Snowden is the poster child for an UnEthical Generation

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo
Are you sure?

Who me?

Not done with the Argument ad Hominem attacks yet?

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo
The weakest resort to written because they are not inherently strong enough to stand on their own and require an external point of reference... a point of reference that shifts as the observers perspectives and "mindsets" shift.

With the content of the run on sentence quoted above,
how could I not be sure. Unless the business in
question is something off-the-books, like pimping.
Or has no employees, like home internet income.


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by Kurius

For once, [color=gold] stop defending your Ego or making justifications for all potential whistleblowers to keep silent. I think given the choice, most people would trust Snowden more than they would NSA.

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

And now it turns out that this wasn't a discussion of the facts at all,
but an attack on me, and my defense of the thesis of this thread.

Mike

Sigh...again, you are mistaken. It was not attack. It was a suggestion. Example: an attack would be: "You are a brainwashed, egotistical moron to defend your illogical thesis that Trust and paper agreement are one and the same". Honestly, I would never use that.

Originally posted by Kurius

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by Kurius

For once, [color=gold] stop defending your Ego or making justifications for all potential whistleblowers to keep silent. I think given the choice, most people would trust Snowden more than they would NSA.

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

And now it turns out that this wasn't a discussion of the facts at all,
but an attack on me, and my defense of the thesis of this thread.

Mike

Sigh...again, you are mistaken. It was not attack. It was a suggestion. Example: an attack would be: "You are a brainwashed, egotistical moron to defend your illogical thesis that Trust and paper agreement are one and the same". Honestly, I would never use that.

You're right!
I see the difference now.




But wait,
what fact did you have issue with again?


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by Kurius

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by Kurius

For once, [color=gold] stop defending your Ego or making justifications for all potential whistleblowers to keep silent. I think given the choice, most people would trust Snowden more than they would NSA.

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

And now it turns out that this wasn't a discussion of the facts at all,
but an attack on me, and my defense of the thesis of this thread.

Mike

Sigh...again, you are mistaken. It was not attack. It was a suggestion. Example: an attack would be: "You are a brainwashed, egotistical moron to defend your illogical thesis that Trust and paper agreement are one and the same". Honestly, I would never use that.

You're right!
I see the difference now.




But wait,
what fact did you have issue with again?

Mike

Don't be lazy, Mikey...Scroll up and read again. (A suggestion)

Seriously again, Snowden has not breached any trust. And if you are using that as your basis to say he is a pin-up boy for "unethical generation", your entire argument falters. It says more about yourself than the generation you are trying to insult.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo
Are you sure?

Who me?

Yes... are you sure I've never owned a business or managed a large group of people (or more to your actual premise been intimately involved in paper agreements of any significant substance). That's a bold statement to make unless you are willing to demonstrate how you came to such a factual conclusion.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Not done with the Argument ad Hominem attacks yet?

I thought you were wearing a lead apron? I'm quite content that my words stand on their own and content to allow the audience to decide for themselves whether I've engaged in the behavior you are asserting.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo
The weakest resort to written because they are not inherently strong enough to stand on their own and require an external point of reference... a point of reference that shifts as the observers perspectives and "mindsets" shift.

With the content of the run on sentence quoted above,
how could I not be sure. Unless the business in
question is something off-the-books, like pimping.
Or has no employees, like home internet income.

Perhaps it is worth reminded that "weakest" is referring to bonds between entities... and business bonds are some of the absolute weakest we can have due to the inherent mindset of most people engaged in business seeking to get as much as possible while giving up the least amount possible.

I will be willing to let the statement stand that those who have extended realistic experience with bonds and agreements between entities understand completely that the paper is a tool, but like a hammer, has no inherent value in and of itself. Only when wielded by a consciousness which chooses to use the tool in such and such a manner is any effect realized. Paper agreements are set aside as easily as hammers.

I'm also willing to let your own words stand on their own regarding who is engaging in the sort of behavior you asserted towards me earlier. I'm wearing no apron.

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.

Ah, here it is.

Originally posted by Kurius
" [color=gold] Trust and paper agreement are one and the same".

A horrible misrepresentation of the facts.

Thesis:
Snowden acted ethically,
but only in 9 out of 10 criteria.
He failed the last criteria and broke trust.

Corollary:
This is also true for his entire generation,
as they will argue for pages saying he broke no trust,
or it doesn't matter.


I have Three pieces of supporting evidence for the Thesis

1. He signed a confidentiality agreement, which he broke.
2. He admitted in his interviews that he knew what he was doing.
3. The government has accused him of the same thing.

I have Nine pages of supporting evidence for the corollary.

This thread

But the quoted section at the top of this post,
is just... how to say this...?
You do realize that the entire history of human achievement,
the accumulation of all human knowledge,
and even history itself,
would scarcely be possible without the written word.

You do realize that by attacking the written word,
in an effort to resist admitting that Snowden broke trust,
one is effectively throwing all of human civilization and all history
overboard.

Try and have a little perspective.


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


and that is absurd, because it's kinda like a trick question....the public trust, and the trust of the government is supposed to be the same thing, because we, the people, are supposed to be the government....so he technically works for the american people...

looking at it in this way, he violated no trust.

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

and that is absurd, because it's kinda like a trick question....the public trust, and the trust of the government is supposed to be the same thing, because we, the people, are supposed to be the government....so he technically works for the american people...

looking at it in this way, he violated no trust.

Does the phrase circular reasoning mean anything
to the reader of the quote above?

wikipedia / Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic)


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
You do realize that the entire history of human achievement,
the accumulation of all human knowledge,
and even history itself,
would scarcely be possible without the written word.

Does a parent protect their child because of a written word? Do family members protect each other's trust because of written words?

It is the governmental mind bug that causes families and communities to betray each other's trust because of a written word... and the infection of the belief that the written word carries more weight than the propriety of familial and community bonds.

You are in fact arguing for the very destruction of genuine trust in favor of an external tool... a tool which can have its meaning and intent altered with the simple alteration of the perceptions and education of the audience attempting to interpret the intent of the tool.

Change the meaning of the word between the time it is written versus the time it is tested... and you have utterly violated the trust of those who originally wrote the words and their intent when writing the words. The meaning and intent of words in contracts are consistently obfuscated specifically to deceive the intended partner... thus the significant need for lawyers and contract specialists to ensure that every possible interpretation is poured over.

I have no need for a lawyer to trust those I have built genuine bonds with, including business partners I've developed a personal bond with. I only *require* contracts with those I can't inherently trust... and the only reason that contract has any value is because of a trust that the public at large will put confidence in the validity of the evidence of the agreement... but that begins and ends with a non-contractual and purely ephemeral social agreement and trust that supersedes anything written.

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.

You are grasping at straws OP. I am actually suprised you didn't come out with the typical "snowden is a traitor who ran to russia and china to give away secrets. he is guility of espionage. BUT if he did the disclosure with american msm it would have been ok."

Why don't you play the traditional conservative card? Instead you play the technical card.

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo

Does a parent protect their child because of a written word?

1 billion
302 million
60 thousand
and 9 hundred 99 Abortions

since Roe vs. Wade in 1973.

That's
1,302,060,999 Abortions
www.numberofabortions.com

Show me a mother who protects her child,
and I will answer your question.


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


it's not circular at all...

Fact: He was a government employee.
Fact: The American taxpayers are the government.
Fact: He worked for the American taxpayers.

that's not circular....it's just facts...

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo

Do family members protect each other's trust because of written words?

◾every 9 seconds in the US a woman is assaulted or beaten.
◾Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. Most often, the abuser is a member of her own family.
◾Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women—more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined.
◾Studies suggest that [color=gold] up to 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually.

domesticviolencestatistics.org

Show me a family that protects each other,
and I will answer your question.


Mike

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo

It is the governmental mind bug that causes families and communities to betray each other's trust because of a written word... and the infection of the belief that the written word carries more weight than the propriety of familial and [color=gold] community bonds.

List of Bankruptcy Filings Since January 2010

All Municipal Bankruptcy Filings: 36

City and Locality Bankruptcy Filings (8):
-- City of Detroit
-- City of San Bernardino, Calif.
-- Town of Mammoth Lakes, Calf. (Dismissed)
-- City of Stockton, Calif.
-- Jefferson County, Ala.
-- City of Harrisburg, Pa. (Dismissed)
-- City of Central Falls, R.I.
-- Boise County, Idaho (Dismissed)

governing.com / map

According to data from the American Bankruptcy Institute, there were 41 municipal bankruptcies, about eight per year, between 2007 and 2011

www.cnbc.com...

Show me community bonds first,
and I will answer the question.


Mike

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

I see. Your ruler is clear. Enjoy.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
...and I will answer the question.

Tell you what... I'll take you addressing the reaction to your claims from the OP in here: post by ErgoTheEgo... before concerning myself with your agenda of dragging everyone to the bottom via the oh so dramatic series of posts you just made.

By taking the stance that violating a contract ("trust") of ANY kind... in ANY form... is an unethical act, lacking in Propriety and demonstrating the "extinction of trust"... you are creating a lose lose scenario. Of your own making. You are then taking that foundation you created yourself to paint "others" while also claiming this shows we are all in the same boat (yet still taking a "others" "your generation" etc stance).

We are not all in the same boat. We may be on the same ocean of existence, but we are not all paddling our boats the same.

You may wish to cloak yourself in a "but I give him credit for 9/10ths", but that is nothing more than a veil and some can see directly through it.

Race to the bottom if you wish. There is a lot to see down there!

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

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo

... before concerning myself with your agenda of [color=gold] dragging everyone to the bottom via the dramatic series of posts you just made.

By taking the stance that violating a contract ("trust") of ANY kind... in ANY form... is an unethical act, lacking in Propriety and demonstrating the "extinction of trust"... you are creating a lose lose scenario. Of your own making. You are then taking [color=gold] that foundation you created yourself to [color=gold] paint "others" while also claiming this shows [color=gold] we are all in the same boat (yet still taking a "others" "your generation" etc stance).

We are not all in the same boat. We may be on the same [color=gold] ocean of existence, but we are not all paddling our boats the same.

◾dragging everyone to the bottom
◾that [color=gold] foundation you created
◾paint "others"
◾we are all in the same boat
◾ocean of existence

The quote above has me creating a foundation under a metaphorical ocean.

Does the term mixed metaphor mean anything to the reader?

If I built a foundation,
then of course I would hope it is sturdy enough for people to stand upright on.
If anything has gone wrong it is that someone, or thing, has flooded the world
with an ocean of metaphors so that of course it looks preposterous to swim
down and [color=gold] paint "others."

How about instead of getting all tied up in knots
trying to sail on an ocean of metaphores, address
the thesis of this thread.

Did Snowden violate Trust?


Mike

Originally posted by ...
You may wish to cloak yourself in a "but I give him credit for 9/10ths", but that is nothing more than a veil and some can see directly through it.

Race to the bottom if you wish. There is a lot to see down there!

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

Those 9 points on page one are not only substantial,
they are significant. In addition to that, I scored
Snowden high on each one of them. After watching
his interviews, and his use of words I can see why
he was making $200,000 a year, without a college degree.

As to "racing to the bottom" as you put it...
I am standing firmly on the foundation I built on page one.

Someone else flooded the whole place with metaphors
and only then accused me of "racing to the bottom".

I won't name names.

>.>
Mike

Originally posted by ...

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

As an aside,
I'll definitely be in there to flag and star
your first thread.

/luck!

Mike