21–30 of 241 posts
Another important question is whether or not the NSA should be pardoned for their illegal activity: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0N... Or whether James Clapper deserves a pardon for committing perjury during a testimony to Congress: http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com Edit: /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded. What if you really think that's the case? Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.
I condemn Snowden. Prove that I'm intellectually lazy.
Another important question is whether or not the NSA should be pardoned for their illegal activity: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0N... Or whether James Clapper deserves a pardon for committing perjury during a testimony to Congress: http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com Edit: /s
Excuse me, why would they?
In the absence of that I'm just assuming that nothing will happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded. What if you really think that's the case? Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.
I condemn Snowden. Prove that I'm intellectually lazy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded. What if you really think that's the case? Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.
I condemn Snowden. Prove that I'm intellectually lazy.
One thing this article doesn't take into account is that the movie the author undoubtedly watched before writing this was full of inaccuracies, and had the purpose of establishing Snowden as a martyr or sorts. This is evident because rather than just prove their point, the author makes several attempts to make sure the reader knows that if you hold an opposing view, you are intellectually lazy and unable to cope with…
Don't use strawman arguments? That would silence 90% of the arguments on the internet! (Honestly, I am seeing a general trend toward better arguing and less fallacious logic as time goes on, but you are absolutely right, the argument should not be based on a basic logical fallacy)
One thing this article doesn't take into account is that the movie the author undoubtedly watched before writing this was full of inaccuracies, and had the purpose of establishing Snowden as a martyr or sorts. This is evident because rather than just prove their point, the author makes several attempts to make sure the reader knows that if you hold an opposing view, you are intellectually lazy and unable to cope with…
>don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded. What if you really think that's the case? Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.
While I disagree with the "anyone" part, I do believe that condemnation of Snowden comes most often from ignorance. The more I learned of the leaks in particular, and Snowden's reasoning on the information, the more I came to view his actions as necessary for a free society.
Another important question is whether or not the NSA should be pardoned for their illegal activity: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0N... Or whether James Clapper deserves a pardon for committing perjury during a testimony to Congress: http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com Edit: /s
Excuse me, why would they?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded. What if you really think that's the case? Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.
I condemn Snowden. Prove that I'm intellectually lazy.
Snowden has a well-argued moral case for what he did. He demonstrably tried to minimize harm and maximize the positive impact of his disclosures.
You give literally no reason for your condemnation (though in all fairness, your comment is likely to be rhetorical).
More to the point, you will likely argue that he broke laws and cite some unspecified damage to the intelligence community that can neither be qualified nor quantified. Importantly, you will likely do this -- as every condemning voice has -- without offering a cogent rebuttal to Snowden's case. Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, you will fail to address the the clear and present danger of allowing a government to perform dragnet surveillance on its citizens without suspecting them of criminal activity.
If that's not intellectual laziness, then I honestly don't know what is.
If that's not going to be your line of argumentation, then congratulations! You are literally the first person I have encountered who condemns Snowden without being intellectually lazy or dishonest. I'll believe it when I see it.
(I feel compelled to mention, once more, that I mean no disrespect. I think your comment is rhetorical in nature, so I beg of you not to take anything personally.)