4 ms·

> I said that the fact that Snowden can be used as an example is evidence of him accomplishing something. How is it evidence of anything more than his fame? It

> I said that the fact that Snowden can be used as an example is evidence of him accomplishing something. How is it evidence of anything more than his fame? It's very counter-intuitive that being brought up as an example of an unaccomplished person is evidence of accomplishment. I don't see how that works. If you want to argue in favor of Snowden having accomplished something important, point out his accomplishments. Your argument is bad and makes it seem like he has none.

Retra 8y ago
What he accomplished was to spark a dialog. That was basically what he set out to do, and his fame is evidence of it, because it can be used to track that dialog. Your argument is predicated on a category error.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  We're currently discussing him in the context of how whistleblowing is ineffective. If that was the conversation he wanted to spark, this is evidence of his success. I believe he wanted to spark a different conversation. Being famous doesn't really indicate on its own that you've sparked any particular conversation, so I don't see how it's evidence of that. What argument do you think I'm making and how is it predicated on a category error?
  - Retra 8y ago
    He did spark a different conversation. So many of them, in fact, that you know his name as a consequence of people having those very conversations. >Being famous doesn't really indicate on its own that you've sparked any particular conversation, so I don't see how it's evidence of that. That's funny. Edward Snowden's name doesn't seem to be brought up in random-ass conversations. He seems to always come up when people are talking about security and surveillance. I wonder if that's a spurious correlation, or if it is evidence of something? Perhaps some kind of impact that he's had on conversations about those very subjects? Perhaps you have a better explanation of this correlation?

Retra 8y ago

What he accomplished was to spark a dialog. That was basically what he set out to do, and his fame is evidence of it, because it can be used to track that dialog. Your argument is predicated on a category error.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
We're currently discussing him in the context of how whistleblowing is ineffective. If that was the conversation he wanted to spark, this is evidence of his success. I believe he wanted to spark a different conversation. Being famous doesn't really indicate on its own that you've sparked any particular conversation, so I don't see how it's evidence of that. What argument do you think I'm making and how is it predicated on a category error?
- Retra 8y ago
  He did spark a different conversation. So many of them, in fact, that you know his name as a consequence of people having those very conversations. >Being famous doesn't really indicate on its own that you've sparked any particular conversation, so I don't see how it's evidence of that. That's funny. Edward Snowden's name doesn't seem to be brought up in random-ass conversations. He seems to always come up when people are talking about security and surveillance. I wonder if that's a spurious correlation, or if it is evidence of something? Perhaps some kind of impact that he's had on conversations about those very subjects? Perhaps you have a better explanation of this correlation?