[QUOTE=faze;26554264]You can't share [B]everything[/B] with everyone... There needs to be some kind of secrets for the sake of national security.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this because a lot of the problems that come from this is not regular citizens finding things out, but the leaders of other countries seeing these things.
I'm just ready for the whole thing to blow over and Wikileaks eventually shut down because it's just gotten annoying now that Mastercard, Paypal, and any other sites that go against him are being attacked.
These dumbass angsty teenagers who are like "THE TRUTH MUST BE REVEALED 4 THA PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION" need to get out of dream world because these leaks aren't going to benefit anyone and they're just causing international problems.
It's like if a doctor gave out copies of a patient's chart to everyone in the waiting room. Yeah, now everyone knows information that was supposed to be secret, but they're not doctors, they have no knowledge of the medical field, so what the hell could they possibly do with the information?
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;26579530]Amorality!=Anarchy[/QUOTE]
Not directly, no, but what if all the world's leaders had no morality? We'd be living in a worldwide Nazi Germany.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;26589724]Not directly, no, but what if all the world's leaders had no morality? We'd be living in a worldwide Nazi Germany.[/QUOTE]
Except the Nazis cared about their own people, so therefore the world would be at peace if all of them were Nazi leaders.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;26589724]Not directly, no, but what if all the world's leaders had no morality? We'd be living in a worldwide Nazi Germany.[/QUOTE]
Two things:
-"State of Nature" fallacies
-Godwin
On an equally silly note how the hell did this conversation end up on this?
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;26589846]Two things:
-"State of Nature" fallacies
-Godwin
On an equally silly note how the hell did this conversation end up on this?[/QUOTE]
Spies trying to disrupt our train of thought to hide the truth from us, Nazi Germany won WW2 and hitler is still alive on the moon.
Did he really do it, leaking all that stuff got some important people angry, some people could have framed him?
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;26589846]Two things:
-"State of Nature" fallacies
-Godwin
On an equally silly note how the hell did this conversation end up on this?[/QUOTE]
Excuse my apparent lack of philosophical knowledge, but I understand "State of Nature" to refer to a order-less, anarchy-ridden theoretical state of man before formal government. How does this relate to what I said?
As for Godwin, yeah? What about it?
As for how this particular conversation reached this point, there's always reading. Alternatively: I argued that people look up to Assange as some sort of moral superior to the governments of the world. MovingSalad then proceeded to say that morals don't matter, which is unreasonably silly. My reference to Nazi Germany was just an easy point of comparison for a moral-less leader... Hitler was logical, but completely un-empathetic.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vox;26589904]Did he really do it, leaking all that stuff got some important people angry, some people could have framed him?[/QUOTE]
That's the popular, paranoia-driven view, yes.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;26590216]Excuse my apparent lack of philosophical knowledge, but I understand "State of Nature" to refer to a order-less, anarchy-ridden theoretical state of man before formal government. How does this relate to what I said?[/QUOTE]
You're making the same batshit insane speculation on what would happen if group of people X lacked thing you can't prove they have or ever have had Y.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;26590216]As for Godwin, yeah? What about it?[/QUOTE]
References to the Nazis in inappropriate contexts make an argument look hella weird. Guess what? Wrong context.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;26590216]As for how this particular conversation reached this point,[/QUOTE]
Somebody is taking this waaaay too seriously.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;26592109]You're making the same batshit insane speculation on what would happen if group of people X lacked thing you can't prove they have or ever have had Y.[/QUOTE]
Er, how? There have been moral-less regimes, as there has been government-less societies. (Note, however, that the latter did not involve anarchy. And not every philosopher believes the State of Nature is anarchical.) (Edit 2: Also, societies probably isn't the right word, as it implies government. So I guess "government-less groups.")
[quote]References to the Nazis in inappropriate contexts make an argument look hella weird. Guess what? Wrong context.[/quote]
Again, how? It happens to be a relatively recent, convenient, pertinent example.
[quote]Somebody is taking this waaaay too seriously.[/quote]
'k.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;26577633]Even if there are a ton of people leaking the stuff to him and doing routine management, he's the one at the helm and he's the one claiming the public's support. He's building himself into some sort of superhero and people are aligning themselves under his banner. I mean, look at Anon. They're DDoSing major business in the name of one man and his beliefs. If this doesn't worry you, you need to open your eyes and stop acting like this is still a matter of free speech.
[editline]8th December 2010[/editline]
Which it never really was in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Except Assange doesn't do anything with the information except publish it.
[editline]10th December 2010[/editline]
Yeah and tell me who 'anon' is? That's right! Anyone that wants to be. Maybe it's a government agent. Maybe it's a fat fuck on facepunch. Or maybe it's a dutch 16 year old.
Julian's 'belief' of publishing secret documents, whether they show corruption or not, has nothing to do with him. It will continue with or without him. My eyes are wide open, I just dont have the same eyes as you.
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;26608025]Except Assange doesn't do anything with the information except publish it.[/quote]
Right, and that's kind of the issue. He's the one enabling leakers to get out their classified information to millions. Furthermore, it's his site that's deciding which parts of the files are "OK" for the public to see.
[quote]Yeah and tell me who 'anon' is? That's right! Anyone that wants to be. Maybe it's a government agent. Maybe it's a fat fuck on facepunch. Or maybe it's a dutch 16 year old.[/quote]
And yes, again, that is the issue. Random people from all over the world are pledging their potential safety to this site and this man, which, I dunno, is maybe a little worrying?
[quote]Julian's 'belief' of publishing secret documents, whether they show corruption or not, has nothing to do with him. It will continue with or without him. My eyes are wide open, I just dont have the same eyes as you.[/QUOTE]
Man, I never thought I'd agree with you so much in one post. Of course it's going to continue without him, that's what is so worrying. He and his site have put in motion a potentially highly dangerous method of "above authority" thinking, and it's getting progressively harder and harder to stop.
And, ironically, governments are going to get more and more secretive as a result. WL is really accomplishing the opposite of they're aiming for.
You just justify yourself with words like "wrong," "worrying" and "potentially highly dangerous"
Show some material that would make me suggest that what it's doing [b]has caused problems that are on a clear, existant level.[/b]
I do agree with you about WL possibly accomplishing the opposite of what they're aiming for. That could be the result.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;26608406]Right, and that's kind of the issue. He's the one enabling leakers to get out their classified information to millions. Furthermore, it's his site that's deciding which parts of the files are "OK" for the public to see.[/QUOTE]
Newspapers have done this for decades, and the worst thing that has happened to a newspaper is a court injunction. Why should new media / the internet etc be treated any differently to the old ways of whistleblowing?
[QUOTE=Jsm;26609781]Newspapers have done this for decades, and the worst thing that has happened to a newspaper is a court injunction. Why should new media / the internet etc be treated any differently to the old ways of whistleblowing?[/QUOTE]
The internet is just [i]too[/i] good.
[QUOTE=Jsm;26609781]Newspapers have done this for decades, and the worst thing that has happened to a newspaper is a court injunction. Why should new media / the internet etc be treated any differently to the old ways of whistleblowing?[/QUOTE]
There's no newspaper that exists that solely prints definitively classified information.
[editline]10th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;26609553]You just justify yourself with words like "wrong," "worrying" and "potentially highly dangerous"
Show some material that would make me suggest that what it's doing [b]has caused problems that are on a clear, existant level.[/b]
I do agree with you about WL possibly accomplishing the opposite of what they're aiming for. That could be the result.[/QUOTE]
Maybe I can't because this is a new and emergent issue, with the increasing prevalence of the internet and simultaneously the increasing openness of information. But what I can do is turn that same stupid argument around and ask for hard evidence on how this could benefit us. What tangible benefit has the information leaked thus far given the general public?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.