Snowdon is a dummy

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Everybody in the U S of A wants to believe that government is out to get them. Unfortunately they are all right but the ones who think this usually blame the wrong people and keep reelecting the same people!

Not everyone, Rabel.

I do not think that the government is out to get me.

If they were, they know where to find me.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You're the one who nelieves you are right, but is still wro
ng.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not think that the government is out to get me.

You are sure that you are not a fan of a wrong music group and therefore are listed as a member of a criminal gang or belong to some other social group that the government does not care for?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not think that the government is out to get me.

It must consider you harmless and of no consequence then. Which is understandable seeing as how you have gone out of your way to stress it.

Don't lay it on too thick or they might think you're a sleeper.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're the one who nelieves you are right, but is still wro
ng.

I doubt I am the only one who thinks I am correct, ci.

I said that I would not ask for proof...I did not ask for proof.

I said I would ask for evidence...I did ask for evidence.

You may be the only one who thinks there was a contradiction.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

There is a world of difference between evidence and proof. I am not being sarcastic, I stated what I believe to be true.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

If I'm wrong, show me anyone who believes theirbelief in god is not a fact.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If I'm wrong, show me anyone who believes theirbelief in god is not a fact.

It matters not one iota what they believe or think or guess. At no point has this been about what "they" think or believe. It has been about what I ask when someone makes an assertion about the existence of gods.

My entire statement said that when asserts to me "there is a god" (or who asserts "there are no gods")...I NEVER ask them for proof (which I suspect does not exist). Instead, I (may) ask them for evidence...so I can better understand the basis for their assertion.

I then asked "What evidence do you have?"

You accused me of contradicting myself by asking that.

But I was being entirely consistent.

You were ABSOLUTELY WRONG, ci...and obviously you are not man enough nor ethical enough to simply acknowledge it.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

There is a world of difference between evidence and proof. I am not being sarcastic, I stated what I believe to be true.

Thank you, Glitterbug. I am also of the opinion that there is a world of difference between evidence and proof.

0 Replies

Another case for clemency.

The Economist

Quote:

In an excellent response to a similar, earlier Twitter-based line of argument against clemency from Mr Barro, Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic writes:

When should a leaker of government secrets be forgiven rather than jailed? Here are some possible standards:
When the leak reveals lawbreaking by the U.S. government
When the leak reveals behavior deemed unconstitutional by multiple federal judges
When a presidential panel that reviews the leaked information recommends significant reforms
When the leak inspires multiple pieces of reform legislation in Congress
When the leak reveals that a high-ranking national-security official perjured himself before Congress
When the leak causes multiple members of Congress to express alarm at policies being carried out without their knowledge.

The Snowden leak meets all of those thresholds, among others.

Mr Friedersdorf is right, though I don't know that Mr Snowden should be entirely "forgiven" his leaks. There's something to said for upholding the law, even if it was broken in the name of upholding a higher law. Mr Snowden perhaps should be made to do a little punitive community service. He could pick up garbage in a park for an afternoon. He could spend a month travelling from school to school giving talks to youngsters about what it really means to protect America from its enemies.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Another case for clemency.

Not a very good one, due to the factual inaccuracies.

Quote:

In an excellent response to a similar, earlier Twitter-based line of argument against clemency from Mr Barro, Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic writes:
When should a leaker of government secrets be forgiven rather than jailed? Here are some possible standards:
When the leak reveals lawbreaking by the U.S. government

No government lawbreaking was revealed.

Quote:

When the leak reveals behavior deemed unconstitutional by multiple federal judges

There is no credible case that the Constitution has been violated (it is pretty clear that it wasn't).

Any federal judge who rules to the contrary is a wacky extremist who will be overruled in higher-level courts.

Quote:

When a presidential panel that reviews the leaked information recommends significant reforms
When the leak inspires multiple pieces of reform legislation in Congress

Even if there are reforms that are a good idea, that would not justify the critical damage that this freak did to our nation's security.

And many of the proposed reforms are far from a good idea.

Quote:

When the leak reveals that a high-ranking national-security official perjured himself before Congress

Politicians lie. Let's get some perspective here.

Quote:

When the leak causes multiple members of Congress to express alarm at policies being carried out without their knowledge.

If they were not on the committee overseeing the NSA, they had no business knowing it.

Quote:

The Snowden leak meets all of those thresholds, among others.

No it doesn't. There was no illegal activity and there was no violation of the Constitution.

The other thresholds were goofy.

Quote:

I don't know that Mr Snowden should be entirely "forgiven" his leaks. There's something to said for upholding the law, even if it was broken in the name of upholding a higher law. Mr Snowden perhaps should be made to do a little punitive community service. He could pick up garbage in a park for an afternoon. He could spend a month travelling from school to school giving talks to youngsters about what it really means to protect America from its enemies.

Snowden should be killed by the US military.

It should be done in a manner that is likely to result in horrific collateral damage.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

We will see about that oralloy. The point is that the people might feel outraged and abused. After all their own money, or what they think of as their own money, has been used to give them a bit of a nosey-parkering even if there is a chance that the nosey-parkering will stop an attack. Which I gather hasn't been managed yet. It is as yet unable to decide who committed the Benghazi incident.

One might easily outrage a lady without breaking any laws.

You're being legalistic and the legal code derives from how people feel. The legal code was written when the very idea of this sort of thing happening was something most people were frightened of thinking about. The writers of the Constitution might have tried for a King and an established church had they seen the secret memos delivered by some cosmic fortune-teller arriving in 18th century Philly in a telephone box dressed all goofy-like and with a chick in tow.

Snowden has brought us up to speed. Probably nearly so more-like. But somebody else would have since it seems to have been an amateurish operation from the beginning as is often the case when large sums of money are passed out in hush hush conditions.

Any old Congressman can pass out money in the full glare of the shining beacon of truth. What cachet there is in doing it hush hush eh? It's bound to go to the head a bit is that sort of thing. Knowing that you are stopping terrorists and being man enough not to brag about it is heady stuff indeed. It's probably every college boy's fantasy. Being like Gordon Liddy. A handy man to have around in sticky situations.

So heady I should think that one might easily believe anything as long as the show might go on.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You're being legalistic

With justification. I was responding to an untrue claim that the NSA had violated the law.

spendius wrote:

The writers of the Constitution might have tried for a King and an established church had they seen the secret memos delivered by some cosmic fortune-teller arriving in 18th century Philly in a telephone box dressed all goofy-like and with a chick in tow.

Any chance you guys can stop with the unhappy partings on Dr. Who?

Every time a companion gets trapped in a different universe or "time locked" in the past or something, it makes me stop watching.

I demand happy endings in my entertainment!

(Big plot hole with trapping Amy and Rory in the past, BTW. If the TARDIS can't get to New York anymore, send them a message to hop on a plane and fly to London.)

spendius wrote:

Snowden has brought us up to speed.

We already knew the NSA was listening.

Exposing the exact tactics used by the NSA only benefits people who are trying to hide from them.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Every time a companion gets trapped in a different universe or "time locked" in the past or something, it makes me stop watching.

It does me. I don't know one Doctor Who from another but I have the gist of it enough to say what I did. It's before the watershed stuff. Anything without scheming ladies in it is a waste of time. I thought TARDIS was a supermarket chain.

Quote:

With justification.

But I undermined legalism enough to at least make you stop and think. Legalism is a bit like cryogenics.

Quote:

We already knew the NSA was listening.

I know. It is the size of the trawl that has outraged us.

Quote:

Exposing the exact tactics used by the NSA only benefits people who are trying to hide from them.

That is not quite true old boy. We have been there and it wasn't very convincing.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

That doesn't answer the question. This is not about what you believe. Get over yourself, Frank. This is about philosophy and the realities experienced by the majority of humans ! It 's their proof that counts - not yours.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That doesn't answer the question. This is not about what you believe. Get over yourself, Frank. This is about philosophy and the realities experienced by the majority of humans ! It 's their proof that counts - not yours.

I said I would not ask for proof...and I didn't. I said I would ask for evidence...and I did.

You claim a contradiction.

THERE WAS NO CONTRADICTION.

You just are not man enough...do not have the integrity...or the self-assurance to simply acknowledge that you were wrong.

The entire matter had absolutely no relevance in this thread...you brought it up simply to charge that there was a contradiction involved...

...AND THERE WAS NO CONTRADICTION.

Grow up, ci. You're in your 70's. It's about time.

1 Reply

ci...

.…since you seem to be lost (or trying to get lost) in this discussion…here is the original post you made...the one we are contending:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Here's a direct contradiction y0u made on 13 January of 2012!

Your posts

Quote:
13JAN2012: I would NEVER ask for "proof" that gods exist or that gods do not exist. I am convinced such proof does not exist and such a request would be unfair and fruitless. I would assume the "assertion" was actually a "guess"...and only ask for the evidence upon which the guess that “gods exist” or “gods do not exist” is based…and then comment on that evidence.

13JAN2012:What evidence do you see that gods exist?
What evidence do you see that gods do not exist?

Here is a link to it: http://able2know.org/topic/217301-227#post-5542832

As you can see…as anyone can see…my original statement said I would NEVER ask for “proof” that gods exist or that gods do not exist. I then give my reason…and I add that I WOULD ASK for the evidence upon which the “guess” were being made.

In the statement you call a “direct contradiction”…I asked what EVIDENCE (not proof) that gods exist or do not exist.

THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONTRADICTION WHATEVER!

You ought really to simply acknowledge that you were wrong, ci..and get out of this thing.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

It doesn't matter what your definition for those two words are. NONE. Whatever PROOF or EVIDENCE the bbeliever interprets why they believe is what counts.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

This is a subject about philosophy, not math. You don't get to interpret words in philosophy to your own definition. But you continue to try.

1 Reply

You cannot execute a person if you "believe" that that person is guilty of capital murder. Your belief system might involve deeming a person corrupt for using alcohol, belonging to the "wrong" religion or not being a believer. You may be offended by these so called short comings, but it is not proof that the person committed murder.
Lets try this on for size, something horrible happens and your daughter is stolen and sold into slavery. As the police try to determine how best to rescue this child and break up the sex slave ring, a savvy computer hacker discovers all the evidence the police have collected, as well as the names of the undercover police working that and similar cases and decides to publish it for the public's need to know about criminal enterprise. So, how does that help the victims? But what the hell, if you have stolen a secret it your moral responsibility to rat out and endanger those tasked with protecting us.
Everyone would be repelled by the last fictional situation, but for some reason what Snowden did catapults him to hero status.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know