WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Fringe A Cop May Be Following You Everywhere

Stryker989

Hoodrat
25
14
7
You think I sit around and talk about the virtue found in not stealing other people's stuff with a guy who's in the process of robbing me? I'm not building any strawmen nor is this ad hominem. I hope you'll understand that the things you say and the opinions you offer are a direct attack on that which I hold most dear; that being freedom. Active participation in the mechanisms which reduce or suspend this freedom is supposed to be met with deference? Some things aren't up for debate, friend. A shackle disguised as a bracelet is still a shackle.

,

Please feel free to pen novels on the virtues found in enslaving your neighbor but don't bother expecting purchase with idiots like me. There is none to be had...I can assure you.





This is so weird to me. People seem more offended by someone telling them that they smell like the business end of a soybean auger than they are by someone espousing actual slavery, theft and kidnapping. Blows my mind.
Obviously I don't have plans to take away your freedom, nor do I have any power to put my opinions into action whether they be realistic or not. I wouldn't dream of enslaving, robbing, or anything else to you. As I stated, I admit that I may be completely wrong on this issue. I seek more information and responses to the opinions I have in my head, which likely are not all true, and quite possibly are totally false. Whether or not they are, this is in reality a debate and there are plenty of people arguing on both sides.
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,320
4,965
257
I agree, I should've elaborated but I didn't know the discussion would get as detailed as this. It's the internet, I wasn't sure what to expect.
What I think Snowden did wrong was to leak information that he had agreed not to release. He signed a contract with the government not to release classified information, a contract which he broke. I don't have any idea of a punishment, I'm not sure what the precedent is on this at the moment.
Okay. So, what Snowden did wrong was break a contract. He agreed to the terms of the contract which stated clearly he was not to divulge any information regarding what he was in the active process of doing or any information respective to what he witnessed other people doing. He was "wrong" to break this commitment.

Let's experiment. Let's change the participant to you and the subject to your employment. You graduate college and get a job at Dow. Dow requires you to sign a binding non-disclosure agreement which clearly states you are not to divulge any information regarding your employment and the respective corporate intellectual property therein. You begin working on marketing Dow's new corn cereal and in the process of educating yourself on the matter you find that Dow is introducing Monoloboglucemidisdic into the cereal. Monoloboglucemidisdic is a banned substance known to cause cancer. You approach your superiors and they say that the Dow chemists have determined that Monoloboglucemidisdic is actually inert and harmless and they only add a little bit so everything is okay.

What do you do? What is "right" and what is "wrong"?
 

Stryker989

Hoodrat
25
14
7
Okay. So, what Snowden did wrong was break a contract. He agreed to the terms of the contract which stated clearly he was not to divulge any information regarding what he was in the active process of doing or any information respective to what he witnessed other people doing. He was "wrong" to break this commitment.

Let's experiment. Let's change the participant to you and the subject to your employment. You graduate college and get a job at Dow. Dow requires you to sign a binding non-disclosure agreement which clearly states you are not to divulge any information regarding your employment and the respective corporate intellectual property therein. You begin working on marketing Dow's new corn cereal and in the process of educating yourself on the matter you find that Dow is introducing Monoloboglucemidisdic into the cereal. Monoloboglucemidisdic is a banned substance known to cause cancer. You approach your superiors and they say that the Dow chemists have determined that Monoloboglucemidisdic is actually inert and harmless and they only add a little bit so everything is okay.

What do you do? What is "right" and what is "wrong"?
I stick with what I claimed. If I were in that situation, it would certainly suck and I'd like to find a way to alert people to the truth about monoloboglucemidisdic. However, I'd have two options. 1: Not release the information because of the contract I'd signed, and attempt to find some way to release the information without violating the contract, or 2: If I deem the penalties of releasing the information and violating the contract acceptable in order for me to inform the public, then I'd release the information.
So I suppose this will lead back to the aspect of punishment in regards to Snowden. If Snowden had faced the punishment of releasing classified information, then I'd have no problem with what he did. What is "right" in my mind is accepting the contract that he agreed to willingly. He can violate it, but only if he accepts the punishment. Punishment for violating the contract is included in the contract, so by leaking the information and accepting the punishment stated within the contract when he signed it (whether specific or broad) he would still have stood by his word.
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,320
4,965
257
I stick with what I claimed. If I were in that situation, it would certainly suck and I'd like to find a way to alert people to the truth about monoloboglucemidisdic. However, I'd have two options. 1: Not release the information because of the contract I'd signed, and attempt to find some way to release the information without violating the contract, or 2: If I deem the penalties of releasing the information and violating the contract acceptable in order for me to inform the public, then I'd release the information.
So I suppose this will lead back to the aspect of punishment in regards to Snowden. If Snowden had faced the punishment of releasing classified information, then I'd have no problem with what he did. What is "right" in my mind is accepting the contract that he agreed to willingly. He can violate it, but only if he accepts the punishment. Punishment for violating the contract is included in the contract, so by leaking the information and accepting the punishment stated within the contract when he signed it (whether specific or broad) he would still have stood by his word.
How do you so readily dismiss the fact that Dow broke the contract first? Have we sunk into such a moral abyss that not even implied-in-fact exists anymore?
 

Stryker989

Hoodrat
25
14
7
How do you so readily dismiss the fact that Dow broke the contract first?
I overlooked the fact that it's banned. But upon reading that and taking it into consideration, I'd think that since the company broke the law and their contract, their legitimacy is gone and my contract should no longer be valid, so I'd attempt to do something about their breaking of a contract first.
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,320
4,965
257
I overlooked the fact that it's banned. But upon reading that and taking it into consideration, I'd think that since the company broke the law and their contract, their legitimacy is gone and my contract should no longer be valid, so I'd attempt to do something about their breaking of a contract first.
So now you're no longer in the position of defending the merit of Snowden's contract. Now you're obligated to show how the NSA didn't break the law.
 

Stryker989

Hoodrat
25
14
7
So now you're no longer in the position of defending the merit of Snowden's contract. Now you're obligated to show how the NSA didn't break the law.
The NSA collected all of this data under the PRISM surveillance program. PRISM was created and put into use under the Protect America Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush.
 

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,782
5,440
487
The NSA collected all of this data under the PRISM surveillance program. PRISM was created and put into use under the Protect America Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush.
And so the Government violated the law by passing an unconstitutional act. Therefore by your own admission the government is in violation of the Constitution violating the First amendment, the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth amendments. Using their own broad interpretations of the constitution it may be construed that they also violated the Seventh amendment, Article 1, section 8 clause three; if you give me enough time I'm sure I can find more.

To your statement "Freedom of speech exists, yes, but it doesn't mean anyone can say anything they want, including Snowden" The fuck it doesn't. If someone can not say whatever they want then speech is abridged and infringed upon and is no longer free. If this is what you believe I feel sorry for you and you are likely part of the problem rather than the solution.

Judging by your name and avatar coupled with some other things you've said elsewhere It would lead me to believe you are either in the military or have close ties to someone that is. If this is the case then you should surely do more reading on the Constitution and what freedom and justice means, as you are obligated to by your oath. If you are not, you should do it anyway so that you can appreciate the gravity of the times.

Let us further consider that the US Government is in violation of the Whistleblower protection act, and Presidential policy directive 19, in direct relation to the subject of Snowden.

You must understand that simply because government passes a law or legislation that passes a weak constitutional muster does not change basic and reasonable interpretations of what is constitutional or even right and just. It is precisely because people suppose that its legal and right because its a law that tyranny is able to creep into anyone's life. The fact that you so readily accept it into your life should be cause enough for you to completely re-evaluate your thinking on very fundamental levels.

What is freedom to you? What is tyranny? What is the role of government?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: jujubee

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,320
4,965
257
To your statement "Freedom of speech exists, yes, but it doesn't mean anyone can say anything they want, including Snowden" The fuck it doesn't. If someone can not say whatever they want then speech is abridged and infringed upon and is no longer free. If this is what you believe I feel sorry for you and you are likely part of the problem rather than the solution.
He can answer for himself but I took that to mean you can't yell FIRE in a movie theater. If that is his angle then I would simply request a reasonable correlation between what Snowden did and yelling FIRE in a movie theater. I would also recommend he review The Alien and Sedition Acts which criminalized the act of speaking out against the federal government. I believe its relevant.

Judging by your name and avatar coupled with some other things you've said elsewhere It would lead me to believe you are either in the military or have close ties to someone that is. If this is the case then you should surely do more reading on the Constitution and what freedom and justice means, as you are obligated to by your oath. If you are not, you should do it anyway so that you can appreciate the gravity of the times.
If he chooses to take you up on your suggestion I would hope he pays very close attention to "enemies, foreign and domestic". Here is where I ought to dump a bunch of B. Franklin quotes but I won't.



Let us further consider that the US Government is in violation of the Whistleblower protection act, and Presidential policy directive 19, in direct relation to the subject of Snowden.
It isn't just a sidebar coincidence that the Obama regime has charged more individuals under the Espionage Act and prosecuted whisteblowers more than all other administrations combined.


It is precisely because people suppose that its legal and right because its a law that tyranny is able to creep into anyone's life. The fact that you so readily accept it into your life should be cause enough for you to completely re-evaluate your thinking on very fundamental levels.
 

Stryker989

Hoodrat
25
14
7
After going over all of the posts on these two pages and doing research into the subject based off of the responses I've received, I respectfully admit defeat. Granted, I should've known more about the subject already and usually do try to be more knowledgeable before going into something, but I didn't and can't change that. There are still a couple points I either don't understand well enough yet or I do and I disagree with, but this has shown me the errors in my way of thinking about the issue. This is the kind of conversation I really needed to have in order to understand the issue a lot better and I thank you for that.
 
  • 1Aww
Reactions: jujubee

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,782
5,440
487
After going over all of the posts on these two pages and doing research into the subject based off of the responses I've received, I respectfully admit defeat. Granted, I should've known more about the subject already and usually do try to be more knowledgeable before going into something, but I didn't and can't change that. There are still a couple points I either don't understand well enough yet or I do and I disagree with, but this has shown me the errors in my way of thinking about the issue. This is the kind of conversation I really needed to have in order to understand the issue a lot better and I thank you for that.
You weren't defeated. You were shown another perspective, some aspects of which you didn't disagree. The point of conversation is to grow.

It is best to discuss what you understand not what you wish to understand. Only when you outline your position and see alternate views can a person grow.

If there are any points you wish to go over privately I'm more than willing. I would like to understand your point of view more. It helps me cultivate my own.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: jujubee and Stryker989

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,782
5,440
487
Good luck at college dude.
I've gone toe to toe with schools before. Unfortunately they fall into a category called a non-public forum. This actually allows for the suspension of certain ASPECTS of constitutional rights. The best way around it is to look into their financials and manipulate their policies against them.

It won't be my first rodeo and certainly not my last. I will more than likely be part of student government... in the event that I don't make it into the club I'll be their biggest opposition and create a rival organization.

I'm actually looking forward to all the confrontations I'm likely to have.