3 ms·

> 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

> 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
      Your claim being true (even tho your "tons of evidence" amounts to 1 weak case so far) or not, the opposite claim is a much stronger and compelling one. Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them. Sources? Abu Grahib for one. How did that leak cause anyone to die? It has probably saved lives or prevented further abuse by causing accountability. Assange's "US Army manual for Guantanamo prison camp" leak. Who knows how much further abuse that prevented from happening? Assange's "Video of US helicopter fire killing civilians in Iraq" And so on, and so on. You could actually say in this case that there are "tons of cases troughout history" and I'm presenting several to you that had a large impact. Where are your tons of cases with large impact? We're still waiting. There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm. Prove otherwise if you can, but careful because if you attempt it you're also proving to me that you don't believe in truth. Another question I have is, why are you more concerned by the potential deaths caused by a leak than by the deaths the leak is exposing?
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them. maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating one simple, objective, yes or no question you can find at the bottom of this post, not comparing anything > There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm same here as above: that's irrelevant to the below question > the opposite claim is a much stronger and compelling one. the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is <=1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, which, again, my example proves false (and is a ridiculous claim to make) the rest of your post repeats, for at least the third time, nothing but irrelevant, mostly emotional opinions, distracting from the topic at hand: Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak? Yes. QED.

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
    Your claim being true (even tho your "tons of evidence" amounts to 1 weak case so far) or not, the opposite claim is a much stronger and compelling one. Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them. Sources? Abu Grahib for one. How did that leak cause anyone to die? It has probably saved lives or prevented further abuse by causing accountability. Assange's "US Army manual for Guantanamo prison camp" leak. Who knows how much further abuse that prevented from happening? Assange's "Video of US helicopter fire killing civilians in Iraq" And so on, and so on. You could actually say in this case that there are "tons of cases troughout history" and I'm presenting several to you that had a large impact. Where are your tons of cases with large impact? We're still waiting. There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm. Prove otherwise if you can, but careful because if you attempt it you're also proving to me that you don't believe in truth. Another question I have is, why are you more concerned by the potential deaths caused by a leak than by the deaths the leak is exposing?
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      > Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them. maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating one simple, objective, yes or no question you can find at the bottom of this post, not comparing anything > There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm same here as above: that's irrelevant to the below question > the opposite claim is a much stronger and compelling one. the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is <=1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, which, again, my example proves false (and is a ridiculous claim to make) the rest of your post repeats, for at least the third time, nothing but irrelevant, mostly emotional opinions, distracting from the topic at hand: Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak? Yes. QED.