everyone else, but compromise your perfect ideal?

Or do you preserve your perfect ideal, briefly, and succumb to the total loss of liberty for you and everyone else?
Click to expand...

If liberty is compromised it won't be on my account.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top