So, should sites like Wikileaks be shut doiwn?

@ OP no.

Fight smart, not fair.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

<Mod Hat ON>

Make a new thread about journalists in war zones if you want. That is not the topic of this one, and is only very distantly related to the topic of this one.

<Mod Hat OFF>

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I can't bring myself to fight the leaks unless I take a "You want the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth" Stawman Conservative. Tomorrow's the debate, and I am going to suck...

edited 2nd Mar '11 2:28:47 PM by Ardiente

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

Wait, you really need to take that side in a debate?

Okay, try this.

• Assange is an unethical person. If the leader is unethical, the site itself is bad. When Assange is put away, Wikileaks should go with him.

• Wikileaks is unmonitored. It has no real decision-making process. It can't be trusted, and should be restricted by legislation.

• Wikileaks and sites like it should be tried and made to pay for the harm their actions have created.

• The people who send things to them are traitors to their nations. Those people should be dismissed from their position. That's Wikileaks' highest and best use- pointing out the people who don't deserve to be part of our country.

That's all I can come up with offhand. Will any of that help?

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

The final point was a bit too US-centric, but they are good points nonetheless.

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

Sorry, I forgot you're not American. I was reaching by that point. Um...why don't you modify that to say...Wikileaks is something we don't need. It seems like it's going to help, but it's a trap. It's not the way out. All it leads to is mistrust and hatred. We should have faith in the fundamental decency of most people, and trust that in the end, governments have good reasons to hide information.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

That would pretty much ruin the entire point of Wikileaks..."only leak the stuff that we say is okay to leak!"

That said, all of your points are too, how shall I put it...too...I'll think of a word later. Especially your 4th point...that gave off a downright Red Scare-ish kind of feel.

For stuff like Wikileaks leading to mistrust and hatred, that's always been around even before stuff like these sites came to existed.

edited 2nd Mar '11 4:52:14 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Signed, if you have an actual contribution, please make it. Don't just shoot down my stuff.

edited 2nd Mar '11 5:13:35 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

It's hard not to sound red-scare-ish when asking for Wikileaks to be shut down...YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

How is that not a contribution?

If a thread regarding abortion has a person saying a bunch of things that have holes in them, isn't it normal to shoot down those points as well, whether the shooter have other points to add or not?

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Ardiente's asking for help coming up with points for a debate. He has to argue against Wikileaks. I'm trying to come up with ideas. Sorry for snapping at you, though. That was uncalled for.

@Ardiente: Do you have any hard evidence, or facts? That'll be helpful. Maybe you could look up examples of people hurt as a result of Wikileaks' actions.

edited 2nd Mar '11 5:29:00 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Ah...well, the last few posts were thumped.

---

Either way, getting the points shot down will be just as helpful!

Anyone remotely good at debates oughta know or expect any counter-arguments that might be present for each point one may have.

Giving lots of points is only good if they are difficult to counter, that way you can think of your own counter to those counters as well...

---

As for a point against Wikileaks, just question the accuracy of their leaks. How do we know all of their informations are 100% accurate, etc.

Afterwards try to think of all the ways that one point can be countered, and then find your own counter arguments to those counters.

edited 2nd Mar '11 5:34:33 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

This is an important point to keep in mind when discussing the site. For all the hand-wringing about potential harm, no real harm has been proven to have happened that I am aware of.

Eric,

Well, several countries have had revolutions. Ergo, loss of life. And lately Tunisians are beginning to suspect they've gotten into a Meet the New Boss situation, so they might have another revolution or else not actually benefit from the one they just had.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

If you want to prove that Wikileaks causes harm, you don't have to go down all the way to the level of "This is Bob Mc Randomguy, and Wikileaks harmed him." Damaging international relations seems like a good enough example of "harm" to me.

An example: some middle eastern countries were considering working with the US against Iran — specifically, Iran's nuclear program. However, because they didn't want to be seen cooperating with the US (which would damage their image domestically, as people in those countries don't like the US), they agreed to keep the whole thing secret. Wikileaks released the diplomatic cables in the subject, which resulted in the exact damage that they were hoping to avoid, which in turn results in damage to the US, since our allies and potential allies will now be more hesistant to work with us secretly for fear of being caught out.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Well I realise he wanted some points against Wikileaks though I do have to point that if your domestic population doesn't want you to do something but you do it anyway, it doesn't seem very democratic.

Eh. Made the debate today. Lost. In either case, not enough arguments, or so they said. Still, they gave me extra points for my "destroy Wikileaks" impression. The other group had used the "Collateral Murder" video, and I gave them Barkey's usual rant about civilians not understanding shit.

You know what they told me? "You were awesome there, all Nazi-like".

Nazi-like. I can understand Barkey's pain a bit. Civilians are quick to jump to conclusions.

And my "instability" and "terrorists waiting to take over those revolutions" was percieved as excessively paranoid. Those guys have never heard of the revolutions in Russia and China and how they were hijhacked by minoritary but driven movements.

Gah. Lack of time and direction was my BANE. Which can be summed up as lack of experience.

Democracy? In Emir countries? That's a 2010 concept! People aren't used to it yet, it's so freaking cutting edge.

edited 3rd Mar '11 10:10:26 AM by Ardiente

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."