Snowden is the poster child for an UnEthical Generation

Originally posted by dominicus

Your whole point is complete garbage because there are no ethicists, philosophers, professors, politicans, presidents of countries, nor is there ANYONE ELSE anywhere crying about Snowden being unethical...

Argument ad Ignorantiam: Something is so, since no one has shown it is not so.

Originally posted by dominicus

... except for George W., Cheney, the people who are making $$$ of these programs, and the anti-constitutional people within the US Gov.....

Argument ad Disverecundiam: Appeal to disrespect for great men to prove a point.

Originally posted by dominicus

You are entirely by yourself on this one. Big Fail.

Argument ad Hominem: opponent's personality or circumstances is attacked.

Originally posted by dominicus

It would be Unethical (lack of ethics) for a person to sign a secrecy agreement, find out that everything that is going on is unconstitutional, and to continue on and NOT say anything about it.......that's what lack of ethics is .

Argument ad Populum: Appeal to the beliefs of the multitude.

Originally posted by dominicus

..and there are a lot of people working in GOV that are unethical because they do should be blowing the whistle.

Argument ad Baculum: Appeal to fear or timidity.




Congratulations,
The post quoted has used 5 of the 6 classical logical fallacies.
The only one left out was...

Argument ad misericordiam: Appeal to pity as part of the proof.

/neutral
Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy

We The People Unanimously Declare that Edward Snowden is guilty of violation of Trust, should be fined one dollar ($1.00), sentenced to time already served abroad, and allowed to return home a free man.

i think this sounds better.

We The People Unanimously Declare that Edward Snowden is Not Guilty of violation of the Public Trust, but rather should be up held as a true Patriot and that in his actions helped to defend our Constitution and the rights set forth there in. We also find that he, Defended his Country against all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.there shall be no fines and or penlites laid.

Further more all expenses incurred during his time abroad, shall be reimbursed when and if he decides to return to his homeland.

Trust? So you trust your government do you? Good little sheep.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

We The People Unanimously Declare that Edward Snowden is guilty of violation of Trust, should be fined one dollar ($1.00), sentenced to time already served abroad, and allowed to return home a free man.

i think this sounds better.

We The People Unanimously Declare that Edward Snowden is Not Guilty of violation of the Public Trust, but rather should be up held as a true Patriot and that in his actions helped to defend our Constitution and the rights set forth there in. We also find that he, Defended his Country against all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.there shall be no fines and or penlites laid.

Further more all expenses incurred during his time abroad, shall be reimbursed when and if he decides to return to his homeland.

Your approach still leaves him open to charges of Treason,
a far more serious offence. My method has him already
facing judgment and the verdict rendered to the books.

/just sayin
Mike

Originally posted by DPrice
Trust? So you trust your government do you? [color=gold] Good little sheep.

Argument ad Hominem: opponent's personality or circumstances is attacked.


Mike

OP, is this next generation ethical ?

reply to post by mikegrouchy

Argument ad Ignorantiam: Something is so, since no one has shown it is not so.

The Law of relativity: All things are relative depending on other things. Your definitions of "lack of ethics" and "unethical" are relative to you based on your culture, education, peers, childhood, and is completely biased. Your definitions are not set in stone because there are cultures and people all over the world with a different set of "beliefs" of what ethics mean and define......

Argument ad Disverecundiam: Appeal to disrespect for great men to prove a point.

"Great men" ???? G.W. & Cheney???? Hah!!!! Historians have already agreed that "W" will go down in history as the worst of the worst and the dumbest........a puppet. On top of that, see law of relativity

opponent's personality or circumstances is attacked

There are 2 sides. Simple. You've shown yours.

Appeal to the beliefs of the multitude.

Law of relativity

Appeal to fear or timidity.

As a citizen you have a duty to uphold the Constitution. If you work at a place that is clearly doing things against the constitution, then your duty as a citizen has failed and all your morals/ethics have been sabotaged/molested.

Congratulations, The post quoted has used 5 of the 6 classical logical fallacies.

"Logical fallacies" are all bullsnip!!!! IS this present moment logical? Is enjoying a piece of art or a sunset logical? Is loving a person for who they are within, logical?

Reality is prior to logic. Logic comes in afterwords and tries to make sense of the moment, which when it does, that moment is already gone with the next one in front of you. Since your still wrestling with logic, your missing the present.

Plus you can use logic and reason to deduce that logic and reason are themselves quite limited.

The only one left out was... Argument ad misericordiam: Appeal to pity as part of the proof.

It's all relative, but one thing is clear...which side your on. Good luck with that, you will need it in the long run when more people get to know you

Originally posted by dominicus

It's all relative, but one thing is clear...which side your on. Good luck with that, you will need it in the long run when more people get to know you

Argument ad Baculum: Appeal to fear or timidity.

In the first round you only fit the first half of this fallacy.
Now you have met the second half.

Argument ad Baculum: Appeal to fear or timidity, often containing a veiled threat.


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


When someone (either a person, corporation or an arm of the government) breaks the law, it's expected that someone should speak up. Just because it's the government doing it, doesn't make it right. We have the constitution and human rights on our side, something the American government is stepping all over it.

America used to be a beacon in justice. We saw something wrong, either on our soil or not and went to right it. Now? Now we're no better then communist Russia who kept tabs on everything and anything out of sheer paranoia. How is that right?

Originally posted by xavi1000
OP, is this next generation ethical ?

Daunting video.
This is exactly the kind of thing I am against.

Just like the first comment, after my opening post, in this thread said...

What you will see in the end, is an expansion of government control over the internet and telecommunications systems, and a restrictions on your rights and free speech.

all thanks to snowden, so even though he brought out the same information we've known for sometime, and woke a lot of people up, it will play right into their plans anyways.

The less trust there is,
the more the nanny state makes sense.

We will own his breach of trust,
and this is the first step to regaining control
our system, government, and lives.


Mike

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 nazi germany(goebels). Not to well I might add.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by dominicus

It's all relative, but one thing is clear...which side your on. Good luck with that, you will need it in the long run when more people get to know you

Argument ad Baculum: Appeal to fear or timidity.

In the first round you only fit the first half of this fallacy.
Now you have met the second half.

Argument ad Baculum: Appeal to fear or timidity, often containing a veiled threat.

Mike

In context that's directed towards the fact that the majority of ATS'ers, and people in general, already view Snowden as Heroic. Minorities usually have a hard time especially when it looks like trolling....

other than that ...you never dared touch the relativity point......your definition of "unethical" is relative and biased.
______________
reply to post by jlafleur02

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

Yeah, it's called trolling and super obvious. Fun game to play along when they think they have you. Devil's advocate

Originally posted by Auricom
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

When someone (either a person, corporation or an arm of the government) breaks the law, it's expected that someone should speak up. Just because it's the government doing it, doesn't make it right. We have the constitution and human rights on our side, something the American government is stepping all over it.

America used to be a beacon in justice. We saw something wrong, either on our soil or not and went to right it. Now? Now we're no better then communist Russia who kept tabs on everything and anything out of sheer paranoia. How is that right?

Really?
The quote above is going to mound up all the injustice in the world
rather than admit Snowden committed a breach of trust,
no matter how minor?

Is it ethical to challenge me to shovel through all that mud,
nostalgia, sweeping generalizations, and innuendo,
before one will say if Snowden did score only
9 out of 10 ethically?

Maybe I was not reaching too far in categorizing his entire generation as unethical,
after all.


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


how so,

in my statement i said,
We The People Unanimously Declare that Edward Snowden is Not Guilty of violation of the Public Trust.

Now if, We The People are not the public,and as Lincoln said "and that government of the people, by the people, for the people" also the pledge of alliance says "and to the republic for which it stands." and that we declared him Not Guilty of breaking the Public trust. we are the public and the government. ( well in theory)

if you think about it we are are a democratic republic. where as we use both democracy and republican forms of government, ie we elect public officials and leaders (republic), but we also let people vote on policy matters and laws ( democracy)

but in both the people have the power. so if we declare him to be Not Guilty and we the people are the government, who Unanimously vote or declare this, how could he be held for Treason.

Bing Dictionary

Definition of treason (n) trea·son [ trz'n ]
1. betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
2. treachery: betrayal or disloyalty
3. act of betrayal: an act of betrayal or disloyalty

so here were i say,
We also find that he, Defended his Country against all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic. (Domestic) ie those who in country, who would spy, kill and or deny our rights.
i have effectively cleared him of treason. unless you want to pull a DOJ move like in the zimmerman case.

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

Sorry no dice he is a coward, a liar and a thief. The only example he is capable of providing anyone is what not to do.

reply to post by mikegrouchy

Maybe I was not reaching too far in categorizing his entire generation as unethical, after all.

Define it......."unethical"......

History proves, where there is money, power, politics, and government, there will be unethical acts.

Categorizing and entire generation sure is stereotyping.

Human nature in its fallen animalistic easily influenced state will always carry a bit of "unethical" in it. Id bet a million bucks you've done unethical things in your life and if you bring me a person who never has, ill give you everything i own house, cars, savings accounts, toys, dogs, gf......

reply to post by mikegrouchy


Why do you consider that Snowden has breached his position of trust. Would it not be more apt to say the US government has breached there position of trust with the American people..

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

Why do you consider that Snowden has breached his position of trust. Would it not be more apt to say the US government has breached his position of trust with the American people..

Ding ding ding..........We have a winner by TKO....in this corner, Purplemer........

Don King would be proud

reply to post by KeliOnyx


In no regards can you call him a coward. Have you ever stood up for something you think to be correct. Have you ever broken the law knowing you could be arrested for it.. If not you should try it. It is an empowering experience and an integral part of a democratic system.

As for a thief it appears to me you are mistaking Snowden for the US government, It is they that have stolen your human rights off you, not Snowden. In what manor you construed him to be a liar I cannot even guess.