4 ms·

The only instance of Hanssen causing deaths seem to be when he exposed "Martynov and Motorin" to be working for the FBI. They were arrested, tried, convicted an

The only instance of Hanssen causing deaths seem to be when he exposed "Martynov and Motorin" to be working for the FBI. They were arrested, tried, convicted and executed by the Soviet government. Getting corrupt spies to be exposed doesn't really seem to be a great datum to back your argument. He might have actually saved more lives indirectly since he stopped them from leaking secret Soviet information to the US. Anything else?

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
the rejection of examples of what was requested is weak labeling the victims as "corrupt" is also weak saying 'ok you're right but maybe it's a good thing' is weak none of the arguments really seem great against the evidence presented. anything else?
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago
  Right, as I supposed.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  What's the strongest evidence you have? The example provided isn't very compelling in my view.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    What's the strongest argument you have against the evidence presented? Your personal convincing isn't really pertinent to the fact that the example given fits the request: someone killed as a result of an intel leak.
    - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
      > the example given fits the request: someone killed as a result of an intel leak Two corrupt spies being regularly tried and executed is definitely not "tons troughout history". That was your claim, not "someone killed as a result of an intel leak", and if all you have is other spies dying then I don't have any problem with it. What I would have a problem with is civilian deaths resulting from leaks, but for what I see generally leaks reveal more often unauthorized civilian killings than they cause them.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        here is a list of things you think matter here, but which do not actually matter here, because the example presented satisfied the condition of a person killed due to an intel leak: - whether you agree with the killing - whether it is 2 or 2 million - what their profession is - whether they are civilians - whether you personally think they're corrupt - what you personally have a problem with literally none of your above views matter to the question here, because the question was whether an intel leak has ever gotten people killed (meaning >1), not "what do you, a random person on the internet, think about the fact that intel leaks have gotten people killed" QED. anything else? Maybe the killings doesn't count because it's Tuesday, or some other new silly exclusionary criteria you made up?
        infamouscow 3y ago
        The purpose of the comment section is to elucidate ideas. It's not for playing stupid one-upping games. I'm asking for stronger evidence because the example provided is not very good given the obvious vocational risk with being a spy. Presumably there are stronger examples available. Also, whistleblower policy has been a subject of presidential campaigns (Obama 2008). Fixating on a false choice is going to draw the ire of many who have written books and debating this topic at great depth and length.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        as it turns out, no "stronger" evidence is needed of >1 people of any type being killed as a result of an intelligence leak, since very good examples were already presented sorry you don't like the people in the examples (or maybe just don't like how they prove the claim right) but your opinion of them doesn't really matter, as my previous post says. The only thing that matters is that evidence was presented of >1 people being killed by an intelligence leak. QED. any other stupid 1-upping games, to avoid the fact that the claim has been proven true?
        pastacacioepepe 3y ago

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

the rejection of examples of what was requested is weak labeling the victims as "corrupt" is also weak saying 'ok you're right but maybe it's a good thing' is weak none of the arguments really seem great against the evidence presented. anything else?

pastacacioepepe 3y ago
Right, as I supposed.
infamouscow 3y ago
What's the strongest evidence you have? The example provided isn't very compelling in my view.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  What's the strongest argument you have against the evidence presented? Your personal convincing isn't really pertinent to the fact that the example given fits the request: someone killed as a result of an intel leak.
  - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
    > the example given fits the request: someone killed as a result of an intel leak Two corrupt spies being regularly tried and executed is definitely not "tons troughout history". That was your claim, not "someone killed as a result of an intel leak", and if all you have is other spies dying then I don't have any problem with it. What I would have a problem with is civilian deaths resulting from leaks, but for what I see generally leaks reveal more often unauthorized civilian killings than they cause them.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      here is a list of things you think matter here, but which do not actually matter here, because the example presented satisfied the condition of a person killed due to an intel leak: - whether you agree with the killing - whether it is 2 or 2 million - what their profession is - whether they are civilians - whether you personally think they're corrupt - what you personally have a problem with literally none of your above views matter to the question here, because the question was whether an intel leak has ever gotten people killed (meaning >1), not "what do you, a random person on the internet, think about the fact that intel leaks have gotten people killed" QED. anything else? Maybe the killings doesn't count because it's Tuesday, or some other new silly exclusionary criteria you made up?
      - infamouscow 3y ago
        The purpose of the comment section is to elucidate ideas. It's not for playing stupid one-upping games. I'm asking for stronger evidence because the example provided is not very good given the obvious vocational risk with being a spy. Presumably there are stronger examples available. Also, whistleblower policy has been a subject of presidential campaigns (Obama 2008). Fixating on a false choice is going to draw the ire of many who have written books and debating this topic at great depth and length.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        as it turns out, no "stronger" evidence is needed of >1 people of any type being killed as a result of an intelligence leak, since very good examples were already presented sorry you don't like the people in the examples (or maybe just don't like how they prove the claim right) but your opinion of them doesn't really matter, as my previous post says. The only thing that matters is that evidence was presented of >1 people being killed by an intelligence leak. QED. any other stupid 1-upping games, to avoid the fact that the claim has been proven true?
        pastacacioepepe 3y ago