It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Snowden is the poster child for an UnEthical Generation

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Now go back and count how many posts you made before you felt safe enough to actually say it.

Did I assert he didn't violate the trust of those who hired him?
Though there is a viable argument that those who hired him might have intended him to do this, but that's a different discussion.

Thus it being misguided to apply the word "unethical" to a generation and the situation according to your stated standard of ethics. Word choices matter.

I repeat:

The reaction is not to your assertion of trust being "violated".

The reaction is to your assertion of "UnEthicalness".

edit on 19-7-2013 by ErgoTheEgo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


then what is the point of this thread?? 9/10 is not bad then what is there nit pick about??

I think the people he was working with are just as unethical as he is and there are various people in that organization.

the only reason snowden gets ragged on is because he went against a powerful unethical group.

It is funny how we are all expected to be ethical by society and those who run society are exempt to being ethical.. when they are called out by someone as being unethical the person who did the calling out is the only one focused on as being unethical. he is not doing as he is told as part of the controlled group... the only one who can be unethical is the control group. to top it off the control group then protects the controller group by crapping on the person who decided to be unethical in their favor.

I really don't know the exact motivations for snowden... but if more people had the balls to speak out against things they see wrong in the line of work or society as a whole we would have nipped many things in the bud a LONG TIME ago.. but now we are taught to live ethical in order to cut back on the competition for those who wish to rule and control us.

NSA:"okay mr snowden here in the NSA we are doing unethical things but we expect you to be ethical and not betray our trust in letting the country know we are unethical and betraying their trust okay??"

so it is okay to be unethical as long as you are being unethical when you are unethical against the right group..

I gotcha yeah snowden you are the poster boy of an unethical generation..... I am pretty sure you walked in to the NSA without little to no unethical gens being there before you... before you showed up mr snowden.. everyone in the NSA was ethical in keeping the NSAs unethical practices hidden.. You mr snowden however betrayed our trust and will now be regarded as the poster child of an unethical generation.

yeah cuz unethical behavior in this country didn't exist till snowden gen arrived.

you are just an attention grabber or naive
edit on 19-7-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Now go back and count how many posts you made before you felt safe enough to actually say it.

. [color=gold] Did I assert he didn't violate the trust of those who hired him?
Though there is a viable argument that those who hired him might have intended him to do this, but that's a different discussion.

How many posts before you feel safe enough to adjust the assertion that the decision to seemingly violate the trust of those who hired him was not lacking in ethics, thus being misguided to apply the word "unethical" according to your stated standard of ethics.

I repeat:

The reaction is not to your assertion of trust being "violated".

The reaction is to your assertion of "UnEthicalness".


The absence of a negative, is a double negative.
By failing to assert either way, you expose the government funded hole
planted in the soul of the newer generations.

I am nothing more than a surgeon operating without anesthesia,
because unlike television I like my audience to be awake,
who is removing one tiny piece of scar tissue caused by the Education system in this country.

You have witnessed the tiny pain,
compared to the huge levels of resentment,
one feels when this scab is removed.

I am wearing my lead apron and willing to withstand the blasts.

But now that it is over,
and we can say it together,

"Snowden violated trust, but on balance he exposed a greater violation of trust by doing so."

Was it really that bad?


Mike
edit on 19-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I suspect that the government head shrinkers planted this level of mistrust between the generations on purpose, just like we find the MSM trying to divide us in so many other ways.


Mike



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


then what is the point of this thread?? 9/10 is not bad then what is there nit pick about??

I think the people he was working with are just as unethical as he is and there are various people in that organization.

the only reason snowden gets ragged on is because he went against a powerful unethical group.

It is funny how we are all expected to be ethical by society and those who run society are exempt to being ethical.. when they are called out by someone as being unethical the person who did the calling out is the only one focused on as being unethical. he is not doing as he is told as part of the controlled group... the only one who can be unethical is the control group. to top it off the control group then protects the controller group by crapping on the person who decided to be unethical in their favor.

I really don't know the exact motivations for snowden... but if more people had the balls to speak out against things they see wrong in the line of work or society as a whole we would have nipped many things in the bud a LONG TIME ago.. but now we are taught to live ethical in order to cut back on the competition for those who wish to rule and control us.

NSA:"okay mr snowden here in the NSA we are doing unethical things but we expect you to be ethical and not betray our trust in letting the country know we are unethical and betraying their trust okay??"

so it is okay to be unethical as long as you are being unethical when you are unethical against the right group..

I gotcha yeah snowden you are the poster boy of an unethical generation..... I am pretty sure you walked in to the NSA without little to no unethical gens being there before you... before you showed up mr snowden.. everyone in the NSA was ethical in keeping the NSAs unethical practices hidden.. You mr snowden however betrayed our trust and will now be regarded as the poster child of an unethical generation.

yeah cuz unethical behavior in this country didn't exist till snowden gen arrived.

you are just an attention grabber or naive


Notice the level of resentment
vs. the actual miniscule level of effort required to
admit he violated trust, and [color=gold] then weigh that against their violations.

Being on the receiving end of these posts
is like standing in a hail storm that is moving so fast
it is blowing sideways.

/protective gear
Mike



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
If the OP is trying to imply that my generation is unethical, who do you think we learned that from?



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


Well to be fair, I did admit that he broke trust. He just didn't break my trust. He broke the trust of the government. Fortunetly, I don't care that he broke the government's trust because I don't like the government or the things it does most of the time. Also if I sounded defensive, then perhaps it's because I found your original post confusing. Everything I qouted from you was a direct quote, so perhaps you may want to rephrase the way you put that stuff about trust. Aside from that, good to see you don't view him as a villian or the youth as villians to be mistrusted, which is basically what I got from your post near the end. Appologies if I misunderstood.
edit on 19-7-2013 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2013 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


Well to be fair, I did admit that he broke trust. He just didn't break my trust. He broke the trust of the government. Fortunetly, I don't care that he broke the government's trust because I don't like the government or the things it does most of the time. Also if I sounded defensive, then perhaps it's because I found your original post confusing. Everything I qouted from you was a direct quote, so perhaps you may want to rephrase the way you put that stuff about trust. Aside from that, good to see you don't view him as a villian or the youth a villians to be mistrusted, which is basically what I got from you post near the end. Appologies if I misunderstood.
edit on 19-7-2013 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)


I feel softened, yet filled with courage for the future.
This may be one of the most profound things
a member of the newer generation has
ever said to me, or one like me.

I suspect that nothing terrifies TPTB more...

...than the potential for the multiple generations to realize they really are on the same side.


Mike
edit on 19-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
"Snowden violated trust, but on balance he exposed a greater violation of trust by doing so."

Was it really that bad?


Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Snowden reminds me of that old saying that "Possession is only 9/10ths of the law" he had possession, but [color=gold]he had no sense of propriety. None. I guess to this generation, possession is now 10/10ths of the law, [color=gold]and the idea of trust is extinct.

You can wrap yourself in whatever cloak of surgeon and lead apron you wish.
If what you have to say has weight, no lead protection is needed. The words chosen wisely will stand on their own.

You assert his lack of a sense of propriety. The standard convention of social behavior is to inform the social group when there is a violation of trust being imposed upon them against their will and knowledge. His action (as advertised) is the very essence of propriety. "Just following orders" goes directly against the public's sense of propriety and is not openly a viable defense in any "official" realm either.

The idea of trust was based upon the perception the public has a tenuous but still dependable trust in their local government which was seemingly not being respected by those entrusted with that responsibility. He trusted that the public would want to know. The entire decision (given it happened as advertised which again may not be true)... was founded upon a trust of the public and a trust of the propriety of the public. The public has a trust that if someone detects a violation of the public trust, that it will be brought to light. Thus it can not be asserted to be extinct.

Breaking an agreement (trust) is not inherently Ethical or Unethical in isolation.

Word choices matter.

Lead aprons are heavy... lighten your load and take it in full.

edit on 19-7-2013 by ErgoTheEgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


In the OP you said


Whatever we put out in the Universe is what comes back to us. If we want to be able to trust then we should be worthy of trust ourselves.


Basically you have said it your self in that sentence. If a Government expects trust then it too should be worthy of that trust. Just because it is a Government does not put it above the law or above others.

I am getting the feeling that you are saying you are of an older generation, but you certainly are not thinking like the older generations. As you grow older you realise more and more that Governments around the world are untrustworthy and do nothing whatsoever to engender trust by their employees or by the people who supposedly elected them, and mainly because the actual power is vested not in Congress, Parliament, the Oireachtas or whatever your body of elected representatives is, but in the permanent institutions of Governments that do not change with the political changes. If, as you say, you are an older person then you have not learned much about Government on your journey.

You should be castigating the Government for its lack of trust, not Snowden. Tenth said it very succinctly.



edit on 19/7/2013 by PuterMan because: to fix a tag



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 



The quote above is a blueprint
why this is an unethical generation.

A free pass for one's perceived hero's
and accusations "only" for the perceived enemy.


And you think it was so different when we were young? Your memory must be failing I believe.

Young people these days are many times more ethical in many respects than my generation. Stop trying to down them.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo
The reaction is not to your assertion of trust being "violated".

The reaction is to your assertion of "UnEthicalness".


The [color=gold]absence of a negative, is a double negative.
By failing to assert either way, you expose the government funded hole
planted in the soul of the newer generations.



That should read ...

The absence of a denial is a double negative,
but
the absence of an admission is a negative.

/a too late to edit correction
Mike



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


then what is the point of this thread?? 9/10 is not bad then what is there nit pick about??

I think the people he was working with are just as unethical as he is and there are various people in that organization.

the only reason snowden gets ragged on is because he went against a powerful unethical group.

It is funny how we are all expected to be ethical by society and those who run society are exempt to being ethical.. when they are called out by someone as being unethical the person who did the calling out is the only one focused on as being unethical. he is not doing as he is told as part of the controlled group... the only one who can be unethical is the control group. to top it off the control group then protects the controller group by crapping on the person who decided to be unethical in their favor.

I really don't know the exact motivations for snowden... but if more people had the balls to speak out against things they see wrong in the line of work or society as a whole we would have nipped many things in the bud a LONG TIME ago.. but now we are taught to live ethical in order to cut back on the competition for those who wish to rule and control us.

NSA:"okay mr snowden here in the NSA we are doing unethical things but we expect you to be ethical and not betray our trust in letting the country know we are unethical and betraying their trust okay??"

so it is okay to be unethical as long as you are being unethical when you are unethical against the right group..

I gotcha yeah snowden you are the poster boy of an unethical generation..... I am pretty sure you walked in to the NSA without little to no unethical gens being there before you... before you showed up mr snowden.. everyone in the NSA was ethical in keeping the NSAs unethical practices hidden.. You mr snowden however betrayed our trust and will now be regarded as the poster child of an unethical generation.

yeah cuz unethical behavior in this country didn't exist till snowden gen arrived.

you are just an attention grabber or naive


Notice the level of resentment
vs. the actual miniscule level of effort required to
admit he violated trust, and [color=gold] then weigh that against their violations.

Being on the receiving end of these posts
is like standing in a hail storm that is moving so fast
it is blowing sideways.

/protective gear
Mike


I am curious to know why it is difficult for you to accept that there was really NO trust violated, Mike? The only violation is a breach of a paper agreement. Those two are not the same. If the company trusted him, they would not ask him to sign an agreement in the first place.

Here's something unrelated to share:




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kurius

I am curious to know why it is difficult for you to accept that there was really NO trust violated, Mike? The [color=gold] only violation is a breach of a paper agreement. Those two are not the same. If the company trusted him, they would not ask him to sign an agreement in the first place.



All of our laws are paper agreements. Things that
we as a society will-not-do. Things like
    Murder
    Theft
    sexual assault
    arson


Are you saying that "paper agreements" are somehow less binding?

The constitution is a paper agreement.


Mike
edit on 19-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by Kurius

I am curious to know why it is difficult for you to accept that there was really NO trust violated, Mike? The [color=gold] only violation is a breach of a paper agreement. Those two are not the same. If the company trusted him, they would not ask him to sign an agreement in the first place.



All of our laws are paper agreements. Things that
we as a society will-not-do. Things like
    Murder
    Theft
    sexual assault
    arson


Are you saying that "paper agreements" are somehow less binding?

The constitution is a paper agreement.






Originally posted by Kurius

I am curious to know why it is difficult for you to accept that there was really NO trust violated, Mike? The only violation is a breach of a paper agreement. Those two are not the same. [color=gold] If the company trusted him, they would not ask him to sign an agreement in the first place.


And by your logic,
if the people trusted King John,
they wouldn't have made him sign the Magna Carta,

And if the founders trusted the future,
they wouldn't have signed the Bill of Rights.

Which brings us to this exact moment in history
and this exact argument you have raised against
the thesis of this thread, in defense of a generation.

No wonder so many kids are getting tattoos these days.
They probably have the belief that an agreement in flesh
is somehow more binding. The quote above is quite revealing.


Mike
edit on 19-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)


"Are you saying that "paper agreements" are somehow less binding? "

You are the one saying that, Mike. I am merely pointing out that it is wrong to equate Trust and Paper agreements. The two are opposites...an agreement is signed when you do not have explicit trust in someone carrying out a duty. Example: you trust you parents for bringing you up, but the bank makes you sign an agreement when you take out a loan. Your thread is about violation of trust...not about the breach of a paper agreement. By that premise, Snowden has not violated any trust, but he may have violated a paper agreement. Do you understand now, Mike?

For once, stop defending your Ego or making justifications for all potential whistleblowers to keep silent. I think given the choice, most people would trust Snowden more than they would NSA.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kurius

I am curious to know why it is difficult for you to accept that there was really NO trust violated, Mike? The only violation is a breach of a paper agreement. Those two are not the same. [color=gold] If the company trusted him, they would not ask him to sign an agreement in the first place.


The highlighted section above is quite revealing.


And by your logic, if the
Barons trusted King John, they
wouldn't have made him sign the Magna Carta,

And if the founders trusted the future,
they wouldn't have signed the Bill of Rights.

Which brings us to this exact moment in history
and this exact argument you have raised against
the thesis of this thread, in defense of a generation.

No wonder so many kids are getting tattoos these days.
They probably have the belief that an agreement in flesh
is somehow more binding.








The Bill of Rights was written because the founders
did trust the future. They trusted the future use it as a
defense against tyranny and oppression, censorship and abuse.

The Barons who pushed the Magna Carta did trust King John,
they trusted him to abide by his written agreement,
old abusive tyrant that he was. And what-do-ya
know... a jury by peers actually came about.



I don't care if the agreement is written on paper,
carved in stone,
or captured in the digital matrix.

A signed agreement can not be denied.
It constitutes something called "evidence."


Mike



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
A signed agreement can not be denied.

And yet they frequently and consistently are denied.

Sometimes it is considered Ethical to do so. Sometimes it is not.

Written agreements are nothing more than expressions of intentions, but carry no actual weight without the consciousness behind them... and that weight and those intentions can be just as effective with no written agreement.

The strongest bonds between us are unwritten. The weakest resort to written because they are not inherently strong enough to stand on their own and require an external point of reference... a point of reference that shifts as the observers perspectives and "mindsets" shift.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kurius

For once, [color=gold] stop defending your Ego or making justifications for all potential whistleblowers to keep silent. I think given the choice, most people would trust Snowden more than they would NSA.


Argument ad Hominem: opponent's personality or circumstances is attacked.

And now it turns out that this wasn't a discussion of the facts at all,
but an attack on me, and my defense of the thesis of this thread.


Mike



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
A signed agreement can not be denied.

And yet they frequently and consistently are denied.

Sometimes it is considered Ethical to do so. Sometimes it is not.

Written agreements are nothing more than expressions of intentions, but carry no actual weight without the consciousness behind them... and that weight and those intentions can be just as effective with no written agreement.

The strongest bonds between us are unwritten. The weakest resort to written because they are not inherently strong enough to stand on their own and require an external point of reference... a point of reference that shifts as the observers perspectives and "mindsets" shift.


Neither one of you,
arguing this
has either owned a business,
nor ever managed a large number of people.

/head shake

Well,
if you wish to remain in that world,
the world of service & servant culture,
then let me do you a favor and recommend a survival guide.

Go read
Pimpology: the 48 laws of the game
-by pimpin Ken
Amazon.com / pimpology / paperback


Mike


.... hmmm, isn't that odd.
Even pimps write things down.

...sometimes.
edit on 19-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Neither one of you,
arguing this
has either owned a business,
nor ever managed a large number of people.

Are you sure?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join