Kemal Ergenekon
-
Posts
1326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Kemal Ergenekon
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
10
-
Rebellions have almost always won
-
Lol, don't you see? For someone to own a multi-billion dollar business to constantly shoot himself in the foot over and over again, he's trying to deliberately lose. And he's taking the Republican party's hold in congress with him.
Yes, he deliberately went back in time to grab some sweet !@#$, so that he can lose.
-
2
-
-
I would find it distasteful to kill American citizens.
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.
-
Snowden claims to be acting with the best interests of the US public in mind.My argument is against his hero worship - not as you may think - that I find the activity he informed on legal.If he took the information solely to use as leverage then why did he not use it as leverage? Again, his actions demonstrate his intent. H parleyed it first to one enemy then another almost instantaneously. Almost as if his goal was espionage.If he found the social value of releasing the information so high then he could have done so and NOT committed espionage. Then he would have a far more secure ethical foundation - which he lacks entirely now. So the social calculus explaining his treachery is - does he value a personal jail sentence over the real life security of his friends and neighbors.
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 am sorry that Kemal inc. does not buy a basic premise of whistleblowers limiting their leak to activity that is illegal. However, definitionally it does require that limitation.
"LordRahl" is open to the consideration that a specific program was illegal (thought that is open to debate). "LordRahl" is 100% positive that the MASSIVE and UNFILTERED data stolen and released was not 100% illegal. Therefore Snowden is not a whisleblower- by definition.
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?
So he broke the law in order to defend himself from accusations of breaking the law. Interesting theory.
Why not, if you feel that one particular aspect or activity of your government is wrong, use that as justification steal loads of information unrelated to the offensive actiivity and sell/give it to your countries enemies? Sure. Makes good logical sense. I will protect people's freedoms by endangering them. You see the logical fail of this argument yes?
Again. Actions. He did not use that data as leverage. He, at the very minimum, attempted to give it to the Chinese and succeeded at giving it to the Russians.
This is not a "LordRahl" opinion on what was legal, what a whitleblower is by definition, nor the fact set. It is a legal definition, definition definition, and a fact set.
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.
As long as you are happy with a low order probability that he was an incompetent boob trying to be a whistleblower and failing? Cool with me.
I hate the quote system on this forum. ghhhhh
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?
-
Again, competent spy or incompetent whistle blower.
I provided a tldr on this already.
http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-leaks-timeline-2014-6
This is what unsuccessful whistleblowing looks like?
-
Oh I agree.
"Conclusive proof" is a very high standard. Strongly suspect with supporting evidence is more like it.
I fully accept that he could be a criminally incompetent boob. I would like to say that his position reduced the chance of that, but considering my coworkers....it is a valid possibility.
What I do have conclusive proof of is that he did not act in a manner consistent with a compotent conscious whistle blower.
How so? If his aim was to leak the stuff, he succeeded admirably. So why is he incompetent?
-
It is possible. Then we have to go back to what actually happened to determine who he was.
I am sure Benedict Arnold thought he was being patriotic and Erdogan believes he is doing the right moral thing.
Hence we judge people by their actions.
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.
-
I do not understand the "technical reason" thing at all. Hence my question.
Not really. It eliminates his case that his behavior was ethical. And he has already delivered the intel to the two parties that we want to keep it secure from. So if his goal was to avoid punishment - completely irrational.
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.
-
He had unlimited access and time before if he was curious. He worked in the server room where the data was stored. This was not mission impossible.
The reason not to copy more is because he, theoretically and so he claims, was a patriot and cared about Muricans. Again, real whistle blowers release the incriminating evidence only - their goal is to right a wrong not to hurt people.
This image rapidly falls apart if you steal massive amounts of data and trade it/sell it to the Russians. This looks like a paid spy trying to justify his treason.
I can think of no technical reason to steal all the data.
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
-
Like such as.
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.-
2
-
-
Overwhelmingly larger is an exaggeration. That makes it sound like the numbers are 90/10 or 80/20 when they are closer to 60/40.
Regardless, there are plenty of systems in place to help women who are victims of domestic violence and almost none for men.
"so no wonder men beating women is a larger issue." A larger issue, implies that most people see domestic violence against men as an issue, which isn't the case. It's played down, dismissed and ignored, which you are actually demonstrating.
"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.
This however does not mean that any man can still get a huge kung-fu ass kicking from a woman. And there are always exceptions though it is uncommon.
That's why I said "on average."
-
1
-
-
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.
Gun Control, Facts Vs Liberals
in General Debate
Posted
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.