Snowden is the poster child for an UnEthical Generation

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Signing a NDA that makes people violate the fourth amendment of the american constitution, automatically nullifies that NDA signed. It was an illegal NDA to begin with. You cannot violate the constitution.

Then what is wrong with admitting that he did it.

Why the denial?
Why can't you just admit that he too violated trust.

From there,
I will be happy to join you in condemning the NDA as being illegal "to begin with."

Mike

Because you can't violate something that is illegal to begin with. Not simple enough for you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here you go, feel free to bash jimmy carter while you are at it. Its popular!

And then maybe a drop a few pro zimmerman lines in some other thread.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Because you can't violate something that is illegal to begin with. Not simple enough for you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here you go, feel free to bash jimmy carter while you are at it. Its popular!

I personally feel that ex President Carter had a hand in getting the Patriot Missile system in place,
so that by the time of the First Gulf War, then President Bush Sr. could take all the credit for it.

Further, if his nation wide speed limit of 55 had been kept in place,
we would have used half the gas by now and instead of already crossing peak oil
we would have another 35 years to go, without even counting the tens
of thousands of lives that would have been saved every year
from the lower speed collisions.

/sarcasm
But TV knows best doesn't it.
/end sarcasm


Mike

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Then what is wrong with admitting that he did it.

Why the denial?
Why can't you just admit that he too violated trust.

From there,
I will be happy to join you in condemning the NDA as being illegal "to begin with."

Mike

Because you can't violate something that is illegal to begin with. Not simple enough for you?

I could see how someone writing this would think
that it makes their case, but unfortunately it only
serves as a perfect example of the double bind
theory of schizophrenia.

To try and clear this up for any readers not
suffering under psychosis, what the writer is
saying is effectively "Snowden signed it knowing
it was illegal, apriori." That is: before he had
seen any illegal activity he knew his signature
was neither legally binding, nor relevant.

Or did he just not sign it in good faith in the first place?


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
That is: before he had
seen any illegal activity he knew his signature
was neither legally binding, nor relevant.

Or did he just not sign it in good faith in the first place?

Mike

edit on 19-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

He did not know what he was getting into before he signed the NDA agreement.

So according to you illegal laws are just as valid as legal laws? I guess people following hitlers orders thought the same thing when they sent millions of jews to concentration camps.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

And then maybe a drop a few pro zimmerman lines in some other thread.

I don't know.
How would you describe my thread from 5 days ago?

ATS do we remember what was going on before the Trial and Verdict?
6 Flags
24 Replies

So far.

In my own opinion the thread changed the direction of conversation across the boards that day,
and instead of a growing flame war, people started scouring news sources again to get their
fingers back on the pulse of what was important to them.


Mike

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

He did not know what he was getting into before he signed the NDA agreement.

So according to you illegal laws are just as valid as legal laws? I guess people following [color=gold] hitlers orders thought the same thing when they sent millions of jews to concentration camps.

I invoke Godwin's Law.

/takes a victory lap

Mike

Godwin's Law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

The law is sometimes invoked prescriptively to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument.

wikipedia / Godwin's Law

This is the second time
in this thread. At least
the first time they had
the decency not to say
"camps" or to mention
any particular victims.

Snowden is the poster child for an UnEthical Generation / page 5

reply to post by mikegrouchy


So you only care about the second amendment, and the first and fourth amendment be dammed

Thats a typical conservative for you. "I support the constitution and Obama is crushing it".

Listen friend I support all of the bill of rights and make no exceptions. And I am not a democrat anyway, but I respect carter for having the courage to speak up and be a real patriot.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

This is the second time
in this thread. At least
the first time they had
the decency not to say
"camps" or to mention
any particular victims.

Snowden is the poster child for an UnEthical Generation / page 5

edit on 19-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

People use hitler because he is the perfect example in recent times of a government gone rogue and fools following his orders to the destruction of an entire nation. Democrats and Republicans are destroying this nation and people like you are infering that NDA agreements somehow supercede the supreme law of the land called the american constitution.

Rethink everything!

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
How about instead of getting all tied up in knots trying to sail on an ocean of metaphores...

Language is metaphor. Every concept expressed through language is a molecule within the ocean of metaphorical communication.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
address the thesis of this thread.

Did Snowden violate Trust?

Does disingenuousness mean anything to the reader?

Your thesis, based on the outwardly available information you have is:

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
...he had no sense of propriety. None.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
...the idea of trust is extinct.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
...the younger generations (are) devoid of trust themselves.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
(The younger generations) believe (the older generations) spent these last two generations building an interconnected existence for no good reason.

With this being tied up into the tidy knot with a bow on top as the prima facie example of an Unethical Generation.

These words stand on their own.
/namasalute!

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

He signed a confidentiality agreement, which he broke.

Mike

edit on 19-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

There you go again, Mikey. You are still equating breaking confidentiality agreement with breaking trust, which implies that you adamantly (and mistakenly too) believe Confidentiality Agreements = Trust. My point again is that Confidentiality Agreements are a symbol of mistrust. In addition, people can reach an agreement with or without trust. Example, you may ask your competitors/enemies to sign an agreement even though and especially when you don't trust them. This is to ensure that everyone will do what you guys collectively agree to do. It is all for legal purposes in case either party needs to claim losses. If they breach the agreement, would you cry and honestly feel they have broken your trust which you never had in them to begin with, Mike? Do you understand what I am getting at yet or am I going too fast for you?

If you understand the above, then you should also accept that your thread is based on flawed logic. In any case, you are in no position to judge an entire generation, much less based on such an illogical stance.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by jlafleur02

Originally posted by xEphon
Where did you come up with those 10 things from?
In any event, you can't expect people to be perfect.
I think Snowden did what he felt was the right thing to do, so for that, I must disagree that he is the poster child for an unethical generation.

The poster is using a propaganda technique create by [color=gold] nazi germany(goebels). Not to well I might add.

I invoke Godwin's Law.

/takes a victory lap

Mike

Godwin's Law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

The law is sometimes invoked prescriptively to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument.

wikipedia / Godwin's Law

edit on 18-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

Another propoganda technique in which the poster associates his idea with a figure of prominence or a factual theory but is totally out of context. Its all in here.

Army psychological field manual

That saying never had the word only. It goes like this "possession is 9/10 of the law" meaning that possession is pretty much the whole thing. If I get caught with drugs in my car, I'm going to need some pretty strong evidence to convince the cop that it isn't mine and I didn't know about it. It's possible, but you're already 9/10 busted at that point, so over 9 out of 10 people in that situation would not be able to avoid arrest. Same goes the other way. If you moved out of the apartment we shared, and I went in your room after you left and found a gold bar, unless you had it documented somehow, you'd have a hard time convincing a court of law that the gold bar was yours. Because I am currently in possession of it, in this scenario, I'm already 9/10 of the way to it legally being mine.

In case you didn't realize it, 9/10 is a lot. It's equivalent to 90% of something. It's considered to be "enough" in most but not all situations.

A 90% on a school exam is usually an A or A-

But hey, snowden didn't score 100% so I guess he's a big fat failure? I'm guessing you woukdve done a much better job! You would have scored like a hundred quatruple thousand percent...on your own test where you make all the rules even though you have no idea what he went through.

Originally posted by jlafleur02

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by jlafleur02

Originally posted by xEphon
Where did you come up with those 10 things from?
In any event, you can't expect people to be perfect.
I think Snowden did what he felt was the right thing to do, so for that, I must disagree that he is the poster child for an unethical generation.

The poster is using a propaganda technique create by [color=gold] nazi germany(goebels). Not to well I might add.

I invoke Godwin's Law.

/takes a victory lap

Mike

Godwin's Law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

The law is sometimes invoked prescriptively to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument.

wikipedia / Godwin's Law

edit on 18-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

Another propoganda technique in which the poster associates his idea with a figure of prominence or a factual theory but is totally out of context. Its all in here.

Army psychological field manual

That was a good link. Thanks.
Why do you think the OP started this thread? My understanding is he is trying to justify why it is not a good reflection of one's character or integrity to be a whistleblower, while in fact, the opposite seems true to most.
Individuals with real integrity and trustworthiness will speak out even if it means getting themselves into trouble.

reply to post by jlafleur02


It was not out of context. It was perfectly in context! Try again, thanks.

Hitler invaded all of europe and north africa. Even national socialists of todays era blame him for all the carnage and collateral damage. They may share some of his ideals but are not madmen conquerers.

Like I said try again!!

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo

I'm also simply working my way to 20 posts so I can write the one specific thread I rejoined for, so thank you for the venue.

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo

I've got one more post left for ya before #20... gimme something good to work with!

And it has been two days and two hours since... and no thread.
50 hours later, it's pretty clear. We cant even trust this generation
to represent it's own intentions, let alone it's own behavior.


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo

I'm also simply working my way to 20 posts so I can write the one specific thread I rejoined for, so thank you for the venue.

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo

I've got one more post left for ya before #20... gimme something good to work with!

And it has been two days and two hours since... and no thread.
50 hours later, it's pretty clear. We cant even trust this generation
to represent it's own intentions, let alone it's own behavior.

Mike

It was never a game. There was never a match, Mike. You made an assumption that is utterly false. You know (or maybe don't) the fallacy of your arguments that became the premise of this entire thread.

We can't trust you to represent anyone but your own view, Mike. You are standing alone here, I'm afraid. I am probably much older than you are but fortunately, I can see the virtue and sense of responsibility and integrity that Snowden's generation is exhibiting. If this Snowden's case is anything to go by, I hope I live long enough to see a much less individualistic society in the future.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
And it has been two days and two hours since... and no thread.
50 hours later, it's pretty clear. We cant even trust this generation
to represent it's own intentions, let alone it's own behavior.

Mike

Indeed!

I prioritized focusing on issues my partner needed me to focus on for the (hopefully) successful future of our relationship. Also spending time assisting a co-worker in learning how to program so he can reach his goal of becoming a full time game developer. During this time I also discussed the intention of the thread with my partner, exploring to see how they felt about it as it pulls from many of our experiences together and I hadn't consulted them. Clearly I was spending an excessive amount of time writing other posts in the mean time, yes?

It does not matter whether you believe me or not. My integrity for the use of the time you are concerned with will stand the scrutiny of all eyes that wish to pry into it, and the thread will come to fruition when it is no longer more useful in its non-existence in giving others the opportunity to reveal themselves.

I do thank you for giving me something to work with at least, in a manner.

Choices matter. The words within this thread stand on their own.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


en.wikipedia.org...

Laws, like the Ethics in Government Act, cannot be enforced if free speech is not protected for individuals that report corruption or crime in the workplace.

signing a non-disclosure cannot, or should not, provide companies or the government the means of engaging in illegal activities unchecked. We have the right to an informed citizenry... and the obligation.

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789

So, while what Snowden did was a difficult thing with many hard decisions, he believed, as do many citizens of this great land, that he had the obligation....

This is the first protection made available to protect free speech rights for federal workers that can otherwise be fired for reporting corruption. In October, 2012, Barack Obama signed Presidential Policy Directive 19,[2] which extended the same protections to employees of intelligence and national security agencies, who had been excluded from the legislation by Congress.[3]

So, while Snowden is breaking ground.... its not wrong, because its not wrong to report a crime.... only the criminal would like it to be.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


That and perhaps some organization on the part of both generations to organize in a meaningful way to fight for what they believe in. I myself like the concept of coming together and doing something about the awful state of affairs, and yet I find myself to be rebel without a cause, or more appropriately a rebel without a target. I have ideas on how things should be but I have no ideas on how to implement them. I don't know how to act against the things I believe because I see no clearly defined targets. If you have any ideas, I would gladly listen to them if I thought they were worthwhile endevours.

I definately appreciate the fact that we can find common ground in any case.

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

That and perhaps some organization on the part of both generations to organize in a meaningful way to fight for what they believe in. I myself like the concept of coming together and doing something about the awful state of affairs, and yet I find myself to be rebel without a cause, or more appropriately a rebel without a target. I have ideas on how things should be but I have no ideas on how to implement them. I don't know how to act against the things I believe because I see no clearly defined targets. If you have any ideas, I would gladly listen to them if I thought they were worthwhile endevours.

I definately appreciate the fact that we can find common ground in any case.

That could be quite powerful.

For me the target is to first own our own mistakes,
and only then go on to point out those of others.
We should find Snowden guilty of a violation of trust,
fine him $1, time already served abroad, and allow him to come home.

Then we can indict the secret courts, and ANYONE associated with them.

Because, for me, [color=gold] there is nothing more un-American
than secret courts,
and there is no clearer target for us.


Mike