A deal for Snowden?

[plague311]

Great, make **** up I never said.

Hard at work at defending your precious NSA!

Oh, so it wasn't you that said:

Of course not, why would you trust the guys running the program? Why would you trust the criminals and liars who were caught red handed?

But in the same breath you trust all the tech companies that "say" all the previous quotes you threw up there? You trust the people that are ACTUALLY COLLECTING the information and handing it over to the government? Like they wouldn't be saying it to look good in front of the customers or any other variety of reasons that "they" could report it?

Honestly, I don't care if the government listens to every phone call, reads every text message, and monitors every email. I couldn't possibly care less. I'm not like you. I'm not afraid of my government and I don't think they're out to get me and my infoz.

The same as you despise them, I "nothing" them. They have caused me zero, zilch, notta, none, not any hassle in 32 years of being alive. So, I don't really care what your thoughts or opinions of my outlook are, nice fallacy though. Seems standard.

 

[Peephole]

Oh, so it wasn't you that said:

But in the same breath you trust all the tech companies that "say" all the previous quotes you threw up there? You trust the people that are ACTUALLY COLLECTING the information and handing it over to the government? Like they wouldn't be saying it to look good in front of the customers or any other variety of reasons that "they" could report it?

Yawn. Come back when you're ready to be intellectually honest.

Honestly, I don't care if the government listens to every phone call, reads every text message, and monitors every email. I couldn't possibly care less. I'm not like you. I'm not afraid of my government and I don't think they're out to get me and my infoz.

The same as you despise them, I "nothing" them. They have caused me zero, zilch, notta, none, not any hassle in 32 years of being alive. So, I don't really care what your thoughts or opinions of my outlook are, nice fallacy though. Seems standard.

Because you're insignificant... The government doesn't care about you , because you're worthless. You're not a journalist, an activist or some kind of other unfavorable.

 

[cosmicaug]

This is an interesting quote for those who say that "OMG, of course we should be having a conversation but Snowden is in no way a whistleblower, etc., etc.":

I can conceive of no other scenario that would bring and surface all of this information that challenges this, the rotting of the communicate of the Constitution of the United States by this NSA program. I can't conceive of any scenario other than what Snowden did to expose this, to surface it, so that we can now discuss it.

From

Also:
Some facts about how NSA stories are reported (but please, don't ever read that because Greenwald is a Paultard).

How revealing secrets is like drunk driving.

 

[Joey McGee]

This is an interesting quote for those who say that "OMG, of course we should be having a conversation but Snowden is in no way a whistleblower, etc., etc.":

The incredible stupidity of this is that once you bring secret capabilities up for public debate, there is no point in having the debate anymore because the enemy already now knows your capabilities, which was the point of keeping them secret and having elected representatives be the ones who have the debate. If you're a delusional kook like Snowden the thought of responsible government without public knowledge of their actions is impossible, which is at the heart of this entire debate. I'm sorry, but it's an extremely stupid argument.



http://oxfordstudent.com/2014/02/27/this-house-would-call-edward-snowden-a-hero/

 

[plague311]

Yawn. Come back when you're ready to be intellectually honest.

Because you're insignificant... The government doesn't care about you , because you're worthless. You're not a journalist, an activist or some kind of other unfavorable.

So your retort is a pair of ad homs. Quality debate right there.

 

[cosmicaug]

So your retort is a pair of ad homs. Quality debate right there.

With all due respect, I do not believe that was an ad hominem. Insignificant here means lacking in significance and worthless here means pretty much the same thing, lacking in worth. It means that to the big bad government you are just that and thus unworthy of surveillance efforts (which willfully ignores the fact that we are talking about a vacuum cleaner approach to data collection so everyone gets surveilled --disingenuous disclaimers aside about how it's "just metadata"). Unless I am grossly misunderstanding, it is not meant as a value judgment about you on Peephole's part.

 

[plague311]

With all due respect, I do not believe that was an ad hominem. Insignificant here means lacking in significance and worthless here means pretty much the same thing, lacking in worth. It means that to the big bad government you are just that and thus unworthy of surveillance efforts (which willfully ignores the fact that we are talking about a vacuum cleaner approach to data collection so everyone gets surveilled --disingenuous disclaimers aside about how it's "just metadata"). Unless I am grossly misunderstanding, it is not meant as a value judgment about you on Peephole's part.

So implying that I am 'intellectually dishonest' is not an ad hom? I used the same requirements that he used to show the government cannot and should not have access to this information, and applied them to the actual companies that are collecting the data. Somehow this is intellectually dishonest? I mean, I partially agree, but I don't think it's me that was being dishonest. Also, he didn't attack the message I was saying, he stated that I had\have no desire to further the conversation because of my dishonesty.

Ad hom:

a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

Seems pretty *********** textbook to me.

 

[cosmicaug]

So implying that I am 'intellectually dishonest' is not an ad hom? I used the same requirements that he used to show the government cannot and should not have access to this information, and applied them to the actual companies that are collecting the data. Somehow this is intellectually dishonest? I mean, I partially agree, but I don't think it's me that was being dishonest. Also, he didn't attack the message I was saying, he stated that I had\have no desire to further the conversation because of my dishonesty.

Apologies. I don't know how I missed that.

 

[cosmicaug]

The Top 5 Claims That Defenders of the NSA Have to Stop Making to Remain Credible