First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
The truth? Freedom of speech? Espionage? Or just cyber terrorism?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/19/10


1- The article is completely irrelevent- I merely suggest that babies, subjected a system of morality, would, in being so young and self-centered, would want it placed upon everyone else. They still have the memory of the said reward-punishment system, and would still believe that it should be applied to everyone else because it applies to them, so, even if they don't consciously think of it, this imposed morality and reward and punishment is already in their subconscious and memory. The Jews call this Yetzer Hara, or the impluse to do ill, which is what we would called 'egoism and selfcentredness', and, although it is not in itself an evil force, it can lead to one doing evil. Unfortunately, it is the only impluse which Children are driven upon before their thirteenth year of age, where they gain the 'Yetzer Hatov', or the impluse to do good, that is, the impluse to act selflessly without ulterior and self-centred motives.

But, I may be wrong, infants may lack long-term memory, in spite of this research:
http://www.parenting.com/article/Baby/Development/Baby-Milestones-13-18-Months-Baby-Memory
They may be born fundamentally good and all that. I may be completely wrong. I will acknowledge that my knowledge of human psychology, human development, and other fields of learning are imperfect, but, for now, I will disagree with you, for, unless one of us is willing to abandon our personal philosophy to trade for the other, this argument over the fundamental of human nature will not cease.

2. Libertarianism, Shmibertarianism, what has the labelling of my political ideology, malleable and varying as they are, got to do with anything?

3. I did not suggest that the US Military is the most humane of insitution, but, the two great objectives in war are to attain victory, and prevent as many casualty, on both side if possible, but, if worst comes to worst, at least, on our side. Therefore, it is needful that we should keep things clandestine. I cannot condone all of our military actions, nor shall I condone them for disobidience to their Commander in Chief, but, even the most leftist of leftist would have to acknowledge that there has to be functions, however limited, of any government that must be kept clandestine.
Posted 12/21/10

longfenglim wrote:



1- The article is completely irrelevent- I merely suggest that babies, subjected a system of morality, would, in being so young and self-centered, would want it placed upon everyone else. They still have the memory of the said reward-punishment system, and would still believe that it should be applied to everyone else because it applies to them, so, even if they don't consciously think of it, this imposed morality and reward and punishment is already in their subconscious and memory. The Jews call this Yetzer Hara, or the impluse to do ill, which is what we would called 'egoism and selfcentredness', and, although it is not in itself an evil force, it can lead to one doing evil. Unfortunately, it is the only impluse which Children are driven upon before their thirteenth year of age, where they gain the 'Yetzer Hatov', or the impluse to do good, that is, the impluse to act selflessly without ulterior and self-centred motives.

But, I may be wrong, infants may lack long-term memory, in spite of this research:
http://www.parenting.com/article/Baby/Development/Baby-Milestones-13-18-Months-Baby-Memory
They may be born fundamentally good and all that. I may be completely wrong. I will acknowledge that my knowledge of human psychology, human development, and other fields of learning are imperfect, but, for now, I will disagree with you, for, unless one of us is willing to abandon our personal philosophy to trade for the other, this argument over the fundamental of human nature will not cease.

2. Libertarianism, Shmibertarianism, what has the labelling of my political ideology, malleable and varying as they are, got to do with anything?

3. I did not suggest that the US Military is the most humane of insitution, but, the two great objectives in war are to attain victory, and prevent as many casualty, on both side if possible, but, if worst comes to worst, at least, on our side. Therefore, it is needful that we should keep things clandestine. I cannot condone all of our military actions, nor shall I condone them for disobidience to their Commander in Chief, but, even the most leftist of leftist would have to acknowledge that there has to be functions, however limited, of any government that must be kept clandestine.
Identifying the correct form of government policy is vital for your mission objective and functionality, so when you forced neo-libertarianism onto a liberal democratic society, you are quite literally creating a contradiction; you're forcing inequality on a system of govern that's supposed to protect individual rights and personal liberty indiscriminately.

That's not a "clandestine" government function when you're hiding an obvious contradiction. You made an unrealistic compromise on a very clear and distinct mission objective, and that's wrong. Furthermore because of the wrongdoing solely on the part of your own US Military, you didn't achieve your mission objective of identifying the real terrorists while minimizing civilian casualty. Instead you killed a bunch of innocent people and let God sort them out, while you played a dramaturgy known as 殺雞儆猴 and oppressed the rest of the Yemeni civilians:

AQAP STRIKES: CONCERN FOR CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
---------------------------------------------

¶4. (S/NF) Saleh praised the December 17 and 24 strikes
against AQAP but said that "mistakes were made" in the
killing of civilians in Abyan. The General responded that
the only civilians killed were the wife and two children of
an AQAP operative at the site, prompting Saleh to plunge into
a lengthy and confusing aside with Deputy Prime Minister
Alimi and Minister of Defense Ali regarding the number of
terrorists versus civilians killed in the strike. (Comment:
Saleh's conversation on the civilian casualties suggests he
has not been well briefed by his advisors on the strike in
Abyan, a site that the ROYG has been unable to access to
determine with any certainty the level of collateral damage.
End Comment.) AQAP leader Nassr al-Wahishi and extremist
cleric Anwar al-Awlaki may still be alive, Saleh said, but
the December strikes had already caused al-Qaeda operatives
to turn themselves in to authorities and residents in
affected areas to deny refuge to al-Qaeda.
Saleh raised the
issue of the Saudi Government and Jawf governorate tribal
sheikh Amin al-Okimi, a subject that is being reported
through other channels.(citation)
155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Psychologist's of...
Offline
Posted 12/21/10 , edited 12/21/10
Wikileaks has been up for quite some time. In other words, lots of information disclosed. But why particularly this time? Because the information was directly insulting the US? Me, being me, thinks that this is all just another conspiracy.
And only select parts of the information is focused on now. And the rape charges? Easy way of making a show and then getting rid of a person. So, convenient. I believe that this was purposely brought up after all that time. Give it a couple months and it'll be as if this never happened.
Forgive me if this sounds immature, but the truth hurts. And if that's what freedom of speech means, then take it.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/22/10 , edited 12/22/10

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



1- The article is completely irrelevent- I merely suggest that babies, subjected a system of morality, would, in being so young and self-centered, would want it placed upon everyone else. They still have the memory of the said reward-punishment system, and would still believe that it should be applied to everyone else because it applies to them, so, even if they don't consciously think of it, this imposed morality and reward and punishment is already in their subconscious and memory. The Jews call this Yetzer Hara, or the impluse to do ill, which is what we would called 'egoism and selfcentredness', and, although it is not in itself an evil force, it can lead to one doing evil. Unfortunately, it is the only impluse which Children are driven upon before their thirteenth year of age, where they gain the 'Yetzer Hatov', or the impluse to do good, that is, the impluse to act selflessly without ulterior and self-centred motives.

But, I may be wrong, infants may lack long-term memory, in spite of this research:
http://www.parenting.com/article/Baby/Development/Baby-Milestones-13-18-Months-Baby-Memory
They may be born fundamentally good and all that. I may be completely wrong. I will acknowledge that my knowledge of human psychology, human development, and other fields of learning are imperfect, but, for now, I will disagree with you, for, unless one of us is willing to abandon our personal philosophy to trade for the other, this argument over the fundamental of human nature will not cease.

2. Libertarianism, Shmibertarianism, what has the labelling of my political ideology, malleable and varying as they are, got to do with anything?

3. I did not suggest that the US Military is the most humane of insitution, but, the two great objectives in war are to attain victory, and prevent as many casualty, on both side if possible, but, if worst comes to worst, at least, on our side. Therefore, it is needful that we should keep things clandestine. I cannot condone all of our military actions, nor shall I condone them for disobidience to their Commander in Chief, but, even the most leftist of leftist would have to acknowledge that there has to be functions, however limited, of any government that must be kept clandestine.
Identifying the correct form of government policy is vital for your mission objective and functionality, so when you forced neo-libertarianism onto a liberal democratic society, you are quite literally creating a contradiction; you're forcing inequality on a system of govern that's supposed to protect individual rights and personal liberty indiscriminately.

That's not a "clandestine" government function when you're hiding an obvious contradiction. You made an unrealistic compromise on a very clear and distinct mission objective, and that's wrong. Furthermore because of the wrongdoing solely on the part of your own US Military, you didn't achieve your mission objective of identifying the real terrorists while minimizing civilian casualty. Instead you killed a bunch of innocent people and let God sort them out, while you played a dramaturgy known as 殺雞儆猴 and oppressed the rest of the Yemeni civilians:

AQAP STRIKES: CONCERN FOR CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
---------------------------------------------

¶4. (S/NF) Saleh praised the December 17 and 24 strikes
against AQAP but said that "mistakes were made" in the
killing of civilians in Abyan. The General responded that
the only civilians killed were the wife and two children of
an AQAP operative at the site, prompting Saleh to plunge into
a lengthy and confusing aside with Deputy Prime Minister
Alimi and Minister of Defense Ali regarding the number of
terrorists versus civilians killed in the strike. (Comment:
Saleh's conversation on the civilian casualties suggests he
has not been well briefed by his advisors on the strike in
Abyan, a site that the ROYG has been unable to access to
determine with any certainty the level of collateral damage.
End Comment.) AQAP leader Nassr al-Wahishi and extremist
cleric Anwar al-Awlaki may still be alive, Saleh said, but
the December strikes had already caused al-Qaeda operatives
to turn themselves in to authorities and residents in
affected areas to deny refuge to al-Qaeda.
Saleh raised the
issue of the Saudi Government and Jawf governorate tribal
sheikh Amin al-Okimi, a subject that is being reported
through other channels.(citation)


So you oppose my views because 'it fundamentally opposes my opinion on what a "Liberal Democracy" is'?
I am only saying Diplomacy is only about self-interest, it isn't a democratic affair, and, if conducted as I mentioned, can force a country into democracy.

The Military is a human insitution, as is the government, and subject to all the folly that error in human judgement can procure. Ill has been done, and it is unforgivable. Instead of going over and apologising for their wrong- for only the military can do that, and I am not the Military's representative- instances of wrong does not invalidate the fundamental idea that there are certain information of the government that are sensitive and need to be kept secret for the greater commonwealth of the People. Dresden does not invalidate the use of bombs, nor does the Chinese Exclusion Act invalidate Democracy.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

Worrx wrote:

Wikileaks has been up for quite some time. In other words, lots of information disclosed. But why particularly this time? Because the information was directly insulting the US? Me, being me, thinks that this is all just another conspiracy.
And only select parts of the information is focused on now. And the rape charges? Easy way of making a show and then getting rid of a person. So, convenient. I believe that this was purposely brought up after all that time. Give it a couple months and it'll be as if this never happened.
Forgive me if this sounds immature, but the truth hurts. And if that's what freedom of speech means, then take it.


It is not freedom of speech I am against, but the principles- that security sensitive information should be kept out of the sight of the foolish public and our enemies.
155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Psychologist's of...
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

longfenglim wrote:


Worrx wrote:

Wikileaks has been up for quite some time. In other words, lots of information disclosed. But why particularly this time? Because the information was directly insulting the US? Me, being me, thinks that this is all just another conspiracy.
And only select parts of the information is focused on now. And the rape charges? Easy way of making a show and then getting rid of a person. So, convenient. I believe that this was purposely brought up after all that time. Give it a couple months and it'll be as if this never happened.
Forgive me if this sounds immature, but the truth hurts. And if that's what freedom of speech means, then take it.


It is not freedom of speech I am against, but the principles- that security sensitive information should be kept out of the sight of the foolish public and our enemies.


He has been at it for quite a while. And the info this time was quite insulting. But if it's the reality, then don't the foolish public deserve to see? Afterall, they do believe everything they read, so they might as well believe something that's true.
And enemies have other methods. I really don't think that they'd need to be told anything.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

Worrx wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Worrx wrote:

Wikileaks has been up for quite some time. In other words, lots of information disclosed. But why particularly this time? Because the information was directly insulting the US? Me, being me, thinks that this is all just another conspiracy.
And only select parts of the information is focused on now. And the rape charges? Easy way of making a show and then getting rid of a person. So, convenient. I believe that this was purposely brought up after all that time. Give it a couple months and it'll be as if this never happened.
Forgive me if this sounds immature, but the truth hurts. And if that's what freedom of speech means, then take it.


It is not freedom of speech I am against, but the principles- that security sensitive information should be kept out of the sight of the foolish public and our enemies.


He has been at it for quite a while. And the info this time was quite insulting. But if it's the reality, then don't the foolish public deserve to see? Afterall, they do believe everything they read, so they might as well believe something that's true.
And enemies have other methods. I really don't think that they'd need to be told anything.


I already posted an analogy- if we posted our battle plans online, what is the point of going into battle? Sensitive information has no place in the public to be broadcasted to the world- such as, 'We are planning a raid on so and so mountains, in so and so province, and we don't want the Pakistanis to know that we can't trust them because they haven't been great help'- why even bother if everyone knows where you are.

Also, before our information has been leaked 'by this chap in the army', our security was pretty top notch, that was why the Soviets couldn't figure out what we were planning in the Cold War, &c.
155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Psychologist's of...
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

longfenglim wrote:


Worrx wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Worrx wrote:

Wikileaks has been up for quite some time. In other words, lots of information disclosed. But why particularly this time? Because the information was directly insulting the US? Me, being me, thinks that this is all just another conspiracy.
And only select parts of the information is focused on now. And the rape charges? Easy way of making a show and then getting rid of a person. So, convenient. I believe that this was purposely brought up after all that time. Give it a couple months and it'll be as if this never happened.
Forgive me if this sounds immature, but the truth hurts. And if that's what freedom of speech means, then take it.


It is not freedom of speech I am against, but the principles- that security sensitive information should be kept out of the sight of the foolish public and our enemies.


He has been at it for quite a while. And the info this time was quite insulting. But if it's the reality, then don't the foolish public deserve to see? Afterall, they do believe everything they read, so they might as well believe something that's true.
And enemies have other methods. I really don't think that they'd need to be told anything.


I already posted an analogy- if we posted our battle plans online, what is the point of going into battle? Sensitive information has no place in the public to be broadcasted to the world- such as, 'We are planning a raid on so and so mountains, in so and so province, and we don't want the Pakistanis to know that we can't trust them because they haven't been great help'- why even bother if everyone knows where you are.

Also, before our information has been leaked 'by this chap in the army', our security was pretty top notch, that was why the Soviets couldn't figure out what we were planning in the Cold War, &c.


Fine, I get what you're saying. There would be no point. Unless there were underlying reasons for it.

Like you just said, security was pretty top notch. And the government manages to cover up anything and get rid of anyone. The documents leaked were all official. Signed, stamped etc etc. Assange could not have obtained them without help. If any chap in the army was supplying him with info, I have absolutely no doubt that he would have been discovered and then wiped off the face of the earth.
So, just for one second, could you not think that there was a possibily of all this being a ploy? Distract the opponent and the world, while you carry out other activites?

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

Worrx wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Worrx wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Worrx wrote:

Wikileaks has been up for quite some time. In other words, lots of information disclosed. But why particularly this time? Because the information was directly insulting the US? Me, being me, thinks that this is all just another conspiracy.
And only select parts of the information is focused on now. And the rape charges? Easy way of making a show and then getting rid of a person. So, convenient. I believe that this was purposely brought up after all that time. Give it a couple months and it'll be as if this never happened.
Forgive me if this sounds immature, but the truth hurts. And if that's what freedom of speech means, then take it.


It is not freedom of speech I am against, but the principles- that security sensitive information should be kept out of the sight of the foolish public and our enemies.


He has been at it for quite a while. And the info this time was quite insulting. But if it's the reality, then don't the foolish public deserve to see? Afterall, they do believe everything they read, so they might as well believe something that's true.
And enemies have other methods. I really don't think that they'd need to be told anything.


I already posted an analogy- if we posted our battle plans online, what is the point of going into battle? Sensitive information has no place in the public to be broadcasted to the world- such as, 'We are planning a raid on so and so mountains, in so and so province, and we don't want the Pakistanis to know that we can't trust them because they haven't been great help'- why even bother if everyone knows where you are.

Also, before our information has been leaked 'by this chap in the army', our security was pretty top notch, that was why the Soviets couldn't figure out what we were planning in the Cold War, &c.


Fine, I get what you're saying. There would be no point. Unless there were underlying reasons for it.

Like you just said, security was pretty top notch. And the government manages to cover up anything and get rid of anyone. The documents leaked were all official. Signed, stamped etc etc. Assange could not have obtained them without help. If any chap in the army was supplying him with info, I have absolutely no doubt that he would have been discovered and then wiped off the face of the earth.
So, just for one second, could you not think that there was a possibily of all this being a ploy? Distract the opponent and the world, while you carry out other activites?



Well, last I heard, the 'Military chap' is in a military prision.

Also, if 'twere a ploy, why humiliate themselves? It is like wetting yourself so that no one will notice you steal stuff- it distracts, sure, but it puts more light on you, so you still will get caught, only with more humiliation.
155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Psychologist's of...
Offline
Posted 12/23/10

longfenglim wrote:


Worrx wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Worrx wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Worrx wrote:

Wikileaks has been up for quite some time. In other words, lots of information disclosed. But why particularly this time? Because the information was directly insulting the US? Me, being me, thinks that this is all just another conspiracy.
And only select parts of the information is focused on now. And the rape charges? Easy way of making a show and then getting rid of a person. So, convenient. I believe that this was purposely brought up after all that time. Give it a couple months and it'll be as if this never happened.
Forgive me if this sounds immature, but the truth hurts. And if that's what freedom of speech means, then take it.


It is not freedom of speech I am against, but the principles- that security sensitive information should be kept out of the sight of the foolish public and our enemies.


He has been at it for quite a while. And the info this time was quite insulting. But if it's the reality, then don't the foolish public deserve to see? Afterall, they do believe everything they read, so they might as well believe something that's true.
And enemies have other methods. I really don't think that they'd need to be told anything.


I already posted an analogy- if we posted our battle plans online, what is the point of going into battle? Sensitive information has no place in the public to be broadcasted to the world- such as, 'We are planning a raid on so and so mountains, in so and so province, and we don't want the Pakistanis to know that we can't trust them because they haven't been great help'- why even bother if everyone knows where you are.

Also, before our information has been leaked 'by this chap in the army', our security was pretty top notch, that was why the Soviets couldn't figure out what we were planning in the Cold War, &c.


Fine, I get what you're saying. There would be no point. Unless there were underlying reasons for it.

Like you just said, security was pretty top notch. And the government manages to cover up anything and get rid of anyone. The documents leaked were all official. Signed, stamped etc etc. Assange could not have obtained them without help. If any chap in the army was supplying him with info, I have absolutely no doubt that he would have been discovered and then wiped off the face of the earth.
So, just for one second, could you not think that there was a possibily of all this being a ploy? Distract the opponent and the world, while you carry out other activites?



Well, last I heard, the 'Military chap' is in a military prision.

Also, if 'twere a ploy, why humiliate themselves? It is like wetting yourself so that no one will notice you steal stuff- it distracts, sure, but it puts more light on you, so you still will get caught, only with more humiliation.


So, no more contact from him I guess.

You may get caught, but most probably for wetting yourself, not stealing.
If you were desperate for power, I don't think you would care about face-keeping.


75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 12/23/10

amersfoort wrote:

Yes there are many ways you can look at this subject,
I'm talking ofcourse about wikileaks, and Julian Assange.

What is your opinion?
Should such documents be published even thoo they might endanger people, or is the truth simply worth that?
What about the actions of the politicians/companys trying to stop this, is this legal? Is this oppresing freedom of speech?
And what about the accusations of rape/sexual harrasment? Very convenient, or coincidence.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your opinion and the debates revolving around this subject.
So please, share your thoughts, but be wary, I might publish them on a website



honestly I think it's a tempest in a teacup and a nice distraction.

First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.