The way the world seems to be going, we mere mortals might as well flip a coin on this and many other really important issues.
I'm not sure what your definition of "mere mortal" is, but if your conclusion is inherent in the definition then your "we" doesn't include me. You're more than welcome to go around flipping coins - I prefer a more scientific approach.
Obviously not that simple, but if I was the girl, and those were the only two choices, I'd vote for the rape.
Given the analogy at hand, you're essentially saying "if I were the information, I'd prefer to be redacted". The question is, what if you were the cop?
In any case, Wikileaks clearly did make a bona fide attempt to protect the innocent. And they're not the ones actually out there killing people, either. If you're assigning blame, you could spread it a lot wider.
It's a cost/benefit analysis. If you have the opportunity to give everyone a free lollipop, but kill 10,000 people in the process, even an "attempt to protect the innocent" which reduces the casualty rate by 90% wouldn't justify your decision to go ahead with the plan. On the ground, this translates to three groups with the following costs / goals:
1. Intentionally killing tens of thousands of civilians while attempting to impose an oppressive dictatorship.
2. Accidentally killing thousands of civilians while attempting to establish a relatively liberal theocratically-leaning democracy.
3. Accidentally killing an unknown number of civilians and military personnel while attempting to cause the failure of group 2.
So yeah, you're right, blame can be spread a lot wider if you're simply looking at the casualty figures. However, only an idiot or an ideologue (one and the same, really) would take such an approach. For all intents and purposes, you can group 1 and 3 together; their approaches might be completely different, and their impact might differ by orders of magnitude, but their goals tie them together.
Getting your science info from a site called "purefood.org" (which links to a "study" funded by the Green Party) is generally a bad idea. The modified strain of K. Planticola (SDF20) was shown to be unsuitable because the byproducts could not be used in the manner intended, not because it was going to cause Global Disaster(tm). The claims made in that article go way beyond what the actual studies showed, and aren't supported by the data.
Part of the fault lies with NATO. Perhaps if they had been more forthright there would be less of a desire by so many in the public to try to get a more complete and truthful of the Afghan mission.
That is complete and utter bullshit. The Afghan / Iraq wars have been amongst the most (if not THE most) open conflicts in history. We've never had access to so much up-to-the-minute information about a war as we have in the last decade. The problem isn't that "NATO" hasn't been "open enough" - the problem is that the paranoid morons who are always demanding more information have already made up their minds about what's going on. They're convinced that there must be 700 million dead civilians in Afghanistan, all of whom have been raped, tortured, BBQ'd, and eaten by US soldiers, and they won't stop "demanding information" until they find evidence that proves they're right. And since the fringe morons are only "asking for information", even the average, rational person, is likely to nod along in agreement as long as the demands are worded correctly.
To use another example - it's like the goddamn conspiracy theorists. 9/11 was the most investigated, most documented attack in history, yet the 9/11 lunatics will continue asking for "a new investigation" for centuries to come. Why? Exactly the same damn reason - they're already convinced they know "The Truth", and will continue "asking for information" or "asking for a new investigation" as long as the data we have continues to contradict what they believe.
You're trying to make it into a joke, but you've actually got it exactly right. The fact that you don't realize it is at the very root of the problem here. You, as someone who has no understanding of how military ops and intelligence gathering are done, have no basis for evaluating what's a threat and what's not. You're like the business-marketing major who walks into an IT shop, tells the admins that firewalls and anti-virus software are unnecessary and dumb because they slow down his computer, and then laughs when they try to explain the security implications. To anyone who understands the relevant fields you look like an ignorant, arrogant asshole, as you smugly stroll away, congratulating yourself on the clever rejoinders which you used to shut down those dumb computer dweebs.
It would be much easier to just eliminate Assange and his buddies. Not that I would advocate it, mind you, but if you're really so concerned about getting the best value for the money spent....
Don't forget that many people voluntarily give money to their church every sunday, and are happy to do so, and feel that it's the right thing to do. You could call that "taking money from people by lying to them,"....
And I do. Many people, likewise, voluntarily give their entire life savings to the Church of Scientology, or give their 13-year-old-daughters to the head of their cult. Saying that people do it "willingly" is meaningless when the problem at hand is that people are being manipulated and lied to.
Selling people lies is always wrong. You can dress it up in "spirituality" and "faith" and whatever other nonsense is currently popular in your society, but you can't change the fact that you're taking money from people by lying to them. The fact that you're also helping spread ignorance only adds insult to injury.
So if you're going to propose botnet solutions on a per country basis, then you want to know which country has the greatest number of active bots, not the country which has the greatest percentage of infectected computers.
Um, no. That only works if your "solution" is to sever the affected country from access to the internet. Otherwise you still care more about percentages, because as the percentage level decreases your efforts to combat the problem quickly run afoul of the diminishing returns.
A real terrorist doesn't need to see what a 747 looks like when it lands, so all this is is some government idiot who's decided it'll be fun to harass innocent people.
Apparently the word "reconnaissance" is completely foreign to you. (pun kinda intended)
Now I'm wondering if such comments haven't gotten a tracking device installed on *my* car;)
No, we did not place any tracking devices on your car. Whatever you do, do NOT disassemble your transmission in order to look for a tracking device, because it will not be there. Also, there are no, I repeat NO listening or observation devices of any kind in your TV, computer monitor, water heater, and beneath the floor-boards of every room. Rest assured good citizen: nobody is watching you.
The fallacy rears it's ugly head when you start making statements like "As this story demonstrates, they'll do whatever they have to, to create a provocation that lets them shoot you".
Of course, baseless insinuation is almost as bad / evil / stupid, but it's not necessarily fallacious. If you had left it at insinuation, I would have had less cause for complaint.
However, even if you HAD stuck with just insinuation, you'd still be making a "hasty generalization" fallacy. It's asinine to say that because a government, which has existed for several hundred years and is composed of millions of individuals, once had a group within it which did X, therefore Y was most likely carried out by similar individuals in a similar organization of the same government. You can justify absolutely any argument / conspiracy theory using such flawed logic. You're treating a massive organization as if it were one individual - a foolish thing to do under any circumstances.
So, to sum up... as I've already pointed out, your entire argument rests on the same type of flawed thinking which is behind every other conspiracy theory in existence. You apparently understand this, but are unwilling to admit it. That's fine. I don't think we need to carry on any further.
I've already explained this to you - the basis for your argument is past precedent - essentially "the government did X therefore they also did Y". That is not a logical argument. The rest of your claims are sheer conjecture - you're saying "this is possible, therefore this happened". Once again, not a logical argument. And since you've already admitted that your initial claim is bullshit, you already understand that the "evidence" you've presented doesn't come close to meeting the burden of proof, yet you continue to argue. Why? Are you just a stubborn fool with nothing better to do, or are you unable to maintain a consistent line of thought for more than 2 minutes?
Well, yeah, smashing things into the ocean IS pretty easy. Unfortunately, it means you'll not only have single-use spacecraft, but also single-use crews. On the other hand, there's little difference energy-wise between a soft landing in a capsule and a soft landing in a shuttle - they both need to slow down enough to survive the landing.
Hardly. I laid out a bunch of claims which also justify suspicion. That you refuse to be suspicious of our Reptilian Overlords is your failing - not mine.
On a more serious note - the entire discussion has been me showing you exactly why your argument stinks, while you continually missed the point. I wasn't trying to get you to admit that your conclusion is baseless, so much as to reexamine the way you look at evidence. Yet I somehow succeeded at the former while failing at the latter. Ah well, such is life.
I dismissed your claims because they're not supported by the evidence, as you yourself have admitted. You blew me off because you think I like Nixon. I can't say I'm surprised that you don't see the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
So a study funded by Big Megacorp would be more reliable than a study funded by the Green Party?
False Dichotomy
The way the world seems to be going, we mere mortals might as well flip a coin on this and many other really important issues.
I'm not sure what your definition of "mere mortal" is, but if your conclusion is inherent in the definition then your "we" doesn't include me. You're more than welcome to go around flipping coins - I prefer a more scientific approach.
Obviously not that simple, but if I was the girl, and those were the only two choices, I'd vote for the rape.
Given the analogy at hand, you're essentially saying "if I were the information, I'd prefer to be redacted". The question is, what if you were the cop?
In any case, Wikileaks clearly did make a bona fide attempt to protect the innocent. And they're not the ones actually out there killing people, either. If you're assigning blame, you could spread it a lot wider.
It's a cost/benefit analysis. If you have the opportunity to give everyone a free lollipop, but kill 10,000 people in the process, even an "attempt to protect the innocent" which reduces the casualty rate by 90% wouldn't justify your decision to go ahead with the plan. On the ground, this translates to three groups with the following costs / goals:
1. Intentionally killing tens of thousands of civilians while attempting to impose an oppressive dictatorship.
2. Accidentally killing thousands of civilians while attempting to establish a relatively liberal theocratically-leaning democracy.
3. Accidentally killing an unknown number of civilians and military personnel while attempting to cause the failure of group 2.
So yeah, you're right, blame can be spread a lot wider if you're simply looking at the casualty figures. However, only an idiot or an ideologue (one and the same, really) would take such an approach. For all intents and purposes, you can group 1 and 3 together; their approaches might be completely different, and their impact might differ by orders of magnitude, but their goals tie them together.
And the Germans weren't the only invaders in WW2. So, for the last time, did you have a point to make?
Getting your science info from a site called "purefood.org" (which links to a "study" funded by the Green Party) is generally a bad idea. The modified strain of K. Planticola (SDF20) was shown to be unsuitable because the byproducts could not be used in the manner intended, not because it was going to cause Global Disaster(tm). The claims made in that article go way beyond what the actual studies showed, and aren't supported by the data.
Scaremongering FUD != science.
Yeah - if the Afghan people went around shooting Taliban, I doubt we'd complain much. Still not seeing your point.
"Hey Mr. Police officer, if you don't hold down this girl for me while I rape her, I'll just kill her right now and have it done with."
Yah, you're right, real simple decision. Good to know exactly the kind of person you are.
Part of the fault lies with NATO. Perhaps if they had been more forthright there would be less of a desire by so many in the public to try to get a more complete and truthful of the Afghan mission.
That is complete and utter bullshit. The Afghan / Iraq wars have been amongst the most (if not THE most) open conflicts in history. We've never had access to so much up-to-the-minute information about a war as we have in the last decade. The problem isn't that "NATO" hasn't been "open enough" - the problem is that the paranoid morons who are always demanding more information have already made up their minds about what's going on. They're convinced that there must be 700 million dead civilians in Afghanistan, all of whom have been raped, tortured, BBQ'd, and eaten by US soldiers, and they won't stop "demanding information" until they find evidence that proves they're right. And since the fringe morons are only "asking for information", even the average, rational person, is likely to nod along in agreement as long as the demands are worded correctly.
To use another example - it's like the goddamn conspiracy theorists. 9/11 was the most investigated, most documented attack in history, yet the 9/11 lunatics will continue asking for "a new investigation" for centuries to come. Why? Exactly the same damn reason - they're already convinced they know "The Truth", and will continue "asking for information" or "asking for a new investigation" as long as the data we have continues to contradict what they believe.
You're trying to make it into a joke, but you've actually got it exactly right. The fact that you don't realize it is at the very root of the problem here. You, as someone who has no understanding of how military ops and intelligence gathering are done, have no basis for evaluating what's a threat and what's not. You're like the business-marketing major who walks into an IT shop, tells the admins that firewalls and anti-virus software are unnecessary and dumb because they slow down his computer, and then laughs when they try to explain the security implications. To anyone who understands the relevant fields you look like an ignorant, arrogant asshole, as you smugly stroll away, congratulating yourself on the clever rejoinders which you used to shut down those dumb computer dweebs.
It would be much easier to just eliminate Assange and his buddies. Not that I would advocate it, mind you, but if you're really so concerned about getting the best value for the money spent ....
Well in some ways those civilians could be though of as collaborators with the invading army.
Of course. Just like the French Resistance did in WW2. What was your point, exactly?
You're confusing jealousy and disappointment. They're fairly easy to tell apart, though, so here's a handy guide for the future:
Jealousy is what you feel when you see other men in the change-room.
Disappointment is what your date feels right before you fall asleep.
Hope that helps. Cheers!
Don't forget that many people voluntarily give money to their church every sunday, and are happy to do so, and feel that it's the right thing to do. You could call that "taking money from people by lying to them," ....
And I do. Many people, likewise, voluntarily give their entire life savings to the Church of Scientology, or give their 13-year-old-daughters to the head of their cult. Saying that people do it "willingly" is meaningless when the problem at hand is that people are being manipulated and lied to.
Selling people lies is always wrong. You can dress it up in "spirituality" and "faith" and whatever other nonsense is currently popular in your society, but you can't change the fact that you're taking money from people by lying to them. The fact that you're also helping spread ignorance only adds insult to injury.
So if you're going to propose botnet solutions on a per country basis, then you want to know which country has the greatest number of active bots, not the country which has the greatest percentage of infectected computers.
Um, no. That only works if your "solution" is to sever the affected country from access to the internet. Otherwise you still care more about percentages, because as the percentage level decreases your efforts to combat the problem quickly run afoul of the diminishing returns.
Since they use their cellphones for long distance, and only keep their landline because they've had the same phone number for 21 years...
Tell them to switch to VOIP. Most providers will let you keep your current number.
From what I can tell, the FBI's only reason to place this bug on the guy's car is that he's "half Egyptian".
Argument from Ignorance
What a second-rate nation the US has become in the past thirty years.
Yes; the lack of critical thinking skills among the populace really has me concerned.
A real terrorist doesn't need to see what a 747 looks like when it lands, so all this is is some government idiot who's decided it'll be fun to harass innocent people.
Apparently the word "reconnaissance" is completely foreign to you. (pun kinda intended)
Now I'm wondering if such comments haven't gotten a tracking device installed on *my* car ;)
No, we did not place any tracking devices on your car. Whatever you do, do NOT disassemble your transmission in order to look for a tracking device, because it will not be there. Also, there are no, I repeat NO listening or observation devices of any kind in your TV, computer monitor, water heater, and beneath the floor-boards of every room. Rest assured good citizen: nobody is watching you.
I propose the following new word: instead of a blowjob they could call it a SteveJob.
No, that should be reserved for "rimjob".
Eh. The other approach was more fun. I've caught some kind of bug, and spent the whole day in bed, so thanks for keeping me entertained. Cheers!
The fallacy rears it's ugly head when you start making statements like " As this story demonstrates, they'll do whatever they have to, to create a provocation that lets them shoot you".
Of course, baseless insinuation is almost as bad / evil / stupid, but it's not necessarily fallacious. If you had left it at insinuation, I would have had less cause for complaint.
However, even if you HAD stuck with just insinuation, you'd still be making a "hasty generalization" fallacy. It's asinine to say that because a government, which has existed for several hundred years and is composed of millions of individuals, once had a group within it which did X, therefore Y was most likely carried out by similar individuals in a similar organization of the same government. You can justify absolutely any argument / conspiracy theory using such flawed logic. You're treating a massive organization as if it were one individual - a foolish thing to do under any circumstances.
So, to sum up ... as I've already pointed out, your entire argument rests on the same type of flawed thinking which is behind every other conspiracy theory in existence. You apparently understand this, but are unwilling to admit it. That's fine. I don't think we need to carry on any further.
I've already explained this to you - the basis for your argument is past precedent - essentially "the government did X therefore they also did Y". That is not a logical argument. The rest of your claims are sheer conjecture - you're saying "this is possible, therefore this happened". Once again, not a logical argument. And since you've already admitted that your initial claim is bullshit, you already understand that the "evidence" you've presented doesn't come close to meeting the burden of proof, yet you continue to argue. Why? Are you just a stubborn fool with nothing better to do, or are you unable to maintain a consistent line of thought for more than 2 minutes?
Well, yeah, smashing things into the ocean IS pretty easy. Unfortunately, it means you'll not only have single-use spacecraft, but also single-use crews. On the other hand, there's little difference energy-wise between a soft landing in a capsule and a soft landing in a shuttle - they both need to slow down enough to survive the landing.
Hardly. I laid out a bunch of claims which also justify suspicion. That you refuse to be suspicious of our Reptilian Overlords is your failing - not mine.
On a more serious note - the entire discussion has been me showing you exactly why your argument stinks, while you continually missed the point. I wasn't trying to get you to admit that your conclusion is baseless, so much as to reexamine the way you look at evidence. Yet I somehow succeeded at the former while failing at the latter. Ah well, such is life.
So .... something like this?
I dismissed your claims because they're not supported by the evidence, as you yourself have admitted. You blew me off because you think I like Nixon. I can't say I'm surprised that you don't see the difference.