Privacy and the State

[french frank]

I now admit to being totally confused as to what you actually do accept as fact. Read your own posts. I don't need (or wish) to 'twist' anything, it's all there in black and white. I simply take your words at face-value. Make up your mind!

You used the words 'reducing' and 'mere'. I never considered it anything else but 'what he said'. I don't know if it's true, you don't know that it's false. Therefore it's not a 'fact' even if you put quotes round it.

May I invite you to consider the facts: Edward Snowden said he considered he was acting in the public interest. That is a fact. It is not subjective.

The fact that I say 'I believe his claim' is not me claiming to be other than subjective. When you speak of his 'bizarre behaviour fleeing to Russia', you are being subjective. 'Bizarre' is subjective, because I see it as not 'bizarre'. Where 'justice' can mean being sent to the electric chair, fleeing is hardly bizarre behaviour.

A state breaking the law and an individual breaking the law are obviously not identical - whoever said they were? - but that doesn't mean that one is justified if they consider there are good reasons but the other is not justified, even if they also consider they have good reasons. I'm not sure why one would assume Snowden's motivation was not what he stated it to be. Other than that you don't think it a 'good' reason. That wouldn't preclude him thinking it was a 'good' reason (even in the event that he was sadly deluded in that).

And, no, I have not just said I think he was sadly deluded.

[scottycelt]

You used the words 'reducing' and 'mere'. I never considered it anything else but 'what he said'. I don't know if it's true, you don't know that it's false. Therefore it's not a 'fact' even if you put quotes round it.

May I invite you to consider the facts: Edward Snowden said he considered he was acting in the public interest. That is a fact. It is not subjective.

Ah, I seeee ... silly me!

Snowden 'acting in the public interest' is not a fact but an opinion. Snowden saying he is 'acting in the public interest' is a fact not an opinion?

I get it now!

And you accuse me of twisting words?

The fact that I say 'I believe his claim' is not me claiming to be other than subjective. When you speak of his 'bizarre behaviour fleeing to Russia', you are being subjective. 'Bizarre' is subjective, because I see it as not 'bizarre'. Where 'justice' can mean being sent to the electric chair, fleeing is hardly bizarre behaviour.

I have already admitted to being subjective if that is the result of expressing an opinion and now you seem to be doing the same by expressing your opinion and also admitting to subjectivity.

So why the heck do you keep arguing with me ... ?!!!

[french frank]

Ah, I seeee ... silly me!

Snowden 'acting in the public interest' is not a fact but an opinion. Snowden saying he is 'acting in the public interest' is a fact not an opinion?

I get it now!

And you accuse me of twisting words?

I'm glad you get it, but for the others who aren't as sharp as you: the fact is that he said it was his motivation, or that he claimed it was his motivation.

I imagine the reason why I accept his claim is because what he says has positive resonances with me, it makes sense to me, it fits my own views. For you, everything about what he said and did has negative resonances. There really is little more that will change the kind of people we are, and the way we think and feel.

[scottycelt]

I'm glad you get it, but for the others who aren't as sharp as you: the fact is that he said it was his motivation, or that he claimed it was his motivation.

Suddenly I think it may be the right time to retire from this discussion as gracefully as possible ...

imagine the reason why I accept his claim is because what he says has positive resonances with me, it makes sense to me, it fits my own views. For you, everything about what he said and did has negative resonances. There really is little more that will change the kind of people we are, and the way we think and feel.

Quite obviously ... which was the whole point about my mention of 'priorities'!

I accept my views are not necessarily 'fact' and simply expect that others do likewise.

That's all.

[ahinton]

Suddenly I think it may be the right time to retire from this discussion as gracefully as possible ...

Mon Dieu! What took you SOOOOO long?!...

[Mr Pee]

Mon Dieu! What took you SOOOOO long?!...

And I am quite sure that the feeling is mutual...

[ahinton]

And I am quite sure that the feeling is mutual...

What feeling is that, then? Did I suggest that I was ducking out of this discussion?...

[scottycelt]

Mon Dieu! What took you SOOOOO long?!...

Apologies, ahinton, you can now return to your customary practice of dominating the thread with stunning irrelevancies and incomparable long-windedness. :ok:

[ahinton]

Apologies, ahinton, you can now return to your customary practice of dominating the thread with stunning irrelevancies and incomparable long-windedness. :ok:

No need for you to apologise (not in this context anyway) - although, as to the rest of the nonsense that you write here, I will say only that I don't take orders or suggestions from scotty, thank you, so please don't tell me what I can do!

Back to the topic...

[Richard Barrett]

dominating the thread with stunning irrelevancies and incomparable long-windedness

You spotted that then!

[ahinton]

You spotted that then!

I don't actually think that scotty "spots" very much at all, from some of what he writes, any more than I am capable of "stunning" or the "incomparable" in anything that I do; since in any event we (that's you and I, not either of us and scotty, of course!) seem broadly to agree about the subject in its various aspects, however, it might be wise and appropriate to leave it at that and move on to any further discussion of it with which anyone here might wish to continue.

[Mr Pee]

Apologies, ahinton, you can now return to your customary practice of dominating the thread with stunning irrelevancies and incomparable long-windedness. :ok:

Done:-

I don't actually think that scotty "spots" very much at all, from some of what he writes, any more than I am capable of "stunning" or the "incomparable" in anything that I do; since in any event we (that's you and I, not either of us and scotty, of course!) seem broadly to agree about the subject in its various aspects, however, it might be wise and appropriate to leave it at that and move on to any further discussion of it with which anyone here might wish to continue.

<whistle>

[french frank]

Meanwhile, in the real world, German authorities who once belittled these claims as anti-American criticism of activity designed to combat terrorism, are now - as more information emerges - pointing out that American surveillance has not only (apparently) broken US law, it has broken German law in having listening units placed within Germany.

[ahinton]

Meanwhile, in the real world, German authorities who once belittled these claims as anti-American criticism of activity designed to combat terrorism, are now - as more information emerges - pointing out that American surveillance has not only (apparently) broken US law, it has broken German law in having listening units placed within Germany.

Indeed - and, mercifully, back on topic.

Does anyone here have anything to say about this?

[ahinton]

<whistle>

Anyone can whistle (Stephen Sondheim)...