6 ms·

How the hell is this a case of Poe's Law? It's an even-handed treatment of a contentious subject. I recognise that there are legitimate concerns, but that not e

by zeveb 11y ago

How the hell is this a case of Poe's Law? It's an even-handed treatment of a contentious subject. I recognise that there are legitimate concerns, but that not everyone may be permitted to determine to his satisfaction whether those concerns are correct or not. I recognise that folks must be trusted, but also that they must be held accountable. Where's the crazy, nigh-parodic fundamentalism in that?

mindslight 11y ago
Assertions the above passage makes (please correct if I've misconstrued): 1. People don't have a right to examine the activities of their government 2. People don't have a right to speak freely about what has been made public 3. People must trust auditors who work in secret 4. Humble yourself so you can never declare right from wrong (and therefore only believe whoever is in power) I guess the comment could be considered even-handed, just in a narrow artificial context that basically guarantees a specific conclusion. That context seems similar to how someone would think if they officially handled classified information, a role which would clearly make them a fundamentalist.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > 1. People don't have a right to examine the activities of their government How do you propose to keep things secret while permitting any citizen to examine them? Do you deny that some things need to be secret, or do you deny that some citizens would reveal things which should remain secret? Or do you have a way to keep things secret and publicise them at the same time? > 2. People don't have a right to speak freely about what has been made public No, people aren't right to do so. There's a difference: I have a right to pour egg whites and sand in my hair, but I'm a lunatic if I do. > 3. People must trust auditors who work in secret Again, what is your proposal which keeps things secret and yet public? > 4. Humble yourself so you can never declare right from wrong No, have a sense of humility. You and I are two people out of about 350 million. I may believe something is wrong, and I could be right; but if everyone says I'm not…I should at least consider the possibility. Likewise, one must recognise that neither the law nor the Constitution mandate all good things, or forbid all bad things: plenty of things I dislike I perfectly constitutional, and plenty of things I like are not mandatory. I don't get a veto over the rest of the nation; neither do you.
scott_s 11y ago
I had difficulty figuring out, at first, if you were serious or not. I'm still not sure if you realize that the secret documents he showed are easily and publicly available to the internet.

by zeveb 11y ago

mindslight 11y ago

Assertions the above passage makes (please correct if I've misconstrued): 1. People don't have a right to examine the activities of their government 2. People don't have a right to speak freely about what has been made public 3. People must trust auditors who work in secret 4. Humble yourself so you can never declare right from wrong (and therefore only believe whoever is in power) I guess the comment could be considered even-handed, just in a narrow artificial context that basically guarantees a specific conclusion. That context seems similar to how someone would think if they officially handled classified information, a role which would clearly make them a fundamentalist.

zeveb 11y ago
> 1. People don't have a right to examine the activities of their government How do you propose to keep things secret while permitting any citizen to examine them? Do you deny that some things need to be secret, or do you deny that some citizens would reveal things which should remain secret? Or do you have a way to keep things secret and publicise them at the same time? > 2. People don't have a right to speak freely about what has been made public No, people aren't right to do so. There's a difference: I have a right to pour egg whites and sand in my hair, but I'm a lunatic if I do. > 3. People must trust auditors who work in secret Again, what is your proposal which keeps things secret and yet public? > 4. Humble yourself so you can never declare right from wrong No, have a sense of humility. You and I are two people out of about 350 million. I may believe something is wrong, and I could be right; but if everyone says I'm not…I should at least consider the possibility. Likewise, one must recognise that neither the law nor the Constitution mandate all good things, or forbid all bad things: plenty of things I dislike I perfectly constitutional, and plenty of things I like are not mandatory. I don't get a veto over the rest of the nation; neither do you.

scott_s 11y ago

I had difficulty figuring out, at first, if you were serious or not. I'm still not sure if you realize that the secret documents he showed are easily and publicly available to the internet.