Edward Snowden Discussion Thread

[Maurepas]

he has opened a window on something we need to be discussing a lot more then himself as a person nor his ware abouts.

it is not even just about "privacy". which lets get real, privacy, as long as we want to live in a communictions fish bowl is a myth anyway.

but rather shame on any nation, that would put its security as a nation, ahead of that of its citizens. whether that nation be syria, afghanistan, or the u.s. of america.

Last I checked, security of a nation gives security to the citizens, seeing as so long as the nation itself is unharmed, innocent citizens within that nation are also unharmed.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin

It's oft-used, but no less true.

[Zokorias personal views]

Snowden isn't a terrorist IMO, even though the Obama Administration has said that it would pursue nations like Russia or China to extradite Snowden on "charges" of espionage.

The only thing I hate about Snowden is that he plans to grant "asylum" to countries like Ecuador, Venezuela, or Cuba, none of them which are democratic nations. But I'm still alarmed that the US government will still try to arrest Snowden, just because he uncovered the NSA's secret plan (PRISM) to curtail privacy rights and civil liberties rather than "stopping terrorism".

[Kilobugya]

The only thing I hate about Snowden is that he plans to grant "asylum" to countries like Ecuador, Venezuela, or Cuba, none of them which are democratic nations.

What's undemocratic about countries like Venezuela and Ecuador with very democratic constitutions (I did read both the one of Venezuela and Ecuador, did you ?), regular multiparty elections, recognized as fair by international observers, in which the media are mostly controlled by the opposition, and yet where the governments are massively reelected election after election, almost once per year, because they actually comply with their promises ?

Venezuela and Ecuador are not perfect, sure. But they are much more democratic than USA, UK or France.

PS : I'm not entering the debate on Cuba which is much more complicated.

[The Spiral Future]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23045790

Russian foreign Minister says Snowden never entered the country.

[Lemanrussland]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23045790

Russian foreign Minister says Snowden never entered the country.

What a twist!

[Mkuki]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23045790

Russian foreign Minister says Snowden never entered the country.

Airports can be a bitch, eh?

[Central Slavia]

Snowden isn't a terrorist IMO, even though the Obama Administration has said that it would pursue nations like Russia or China to extradite Snowden on "charges" of espionage.

The only thing I hate about Snowden is that he plans to grant "asylum" to countries like Ecuador, Venezuela, or Cuba, none of them which are democratic nations. But I'm still alarmed that the US government will still try to arrest Snowden, just because he uncovered the NSA's secret plan (PRISM) to curtail privacy rights and civil liberties rather than "stopping terrorism".

Venezuela is a far more democratic nation than the USA.
It's so democratic that when CIA tried to issue a "coup" and depose Chavez, the real people walked out in his support and it failed miserably.

[Vitaphone Racing]

The only thing I hate about Snowden is that he plans to grant "asylum" to countries like Ecuador, Venezuela, or Cuba, none of them which are democratic nations.

What's undemocratic about countries like Venezuela and Ecuador with very democratic constitutions (I did read both the one of Venezuela and Ecuador, did you ?), regular multiparty elections, recognized as fair by international observers, in which the media are mostly controlled by the opposition, and yet where the governments are massively reelected election after election, almost once per year, because they actually comply with their promises ?

Venezuela and Ecuador are not perfect, sure. But they are much more democratic than USA, UK or France.

PS : I'm not entering the debate on Cuba which is much more complicated.

Are you serious? Because you certainly aren't correct.

[Kilobugya]

What's undemocratic about countries like Venezuela and Ecuador with very democratic constitutions (I did read both the one of Venezuela and Ecuador, did you ?), regular multiparty elections, recognized as fair by international observers, in which the media are mostly controlled by the opposition, and yet where the governments are massively reelected election after election, almost once per year, because they actually comply with their promises ?

Venezuela and Ecuador are not perfect, sure. But they are much more democratic than USA, UK or France.

PS : I'm not entering the debate on Cuba which is much more complicated.

Are you serious? Because you certainly aren't correct.

Because you think an entity primarily financed by the US government will be fair towards the US governments and its enemies, sure ? And because whatever biased definition of "freedom" they use, it's synonym with "democracy" ? Democracy is "government by the people, for the people" and that is much more the case in Venezuela or Ecuador, places where you know the people actually mobilize to rescue their government when threatened by a coup, and who keep reelecting them again and again because they actually improve their lives.

Now, do you have facts and arguments, apart from appeal to highly biased authority ?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Are you serious? Because you certainly aren't correct.

Because you think an entity primarily financed by the US government will be fair towards the US governments and its enemies, sure ? And because whatever biased definition of "freedom" they use, it's synonym with "democracy" ? Democracy is "government by the people, for the people" and that is much more the case in Venezuela or Ecuador, places where you know the people actually mobilize to rescue their government when threatened by a coup, and who keep reelecting them again and again because they actually improve their lives.

Now, do you have facts and arguments, apart from appeal to highly biased authority ?

Freedom house is not a government organization. Unless you actually have proof that the data Freedom house collects and presents is bullshit, you do not get to discount this source. And no "financed by the US" does not prove anything.

[Kilobugya]

Freedom house is not a government organization

From that page : « As of 2010, grants awarded from the US government accounted for most of Freedom House's funding; » sure, it's not a government organization... it's just financed by it.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Freedom house is not a government organization

From that page : « As of 2010, grants awarded from the US government accounted for most of Freedom House's funding; » sure, it's not a government organization... it's just financed by it.

Did you deliberately decide to cut out the part where I said that being financed by the US government doesn't prove that Freedom House posts false data or deliberately misinterprets it?

[Kilobugya]

Did you deliberately decide to cut out the part where I said that being financed by the US government doesn't prove that Freedom House posts false data or deliberately misinterprets it?

It means they absolutely no credibility whatsoever. The USA government is known to be frontally opposed to Venezuela and Ecuador, to the point of actually supporting military coup attempts against the elected governments there. Anyone financed by them have no credibility at all to speak about their situation. Now, if you take an actual claim they make, it can be analyzed in details, but you didn't it. You didn't give any single argument in favor of the US being a democracy (despite bipartism, corporate control over the elections, rigged elections like in 2000, COINTELRO/PRISM, despite Guantanamo, low turnout in elections, ...) nor in favor of Venezuela/Ecuador not being democracies (despite multiparty elections certified to be fair, media controlled by the opposition, high turnout in elections, high level of popular defense of the government, ...), you just made an appeal to authority saying "these guys don't agree with you". To which I answer "sure, they guys are actually paid by the US government, so now, do you have any real argument ?"

[Yorkopolis]

Edward Snowden's a hero who exposed the American government's similiarity to Nineteen Eighty-Four in a scarier way than we could have imagined. Yes, NSA, I know you're listening.

[Iron States]

What he did was "High Treason" and he should be prosecuted to the fullest.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Edward Snowden's a hero who exposed the American government's similiarity to Nineteen Eighty-Four in a scarier way than we could have imagined. Yes, NSA, I know you're listening.

This is a public forum...

[Vitaphone Racing]

Did you deliberately decide to cut out the part where I said that being financed by the US government doesn't prove that Freedom House posts false data or deliberately misinterprets it?

It means they absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

Prove it.

The USA government is known to be frontally opposed to Venezuela and Ecuador, to the point of actually supporting military coup attempts against the elected governments there. Anyone financed by them have no credibility at all to speak about their situation.

The assertion that anybody is automatically corrupted if they are financed by the government is something you still haven't proven.

Now, if you take an actual claim they make, it can be analyzed in details, but you didn't it.

I showed a map which visually displayed their ratings of freedom in countries of the world. There's my claim. Analyse it.

You didn't give any single argument in favor of the US being a democracy (despite bipartism, corporate control over the elections, rigged elections like in 2000, COINTELRO/PRISM, despite Guantanamo, low turnout in elections, ...) nor in favor of Venezuela/Ecuador not being democracies (despite multiparty elections certified to be fair, media controlled by the opposition, high turnout in elections, high level of popular defense of the government, ...)

Because I didn't list specific incidents... my argument is invalid? I provided my source, you are free to investigate the claims of my source as much as you want. Please actually attack what I said and not what I didn't say.

you just made an appeal to authority saying "these guys don't agree with you".

No, I displayed data which proved you wrong. If you think my argument was "Freedom house disagrees with you", you didn't dig deep enough.

To which I answer "sure, they guys are actually paid by the US government, so now, do you have any real argument ?"

Your utter lack of academic integrity is frankly appalling. I'm still waiting on you to back up your own claims that my source is compromised.

[Gravlen]

Venezuela and Ecuador are not perfect, sure. But they are much more democratic than USA, UK or France.

No. The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 2010 says...

US #17
UK #19
France #31
Ecuador #87
Venezuela¹ # 96

I have no reason to believe that the differences with the 2012 report are big, but I couldn't be arsed to register.

https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex12


¹
Electoral democracy, for the most part, remains firmly entrenched in Latin America, but media freedoms have been eroded significantly in several countries. Most visibly, there have been a number of attempts by governments to intimidate or block certain private media outlets since 2008. Aside from Cuba (the only state in the region without any independent media), Venezuela is the worst offender. Alongside a crackdown on the traditional media (including efforts to revoke the licence of the only remaining television channel that is critical of the administration), there are rising concerns about a crackdown on non-traditional web media.

[Kilobugya]

It means they absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

Prove it.

That's a reversal of the burden of the proof. Credibility is not something you start with, it's something you earn. And when you are being financed by the enemy of X, you have low credibility to speak of X, that's a basic rule.

Please note that I'm not saying "everything they say is necessarily false". I'm saying "they don't have credibility since they are being financed by one of the two involved sides, so we shouldn't trust what they say blindly, no please go to the level of actual arguments". Something you refuse to do.

The assertion that anybody is automatically corrupted if they are financed by the government is something you still haven't proven.

Not being trustworthy != automatically being corrupted. When A says X, either you trust A and believe X, or you don't trust A and don't believe X blindly. Not trusting doesn't mean it's necessarily false. The fact that A is financed by one of the two sides is clear evidence that we shouldn't trust A blindly. Not necessarily that X is false, but that "A says X" isn't enough to admit X. Now, can you go to the level of actual claims and arguments, or do you just have "A says so !" ?

I showed a map which visually displayed their ratings of freedom in countries of the world. There's my claim. Analyse it.

That's not a precise claim, that's an opinion. And I say I don't trust their opinion, because, being paid by one the involved sides, they shouldn't be blindly trusted. So I ask you ACTUAL FACTS to base your judgment on, and you don't have any to provide. Which just reinforces my point.

Because I didn't list specific incidents... my argument is invalid?

You didn't provide any argument, you made an appeal to authority. And since I don't recognize that authority, it doesn't have any value to me. When an authority is disputed in a debate, there is a simple solution : going to the level of facts. Which you refuse to do.

If you think my argument was "Freedom house disagrees with you", you didn't dig deep enough.

That's the only thing you said. Now, do you facts ? Arguments ? Evidence ?

Your utter lack of academic integrity is frankly appalling.

Academic integrity ? I'm the one arguing with facts, you're the one having nothing but appeal to authority, and I'm the one lacking ?

[Kilobugya]

Venezuela and Ecuador are not perfect, sure. But they are much more democratic than USA, UK or France.

No. The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 2010 says...

Sure, "The economist" now. Is it a contest of who will provide the most possible biased "authority" and not have a single fact to back their claim ?

[Welsh Cowboy]

No. The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 2010 says...

Sure, "The economist" now. Is it a contest of who will provide the most possible biased "authority" and not have a single fact to back their claim ?

How is The Economist biased? It's a British newspaper that is critical of everyone. You can't throw out every objective ranking given to you.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Prove it.

That's a reversal of the burden of the proof. Credibility is not something you start with, it's something you earn. And when you are being financed by the enemy of X, you have low credibility to speak of X, that's a basic rule.

Please note that I'm not saying "everything they say is necessarily false". I'm saying "they don't have credibility since they are being financed by one of the two involved sides, so we shouldn't trust what they say blindly, no please go to the level of actual arguments". Something you refuse to do.

What? This is you trying desperately to avoid posting proof which you don't have. I posted a source, you claimed it's corrupted and posts factually incorrect data. Now prove it. Really simple. The basic rule you speak of isn't actually a basic rule and has really no basis in this thread.

The assertion that anybody is automatically corrupted if they are financed by the government is something you still haven't proven.

Not being trustworthy != automatically being corrupted. When A says X, either you trust A and believe X, or you don't trust A and don't believe X blindly. Not trusting doesn't mean it's necessarily false. The fact that A is financed by one of the two sides is clear evidence that we shouldn't trust A blindly. Not necessarily that X is false, but that "A says X" isn't enough to admit X. Now, can you go to the level of actual claims and arguments, or do you just have "A says so !" ?

Why are you still treating this like it's an opinion? Freedom house compiles data and reports on it. If you want to check out the legitimacy behind their findings, their reports are accessible.

I showed a map which visually displayed their ratings of freedom in countries of the world. There's my claim. Analyse it.

That's not a precise claim, that's an opinion. And I say I don't trust their opinion, because, being paid by one the involved sides, they shouldn't be blindly trusted. So I ask you ACTUAL FACTS to base your judgment on, and you don't have any to provide. Which just reinforces my point.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/defau ... ezuela.pdf
http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/free ... 13/ecuador

Again, you need to differentiate between opinions and facts.

Because I didn't list specific incidents... my argument is invalid?

You didn't provide any argument, you made an appeal to authority. And since I don't recognize that authority, it doesn't have any value to me. When an authority is disputed in a debate, there is a simple solution : going to the level of facts. Which you refuse to do.

I did, I posted verifiable data. The fact you refused to verify any of that data is not my problem.

If you think my argument was "Freedom house disagrees with you", you didn't dig deep enough.

That's the only thing you said. Now, do you facts ? Arguments ? Evidence ?

Yes. Please cease this argument.

Your utter lack of academic integrity is frankly appalling.

Academic integrity ? I'm the one arguing with facts,

No you're not. I and Gravlen have showed that you aren't.[/quote]

you're the one having nothing but appeal to authority, and I'm the one lacking ?

More like you keep accusing me of appealing to authority because you have no real arguments.

[Kilobugya]

How is The Economist biased? It's a British newspaper that is critical of everyone. You can't throw out every objective ranking given to you.

The Economist is a clearly and openly pro-capitalism, pro-market, pro-globalization newspaper. It has no objectivity at all.

And I can definitely throw out any "ranking", because that's just appeal to authority. There is so much subjectivity in making such rankings (what to consider and what to ignore, with which importance, how to classify actually facts into the ranking, ...) that no such ranking can be objective, they all reflect an ideological point of view, and they are all **very** easy to manipulate in every possible way. I'm asking for actual facts and arguments, not "X says so", is this too much to ask ?

[Vitaphone Racing]

How is The Economist biased? It's a British newspaper that is critical of everyone. You can't throw out every objective ranking given to you.

The Economist is a clearly and openly pro-capitalism, pro-market, pro-globalization newspaper. It has no objectivity at all.

And I can definitely throw out any "ranking", because that's just appeal to authority. There is so much subjectivity in making such rankings (what to consider and what to ignore, with which importance, how to classify actually facts into the ranking, ...) that no such ranking can be objective, they all reflect an ideological point of view, and they are all **very** easy to manipulate in every possible way. I'm asking for actual facts and arguments, not "X says so", is this too much to ask ?

Then what's your proof that Venezuela and Ecuador are definitely more democratic than the UK, USA and France?

[Kilobugya]

This is you trying desperately to avoid posting proof which you don't have.

I gave you **facts**. You answered with an appeal to authority.

I posted a source, you claimed it's corrupted and posts factually incorrect data.

I only claimed that source is financed by one of the two parties is therefore not trustworthy. So I ask you to give me actual facts. Which you refuse to do.

Why are you still treating this like it's an opinion?

Because it's exactly what it is ? A "ranking" of "freedom" is definitely an opinion. It depends what you consider important and what you don't, what facts you select, how much weight you give to different things, ... There is hardly anything more subjective, more an opinion, than that.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/venezuela.pdf
http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/free ... 13/ecuador

Again, you need to differentiate between opinions and facts.

Yeah, really, you should. Because those two things are opinions, nor facts. It's full of subjective wording, very poor on facts. Like « After taking office in early 2007, Correa eliminated the legal barriers to a constitutional referendum, using questionable maneuvers to remove opposition legislators and members of the Constitutional Court. » without even a single example of what "questionable maneuvers" he used. The whole of those documents is like that. It's pure opinion, even propaganda, not facts.

Now, I ask once again, do you have specific facts to oppose against Venezuela and Ecuador being democracy, or any counter-claim to the numerous facts I cited making USA a very poor democracy ? Something we actually debate, not 17 pages of poorly grounded propaganda written by an entity financed by one of the sides ?

That's the only thing you said. Now, do you facts ? Arguments ? Evidence ?

Yes. Please cease this argument.

Then please give actual arguments, not "freedom house" propaganda.