31–40 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
You're confusing the straw man fallacy with an ad hominem attack.
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.
There's a difference in saying you have that opinion, and asserting that opinion is objectively true as in the article. 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
In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens.
Why would the NSA have these compliance filters as part of a classified program if they were allegedly performing illegal activities?
A medal? I understand the importance of Snowden's revelations and I know he believes he did everything the only way it played out. But that doesn't mean he is above the law. Civil disobedience still implies civility and he should come to his day in court. We don't know what he's given Russia or China in order to remain on the run, even Glenn Greenwald admits that here, when discussing Snowden's "self preservation": h…
It's not like it's a mystery what would happen if he did. Only tyrants make martyrs.
He already has a medal, very likely. He revealed what everyone interested was already suspecting. The reason Russia shelters him is that he was working for them. It's a reward, and one they have to give out, otherwise no on smart would cooperate with them. If he wasn't a former Russian agent, it'd be better for them letting America make an example of him, because what would make US look worse than jailing for life so…
Oh, wait, that is what happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
You're confusing the straw man fallacy with an ad hominem attack.
(I thought it was funny, but both I and the GP should probably be voted down to keep whimsical humour like this off HN. The GP will probably argue I should be upvoted for suggesting a downvote of whimsical humor.)
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…
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.
But the unproven collateral damage of Snowden's leaks, which had the giant upside of revealing democracy-chilling surveillance techniques, leads to mass reaction from the government. So, undeniable upside/debatable downside = Enemy of the State, threats to nations that offer him asylum.
How does this arithmetic work out for anyone?
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
What illegal activities did the NSA perform here? In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens. Why would the NSA have these compliance filters as part of a classified program if they were allegedly performing illegal activities?
See the first link in my comment.
> In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens.
So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. I regard suggestions to the contrary as insulting.
(for the record, I'm Australian, and I consider my own government's participation in these programs to be reprehensible)
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…
I think its time we all revisit "Born On The Fourth of July". Stone's bore of a movie in search of a plot. What it lacks in direction and basic story-telling it makes up for in emotion and political bias. I lost braincells watching this foolishness and it is enough to convince me to ignore all other politically sensitive Stone movies. Stone should go back to doing movies like "Conan the Barbarian", which is a classic…