Kemal Ergenekon

I think everyone should have their own nukes. It would give We The Peepl the power to overthrow our despotic democrat overlords by nuclear extinction.

Yes, he deliberately went back in time to grab some sweet !@#$, so that he can lose.

But if they arm against the government, wouldn't they be traitors? xd

You know. I really want an armed insurrection for the 2nd Amendment. Just to prove that how rebelling against the federal government would look like, with weapons and all.

Standardized tests are a necessary evil in countries mired in corruption and nepotism.

It does change the facts. If it is revealed that he had a Russian or Chinese contact before stealing the data, it is quite significant.

There is no reason for Snowden to claim he is not acting in the best interests of the US public in mind. So he does. Also, Trump will MAGA, Hillary loves minorities, and bears shit in the woods. I don't think he is a hero either. Good question. Maybe he did? Not against the US, but so that he was useful enough to China/Russia for them to not return him to the US? Do you know for a fact that he handed all the information? Maybe provided access to different encrypted archives over time? I am not quite familiar with how you know what else he stole, and whether China/Russia has full access to it. You mean if he was a completely selfless person and thought he would have 100% success in releasing the files. I doubt both. I don't think he wants to be a martyr. He is selfish.

"a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity." not "a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity who does not to any other illegal stuff." Did he inform on a person or organization engaged in illicit activity? Yes. The items listed in the Business Insider article I linked to earlier is sufficient to fulfill this definition. You say that being a whistleblower did not *require* him to copy the remaining data. Correct. You claim that copying the remaining data disqualifies him as a whistleblower. Incorrect. Copying the remaining data and handing it to other nations does disqualify him from being a Whistleblower protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. It does not disqualify him from fulfilling the "definition definition." Again, being a whistleblower did not require him to copy the data, but it gave him more options. It gave him a credible punishment, hence leverage. It gave him a trove of information from which he can nitpick new stuff to publicize. It expanded his capability set. I think anyone in his position should have obtained a copy, as long as he or she believed that it could easily be destroyed. Or encrypted -- though that makes it more likely for him to be tortured. All of your suppositions depend on two things as I mentioned. You are assuming that Snowden must be acting with the best interests of the US public in mind. This is not a requirement of being a whistleblower, though they would obviously claim so. Secondly, the social calculus there is subject to debate. Maybe he thinks revelation of the illegal activities of the US is more important than giving Russia and China some tactical advantages in the short term. Depends on how you value stuff, which is subjective.

I guess you think the Whistleblower Protection Act defines the concept we know of as whistleblower. Else, I do not see where the conventional definition of whistleblowing includes the presupposition of "just carry the minimal amount of necessary data." I see whistleblowing as informing the public of illegal acts. Edward Snowden did this. Do you dispute this? Nope nope nope. He broke a law because he knew he would be considered a criminal (thanks to this law from WW1 that I forgot the name of) in any case. Like, if I intend to cross Tayyip, I wouldn't mind stealing some other data that might incriminate Tayyip to use as leverage. He will be out for my head anyway. The same turned out to be true for Snowden, with people talking about putting him on the "kill list." Copying data does not imply that you will sell/give it to the enemies. It's leverage as long as you have it. I don't see the logical fail since you are assuming this whistleblower must (1) maximize the society's well-being, (2) copying the data is bound to lower the society's well-being moreso than not revealing the illegal acts. You are again claiming that "whistleblower" as defined by the US laws must be what the public means when they use the word whistleblower. This is false. Same people can be called freedom fighters or terrorists by different governments. One person might be called a whistleblower by a civilian and a traitor by the government. The governments definition of the concept w.r.t. its laws is not the only legitimate usage of the word in common language. You should have asked: "Kemal, do you think he is more likely to be a spy?" My answer would be yes. I'm just poking holes in the bad arguments as usual. Yeah, I hate it too.

My source says empty line? I proposed one potential reason: he took the data for leverage. I proposed another potential reason: if you are going to be called a traitor anyway, why not? After all, he could erase it later if he didn't want to use it. It's rational to keep your capability set large. "Whistleblowers only take specific data" -- Ach so. He should have talked with Whistleblowers United and take only what Lord Rahl allows, xd. (i.e. I don't buy that statement) You admit that it is possible for him to started as a whistleblower, which is exactly my claim. I said that the data does not prove that he is a spy, which you also agreed to earlier. I don't see what you are disagreeing with?

http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-leaks-timeline-2014-6 This is what unsuccessful whistleblowing looks like?

How so? If his aim was to leak the stuff, he succeeded admirably. So why is he incompetent?

Yes, we judge people by their actions, and the fact that he stole additional data is by no means conclusive proof that he was a spy at the outset. You like to believe it to be as such, but it unfortunately isn't.

Ethics is funny business. It is not impossible that he thought of himself as a whistleblower who was pragmatic enough to have an insurance policy. Would he turn over the data to China and Russia if the US reacted more mildly? You cannot know, since the US offered no viable exit.

I don't understand why it has to be a technical reason. He could steal unrelated sensitive information to have leverage in case the government tries to punish him. And the government did. Looks like he did the rational thing?

sa

Not something technical, but I would copy whatever I could just because of sheer curiosity. He was already a criminal, so why not copy more?

as

This thread is now closed. Please refer to this moderation update post. Please utilize the General Debate or General Discussions forum to create a constructive/fruitful discussion or debate on presidential elections, candidates, or policies. This lock has been approved by Alex & Four.

"Current literature on IPV has alternative view points in relation to Gender Symmetry theory. A 2008 review published in journal of Violence and Victims found that although less serious situational violence or altercation was equal for both genders, more serious and violent abuse was perpetrated by men. It was also found that women's physical violence was more likely motivated by self-defense or fear while men's was more likely motivated by control.[104] A 2011 systematic review from the journal of Trauma Violence Abuse also found that the common motives for female on male domestic violence were anger, a need for attention, or as a response to their partner's own violence.[105] Another 2011 review published in the journal of Aggression and Violent behavior also found that although minor domestic violence was equal, more severe violence was perpetrated by men. It was also found that men were more likely to beat up, choke or strangle their partners, while women were more likely to throw things at their partner, slap, kick, bite, punch, or hit with an object.[106] Researchers have also found different outcomes in men and women in response to intimate partner violence. A 2012 review from the journal Psychology of Violence found that women suffered disproportionately as a result of IPV especially in terms of injuries, fear, and posttraumatic stress.[107] The review also found that 70% of female victims in one of their studies were “very frightened†in response to intimate partner violence from their partners, but 85% of male victims cited “no fearâ€.[107] The review also found that IPV mediated the satisfaction of the relationship for women but it did not do so for men.[107] Gender symmetry is also consistent with government findings. According to government statistics from the US Department of Justice, male perpetrators constituted 96% of federal prosecution on domestic violence.[108] Another report by the US department of Justice on non-fatal domestic violence from 2003-2012 found that 76 percent of domestic violence was committed against women and 24 percent were committed against men.[109] Professor Ruth M. Mann of University of Windsor, who is an expert on sociology and criminology, has stated her opposition to gender symmetry theory of domestic violence on the grounds that women as well as children are the main victims in the "annual pile up" (Coyle, 2001) of victims being murdered by intimate partners and fathers throughout Canada (AuCoin, 2005; Ogrodnik, 2006).[110]"

I wonder how many of the shitposters who argue for male dominance have a female partner. That's why I said "on average."

sa

Women have 1/2 the upper body strength of a man. Hence there are limits to how serious a thrashing a man can get from a woman on average. Also, the number of men beating their wives is overwhelmingly larger than the other way around, so no wonder men beating women is a larger issue.