Quote:
seriously doesn't swden have like one of the highest transparencies in the world and yet they are the one violating this dudes rights :lol |
I've written Blasted Child off as a political lummox months ago. When he's cornered he either doesn't reply at all or he tries the old OK YOU GOT ME YOU'RE SO SMART sarcasm routine. On top of it, if he does something like attack someone elses country with generalized stereotypes and it gets thrown back at him, he starts in with the same old tired line of WOW YOU SURE DO STUDY UP ON ME A LOT, YOU MUST REALLY WANT TO BE ME. It's the same routine every time and as predictable as a rock being dropped in a puddle of water.
It's funny to watch him butt into a conversation though when no one is even talking to him. HEY GUYS, THIS IS THE PERFECT PLACE FOR ME TO SAY MY LINE! |
Oh god, I just read what he wrote. He thinks he's pushing my buttons. :lol
|
When exactly have you got me cornered, Tadao?
Also, I'm not sure the phrase "studied up" applies in your case... But why don't you make a search through your own post history and look up where you've written stuff about "sweden", "swedish" or "swedes", and tell me if it doesn't come across as just a tad obsessive. Especially since most of those posts are not preceded by america-criticism on my part |
|
Blasted Child doesn't know how to not be a serious sally. :(
|
lol sally
Quote:
A TAD O TADAO WHATS THIS YOU THINK ABOUT HIM SUBCONSCIOUSLY |
:lol Because I know 2 things about Sweden
1: They are pussies when it comes to politics 2: If it wasn't for San Francisco, they would be the kings of self righteousness I'm obsessive. In fact, you seem to know 10 times more about America than I know about Sweden. I guess that makes you a jealous stalker. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Ok, I support the mockery and downright abuse of people to the fullest extent. I like it when sarcasm and deceit makes stupid people mad, and causes them to look even more stupid.
It's not really funny at all if the people that you are trying to mock don't take the bait, it just makes you look a little desperate. Trying to find absolutely everyone's 'weak spot' inevitably means that you are going to encounter people that genuinely don't care if you try to make fun of them, or will just get annoyed after a few pages of nonsensical posts claiming that they have been 'backed into a corner' - is that what you are aiming for? |
zhukov kinda sounds like he's backed into a corner
|
Lol, this coming from the fact master.
|
It's as if you skim the conversations and form your own opinion on what people are saying without actually reading all the words.
|
They don't want to address anything to do with cause and effect. And every time I try to explain it they both refuse to listen then flat out ignore it without addressing the points about transparency having long term bad effects. When I give an example where many many lives are lost as a result of transparency, I get a smokescreen reply saying I think "that gassing Kurds and torturing civilians should have been kept classified? Best that nobody found out?". Instead of an honest assessment of what that actually shows. Not that I should be surprised, PR guilt trips and making your opponents look like they are heartless to hide the fact that you are mindless is a tried and true communist debate technique. If it isn't Zhukov attacking how kind you look to others, it is Blasted Child not posting a single thought or addressing a single point in dozens of posts. Unless you count drawings that a kindergartner would be ashamed to cop to as 'addressing points'
Meanwhile we are also asked, when did Assange directly do hacking or theft of government documents? I will address this once again. Possessing stolen property is a crime, and is treated itself as theft in the US. We do this sort of thing so criminals in the US so they can't hide behind, "but I didn't do it directly" Charles Manson for example sits forever in jail and yet has never murdered a soul, yet his actions resulted in the deaths of many innocent people. I find it ironic, and very hypocritical that you demand the government take responsibility for what they do, but give a pass to wikileaks because of a painfully transparent anti America agenda |
you're retarded
|
You think everyone is retarded though
|
true :(
|
i like how his points could be easily refuted with like three carefuly placed sentences that will never come
|
I'm just popping in to say that all of these arguments/discussions/debates are going nowhere and have gone nowhere. I've gotten bored of reading it, so I'm just gonna stop.
Yeah, that's about it. |
Quote:
So, where is your proof that Julian Assange or Wikileaks are hacking into and stealing US military secrets? What are the sensitive military secrets that Wikileaks has stolen, and why are they so dangerous if people know about them? How does Wikileaks encourage other people to hack and steal information for them? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
They didn't steal anything - it was leaked to them from others that had that information given to them. You have no proof that anything was stolen. Quote:
|
Quote:
I've looked through the posts you've made here (and god it's not a pretty sight), and the only time you've demanded some sort of response is when you asked for names of the leaks. I gave you a name that time, the most prominent leak so far. Link and all. Then you kept repeating this request, as if I personally wrote the damned wikileaks and kept all the contacts in some sort of folder. Is that when you cornered me, Tadao? When you kept shouting "I want names!!"? Oh, let me guess, it's when you wrote "what are you gonna do with all this information?" Then sorry if I didn't reply. This is what transparency is, Tadao, when people get information. What do you do with the news you read? Do you always do something actively? Well some people do. And then you can support them, when you've received information and know how to cast your vote. I simply think people should get information. I think that's ultimately a good thing. Totalitarian regimes cover up things and keep their people in the dark. You don't want that. This is really all I have to say about this. It has nothing to do with being anti-american; if I was anti-american I would think you deserved the same kind of non-transparency they have in China. Just my two cents. |
Quote:
2) the reason you think BC's childishly talentless cartoon was funny is because he is the only person who has your back 3) regarding examples of your heartless to somkescreen your weak stance, I gave 2 glaring examples, and even repeated them many times (gassing kurds to counter my Iraq transparency example, and your stance that I thought the holocaust should have been hidden which you made not because you honestly believed I thought that, but to make me look heartless so you could draw attention away from my point. Well, either that, or you really were moronic enough to believe that I thought the killing of 6 million people should have been or even could have been hidden. So either I am right about you, or you are a moron) 4) Assange is a cyber terrorist, a holder of documents he knows do not belong to him (a thief if ever there was one despite your counterargument based entirely in semantics) He not only knows they are stolen, he has no qualms about threatening the US with them, has done so before, and continues to do so now. And please, don't try to say "well he is defending himself" he fired the first salvo in this little war, are you telling me the governments have no right to defend themselves? 5) I noticed you ignored my SSA point, a domestic government installation, that has the US primary information item for every US citizen that if it were transparent as you wish so hard for it to be would render hundreds of millions of people naked to identity thieves. 6) You want a break down explained. Honestly I had thought you smart enough to know what could happen long term and were just ignoring it, but since I find I was mistaken about you I will give you one scenario -Assange releases 250000 US documents, some of which could have military secrets in them, many of which have things that aren't the worlds business, some of which were bad, but nowhere near as bad as what they prevented. -The world, galvanized by internet outraged, appeals to the UN -The UN creates sanctions to hurt the US financially, but all it really does is eliminate the upper middle, middle, and lower middle class rendering the country mostly poverty stricken with a 2% of the population unaffected. -The more zealous, anti american entities of the world decide the US has yet to suffer enough, and with what they now know about the domestic security of the US multiple terrorist cells decide to all attack, lives are lost in the millions, some countries may even find a weakened America a tempting target so they could strike too, which would mean war on US soil -The US economy collapses, this now means exports of dozens of countries shut down, this also means, that food that used to be shipped to third world countries has also ceased, so now millions of people who rely on US agriculture must starve, and millions who rely on US spending to feed their families are also ruined. That's just one possible way it could shake out, death, war, and world hunger all to satisfy your desire for sudden total transparency. Personally, I do not think the ends justify the means in that scenario, and would rather not take the chance of it coming to pass. Also I can't help but notice (nod to Tadao for inadvertently reminding me of this) that transparency doesn't seem to stop despot leaders like Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein so what good will it do with countries that are not committing atrocities at the level those leaders have? Countries have had the need for secrets because petty people have made it so. You can't change human nature and trying to force it to change is a pointless and dangerous endeavor. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I also don't think you can just say that a document is stolen; you have to tell me how you know it's stolen. Saying "they are all stolen" isn't sufficient. The documents are uploaded anonymously to Wikileaks, the only person accused of ANYTHING by the US government is Bradley Manning, who didn't steal anything, but has been charged with 'unauthorized use and disclosure of U.S. classified information', so he was entrusted with information that he then passed on. No stealing. Seriously. Nothing has been proven to be stolen. Even if there was stolen information, it doesn't change what the information says, and it doesn't change a people's right to know what their government is up to. Quote:
Quote:
Pentegarn, your arguments led to me asking you questions based on what I considered the next step in your logic. You stated that governments should have the right to keep things classified if they deem it necessary, so I followed on and asked you if a government (Nazis) had the right to keep things (holocaust) classified that they deemed necessary. I didn't ask you if it was ok to kill 6 million Jews, I didn't ask you if you hated Jews and were a Nazi and whether or not you would commit genocide, I asked you if THAT was an exception from your statement, or if it didn't come into it at all, or whatever. I asked you what you thought and you considered it an 'ad hominem' attack. Same with Saddam; he was a government, he decided that gassing people and torturing people should be kept classified, and I asked you if he had that right and whether it should be respected. MY point is this: if a government decides what should be secret and what shouldn't, they will inevitably cover up their mistakes and crimes under the cover of 'it's classified', the numerous gaffes and crimes shown on wikileaks backs this up. You also thought that the Watergate scandal was ok to be out in the open, but only because it was released by a respectable newspaper, and not a website. I don't see how this fits. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Documents are released, people want their government to start being more honest, nothing much else happens worth mentioning in the grand scheme of things. If there was transparency in the government then maybe, just maybe, they would stop, or cut down on, institutionalised abuse, crime, environmental destruction, and economic lies, because an angry public would protest and not allow it. Maybe. Quote:
/end typical communist debate techniques. |
ALRIGHT I DIDNT READ MOST OF THIS PAGE BUT HERES WHAT IM RESPONDING TO:
Quote:
SO YOUR BOSS GIVES YOU A COMPANY CAR TO DRIVe AROUND. OH I GUESS THAT CARS YOURS NOW SO YOU CAN GO SELL IT TO A USED CAR DEALERSHIP RIGHT? NOPE. OKAY SO YOU WORK AT A DESK AT WORK, RIGHT? SO THAT DESKS YOURS ISNT IT? SO WHEN YOU LEAVE YOU GET TO TAKE IT WITH YOU AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANt WITH IT RIGHT? OH NO SORRY. DO WE NEED ANY MORE EXAMPLES OF STUFF WHEN KNOWLEdge 'beloNgS" TO SOMEBODY BUT ITS STiLL ILLEgAL to Give it to SOMEBODY ELSE? MAYBE LIKE INSIDE TRADING? HOW BOUT THAT ONE? WOULDNT BE SURPRISED IF SOME OF THE STUFF ON WIKILEAKS SUPPORtED INSIDE TRADINg. ALSO ISNT INSIDE TRADING JUST ANOTHER FORM OF "TRANSPARENCY?" YET ITS AGAINST THE LAW! HOW STRANge OH HERES ANOthER GOOD ONE. YOU WORK IN A BANK AND HAVE BEEN GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY OVER SEVERAL PERSONS BANK ACCOUNTS. WELL, YOU CAN JUST GO SELL ALL OF tHAT INFORMATiON BECAUSE it WAS GIVEN TO YOU! ALSO YOU CAN WITHDRAWAL AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU LIKE! SERIOUSLY! PSYCHOLOgiSTS ARE GIvEN INFORMATION BY thEIR PATIENTS AND Yet IF tHEY WENT AROUND GIving iT TO PEOPLE WHAT WOULD THAT BE? A BETRAYAL OF CONFIDENTIALITy. WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. ARENT SOME GOVERNMENT THINGS CONFIDENTIAL AND "tOP SECRETS." SORRY But itS A CRIME TO DISCLOSE SUCH KNOWLEDGE. MILITARY PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCLOSE DETAILS ABOU tHEIR GOvERNMENT. ITS CALLED SEDITION AND IS A CRIME. FUCK JUST SAYIng SOMETHINg BAD ABOUT YOUR COUntRY WHILE YOURe WeARING YOUR UNIFORM CAN GET YOU IN tROUBLE SOMEtiMES. |
Quote:
Quote:
ALSO you can't technically "STEAL" information/ideas anyway, so most of your arguments regarding it being "Stolen" are irrelevant. "Unlawful reproduction" or transmission would be more appropriate, i guess. So just replace all of those terms with stolen and it should be AOK. The only way you can really "Steal" information is if you use it first, claim it was yours and/or get the benefits. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.