Waiting for ...... wikileaks

[PrinceofWands]

So you're saying that there's only 1% of human history where villages/city/states/countries/allies fought with each other and competed for resources?

I'm saying that there's probably only about 1% of human man-hours (since we first stood together) that has been about conflict rather than cooperation. The competitiveness is always what has corrupted the cooperation.

 

[LegendKiller]

can you end a post without being insulting? i would enjoy a productive discussion of the issue

"The "future of humanity" dictates we deal with less than ideal circumstances not by letting everybody in on what we are doing."

firstly who is this we? people within the united states? people who want peace?

i have a fundamental problem with this line of thinking, it basically says that we cannot know if the world is being pushed in a direction that we desire (which btw could be pushed in no direction) by those who we elect and their arms (such as the military)

No.

Peace? Do you really think that every single person in this world will suddenly give up competing with each other and get along? That completely ignores the basic fact that humans are made up of different idiologies, including crazy people.

"We" is this country.

We can only push this country and the basic direction of the country is evidenced by the macro movements. Knowing every detail of those movements isn't needed.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'm saying that there's probably only about 1% of human man-hours (since we first stood together) that has been about conflict rather than cooperation. The competitiveness is always what has corrupted the cooperation.

You have it reversed. 1% of the world's historical man hours has been about cooperation. 99% competition.

This is why communist countries fail. Without competition humans do not work, their effort fails, and we die of dismay in not achieving anything.

 

[LumbergTech]

Which often lead to hurt feelings, divisiveness, elevated blood pressures, para-metricizing the educational value out of the round in order to win, playing the system, people dropping out rather than raising themselves to the level of education needed to compete at higher levels, ...

I could go on.

I spent a few years in collegiate debate and then coaching it...if you'd like to have a breakout conversation about the failings of competitive debate I'd be happy to oblige.

I would agree that when talking about 'debate' entirely in generalities that the goal is purely good...but as soon as you make it competitive it turns mostly negative.

you make some good points, but there are points to the opposite as well

it would make for a good discussion although this thread seems to be going woefully off topic already

 

[LumbergTech]

No.

Peace? Do you really think that every single person in this world will suddenly give up competing with each other and get along? That completely ignores the basic fact that humans are made up of different idiologies, including crazy people.

"We" is this country.

We can only push this country and the basic direction of the country is evidenced by the macro movements. Knowing every detail of those movements isn't needed.

who decides who gets to know what though? is it not up for discussion?

i think our disagreement lies in the difference between what someone else thinks you need to know and what you think you need to know

i agree that it is debatable who is right

part of what sways me in favor of these leaks (generally, i havent read them so i cant say on a piece to piece basis what i think is right) is that without stuff like this, we have no way with which to judge those who we put in charge of us and those who may or may not want to harm us

I just can't agree that electing a certain group of people to worry about it and hiding it away from our minds is the right way to handle it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

when you say hasnt led to negatives you mean the overall effect was more negative than positive? or that the positive effect was lesser than that of cooperation ? or what

to me it seems that the issue is the goal of the individuals who are competing.

are they competing for individual glory/benefits mainly, or are they competing to benefit some wider group

of course, the reasons someone competes isn't the only factor in how beneficial it is, but it might affect the level of corruption that the person is willing to introduce to win

That's actually partly my point - that the very nature of the positive/negative aspect debate is subjective based upon underlying warrants and not a universal 'truth'. I was waiting to point out how anything that's seen as positive to some will usually be negative to others if it's the result of competition instead of cooperation. IE if there are only 100 widgets to split between two people, either it's even, or somebody experiences a negative.

 

[SamurAchzar]

The same intelligent that suggested Iraq was a threat that justify the Bush & Co invasion.

And, all of this happens well after 9/11 ++ homeland security measure come into play.

Yup! We are much safer now to have MI6/CIA protecting our freedom.

Very easy to point at the failures. Can you point at the successes too? You can't? Well, too bad; that's the ungrateful part in intelligence work. When you do it well, no one knows. Public only hears about the fuckups. All I'm saying the fact we're now free to read classified state department cables is one of these failures, but I wouldn't rush to judge the intelligence agencies on that alone.

 

[LegendKiller]

who decides who gets to know what though? is it not up for discussion?

i think our disagreement lies in the difference between what someone else thinks you need to know and what you think you need to know

i agree that it is debatable who is right

I was quite happy not knowing everything in the WL info.

 

[PrinceofWands]

No, that would be you that is wrong. In fact, the vast majority of innovation has been for personal gain, NOT some communist fantasy you have. Do you ACTUALLY think the industrial revolution was driven by anything but individual companies striving to be better?

What the fuck do you think drove the rapid rise of human innovation over the last 200 or so years? Hint: It started with the age of enlightenment and the recognition of individual rights and freedoms.

Yes, humans co-op for protection and safety, but individual ambition drives innovation. Sorry to bust your bubble.

Actually not true. I took a great class on the nature of invention/innovation in which we explored this very topic. MOST discovery has been happenstance, or humanitarian. Only a VERY small percentage of advancements have been about personal gain. That's why throughout 6000 years of recorded human history there are very VERY few wealthy inventors.

The industrial revolution was driven by greed of the aristocracy.

No, MOST creation is because humans are driven to create...not for gain, but the act itself or to better the human condition. MOST advancements are made by genius individuals with little or no thought of personal remuneration. Yes, we've gotten away from that in the last few decades especially...and I argue that's why things suck so desperately now.

 

[Generator]

Quite interesting that many people would rather purposely be ignorant of reality, just to save themselves a short term headache, in order to dig themselves into a hole impossible to climb out of.

Exactly, it like these fascists find courage in sticking their heads in the sand. Their reality is our nightmare of a world at war. With every leak you start to understand that war isn't being avoided, but perpetuated! What these leaks provide is embarrassment that come from the truth. Let these bay of pigs never forget how much they fucking stink!

 

[PrinceofWands]

You have it reversed. 1% of the world's historical man hours has been about cooperation. 99% competition.

This is why communist countries fail. Without competition humans do not work, their effort fails, and we die of dismay in not achieving anything.

Again, not really. A tribe forms, spends years working together to better their situation, until suddenly some other tribe intrudes. Then there's a short-lived struggle to be allowed to live as they're wont to, after which they go back to cooperative living for decades.

Even during the actual battle MOST hours are spent in cooperative pursuits. It's only the few moments of direct conflict when the competition intervenes.

The more 'modern' we've become the less this has been true. Partly it's a result of population vs resources, but I believe even more so it's about the proliferation of the ideas you endorse. The more greedy people there are trying to take more than their share, the tougher it is for everyone to just live.

 

[LumbergTech]

Exactly, it like these fascists find courage in sticking their heads in the sand. Their reality is our nightmare of a world at war. With every leak you start to understand that war isn't being avoided, but perpetuated! What these leaks provide is embarrassment that come from the truth. Let these bay of pigs never forget how much they fucking stink!

minus the part insulting others, although i can appreciate your point, this is kind of what motivates me to support the leaks

this type of shit gives a clearer understanding on bush vs obama for instance

the question doesn't seem to be if we will fight iran but when

you could argue that obama never said he wouldnt fight iran( i dont know if he did)

you could also argue that it might be right to fight them (im not convinced one way or the other) although i tend to err in the side of avoiding war instead of choosing it

all of these things could have been deduced from previously available info, but this makes it much clearer

 

[Amused]

Actually not true. I took a great class on the nature of invention/innovation in which we explored this very topic. MOST discovery has been happenstance, or humanitarian. Only a VERY small percentage of advancements have been about personal gain. That's why throughout 6000 years of recorded human history there are very VERY few wealthy inventors.

The industrial revolution was driven by greed of the aristocracy.

No, MOST creation is because humans are driven to create...not for gain, but the act itself or to better the human condition. MOST advancements are made by genius individuals with little or no thought of personal remuneration. Yes, we've gotten away from that in the last few decades especially...and I argue that's why things suck so desperately now.

Maybe you should have questioned the bias of your professor???

Do you honestly think that most invention is driven by altruism??? REALLY???

Man, you are deluded. Seriously.

 

[Howard]

Which often lead to hurt feelings, divisiveness, elevated blood pressures, para-metricizing the educational value out of the round in order to win, playing the system, people dropping out rather than raising themselves to the level of education needed to compete at higher levels, ...

I could go on.

I spent a few years in collegiate debate and then coaching it...if you'd like to have a breakout conversation about the failings of competitive debate I'd be happy to oblige.

I would agree that when talking about 'debate' entirely in generalities that the goal is purely good...but as soon as you make it competitive it turns mostly negative.

Can you name a solution to any problem that did not have any absolute negatives?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Maybe you should have questioned the bias of your professor???

Maybe you should actually read a book. The knowledge is freely available, you just have to attempt to view it without bias. There is absolutely no supportable argument to the contrary. Seriously, just do some research on it.

If you don't want to take the time, then just pose it as a question of probability and logic:

what are the odds that the gains of mankind over five-and-a-half thousand years without corporate/capital driven research, which enabled us to reach the social and technological levels we've achieved, are outpaced by a few hundred years of mixed for-profit and continuing not-for-profit achievement?

Or we can play a game if you'd rather. You list an innovation or creation for profit, and I'll respond with three for creativities sake, humanitarian reasons, or happenstance. I bet you $100 I can go longer than you can.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Can you name a solution to any problem that did not have any absolute negatives?

Probably not. The point was that the mere existence of competition corrupted what might otherwise be a laudable goal.

 

[Zebo]

What makes you think you deserve advantage? Or anyone else? Again, it's not a competition. The goal is to all leave equally and peacefully, not one-up each other.

I'm pretty transparent. When people ask, I answer. If they don't like what they hear, that's on them, not me. Nothing is gained by secrets. To quote Merlin in Excalibur, "When a man lies he murders some part of the world."

I've already allowed that some things truly are sensitive and require confidentiality. You don't go broadcasting your social security, you don't give out safe combinations, etc. Similarly there are some FEW things that a government needs to safeguard. However, probably 99% of what is classified currently is not such information.

In my few years in the navy I know that almost none of the classified documents passing through my hands/view needed to be so. It was usually done as blanket cya, or to purposefully circumvent law/responsibility.

Whole world is a competition for who's world view, moors, tenants dominate. Sure we could do it like in the past, just kill everyone until they comply. (better hope we always have upper hand) However, today, gaining our world view relies on allies, sources, compatriots who are sympathetic to it. Classified sources who are compromised/killed/shutup through leaks such as this is a betrayal to each and every American (assuming you're down with our world view). I can't believe I had to explain this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Secrets keep peace. Total disclosure only inflames tensions. What would your wife/GF say if she heard EVERYTHING you ever said about her?

I'll let you two beat each other, but regarding what's actually been released, this is hardly total disclosure, nor is everything been released.

In fact the only way seriously damaging information is likely to come out is if someone decides to harm Assange.

 

[fskimospy]

You have it reversed. 1% of the world's historical man hours has been about cooperation. 99% competition.

This is why communist countries fail. Without competition humans do not work, their effort fails, and we die of dismay in not achieving anything.

Absolutely. An interesting aside to that is one of the primary hypotheses for why human brains are so large is directly related to intraspecies competition. We might very well be so smart specifically because we're always trying to do each other in.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Whole world is a competition for who's world view, moors, tenants dominate. Sure we could do it like in the past, just kill everyone until they comply. (better hope we always have upper hand) However, today, gaining our world view relies on allies, sources, compatriots who are sympathetic to it. Classified sources who are compromised/killed/shutup through leaks such as this is a betrayal to each and every American (assuming you're down with our world view). I can't believe I had to explain this.

ONLY the evil people. Good people just want to live, not rule others.

As to being 'down with out world view', that has so many fallacies I don't even know where to start. What is 'our', what defines it, who determines inclusion, who determines values, etc, etc, etc. It inherently requires EXACTLY what I'm opposed to: egocentrism.

Newsflash: YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT. YOU ARE NOT MORE 'RIGHT' THAN SOMEONE ELSE.

Feel free to read 'you' as you personally, your country, or anything else you want, it will still be absolutely correct.

 

[Zebo]

ONLY the evil people. Good people just want to live, not rule others.

As to being 'down with out world view', that has so many fallacies I don't even know where to start. What is 'our', what defines it, who determines inclusion, who determines values, etc, etc, etc. It inherently requires EXACTLY what I'm opposed to: egocentrism.

Newsflash: YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT. YOU ARE NOT MORE 'RIGHT' THAN SOMEONE ELSE.

Feel free to read 'you' as you personally, your country, or anything else you want, it will still be absolutely correct.

Let's start with the Universal Declaration of Human rights which most countries not in the West or Far East wipe their ass with. Representative Democracy. and much much more I think we can all agree on were hard to get and we should promote.

News Flash - Might makes right, always has always will. There are no norms. If you think there are you are egocentric.

Reminds me of a Quote: The West won the world - not by it's ideas, religion or values but by it's superiority in applying organized violence. - Huntington.

I prefer, since that's what I've been indoctrinated with, we live under this system than say Sharia and fighting for it is important. Likewise, the enemy feels the same. Who wins decides who's right.

 

[Amused]

Maybe you should actually read a book. The knowledge is freely available, you just have to attempt to view it without bias. There is absolutely no supportable argument to the contrary. Seriously, just do some research on it.

If you don't want to take the time, then just pose it as a question of probability and logic:

what are the odds that the gains of mankind over five-and-a-half thousand years without corporate/capital driven research, which enabled us to reach the social and technological levels we've achieved, are outpaced by a few hundred years of mixed for-profit and continuing not-for-profit achievement?

Or we can play a game if you'd rather. You list an innovation or creation for profit, and I'll respond with three for creativities sake, humanitarian reasons, or happenstance. I bet you $100 I can go longer than you can.

Who said profit was the only motivator? Notoriety and status is another.

Either way, very few have ever invented something anonymously and without gaining something for it.

I'll take your bet. How many anonymous inventions can you list in the last 500 years?

 

[Amused]

Let's start with the Universal Declaration of Human rights which most countries not in the West or Far East wipe their ass with. Representative Democracy. and much much more I think we can all agree on were hard to get and we should promote.

It's a pretty good bet that Prince was mind fucked in college, and listened to his professors without question.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Let's start with the Universal Declaration of Human rights which most countries not in the West or Far East wipe their ass with. Representative Democracy. and much much more I think we can all agree on were hard to get and we should promote.

You mean that list that basically EVERY country in the world (including, no, NO - ESPECIALLY the US) violates in some way? Usually by classifying the abuses in the EXACT manner that this thread is about?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Who said profit was the only motivator? Notoriety and status is another.

Either way, very few have ever invented something anonymously and without gaining something for it.

I'll take your bet. How many anonymous inventions can you list in the last 500 years?

Who said anything about anonymous? What real benefit is having your name on something if you in no way profit from it?

I said that innovation is a basic human drive, and most inventions have been accidents, or created purely for the act of creation or for human betterment. I was told I was wrong.