Hillary Reminds me of Freshman Philosophy Ludicrousness

First off, can anyone else believe ludicrousness is word???
Ok, maybe it's just me

Disclaimer:
I do almost all of my posts on ATS via speech to text I was surprised to see "ludicrousness" not underlined…
But i digress...
Most of my posts are streams of consciousness so, as usual, be prepared for homonym errors and/or grammatical mistakes as I am not wont to edit my diatribes...

By the way, the content of this post is the perfect encapsulation of why I despise the Clintons despotic regime…
The Clinton Dynastic actions require moral relativism and it is often inescapable because they are so very amoral...

----------------------------------
So let's get to our freshman level philosophical quandary…

I am an opponent of hacking in any context of personal information regardless of its outcome…

In short, I do not subscribe to the Marxist tenent of the ends justifying the means...

Moreover, I feel as the means are exactly as important as the ends…
How and why we do what we do is of paramount import if we are to judge ourselves fairly and morally...

So back to Hillary and her treachery…
As we all know, she refused to follow the rules and turn over tens of thousands of emails required of her by law upon the request from Congress and the Federal Bureau of investigation...

She destroyed these tens of thousands of emails after allowing her legal team, none of whom have security clearance, access to these emails…
In fact, it was her legal team that carried out the destruction of the hard drives at Hillary's request which contained massively damaging emails which belied Hillary's ignorance of the rules(read laws) governing the handling of classified data...
Sidenote: it is so typical of Clinton to use her lawyers to carry this out knowing their protection from testifying because of lawyer client privilege....quite cunning in fact

So this brings me to my problem…
Hacking is a despicable act and I would never condone it…
However, Hillary was/is required by law to handover the work related emails(classified and otherwise) because it was requested by Congress and the FBI...

WikiLeaks has presumably obtained the entirety of Hillary's destroyed emails and is slowly releasing them as well as personal emails from her underlings which serve only to embarrass and destroy her presidential ambitions...

But my feelings remain black-and-white…
Hacking is wrong and the precedent setting is terrifying...

When progressives come to power, which is beginning to look like they will, it is to their political enemies they will turn their gaze…
We, the conservatives of the world, should be well prepared for their gaze to be turned up on us and since we collectively acted gleeful in the exposure of their data...
So we can expect our data(emails, texts, online posts) to be equally in danger and for their releasing of our data to mirror our actions...

I watch people with whom I have the highest respect gleefully awaiting more damaging leaks and I think only of the future and how this could be used to silence all who would question the impending progressive Utopia our liberal friends envision...

Humiliation, marginalization, and eventually criminalization will follow for those who would besmirch the Infallible Queen...IMHO

No other candidate for the Democratic Party has been so despicable and amoral as Hillary to draw us into these freshman level philosophical discussions...but here we are...

So for the record, I've long ago stopped following the leaks because my ethos demands it and I will never subscribe to an ends justifying the means belief…

Moral gymnastics set on explaining depravity is the refuge of the left and I will not find myself occupying the moral low-ground over which liberals have long held dominion...

-Christosterone

Moral gymnastics set on explaining depravity is the refuge of the left and I will not find myself occupying the moral low-ground over which liberals have long held dominion...

I don't think if that was made clear enough for my post but there is an often conflicting conversations and desires in my brain…
My decision to abstain from Wikileaks is a much more nuanced and difficult position than my op may have let on..

Because I have such a burning desire for her not occupy the White House...
But to abandon the arrow of my moral compass is not something I can do...

-Chris

Hi, thanks for your article.

Regarding the contents of your post: You might not be far off, but who am I to judge.

But lets get off Hillary's back, Trump is already riding it

She can't be held responsible for being sloppy. She is much to busy and can't find the time doing thing according to the rules... I guess

Cheers!

a reply to: Christosterone

I understand and respect what you are saying. These are your principles and you feel a moral need to stand by them.

I, too, do not believe that the ends justify the means when the ends represents something dark and sinister and the means for getting there is just as dark and sinister.

But, in the case of WikiLeaks, you have to ask if they are serving a righteous purpose, not a dark and sinister one. I will not stick my head in the sand and get blindsided by the dark force of injustice and corruption.

Let Lady Justice carry out her duty. If our "Justice" department and governmental agencies and news media that are supposed to be doing Lady Justice's righteous work are not, then The People have to do it.

JUSTICE is a principle, too.

a reply to: queenofswords

Very true...great post

That's why this has been so difficult for me because both sides are valid…
I absolutely respect every single word you wrote and agree with it…

It is only with the Clintons that I find myself on both sides of a moral argument...
And they habitually put the American people into these positions while slowly eroding the greatest office on earth...

****Edit: the Clintons criminal behavior constantly puts us into the mindset of: "is it moral to steal bread to feed your dying child"...
And for the record, no I would never steal...
Nor would we be in that position to begin with because I would have long ago seen the impending starvation coming and gotten a job no matter how menial to pay for food…
Even if I had to go to the farmers in the fields and work for free taking only enough wheat to make bread she would not starve…
Thus negating the need for stealing and answering the question..

******btw, say what u will about Nixon but at least he resigned before tarnishing the office any further...

-Christosterone

a reply to: Christosterone

When progressives come to power, which is beginning to look like they will, it is to their political enemies they will turn their gaze…
We, the conservatives of the world, should be well prepared for their gaze to be turned up on us and since we collectively acted gleeful in the exposure of their data...
So we can expect our data(emails, texts, online posts) to be equally in danger and for their releasing of our data to mirror our actions...

Maybe keep one's nose clean?
That is why I like Wikileaks.
Show us the poop, so we know just whose britches stink.

a reply to: queenofswords

Except it's not "the people" doing it. Intelligence reports show it's most likely Russia behind wikileaks.

Example link:
www.ndtv.com - Evidence Shows Russia Feeding Emails To WikiLeaks: Media Report...

Also if that information requires clearance then "the people" have no right to it. Hacking it would be a criminal offense. Any hacks of classified information could easily endanger the lives of innocent people.

a reply to: Christosterone

Leftist philosophy is college freshmen level. I suppose they have to give it at least a passing thought to justify what their plans are. The capitalism vs. communism argument has now stood the trial of time. I'll leave it up to the audience to research which one fared better for its people including which one results in a shrinking rich-poor gap and which one results in a widening rich-poor gap.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Intelligence reports

hahahaha! Would that be the FBI (hahahahah!) or from the CIA director who once voted for the communist candidate!

"Intelligence" reports coming out of any Obama appointment gives me pause.

Actually, where it comes from is a distraction from what is in it. We would never know the depth of the fraud and corruption if it weren't for information coming from Wikileaks. So which corruption, dishonesty, and harm is worse? The ones you can see and prepare for, or the hidden dark ones?

What is that scripture........."For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open".

Moral implications aside...isn't the cat out of the bag? The emails exist ...and are out...might as well try to find truth in them, for the American people to make a more educated decision. ..tho..neither candidate is much of an option...in my European Canadian sphere of perception anyways...lol

a reply to: Christosterone

The government doesn't hack people according to their political affiliation, they have no need to target specific groups... they're already taking data from everyone.

The real question is who they look at, not who's data they take. The intelligence agency of the US has something of a needle in a haystack problem, by scooping up all data they add a lot of noise to what they're looking for and it makes it more difficult to build legitimate connections.

I wouldn't worry about getting hacked for your political affiliations.

As far as hacking goes though, you might be against it but let me offer a counter point: Hacking is a very useful tool for citizens to force transparency of those in power. Widespread hacking, means widespread transparency and that keeps people honest. In many cases, the concept of data security is outdated.

I might be supporting Hillary this election, that remains to be seen (all I know for sure is that I don't support Trump), but I have no problem with these hacks that have targeted her. If she said and thought these things, the public has the right to know. And, perhaps in the future we'll get more honest people into these positions due to the threat of leaks like this.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Except it's not "the people" doing it. Intelligence reports show it's most likely Russia behind wikileaks.

That just means the peoples interests align with the Russian governments interests here. Who releases the information doesn't matter (assuming of course that what they release is true). Only that it is released. People have a right to know how their government functions behind closed doors.

a reply to: Christosterone

" I am an opponent of hacking in any context of personal information regardless of its outcome… "


Even if said Hacking Revealed Crimes against the National security of the United States ? Such Indifference Shocks me Personally .

a reply to: Christosterone

So you have a problem with Clinton...
----but not a problem with Trump, who has 3,500 lawsuits against him for nonpayment of workers and contractors
----and the assault charges now filed by nine (and probably more next week) women are not a moral issue
----and you don't have a problem with Wikileaks publishing secret email involving national security (China and North Korea and Russia and ISIS were delighted to get the material)


Interesting.
----------- How does publishing internal government email keep us safer?
----------- Why is nonpayment and besmirching the names of 3,500 companies not a concern?
----------- What is your process for investigating claims? What sources do you consider reliable?


If you want philosophy, I'm afraid you haven't met the test of philosophy or logic. You don't do logic via free association and philosophy would nail you with "what do you mean by 'moral'?" and "how do you know it's moral?" "and are things moral because a deity loves them or does the deity instinctively love things that are moral?" and "this was moral in the past - why isn't it moral today? does that mean that morality is not fixed?" (that was one of the early (simple) Socratic questions)