I-Mockery Forum

I-Mockery Forum (http://i-mockery.com/forum/index.php)
-   Philosophy, Politics, and News (http://i-mockery.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   WikiLeaks (http://i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69705509)

executioneer Dec 16th, 2010 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elx (Post 707748)
dearest willie,

are we supposed to wash the inside of a banana?

love,
elx

i can't see any reason why you would need to! wait do you mean the FRUIT part of the banana? um there'd only be a need if it got split open or otherwise compromised and even then if you're worried about it you're probably better off just getting another banana

Blasted Child Dec 16th, 2010 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadao (Post 707724)
I want the names of the people leaking the information. It's my right as a human being that these names are not to be kept secret from me.

One rather notable leak is Bradley Manning.

However, considering how the general concensus is that such whistleblowers, including Assange himself, should be hanged or at least imprisoned for life, I understand if they prefer to remain anonymous.

Colonel Flagg Dec 16th, 2010 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn (Post 707778)
So is freedom being limitless :O

OK, you got me. :)

Tadao Dec 16th, 2010 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blasted Child (Post 707797)
One rather notable leak is Bradley Manning.

However, considering how the general concensus is that such whistleblowers, including Assange himself, should be hanged or at least imprisoned for life, I understand if they prefer to remain anonymous.

I demand the same transparency they demand, no matter what the cost. Are you saying keeping secrects can be good at some times? How can I ever know if their name is kept secrets! People like you stop this world from progress!

Blasted Child Dec 16th, 2010 04:04 PM

Well, I sort of gave you the name of the most prominent whistleblower, so I don't know what you're whining about.

Secondly, hell yeah, I believe there should be plenty of secrets. I think there's plenty of material that should be kept away from the public eye. Patient journals, private details like religious conviction, sexual preferences, and all sorts of confidential material like therapy sessions, confessions, legal counselling, you name it.

An important difference is that the material published at Wikileaks is not about people's private secrets, it's about their roles as statesmen and representatives of the people. It's about what they do when they're at work. And they're elected by us, and work for us, so if they're wasting our time and money cooking up trouble and being corrupt and ignorant, we deserve to know.

Dimnos Dec 16th, 2010 04:09 PM

Rights of the people vs rights of the government.

Tadao Dec 16th, 2010 04:16 PM

I want all of their names. They are no longer working as private citizens, they are now acting as employees of the world. They have no rights to privacy.

Tadao Dec 16th, 2010 04:59 PM

Not to mention 95 percent of these people probably work for a government. Therefore those people that do should be named publicly. The only way to know for sure is if all of their names are made public.

This appears to be my new right to information and transparency.

elx Dec 16th, 2010 07:30 PM

what are you going on about? did you even try to get their names? WikiLeaks is managed by a small team of people, their identities aren't supposed to be secret. the site runs by allowing anyone to upload and submit documents anonymously, the team then outsource the work of verifying the documents to volunteer investigative journalists working for places like the New York Times and The Guardian. been going on for years.

The Leader Dec 16th, 2010 07:34 PM

elx you're dumb

Tadao Dec 16th, 2010 07:35 PM

very dumb

elx Dec 16th, 2010 07:59 PM

but i was so sure that you were being serious :(

Tadao Dec 16th, 2010 08:02 PM

try reading

Dimnos Dec 17th, 2010 01:53 PM

Express your thoughts in paint drawings. I understood you better back then. :\

MLE Dec 17th, 2010 08:14 PM

Guys, they can't tell if you're being serious unless you use the right emoticons :rolleyes

kahljorn Dec 17th, 2010 10:38 PM

I was being serious. Transparency of Government is something everybody thinks we need but in reality its retarded and it really doesn't help democracy at all. Also, we don't technically live in a "Democracy" but a representational democracy, and the reason why we have a representational democracy instead of a regular democracy is because we accept that people are way too stupid to rule a country. The only reason people are allowed to vote is to keep it from becoming an unchanging tyranny. Its a check of power, not a right to rule or anything.

Freedom of the press and transparency can only help a nation that is lead by reason and not EMOTIONS AND STUPIDITY, of which America is the later. In a nation led by EMOTIONS AND STUPIDITY practically every political act would seem unreasonable.

Most people prolly don't even want transparency they just want political reality tv so they can get all asshurt about shit and have stuff to talk about.

Pentegarn Dec 18th, 2010 07:25 AM

I can't help but wonder why it's OK to call it freedom of the press when they aren't doing any actual journalism, when all they are actually doing is posting things that are in fact the property of other entities? Journalism should have content that was written by the 'journalist' in question.

While we're on the subject, doesn't journalism require a degree? If every poster, blogger, and user of the internet is suddenly a journalist, then why not say next that I am a doctor because I put a band aid on a child? Heck I got a speeding ticket, pled guilty and paid the fine, by these new looser standards on what makes one an accredited professional in their field, I am currently a trial lawyer. :lol

Zhukov Dec 18th, 2010 09:53 AM

Because media and journalism aren't the same word.

And why would journalism require a degree? What does that avenue of reasoning have to do with ANYTHING anyway?

Pentegarn Dec 18th, 2010 11:37 AM

Why would journalism require a degree? Because it does. You have to go to college to get a journalism degree. Try going to CNN without a journalism degree and applying for a journalist position. They would laugh you out of the building. Posting something on the internet does not make you a journalist, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Just like me pleading guilty on a speeding ticket doesn't make me a trial lawyer. Otherwise we would all be journalists. We tell each other stuff here all the time. Doesn't make us an accredited source though.

Pentegarn Dec 18th, 2010 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn (Post 708025)
Most people prolly don't even want transparency they just want political reality tv so they can get all asshurt about shit and have stuff to talk about.

This is probably the most accurate statement I have ever heard about the whole transparency thing

Zhukov Dec 18th, 2010 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 708065)
Why would journalism require a degree? Because it does. You have to go to college to get a journalism degree. Try going to CNN without a journalism degree and applying for a journalist position. They would laugh you out of the building. Posting something on the internet does not make you a journalist, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Just like me pleading guilty on a speeding ticket doesn't make me a trial lawyer. Otherwise we would all be journalists. We tell each other stuff here all the time. Doesn't make us an accredited source though.

Right, so you can only be a journalist if you work for CNN et al, but not if you write your own journalism. Gotcha.

Also, nobody said that posting something on the internet made you a journalist. People said that releasing news items on the internet made you part of the media. Your straw man needs more work.

Pentegarn Dec 18th, 2010 12:39 PM

Look, just because it is an absolute fact that your beloved anti American propaganda machine is not an accredited source that matters, just because it is about as reliable as a Coolinator post because it is a den of cowards posting stolen information anonymously without any story about said information whatsoever, doesn't mean you need to take it out on me with 19th century terms like straw man :lol

Tadao Dec 18th, 2010 01:19 PM

HOW NAIVE!

Zhukov Dec 18th, 2010 08:06 PM

Julian Assange is not a hacker that steals military secrets. Do you honestly, after all this, still not get that?

Your posts and arguments are getting more retarded each time you're proven wrong :\

What are you actually arguing? Wikileaks can't be trusted? That the leaked information is all lies?

Pentegarn Dec 18th, 2010 10:59 PM

At this point, I have said my piece. Now, I am just annoying an American hating pinko and laughing while doing it

And by the way, anyone thick enough to honestly believe communism is a good thing despite it repeatedly failing everywhere it is implemented has no right whatsoever telling anyone their arguments are retarded. :lol


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:32 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.