mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 5, 2011 13:27:54 GMT -5
So, you'd rather have a lot more people at that level, and every other level (above and below) have that information? Okay. That's your choice, I suppose.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on May 5, 2011 13:37:44 GMT -5
That's not what I said. I said that lies and deceptions are sometimes necessary to protect something far more valuable than my "right" to know something. I've said this before, but it is worth repeating here: Sometimes the necessary thing to do is not always the right thing to do. That doesn't make it any less necessary. Our world is far from perfect, and while it remains so, there will be times - too many times - when all of us, including politicians, will have to choose the lesser of two evils rather than between good and evil. This isn't a very good example because the actions of my husband would be my business because it directly pertains to me. Who really told America where Osama was does not directly affect me (and 99.9999% of other Americans) in any way whatsoever. This kind of information would be used for message board posting, talk around the dinner table, or idle chat on a long car trip. It would be purely academic and has no practical relevance to my life. The source of the information, however, could find himself (or his family) in extreme danger if Al Qaeda ever learned who was directly responsible. Not telling us directly affects the information source. So when it comes time to decide whether or not to withhold information from the American people, I think our right to merely know is trumped by the endangered lives that need to be protected. Again, a poor example since having the cure would have a direct impact on millions of people. This isn't merely knowing something. The knowledge has a practical, tangible effect on a large percentage of the population. On the contrary. I wouldn't be surprised at all if cancer cures were withheld. Cancer is the cash cow of Big Pharma and Big Health. Why would they be quick to give it up by introducing a cure? A for-profit health industry makes money by keeping people sick and treating them over long periods of time, not by curing them. Sorry, but I can never believe lies are necessary. That is just a ridiculous notion. If lies are necessary then who is to say when they are necessary and then a crackhead can say his lies are necessary. Just because you believe lies are necessary in one way does that mean that lies are not necessary in ways you don't believe them to be? The whole cure to cancer example wasn't a poor example. If it was then your saying terrorism affecting millions is a poor example also. Say the government knew where Osama was since 2003, but they left him there to track and gather intel. Yet in the mean time other terrorist attacks have been committed and thousands of lives could have been saved. I am pretty sure that the 9/11 affected more than only .1% of the population, with the markets and the people that donated or helped the fallen/fallen's families. Open you mind a little there is always a bigger picture, hence why I would like to know all that I can. You say are right to know is trumped, but yet I am assuming that you can't go into an alternate time reality to see if the information being released could have saved lives. If somebody tells you it is top secret then you just assume you shouldn't know. If somebody tells me it is top secret, I would like to judge that for myself. People that just accept something, because they assume that it is good for them is the reason that the human race will never evolve to its full potential.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on May 5, 2011 13:43:11 GMT -5
So, you'd rather have a lot more people at that level, and every other level (above and below) have that information? Okay. That's your choice, I suppose. Well, I try to be optimistic on how good the human race could be. I am sure you are right and the human race just is not intelligent enough or morale enough to handle the truth(I am assuming that is your meaning). If the race is that bad off, then what is the point of living? All that is going to happen is the ignorance of current generations are going to blissfully destroy future generations.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on May 5, 2011 13:57:14 GMT -5
So you would actually sacrifice lives just to know something, even if it gave you no real benefit? Do you ever keep secrets, even between friends? Do you betray trusts and confidences because you feel everyone has the right to know everything about everyone?
I'm just trying to establish a frame of reference here.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on May 5, 2011 14:26:04 GMT -5
So you would actually sacrifice lives just to know something, even if it gave you no real benefit? Do you ever keep secrets, even between friends? Do you betray trusts and confidences because you feel everyone has the right to know everything about everyone? I'm just trying to establish a frame of reference here. Ok, I don't know one thing that I have learned that has directly or indirectly sacrificed lives. A little confused about that comment there. I try my hardest no to, I am not perfect.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on May 5, 2011 14:36:34 GMT -5
Well, let's see if I can explain it a little better.
Suppose a person named John knows about a major drug ring operating near his home. He calls the police to tell them where it is, but in so doing, he puts his life in danger. Should anyone find out that he was the one who tipped off the police, he would be killed.
So the police raid the place and manage to arrest most, but not all, of the people involved. When the raid hits the local newspapers, the public begins to ask how the police found out about the drug ring.
Is it appropriate for the police to give John's name to the press, knowing that there's a good chance the drug kingpins will have him killed? Does the public's idle curiosity override John's safety?
Or should the police give some false story of how they found the drug ring that doesn't involve John at all? Even telling the press that they received an anonymous tip might lead the drug kingpins to suspect John.
This kind of situation happens a lot, more than you realize.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on May 5, 2011 15:17:05 GMT -5
Maybe he would have more protection if the whole neighborhood knew that it was him and could look out for anything suspicious going on. Who is to say that the kingpin wouldn't have somebody on the inside that would give it up and then you would feel safe yet you would be in more danger than if your neighbors could look out for you.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 5, 2011 16:02:26 GMT -5
That's not what I said. I said that lies and deceptions are sometimes necessary to protect something far more valuable than my "right" to know something. I've said this before, but it is worth repeating here: Sometimes the necessary thing to do is not always the right thing to do. That doesn't make it any less necessary. Our world is far from perfect, and while it remains so, there will be times - too many times - when all of us, including politicians, will have to choose the lesser of two evils rather than between good and evil. This isn't a very good example because the actions of my husband would be my business because it directly pertains to me. Who really told America where Osama was does not directly affect me (and 99.9999% of other Americans) in any way whatsoever. This kind of information would be used for message board posting, talk around the dinner table, or idle chat on a long car trip. It would be purely academic and has no practical relevance to my life. The source of the information, however, could find himself (or his family) in extreme danger if Al Qaeda ever learned who was directly responsible. Not telling us directly affects the information source. So when it comes time to decide whether or not to withhold information from the American people, I think our right to merely know is trumped by the endangered lives that need to be protected. Again, a poor example since having the cure would have a direct impact on millions of people. This isn't merely knowing something. The knowledge has a practical, tangible effect on a large percentage of the population. On the contrary. I wouldn't be surprised at all if cancer cures were withheld. Cancer is the cash cow of Big Pharma and Big Health. Why would they be quick to give it up by introducing a cure? A for-profit health industry makes money by keeping people sick and treating them over long periods of time, not by curing them. Sorry, but I can never believe lies are necessary. That is just a ridiculous notion. If lies are necessary then who is to say when they are necessary and then a crackhead can say his lies are necessary. Just because you believe lies are necessary in one way does that mean that lies are not necessary in ways you don't believe them to be? The whole cure to cancer example wasn't a poor example. If it was then your saying terrorism affecting millions is a poor example also. Say the government knew where Osama was since 2003, but they left him there to track and gather intel. Yet in the mean time other terrorist attacks have been committed and thousands of lives could have been saved. I am pretty sure that the 9/11 affected more than only .1% of the population, with the markets and the people that donated or helped the fallen/fallen's families. Open you mind a little there is always a bigger picture, hence why I would like to know all that I can. You say are right to know is trumped, but yet I am assuming that you can't go into an alternate time reality to see if the information being released could have saved lives. If somebody tells you it is top secret then you just assume you shouldn't know. If somebody tells me it is top secret, I would like to judge that for myself. People that just accept something, because they assume that it is good for them is the reason that the human race will never evolve to its full potential. There are lies and there is misinformation..technically the same yet in some cases , used by intelligence organizations, military happenings, "fog of War ", confuse the enemy, law enforcement, not letting the bad guys what's really known in cases to stop copy cat, break a habit, correct mistakes , in other words acceptable. Your assumption , "but I can never believe lies are necessary." and your thought "If somebody tells me it is top secret, I would like to judge that for myself." , and in that , you decide it is not important and let the "top secret out " , it's no longer a top secret so on both your assumptions, with all respect, IMHO, your wrong. On some things, important ones , they, lies, misinformation is correct and necessary and if in a case it is done and then found out after the fact , not necessary, well by then it will be let out and as far as when kept secret, if done in good conscious for the better good of what ever, innocents, country's security, safe completion of a mission, well then so be it. So many examples of, one comes two mind in late early 1944. In a rehearsal for the D day invasion, two or three German E boats, their equivalent to our PT boats of the time, got loose with in the flotilla of landing craft carrying American Soldiers and by the time they were finished, most of those Americans were dead, by the 100's and 100's, washing onto the Brits beaches for days. The bodies were gathered and secretly buried, nothing in the papers, families not immediately notified I believe, till after the invasion. secrets , no right to know..because to be let out, it could of given the Germans a heads up as to where, how the invasion was going to be done and about when.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 5:37:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 16:37:12 GMT -5
India claims they told US where OBL was
Actually I've heard for more than a few years that we pretty much knew where OBL was located but just couldn't get enough "proof" to tip the scale. Someone I know 4 years ago told me that they (the US) knew where he was (& they had just come back from over there).
|
|