5 ms·

Equating means to show how two things are equal. Listing examples of various leaks is not equating them as equally damning or criminal. Stop extrapolating fro

by tmuir 10y ago

Equating means to show how two things are equal. Listing examples of various leaks is not equating them as equally damning or criminal. Stop extrapolating from singular data points to a preconceived conclusion. Put forth a falsefiable hypothesis, and weigh all available evidence. Dont allow prejudice to select the sources of that data.

elmerfud 10y ago
The article writer picked the examples not I. Picking clear abuses of government power veiled (or not) as lawful and then listing clearly lawful activities of Trump as being in the same "leak worthy" statement is the writers bias in equating them. There is your evidence since it was to much to ask you to read the article.
- tmuir 10y ago
  You've chosen to see the world through a binary lens: Either you're with us or against us. The answer to every extreme is to race as fast as possible to the opposite extreme. Shades of gray are illusions. Balance is an illusion. Compromise is an illusion. Either articles support my beliefs or they are false. Any two analogous subjects in the entire universe can be demonstrated to be similar, as well as demonstrated to be different. That is the inherent nature of similarity and analogy. If two analogous subjects were in fact identical in every way, they would cease to be two distinct entities, as they would be identical. In which jurisdiction of The United States of America is it "clearly lawful" to grab women by their genitalia without their consent? What evidence lead you to conclude that I did not read the article? How have you arrived at the unequivocal primacy of your own ideas?
  - elmerfud 10y ago
    "Because they let you" That is consent. Please point out this binary nature in my post. It's not there. You are the one reading with your bias goggles on. I'm pointing out that the article made a strong case for the need of leaks in actual cases on government abuse. Then they undermine their case by including targeted "hit pieces" as useful leaks. If it was unbias then where was the Hillary email leaks? Oh that's right, it again was something targeted to undermine and not to show the value of whistle blowers.
    - tmuir 10y ago
      And Tina Turner head-butted Ike's fist, right?
      - elmerfud 10y ago
        Troll much? Again you're equating two non-equatable things. I'm not sure what your point is as you're starting to not make sense. Where is the binary? You've not pointed it out. Saying that all things are equatable is just silly. Sure you can do it, just like you can mix metaphors, but it makes no sense to do so. Trying to defend the equation of unlawful government abuses and lawful behavior with your bizarre statements is just a prime example of twisted, frothing, hate, with no regard for reasonable discourse.
        tmuir 10y ago
        That's rich. The very paragraph in which I enumerate the examples that back up my assertion, you claim doesn't make sense. Let's keep the goal posts right where they are. After all, the audience left long ago. You can't understand why the intercept's article points out different leaks and how they show a variety of circumstances. Instead you can only see the two extremes. The "two" in my previous sentence is in reference to my initial assertion of your binary nature. The extremes are government conspiracy and sensationalism. You can't allow for a third or Nth option, because of your tendency to view the world in a binary nature. After all, binary means two possibilities. The actual shades of gray here are that information does not need to be damning proof of government conspiracy to be leak worthy. There is in fact an entire spectrum of leak worthiness. This is the true essence of this article. Even if you don't have direct evidence of an unequivocal treasonous crime being committed, there is value in leaking malfeasance of all sorts.
      - tmuir 10y ago
        "because they let you" is the assaulter's excuse, not his absolution.
      - elmerfud 10y ago
        I guess you must have stole from the store. They let you pay and walk out but that wasn't consent. You're thief who just hasn't been charged or arrested yet.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by tmuir 10y ago

elmerfud 10y ago

The article writer picked the examples not I. Picking clear abuses of government power veiled (or not) as lawful and then listing clearly lawful activities of Trump as being in the same "leak worthy" statement is the writers bias in equating them. There is your evidence since it was to much to ask you to read the article.

tmuir 10y ago
You've chosen to see the world through a binary lens: Either you're with us or against us. The answer to every extreme is to race as fast as possible to the opposite extreme. Shades of gray are illusions. Balance is an illusion. Compromise is an illusion. Either articles support my beliefs or they are false. Any two analogous subjects in the entire universe can be demonstrated to be similar, as well as demonstrated to be different. That is the inherent nature of similarity and analogy. If two analogous subjects were in fact identical in every way, they would cease to be two distinct entities, as they would be identical. In which jurisdiction of The United States of America is it "clearly lawful" to grab women by their genitalia without their consent? What evidence lead you to conclude that I did not read the article? How have you arrived at the unequivocal primacy of your own ideas?
- elmerfud 10y ago
  "Because they let you" That is consent. Please point out this binary nature in my post. It's not there. You are the one reading with your bias goggles on. I'm pointing out that the article made a strong case for the need of leaks in actual cases on government abuse. Then they undermine their case by including targeted "hit pieces" as useful leaks. If it was unbias then where was the Hillary email leaks? Oh that's right, it again was something targeted to undermine and not to show the value of whistle blowers.
  - tmuir 10y ago
    And Tina Turner head-butted Ike's fist, right?
    - elmerfud 10y ago
      Troll much? Again you're equating two non-equatable things. I'm not sure what your point is as you're starting to not make sense. Where is the binary? You've not pointed it out. Saying that all things are equatable is just silly. Sure you can do it, just like you can mix metaphors, but it makes no sense to do so. Trying to defend the equation of unlawful government abuses and lawful behavior with your bizarre statements is just a prime example of twisted, frothing, hate, with no regard for reasonable discourse.
      - tmuir 10y ago
        That's rich. The very paragraph in which I enumerate the examples that back up my assertion, you claim doesn't make sense. Let's keep the goal posts right where they are. After all, the audience left long ago. You can't understand why the intercept's article points out different leaks and how they show a variety of circumstances. Instead you can only see the two extremes. The "two" in my previous sentence is in reference to my initial assertion of your binary nature. The extremes are government conspiracy and sensationalism. You can't allow for a third or Nth option, because of your tendency to view the world in a binary nature. After all, binary means two possibilities. The actual shades of gray here are that information does not need to be damning proof of government conspiracy to be leak worthy. There is in fact an entire spectrum of leak worthiness. This is the true essence of this article. Even if you don't have direct evidence of an unequivocal treasonous crime being committed, there is value in leaking malfeasance of all sorts.
    - tmuir 10y ago
      "because they let you" is the assaulter's excuse, not his absolution.
    - elmerfud 10y ago
      I guess you must have stole from the store. They let you pay and walk out but that wasn't consent. You're thief who just hasn't been charged or arrested yet.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]