quote:

Originally posted by Lira By the way, this discussion is clearly going nowhere.

So state your opinion on what level of privacy a government should have when dealing with a foreign government? Let me get some sort of baseline on your opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Maybe I'm old fashion, I like my boundaries. Like if you had sex on the kitchen table, it might be a little weird eating breakfast off of it the next morning.

Well you do clean it afterwards, its not like you dip the toast into leftover cum.

___________________

Well, maybe IGK does.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby lol wut?

Well if resorting on a random dude for information is dangerous, then what does one say about a media conglomerate with a clear and dangerous agenda.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby So state your opinion on what level of privacy a government should have when dealing with a foreign government? Let me get some sort of baseline on your opinion.

Citizens might need privacy; governments don't (if a covert operation is necessary, then you might keep it temporarily secret, but it should come out in the open sooner or later).

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Well if resorting on a random dude for information is dangerous, then what does one say about a media conglomerate with a clear and dangerous agenda.

If you are talking about Fox News then you are off base, they are not a serious source of news, and the idiots that think it is are off their rockers.

News needs to be objective and unbiased and allow the public to discern the truth from it or the intention. The problem is most people are fucking lazy or too stupid to do that so they want it fed to them. They want to be told what to think, and Wikileaks is just another source of that.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Citizens might need privacy; governments don't (if a covert operation is necessary, then you might keep it temporarily secret, but it should come out in the open sooner or later).

Governments are supposed to represent and do what is in the best interest of their citizens. There are cases where that needs to be kept secret. International relationships are very complex, you might be friends with someone and their enemy, but the resulting relationships benefit your citizens. If things came to light and compromised one of those relationships you have hurt your citizens.

Your citizens not knowing about these special relationships helped them, having them public knowledge hurts them because once it is public in a free and open society then it is public to the world.

If you feel that all your governments information should be for public consumption, would you agree that also all information that is public should only be allowed to exist inside the walls of your state? Would this be a better solution? No information out, only in.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby If you are talking about Fox News then you are off base, they are not a serious source of news, and the idiots that think it is are off their rockers. News needs to be objective and unbiased and allow the public to discern the truth from it or the intention. The problem is most people are fucking lazy or too stupid to do that so they want it fed to them. They want to be told what to think, and Wikileaks is just another source of that.

Well, then you live in a country with an abnormally high retard population.

And if we continoue farther, by your own arguments what wikileaks is doing could be considered the purest form of news, since they deliver raw data. unbiased, objective and the public can discern the truth from it without any outside input.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Well, then you live in a country with an abnormally high retard population. And if we continoue farther, by your own arguments what wikileaks is doing could be considered the purest form of news, since they deliver raw data. unbiased, objective and the public can discern the truth from it without any outside input.

If you can trust that wikileaks is providing that raw information in an unbiased way. Maybe releasing some things and not others, maybe painting a picture using only specific cables to reach their agenda.

What I am saying is you should not trust an organization where their stated goal is to cause disruption.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Maybe I'm old fashion, I like my boundaries. Like if you had sex on the kitchen table, it might be a little weird eating breakfast off of it the next morning.

only if you didn't wipe it off afterwards

___________________
BA-DUM-TSS

quote:

ALFI - BOHICA - DJ MIX (Stream+Dropbox)

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby If you can trust that wikileaks is providing that raw information in an unbiased way. Maybe releasing some things and not others, maybe painting a picture using only specific cables to reach their agenda. What I am saying is you should not trust an organization where their stated goal is to cause disruption.

If such is a price for more transpareny and truth then so be it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose If such is a price for more transpareny and truth then so be it.

So everything a government does should be transparent always, to everyone, citizen or not?

There is no way to guarantee that. Who says your country is transparent and another not, or vica versa? What if another country appears to be transparent but it is just a ruse, where your country is actually transparent and they gain the upper hand?

Again, people simplifying and imagining things in a Utopian fantasy land.