How many watmm trolls are paid by their governments to be here?

[LimpyLoo]

There's this guy who lives in my town who owns a nuclear bomb. But listen, he hasn't actually used it yet so there's no need to worry about it.

[eugene]

usa did use the bomb, so it's reasonable to assume it will nuke canada next week, right ?

[Adieu]

 

 

precedents are a demonstration of something that can happen in a particular place, in a particular time and in particular context. how is this related to the topic at hand ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate

 

what are you trying to say with those examples, that abuse can happen ? well everyone knows this already, it's a rhetoric device not a legit argument for something that's happening at the moment. i already mentioned your inability to differentiate between occurrence and phenomena before, and you obviously not getting the importance of such distinction. would it make sense if started using examples of such agencies working according to the rules as a counterargument to your supposed arguments ?

 

 

I just think the evidence points in the direction of illegal surveillance, but to be honest I haven't examined the current issue to the extent that you all have. I just think you are making it seems as if the government is generally benevolent and the illegal and immoral acts are just instances of specific people's wrongdoing. But it in fact it seems me that the government is regularly involved in unsavory activity.

 

 

you think incorrectly because you base your conclusion on a discourse that surrounds those publication not actual content of those publication which is full of unsubstantiated assumptions and wild interpretations. western governments are generally benevolent, to claim different is simply delusional. you really need to take a step away from your "the government is out to get us" thinking and see the massive and benevolent involvement of governmental institutions in your life, without which your life would simply be unbearable.

 

 

Being from Israel I can only imagine that you are even closer to firsthand experience with corrupt government than any of us americans.

what makes you think that israeli government is more corrupt ? i don't see those argument as apologetic at all but more sensible

 

Why would you be making these apologetic arguments in favor of position that the government is generally honest and moral. It's quite obvious to anyone that most governments tend to blur these lines if not openly cross them? It's weird that you make these arguments really. I'm confused by it.

You also use blanket generalizations like people who support BTS are conspiratards.

 

because it's the reality. the idea that governments are generally corrupt is only obvious to people who believe that governments are corrupt and immoral apriori, in reality for every instance of corruption there are thousands of instances of proper functioning.

 

what's BTS ?

 

 

It's breaking the set from RT network.

 

Your argument would be based on the assumption that all corrupt activity is equal in impact as all honest activity.

 

I would argue that in most cases corrupt activity has a stronger impact one reason being that corrupt activity is usually executed at higher levels of government than benevolent activity.

 

The current examples of corrupt activity are all throughout this thread so occurrence is more accurate than phenomena.

 

What I mean is that generally the middle east seems more corrupt, or at least more visibly corrupt, but I don't have anything other than the media's portrayal to base it on. Regardless, if you are experiencing corruption you should be on the side of all the people here who are outraged at their government's activity. You aren't outraged though. You are actually trying to convince us that either a) nothing wrong is going on or b) it really isn't a big deal. I don't understand why you would be making this position. Neither are appropriate.

 

Governments are generally corrupt, and they grow more corrupt the less people attempt to balance the power.

 

It is a constant conflict, and it isn't showing any end at the moment. Vigilance is a necessity.

 

If your argument is that government spying is keeping us safe well there is data to contradict that assertion.

 

My personal opinion is that governments are honest to the point they are held accountable.

[LimpyLoo]

usa did use the bomb, so it's reasonable to assume it will nuke canada next week, right ?

 

We live in the era of the Patriot Act, NDAA, (due-processless) drones etc. So IMO it's not unreasonable to think the gov't might abuse mass surveilance tools.

[eugene]

those are all publicly sanctioned policies, not abuse, so i don't understand the logical connection between those and potential abuse of nsa tools.

[IOS]

 

I'm curious, what's your stake in this argument? It seems like it's a priority for you to debunk spying. What's the importance of that for you personally?

making the internet less stupid.

 

 

Start by logging off then.

 

On an equally serious note, "making the internet less stupid" - what do you mean by 'internet', the WATMM website? Have you got any other 'work' outside this forum? A blog or something?

[DerWaschbar]

NONONONONONONO

[LimpyLoo]

those are all publicly sanctioned policies, not abuse, so i don't understand the logical connection between those and potential abuse of nsa tools.

 

Well laws are only as legitimate as the lawmakers. It's illegal to be openly gay in some countries, so the fact that something is legal says nothing about whether it serves the well-being of humanity or a given population or whoever.

 

 

I would say those laws are shity laws that serve the gov't more than anyone.

[awepittance]

making the internet less stupid by getting a lecture from a war crimes apologist and intellectually dishonest lying little fuck, yeah that does make a whole lot of sense. Can we please get another member on this forum from Israel who isn't a delusional asshole?

[IOS]

lol @ cat reaction

[chenGOD]

 

 

i think you're lagging behind the main argument, i never questioned that such capabilities/programs exist, the issue is how they're used and whether there is abuse on a mass scale.

Again, thanks for implying that I'm dull and lagging behind.

If you bothered to read the links I provided you can see that

a) they have been used in unconstitutional contexts (warrantless wiretaps) and

b) regardless of if the abuse is widespread or not, it's still an important issue to look at. One could argue that there has been mass abuse, it would depend of course on how you define "mass".

look and discuss away, i'm all for it, just don't fill that discourse with snowdenesque "the government is constantly watching your every move" type remarks that have no basis in reality.

And point out where I did that exactly? I'm not saying that at all.

What I'm saying, is that a) these mass surveillance programs exist b) they have been used in illegal/unconstitutional contexts and c) there have been cases of the government abusing these programs.

The links I provided are well within the basis of reality.

You seem to have this idea that I am anti-government, which is most certainly not the case. In fact I believe that good governance is essential for a well-functioning society. Part of good governance is increasing transparency in how the government operates. These programs are certainly not tools of good governance.

[awepittance]

i really think we would all be a lot better off if we weren't getting sucked into Eugene's attempt to distract us away from the meat of these types of stories. Can we please just stage a protest where we all put him on ignore? Of course the people who agree with him shouldn't join the protest. Its just really pathetic how without fail everyone tries to argue with him, when he's literally an immovable wall who never admits defeat or being in the wrong. Please just fucking stop

whether Eugene is actually being paid to do this or not ( and i suspect he's not since he has become himself a subject of mockery on the forum, and 'outed' many times in jest) the effect is the same, to distract us away from extremely important stories that any critically thinking civil rights appreciating person should be upset by. Dont play his game, because his game is a shit show. And in case anyone wonders why i don't respond to Eugene's attempts to bait me directly is because i put the cunt on ignore years ago, I only see his posts in the forms of quotations from others.

[Guest A/D]

NONONONONONONO

Lol.

[andihow]

i really think we would all be a lot better off if we weren't getting sucked into Eugene's attempt to distract us away from the meat of these types of stories. Can we please just stage a protest where we all put him on ignore? Of course the people who agree with him shouldn't join the protest. Its just really pathetic how without fail everyone tries to argue with him, when he's literally an immovable wall who never admits defeat or being in the wrong. Please just fucking stop

 

whether Eugene is actually being paid to do this or not ( and i suspect he's not since he has become himself a subject of mockery on the forum, and 'outed' many times in jest) the effect is the same, to distract us away from extremely important stories that any critically thinking civil rights appreciating person should be upset by. Dont play his game, because his game is a shit show. And in case anyone wonders why i don't respond to Eugene's attempts to bait me directly is because i put the cunt on ignore years ago, I only see his posts in the forms of quotations from others.

 

meh, i dont think we should be punishing people for their opinions, no matter how wrong or silly they may be. its possible that this dude is just indoctrinated by his surroundings and really believes what he is saying - either way until we have proof that he is here with malicious intent to derail threads i don't think its right to penalize him...

 

that being said why dont your start building a case against him and submit it to joyrex.

..for DEMOCRACY.

 

inb4 internet is serious business

[awepittance]

i love the idea that describing the inherent bad side of human nature ie: people colluding in secret to gain power over others, the insatiable desire for more power, basic greed are now called 'conspiratard theories'. Its pretty hilarious how the term 'conspiracy theory' in and of itself, the act of peole working in concert is used as a manipulative and discussion stifling adhominem perjorative, very pathetic and very sad not only for the people who are peddling this intellectual dishonesty but sadder for the people who back down and act ashamed for sounding 'too paranoid' about describing accurately the reality in front of their fucking faces

 

i really think we would all be a lot better off if we weren't getting sucked into Eugene's attempt to distract us away from the meat of these types of stories. Can we please just stage a protest where we all put him on ignore? Of course the people who agree with him shouldn't join the protest. Its just really pathetic how without fail everyone tries to argue with him, when he's literally an immovable wall who never admits defeat or being in the wrong. Please just fucking stop

whether Eugene is actually being paid to do this or not ( and i suspect he's not since he has become himself a subject of mockery on the forum, and 'outed' many times in jest) the effect is the same, to distract us away from extremely important stories that any critically thinking civil rights appreciating person should be upset by. Dont play his game, because his game is a shit show. And in case anyone wonders why i don't respond to Eugene's attempts to bait me directly is because i put the cunt on ignore years ago, I only see his posts in the forms of quotations from others.

 

meh, i dont think we should be punishing people for their opinions, no matter how wrong or silly they may be. its possible that this dude is just indoctrinated by his surroundings and really believes what he is saying - either way until we have proof that he is here with malicious intent to derail threads i don't think its right to penalize him...

 

that being said why dont your start building a case against him and submit it to joyrex.

..for DEMOCRACY.

 

inb4 internet is serious business

 

its just pretty remarkable how time and time again people continuously try to engage with him as if he's a rational human being who is willing to admit being wrong or conceding when shown facts that counter his claims. I can't think of a single time he's done this, I don't see how it's a punishment to ignore someone who is clearly trying to muddy the waters and actually intellectually weaken these types of discussions, which is exactly the opposite of what he claims hes doing. I think he's just a really good troll

[Guest A/D]

I honestly do think Eugene has a point about Western governments being generally benevolent infrastructure providers. I think that often gets lost, and I think people who want violent revolution are stupid for wanting to throw away the good things we have, and the real but difficult possibility of positive change.

 

But I don't get how he doesn't see the dark side of those in power, and what he gets out of acting like everyone who points that out is bad. Maybe he just likes defending unpopular positions. He is artful, in a dirty-fighting kind of way. He must enjoy that.

[awepittance]

that's such a ultimately meaningless statement, as if there are only 2 extremes 'benevolent infrastructure providers' and 'full on serial killers who want to destroy any possible dissent'

both of the statements you just made have more than just hints of logical fallacy, I can't remember anyone in this thread saying they want a violent revolution. Did i miss that? Or was that just another distractionary strawman eugene created ?

[eugene]

Your argument would be based on the assumption that all corrupt activity is equal in impact as all honest activity.

 

I would argue that in most cases corrupt activity has a stronger impact one reason being that corrupt activity is usually executed at higher levels of government than benevolent activity.

impact of corruption of some institution that outweighs the benefit of its proper functioning ? how would you argue that exactly ? give a

concrete, plausible example because otherwise it's kinda nebulous.

The current examples of corrupt activity are all throughout this thread so occurrence is more accurate than phenomena.

 

this sentence doesn't make sense.

 

 

What I mean is that generally the middle east seems more corrupt, or at least more visibly corrupt, but I don't have anything other than the media's portrayal to base it on.

 

israel doesn't really have much in common with the concept of "middle-east".

 

Regardless, if you are experiencing corruption you should be on the side of all the people here who are outraged at their government's activity. You aren't outraged though.

i can't say that i'm experiencing corruption, i'm experiencing a government that i don't agree with on most issues, but they function pretty much as the advertised.

 

You are actually trying to convince us that either a) nothing wrong is going on or b) it really isn't a big deal. I don't understand why you would be making this position. Neither are appropriate.

i don't know if there's nothing wrong but so far nothing illegal was revealed, and so i'm arguing with people who for various reasons believe that there was, generally the reason being political beliefs and other preconceptions that influence the interpretation of the leaks.

 

 

Governments are generally corrupt, and they grow more corrupt the less people attempt to balance the power.

It is a constant conflict, and it isn't showing any end at the moment. Vigilance is a necessity.

If your argument is that government spying is keeping us safe well there is data to contradict that assertion.

My personal opinion is that governments are honest to the point they are held accountable.

lol, how did you switch from being somewhat reasonable and argumentative to spitting hackneyed cliches ?

 

If your argument is that government spying is keeping us safe well there is data to contradict that assertion.

 

where ?

[Adieu]

those are all publicly sanctioned policies, not abuse, so i don't understand the logical connection between those and potential abuse of nsa tools.

 

lol NDAA publicly sanctioned except it's in court review right now to determine constitutionality, because it's questionably unconstitutional.

[awepittance]

just like torture , it's not 'illegal' so its cool dawg. just roll with it bruh. fucking pathetic, the intellectual dishonesty has reached almost uneblievable depths

[Guest A/D]

Edit: @John

 

Hmm, I posted too fast and had to edit, I don't feel like I made that dichotomy. I'm just saying it's not black and white to me, and it's not all bad. I think a lot of thinking-type people do look for endless faults in the government without considering the benefits.

 

The abuses (of which there are many, some of them deplorable) should absolutely be pointed out and punished. I'm just making a side point that I generally (generally!) don't think the government is out to get us. When governments use their power to go after the wrong people, they should be punished.

 

No one made a play for revolution. I just feel like the people who do are short-sighted. That's a different thread though.

[eugene]

 

 

 

i think you're lagging behind the main argument, i never questioned that such capabilities/programs exist, the issue is how they're used and whether there is abuse on a mass scale.

Again, thanks for implying that I'm dull and lagging behind.

If you bothered to read the links I provided you can see that

a) they have been used in unconstitutional contexts (warrantless wiretaps) and

b) regardless of if the abuse is widespread or not, it's still an important issue to look at. One could argue that there has been mass abuse, it would depend of course on how you define "mass".

look and discuss away, i'm all for it, just don't fill that discourse with snowdenesque "the government is constantly watching your every move" type remarks that have no basis in reality.

And point out where I did that exactly? I'm not saying that at all.

What I'm saying, is that a) these mass surveillance programs exist b) they have been used in illegal/unconstitutional contexts and c) there have been cases of the government abusing these programs.

The links I provided are well within the basis of reality.

You seem to have this idea that I am anti-government, which is most certainly not the case. In fact I believe that good governance is essential for a well-functioning society. Part of good governance is increasing transparency in how the government operates. These programs are certainly not tools of good governance.

 

that wasn't directed at you, but at the horror i witness on reddit and the stuff the RT-flouride-jew-lobby-controls-america crew brings here.

i don't deny any of those 3 points of yours, i'm arguing for a more sensible interpretation of current events and leaks.

[xox]

heh, this remind me of discussion with eugene about israel all the shit they're doing to palestinians for more than a half century. it was sweet, sweeet ...and i have to say that he really likes to talk objectively and truthfully. whataguy!

[eugene]

 

those are all publicly sanctioned policies, not abuse, so i don't understand the logical connection between those and potential abuse of nsa tools.

 

lol NDAA publicly sanctioned except it's in court review right now to determine constitutionality, because it's questionably unconstitutional.

 

who passed it initially, the elected government or the devil?

[Adieu]

 

Your argument would be based on the assumption that all corrupt activity is equal in impact as all honest activity.

 

I would argue that in most cases corrupt activity has a stronger impact one reason being that corrupt activity is usually executed at higher levels of government than benevolent activity.

impact of corruption of some institution that outweighs the benefit of its proper functioning ? how would you argue that exactly ? give a

concrete, plausible example because otherwise it's kinda nebulous.

The current examples of corrupt activity are all throughout this thread so occurrence is more accurate than phenomena.

 

this sentence doesn't make sense.

 

 

What I mean is that generally the middle east seems more corrupt, or at least more visibly corrupt, but I don't have anything other than the media's portrayal to base it on.

 

israel doesn't really have much in common with the concept of "middle-east".

 

Regardless, if you are experiencing corruption you should be on the side of all the people here who are outraged at their government's activity. You aren't outraged though.

i can't say that i'm experiencing corruption, i'm experiencing a government that i don't agree with on most issues, but they function pretty much as the advertised.

 

You are actually trying to convince us that either a) nothing wrong is going on or b) it really isn't a big deal. I don't understand why you would be making this position. Neither are appropriate.

i don't know if there's nothing wrong but so far nothing illegal was revealed, and so i'm arguing with people who for various reasons believe that there was, generally the reason being political beliefs and other preconceptions that influence the interpretation of the leaks.

 

 

Governments are generally corrupt, and they grow more corrupt the less people attempt to balance the power.

It is a constant conflict, and it isn't showing any end at the moment. Vigilance is a necessity.

If your argument is that government spying is keeping us safe well there is data to contradict that assertion.

My personal opinion is that governments are honest to the point they are held accountable.

lol, how did you switch from being somewhat reasonable and argumentative to spitting hackneyed cliches ?

 

If your argument is that government spying is keeping us safe well there is data to contradict that assertion.

 

where ?

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHfk4edzvnI