• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Wikileaks (2 Viewers)

Do you support wikileak's actions?

  • Yes

    Votes: 63 90.0%
  • No

    Votes: 7 10.0%

  • Total voters
    70

cosmo kramer

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,582
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
inalienable right lol

what the fuck is that

where is the human right gene or organ anyway

is it the appendix b/c i don't have one
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
They have a right to private opinions and conversations. They should be held mercilessly accountable for their decisions, not for what they say behind closed doors in confidence. Most of these leaked "diplomatic cables" have yielded worthless gossip which has only served to embarrass individuals the leakers don't like. It has prised a freedom(inalienable or not) from the grasp of law abiding citizens without yielding a tangible benefit and deny it though you might, you are defending it because the victims have such staunchly different political ideologies to your own.
you are so fucking stupid and dogmatic that it isn't funny.

Firstly, most of the conversations recorded by the cables aren't private conversations between private individuals. They are candid, off the record exchanges between government officials acting in their official capacity. They weren't talking about what they had for lunch or how many times they've had sex in the past week at a fucking party, they were talking about issues that were of concern to their respective governments in an official setting. They knew who their counterparts were, they knew that what they were saying would be recorded, and in most cases were being recorded in their presence, and shared. Volenti non fit injuria. If they didn't want anybody to know what their real thoughts were, they shouldn't have shared them.

Secondly, there are no such things as "inalienable rights". Politicians give up their right of privacy the moment they run for public office, the same way criminals give up their right of liberty, and in some cases their right of life, the moment they commit a crime. A free flow of information is vital to the functioning of a democracy. We vote for a public official based on his policies and some other criteria eg his character, education, past experience etc. It is essential that information regarding these aspects of the politician be made readily available to public scrutiny. We need to know what he really thinks about an political issue, both in public and in private. We need to know what his policies really are. How else would we be able to make an informed decision? How would we determine who to vote for? You might as well decide by flipping a coin.
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
A weak argument by your standards, there are much better ones you could have used. I serve my boss and survive on his money but do I follow his instructions to a fine point? Absolutely not if I did that I'd be wandering round a empty part of the warehouse for half my shift twiddling my thumbs, meanwhile in another section they'd have switched off the machine because the lanes are about to clog. Do I tell my boss each and everything I do at the warehouse and the reasons for it? Absolutely not, would it assist the company, the clients and anyone else concerned if I did? Well it might get someone else a job because the DC was running less efficiently but otherwise, absolutely not.
what a shitty analogy. Your boss doesn't give a shit how you do your job, only that you do it; and if your boss had hired you based on your professed enthusiasm for your job and your respect for the company then he would want to know if that's what you really think. Similarly, we don't give a shit how a politician does his job, or what his dental habits are. We only wish to know what his policies and his views on his opponents etc really are, because those kind of things influence our voting decision.

Because in many other cases they have been silly gossip which upon leakage only served to distract and undermine these powerful men and women who carry in their hands this nation and other nations future prosperities. As for "making misrepresentations", you clearly understood what I said so there was no need to paraphrase. So what business of yours is it if Krudd call moon "Spanky Banky" to his private staff?
if his high praise of moon in public played a part in my decision to vote for him, then at the next election I would be having second thoughts; should someone who has similar policies but a genuine respect for moon come along, he would be getting my vote. How is it not relevant?

I did, I said you were wrong remember.
impeccable logic!!! you are wrong because I said so!!!1111!111! wow!!111!

no, you are wrong!11!! You're a fucking retarded cum stain!11!! Why? because I fucking said so, therefore it must be true!!11!!31!@#1!

For the love of yahweh, please give everybody some sort of logical justification for your position that goes beyond a completely unfounded assertion that such a right is 'inalienable'. This 'right to privacy in government' nonsense has been attacked numerous times, yet you stubbornly insist on restating it and simply accuse the other interlocutor of being 'wrong'. This cycle has already repeated itself several times over in this thread. Remedy this or gtfo.
what do you expect? he's a fucking retarded catholic, people like him have been using sophistry and fallacious logic in support of their fucking retarded arguments for centuries.
 

Rothbard

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,118
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
They have a right to private opinions and conversations.
Though you would posit that someone telling a joke in the workforce is inappropriate or sexual harassment? You're a hypocrite.

They should be held mercilessly accountable for their decisions, not for what they say behind closed doors in confidence.
The fact that they say these things in confidence allows them to say one thing and do another, for which they are not held to account


Most of these leaked "diplomatic cables" have yielded worthless gossip which has only served to embarrass individuals the leakers don't like.
So you're against them because they undermine our democratic processes and yet they're all gossip? What utter nonsense
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks

It has prised a freedom(inalienable or not) from the grasp of law abiding citizens without yielding a tangible benefit and deny it though you might, you are defending it because the victims have such staunchly different political ideologies to your own.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks

We have learned a great deal about how duplicitous and malfeasant the diplomatic corps are.
 

Rothbard

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,118
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I'm glad Lentern has such a loyalty to the diplomatic corps that he wants to protect and provide cover for torturers.
 

davidbarnes

Trainee Mȯderatȯr
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
1,459
Location
NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
I like Wikileaks and the concept etc, although I personally dislike Julian Assange. That guy is just a weirdo.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top