Snowden Situation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2013, 01:54 AM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2013 01:59 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 01:51 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  I think emotional responses are sometimes good because I shows passion and flare. I seem to remember distinctly several posts completely opposing the constitution and the Bill of Rights. Things like that don't even seem to be suggesting a problem do they? Or, I could have misunderstood their meaning, but I doubt that.

Arguments from emotion are acceptable sometimes, yes. But if you are going to make a serious debate, you have to remain cold and analytical. You also, however, have to understand your opponent and why they believe what they believe. I have not opposed the constitution, though I definitely think is outdated despite its supposed timeless malleability. I also do not deny that the Patriot Act is legal. I just think it is appalling that it is.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:00 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 01:48 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 01:45 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Yes maybe you're right, I tend to single out the most crazy/angering post and attack that one only, I might need to single out arguments individually.

By no means do I think that I am a miracle worker, I have no plan to overturn those laws, I was trying to point them out for what they are, bullshit. It seemed to me that I was met with opposition that said things like, -fuck you that's how the government should work- and -you have no right to challenge the authority, you're just a whiny little teenager.- That shit I found repulsive. Being barraged with that stuff and not fully understanding what you guys meant when you said legal, assuming it was synonymous with right or justified, kind of threw me off.

I said you have no idea how government works because you continuously persisted that the Patriot Act was illegal, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has not overturned it and ruled it unconstitutional. Your age had nothing to do with it. I mean, at least you aren't as bad as I and I. Yeesh.

Ok the Patriot Act is technically legal until the Supreme Court overturns it. The fact that it is unconstitutional, wrong, invasive, immoral, and ridiculous would be pretty hard to disprove I would say, though. Even though the law is legal right now, it does not exempt those responsible from punishment, with which I'm sure you would agree. And since it is unconstitutional there is no reason to follow it, assuming that we would even know that we were being spied on, which we wouldn't. There are no real consequences for it to be legal or not honestly, they will probably do the same old shit even if the Supreme Court overturns it so legality really doesn't make a difference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:06 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 01:54 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 01:51 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  I think emotional responses are sometimes good because I shows passion and flare. I seem to remember distinctly several posts completely opposing the constitution and the Bill of Rights. Things like that don't even seem to be suggesting a problem do they? Or, I could have misunderstood their meaning, but I doubt that.

Arguments from emotion are acceptable sometimes, yes. But if you are going to make a serious debate, you have to remain cold and analytical. You also, however, have to understand your opponent and why they believe what they believe. I have not opposed the constitution, though I definitely think is outdated despite its supposed timeless malleability. I also do not deny that the Patriot Act is legal. I just think it is appalling that it is.

I would agree that it is more beneficial to stay cold and analytical when debating but there is no law set in stone that says you have to be.

I don't care why the person sitting across from me believes in say, creationism, for example, it is still as much of a bullshit argument the first time as the last time.

The constitution is a living document and can be amended so I would doubt that it would all of a sudden become obsolete.

With the last two sentences, I agree, now that I know the politically correct definition of legal.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:10 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:00 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Ok the Patriot Act is technically legal until the Supreme Court overturns it. The fact that it is unconstitutional, wrong, invasive, immoral, and ridiculous would be pretty hard to disprove I would say, though. Even though the law is legal right now, it does not exempt those responsible from punishment, with which I'm sure you would agree. And since it is unconstitutional there is no reason to follow it, assuming that we would even know that we were being spied on, which we wouldn't. There are no real consequences for it to be legal or not honestly, they will probably do the same old shit even if the Supreme Court overturns it so legality really doesn't make a difference.

If they did the same things without the Patriot Act, they would be deserving of legal action. Do you know about Watergate? That was one of the biggest scandals an intelligence agency has faced in the United States. It got a president impeached.

The constitution is not the end all to be all in the United States. It is purposely written to be vague and change with the times, so one could argue multiple different points, often opposing ones, off of the same provided rights. I am not disagreeing with your disdain for the Patriot Act, I am simply explaining to you that the bill is, in fact, legal. You must obey it whether you like it or not, just like I have to. You can, however, fight to change it through legal, peaceful channels. Snowden was peaceful, but he did not challenge the NSA or the system legally. He exposed classified information.

Whether or not Snowden's intentions were really good, I don't know. The fact of the matter is that his actions have not gotten anything done about the NSA itself.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:12 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:00 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Ok the Patriot Act is technically legal until the Supreme Court overturns it. The fact that it is unconstitutional, wrong, invasive, immoral, and ridiculous would be pretty hard to disprove I would say, though. Even though the law is legal right now, it does not exempt those responsible from punishment, with which I'm sure you would agree. And since it is unconstitutional there is no reason to follow it, assuming that we would even know that we were being spied on, which we wouldn't. There are no real consequences for it to be legal or not honestly, they will probably do the same old shit even if the Supreme Court overturns it so legality really doesn't make a difference.

If they did the same things without the Patriot Act, they would be deserving of legal action. Do you know about Watergate? That was one of the biggest scandals an intelligence agency has faced in the United States. It got a president impeached.

The constitution is not the end all to be all in the United States. It is purposely written to be vague and change with the times, so one could argue multiple different points, often opposing ones, off of the same provided rights. I am not disagreeing with your disdain for the Patriot Act, I am simply explaining to you that the bill is, in fact, legal. You must obey it whether you like it or not, just like I have to. You can, however, fight to change it through legal, peaceful channels.

I didn't know Nixon was impeached. Could have sworn he resigned..... Big Grin

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:13 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
Who would have ever thought it would come to the US telling Russia that it's OK to send back a US Refugee because the United States gives assurance that they won't kill or torture the US Refuge? And...this US Refugee was on the run because he exposed how the US Government spies on its own citizens without warrants?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/f...story.html

25 years ago, if you would have told me such a thing would ever be possible in the US, I would have laughed in your face.

I'm not laughing now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:14 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:12 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I didn't know Nixon was impeached. Could have sworn he resigned..... Big Grin

He was impeached, he resigned before they could remove him from office. Just like Clinton was impeached, but he was never removed from office.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:15 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:13 AM)Julius Wrote:  Who would have ever thought it would come to the US telling Russia that it's OK to send back a US Refugee because the United States gives assurance that they won't kill or torture the US Refuge? And...this US Refugee was on the run because he exposed how the US Government spies on its own citizens without warrants?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/f...story.html

25 years ago, if you would have told me such a thing would ever be possible in the US, I would have laughed in your face.

I'm not laughing now.

He exposed nothing because it was public knowledge for years. And really? You have never heard of the Red Scare?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:27 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:00 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Ok the Patriot Act is technically legal until the Supreme Court overturns it. The fact that it is unconstitutional, wrong, invasive, immoral, and ridiculous would be pretty hard to disprove I would say, though. Even though the law is legal right now, it does not exempt those responsible from punishment, with which I'm sure you would agree. And since it is unconstitutional there is no reason to follow it, assuming that we would even know that we were being spied on, which we wouldn't. There are no real consequences for it to be legal or not honestly, they will probably do the same old shit even if the Supreme Court overturns it so legality really doesn't make a difference.

If they did the same things without the Patriot Act, they would be deserving of legal action. Do you know about Watergate? That was one of the biggest scandals an intelligence agency has faced in the United States. It got a president impeached.

The constitution is not the end all to be all in the United States. It is purposely written to be vague and change with the times, so one could argue multiple different points, often opposing ones, off of the same provided rights. I am not disagreeing with your disdain for the Patriot Act, I am simply explaining to you that the bill is, in fact, legal. You must obey it whether you like it or not, just like I have to. You can, however, fight to change it through legal, peaceful channels. Snowden was peaceful, but he did not challenge the NSA or the system legally. He exposed classified information.

Whether or not Snowden's intentions were really good, I don't know. The fact of the matter is that his actions have not gotten anything done about the NSA itself.

Obama should be impeached for this NSA bullshit. He lied under oath and lied before his election when he said he would do away with the "illegal wiretapping done by Bush," when it turns out he didn't do anything but expand it.

Wrong. The Constitution IS the end all and be all of the US. The constitution and Bill of Rights combined with the declaration of Independence are the documents that make America the, land of the free and home of the brave.

I will not follow the Patriot Act, even though I am not able to know I am being spied on, whether YOU like it or not bud. Don't try and tell me what I have to do.

Snowden revealed classified information about "what should be illegal" government activities, therefore, any criminal charges are void in my book, or anyone that values privacy in their lives.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:32 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 02:27 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Obama should be impeached for this NSA bullshit. He lied under oath and lied before his election when he said he would do away with the "illegal wiretapping done by Bush," when it turns out he didn't do anything but expand it.

Wrong. The Constitution IS the end all and be all of the US. The constitution and Bill of Rights combined with the declaration of Independence are the documents that make America the, land of the free and home of the brave.

I will not follow the Patriot Act, even though I am not able to know I am being spied on, whether YOU like it or not bud. Don't try and tell me what I have to do.

Snowden revealed classified information about "what should be illegal" government activities, therefore, any criminal charges are void in my book, or anyone that values privacy in their lives.

I don't think Obama should be impeached. Presidents promise all sorts of things all the time, and they often don't deliver. This is nothing new.

No, I am right about this. If not, things like slavery, DOMA, and the Patriot Act would not be passed, would they? In the end, the judicial branch is the end and be all. They decide what is "constitutional" and what is not, even if the bill may directly contradict it.

I have a hard time understanding why you are so incredibly defensive here. Consider Do you think that a person is justified in killing another, simply because they might disagree with the illegality of murder?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: