2 ms·

> Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them. maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelev

> 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.

pastacacioepepe 4y ago
> 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 > 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 No. I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall, so my claim is that it doesn't matter if leaks sometimes cause deaths as leaks save more lives than they take, especially the lives of innocents. And by the way my claim is 100% clear in all of my comments. If you choose to engage me then accept to debate my claim or stop wasting time. > Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak? This is a ridiculous thing to debate on, and you know it really well. Next thing we're going to debate idiotic stuff like "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by drinking too much water?" If all you cared about was "winning" the debate on a technicality, congratulations! Shame that it doesn't amount to anything in the real world. If the point was to have a constructive discussion and gain some additional insight on the topic, then this was a complete waste of time, at least as long as you refuse to listen what other people have to say and fixate on a technicality.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  > I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall No. You're arguing with the claim that intelligence leaks have killed greater than 1 humans in history. Everything else is a distraction from that question. If you can't agree on a common set of facts, like that one, you aren't ready to graduate to the next discussion, whether it be a comparative discussion of net benefits or anything else. And by the way that claim is 100% clear in all of my comments. If you choose to engage me then accept to discuss that claim or stop wasting time. Your inability to acknowledge the simple truth of the claim we're discussing shows you to be the one treating this as a debate, and you're the one insisting on "winning" by refusing to acknowledge even a basic set of facts. Until you can do that, you're not ready for the next topic, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon that shared set of facts. It's like trying to discuss the circumference of earth with someone who refuses to acknowledge it's round(ish).
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by drinking too much water?" "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by having too vigorous sex?" "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by getting into a heated discussion about a stupid topic?" "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by riding a bike?" I rest my case, this is a complete waste of time and I give it up.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      if the question of whether people have died as a result of intelligence leaks is a waste of time for you, then you should not have made your reply to the thread that asked this question and answered it ("yes"), in which you argued with that answer by failing to acknowledge the answer (again: "yes"), you fail to graduate to the next discussion, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon a shared understanding of facts otherwise, it'd be like discussing the circumference of earth with one who fails to even acknowledge its roundness: you simply don't get to discuss the implications of the facts while you're arguing with those very facts your own post above illustrates how bizarre it is that you're unable to acknowledge something so obviously true: should we expect you next to similarly refuse to acknowledge people have ever died from sex or bicycling or drinking too much water?

pastacacioepepe 4y ago

> 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 > 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 No. I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall, so my claim is that it doesn't matter if leaks sometimes cause deaths as leaks save more lives than they take, especially the lives of innocents. And by the way my claim is 100% clear in all of my comments. If you choose to engage me then accept to debate my claim or stop wasting time. > Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak? This is a ridiculous thing to debate on, and you know it really well. Next thing we're going to debate idiotic stuff like "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by drinking too much water?" If all you cared about was "winning" the debate on a technicality, congratulations! Shame that it doesn't amount to anything in the real world. If the point was to have a constructive discussion and gain some additional insight on the topic, then this was a complete waste of time, at least as long as you refuse to listen what other people have to say and fixate on a technicality.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
> I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall No. You're arguing with the claim that intelligence leaks have killed greater than 1 humans in history. Everything else is a distraction from that question. If you can't agree on a common set of facts, like that one, you aren't ready to graduate to the next discussion, whether it be a comparative discussion of net benefits or anything else. And by the way that claim is 100% clear in all of my comments. If you choose to engage me then accept to discuss that claim or stop wasting time. Your inability to acknowledge the simple truth of the claim we're discussing shows you to be the one treating this as a debate, and you're the one insisting on "winning" by refusing to acknowledge even a basic set of facts. Until you can do that, you're not ready for the next topic, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon that shared set of facts. It's like trying to discuss the circumference of earth with someone who refuses to acknowledge it's round(ish).
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by drinking too much water?" "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by having too vigorous sex?" "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by getting into a heated discussion about a stupid topic?" "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by riding a bike?" I rest my case, this is a complete waste of time and I give it up.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    if the question of whether people have died as a result of intelligence leaks is a waste of time for you, then you should not have made your reply to the thread that asked this question and answered it ("yes"), in which you argued with that answer by failing to acknowledge the answer (again: "yes"), you fail to graduate to the next discussion, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon a shared understanding of facts otherwise, it'd be like discussing the circumference of earth with one who fails to even acknowledge its roundness: you simply don't get to discuss the implications of the facts while you're arguing with those very facts your own post above illustrates how bizarre it is that you're unable to acknowledge something so obviously true: should we expect you next to similarly refuse to acknowledge people have ever died from sex or bicycling or drinking too much water?