Bank to be targeted in next WikiLeaks report

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#1
If you haven't heard, it has been announced that WikiLeaks' next report will be on a big American bank. The strong guess right now is Bank Of America due to comments made by Assange in an interview a while back. WikiLeaks has not confirmed the bank, but has said that it contains evidence for several felonies and a lot of corruption.

Should be an interesting release. For those who are against the government whistle-blowing, do you feel the same way about this?
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#2
If you haven't heard, it has been announced that WikiLeaks' next report will be on a big American bank. The strong guess right now is Bank Of America due to comments made by Assange in an interview a while back. WikiLeaks has not confirmed the bank, but has said that it contains evidence for several felonies and a lot of corruption.

Should be an interesting release. For those who are against the government whistle-blowing, do you feel the same way about this?
I will if it sends us into another recession. :furious:
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#3
I will if it sends us into another recession. :furious:
Well this recession isn't over yet, so can't really get into another one :p

Besides, this recession is far from over- anyone who looks at market fundamentals and doesn't buy the paper wealth hype knows it.

Some of these bankers have used government's crony capitalist policies for long enough- time to get some of that info into the public so the people can finally start seeing how they are being robbed by the state and the corporations that lobby to control it.
 
Nov 15, 2010
137
0
Co. Springs, CO
#4
For those who are against the government whistle-blowing, do you feel the same way about this?
I am always against corruption no matter where it is, if the bank of america is really rife with corruption that something should deffinantly be done about it. However I am against those who try to create chaos in our society, which is exactly what Pvt Manning and Jullian Assange mean to do. We need to calmly handle these situations as they arise, and not allow them to be blown so far out of proportion that they begin to cause mass hysteria .
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#5
I am always against corruption no matter where it is, if the bank of america is really rife with corruption that something should deffinantly be done about it. However I am against those who try to create chaos in our society, which is exactly what Pvt Manning and Jullian Assange mean to do. We need to calmly handle these situations as they arise, and not allow them to be blown so far out of proportion that they begin to cause mass hysteria .
I wouldn't say they are trying to create chaos so much as wake the people up. There is a lot being hidden from us and our people aren't exactly the most active or caring at this point in time- that apathy is only a recipe for disaster.
 
Nov 15, 2010
137
0
Co. Springs, CO
#6
I wouldn't say they are trying to create chaos so much as wake the people up. There is a lot being hidden from us and our people aren't exactly the most active or caring at this point in time- that apathy is only a recipe for disaster.
What exactly are they trying to tell the people by doing this? These people are crooks, why are you condoning what they are doing?
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#7
What exactly are they trying to tell the people by doing this? These people are crooks, why are you condoning what they are doing?
They are showing the people exactly what kind of back-door deals go on and hurt the taxpayer. As for the WikiLeaks people being crooks- that is a matter of opinion. As the saying goes, one man's terrorist, is another's freedom fighter. It's all perspective.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#8
They are showing the people exactly what kind of back-door deals go on and hurt the taxpayer. As for the WikiLeaks people being crooks- that is a matter of opinion. As the saying goes, one man's terrorist, is another's freedom fighter. It's all perspective.
They steal the stuff, how are they not crooks? You're letting your ideology blind you to their crimes, please realized this issue has made you into an ideologue. It's not like you.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#9
They steal the stuff, how are they not crooks? You're letting your ideology blind you to their crimes, please realized this issue has made you into an ideologue. It's not like you.
They aren't stealing anything though. They are simply publishing what others give them. Maybe the workers that leak the info are breaking the law, but WikiLeaks isn't.

And if you think stopping WikiLeaks will stop the leaks, then I would beg to differ. There is a demand for this information and people will leak it as the technology makes it easier and easier to do so. If not via WikiLeaks, then by some other organization or program. That's just how it goes.
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#10
As the saying goes, one man's terrorist, is another's freedom fighter. It's all perspective.
and as I keep pointing out, not all perspectives are worthy of respect....

flying airplanes into the WTC and the Free French, Minutemen, Sons of Liberty etc are not analogous organizations

some people have fucked up perspectives... it is healthier to call fucked up shit fucked up shit rather than to shrug and say, "it takes all kinds."
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#11
and as I keep pointing out, not all perspectives are worthy of respect....

flying airplanes into the WTC and the Free French, Minutemen, Sons of Liberty etc are not analogous organizations

some people have fucked up perspectives... it is healthier to call fucked up shit fucked up shit rather than to shrug and say, "it takes all kinds."
So are you saying the perspective I am arguing (not necessarily my own because I will admit I am still borderline on this issue) is that radical? Just because some perspectives are radical, doesn't mean mine is and personally, I don't really think it is.
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#12
No, I substituted subjects into your argument to produce an absurd result. Because this is possible there is a faulty premise.

One man's freedom fighter, subjectively, may be another's terrorist.

However morality is not subjective. Murder is murder and murder is wrong. So too were the 9/11 bombers.

I wasn't saying boo about your perspective... I was challenging your argument.

As I said (here and in the wikileaks thread), the fact is that just because one feels a moral justification to do "X" it doesn't legitimaize the act.

Che Guevra felt justifed, morally, to put bullets in the heads of politcal threats. Then Castro decided it was morally justified to chill Che. Stalin did this with Trotsky. When we reduce morality to a humam construct it becomes a malleable tool. Societies can then shape it how they please. This, more than any claim of the horrors of religion, has been the greatest killer. 100,000,000 killed by communists for the greater good of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Blokhin

Vasili, a good enforced for the Soviets executed over ten thouand people.... personally.... and for the greater good of the Soviet Union.

So, if we regard morality as merely a notion in the eye of the beholder we have reduced morality to a tool to shatter boundries rather than a set of rules to keep us within the boundries
 
Nov 15, 2010
137
0
Co. Springs, CO
#13
They are showing the people exactly what kind of back-door deals go on and hurt the taxpayer. As for the WikiLeaks people being crooks- that is a matter of opinion. As the saying goes, one man's terrorist, is another's freedom fighter. It's all perspective.
Okay we all agree that Pvt Manning is without a doubt BAD, so lets take him out of the equation.

As far as Jullian Assange and his website wikileaks, he is trying to simply cause chaos. Exposing corruption is one thing, and sometimes even that should be done somewhat descreetly in a controled enviroment so as to not cause panic, but putting out secret information about the US government is not helping anyone, it will hurt our government and intern hurt the american people. With all that is going on right now in our country, this is the last thing we need. Jullian Assnage may not be able to be charged for publishing these leaks, but his deffinantly a crook.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#14
No, I substituted subjects into your argument to produce an absurd result. Because this is possible there is a faulty premise.

One man's freedom fighter, subjectively, may be another's terrorist.

However morality is not subjective. Murder is murder and murder is wrong. So too were the 9/11 bombers.

I wasn't saying boo about your perspective... I was challenging your argument.

As I said (here and in the wikileaks thread), the fact is that just because one feels a moral justification to do "X" it doesn't legitimaize the act.

Che Guevra felt justifed, morally, to put bullets in the heads of politcal threats. Then Castro decided it was morally justified to chill Che. Stalin did this with Trotsky. When we reduce morality to a humam construct it becomes a malleable tool. Societies can then shape it how they please. This, more than any claim of the horrors of religion, has been the greatest killer. 100,000,000 killed by communists for the greater good of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Blokhin

Vasili, a good enforced for the Soviets executed over ten thouand people.... personally.... and for the greater good of the Soviet Union.

So, if we regard morality as merely a notion in the eye of the beholder we have reduced morality to a tool to shatter boundries rather than a set of rules to keep us within the boundries
Where is the boundary though? If you try to build a completely secure government you will end with tyranny- and even then you won't have complete security. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, right?

As far as Jullian Assange and his website wikileaks, he is trying to simply cause chaos. Exposing corruption is one thing, and sometimes even that should be done somewhat descreetly in a controled enviroment so as to not cause panic, but putting out secret information about the US government is not helping anyone, it will hurt our government and intern hurt the american people. With all that is going on right now in our country, this is the last thing we need. Jullian Assnage may not be able to be charged for publishing these leaks, but his deffinantly a crook.
I personally don't think he is creating chaos and definitely not attempting to. If you look at his recent interview (with the guardian I think?) I think it becomes clear that he sees something in government and these corporations that is unjust, perhaps illegal and he is simply trying to surface that. In one particular quotation he speaks of how the most efficient markets rely on perfect information and he is simply trying to provide more information.

As for the whole security thing, this will of course lead governments to change their security strategies and to perhaps not act so stupidly in private. I think Assange is only a start of what is to come with the technology we have and I for one strongly believe that greater information will benefit society greatly- just look at what the Internet has done for the world.
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#16
Where is the boundary though? If you try to build a completely secure government you will end with tyranny- and even then you won't have complete security. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, right?
I was ranting on the notion of morality being fixed rather than relative. That's a particular issue of importance to me. Should be to everyone.


Of course "security" has boundries. See the Bill of Rights and case law on same.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#17
I was ranting on the notion of morality being fixed rather than relative. That's a particular issue of importance to me. Should be to everyone..
How is it fixed? Everyone has a different set of morals because as displeasing as it may be, morality is derived by human opinion. For example, vegetarians may see eating animals are immoral- I don't think anyone who eats meat can't see why they think that way, even if they don't feel that way themselves.
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#18
How is it fixed? Everyone has a different set of morals because as displeasing as it may be, morality is derived by human opinion.
Murder is wrong. Do you think any society disputes that?

People who do not believe in God (or divine origin of morality - this can be expressed in many ways as long as morality is not a human construct) believe morality is a human construct. People who believe in God do not. For those who believe morality is a product of human need it is flexible. My point was that this view is extremely dangerous. The reason it is extremely dangerous is that if morality is merely a human construct then it means whatever those who get to define morality think it means. That being the case and as displeasing as it may be, it may mean pretty much anything.

Don't confuse that with different societies having different moral systems. They do.

The easiest way to explain moral relativity is the annoying refrain, "well, I would never do that because I think it is wrong but who am I to tell some one else they cannot?" That person thinks act A is moral or immoral based on who is doing the act rather than the act itself. That is moral relativism. That's a pretty simplistic explanation but it gets close.

Let's take that other culture with different morals. Let's take suttee, the practice of burning a man's wives with him on his funeral pyre. The hindu culture did not regard that as murder nor immoral. What's your opinion of buring living wives on their husband's funeral pyre? Murder? Moral?

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; [then] beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows . You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours." General Napier


For example, vegetarians may see eating animals are immoral- I don't think anyone who eats meat can't see why they think that way, even if they don't feel that way themselves.
Those are fools. Not to be confused with any of this.

Foregoing meat is a personal dietary choice. Regarding those who do eat meat as immoral is just plain stupid.

The fact, as unpleasant as it is for vegetarians, is that human evolution was dependent upon eating meat. That's why we have meat cutting teeth and why our appendix is vestigial... we cannot digest cellulose... plant matter. We can digest the nutriuents in the plants. The fact is that there are two very important developments... 1) eating meat gave us much bigger brains - mostly from the nutrients but also because hunters who could coordinate group plans were more successful and 2) fire - cooking meat made it easier to get even more nutritional value from eating meat.
 
Last edited:

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#19
Morality being a human construct- we might just disagree on that. I believe that even with religion, a lot of morality is socially driven (and changes as you noted) and that a lot of that is just driven by human opinion at the time. When it comes to murder, yes most societies find it wrong. That doesn't mean it isn't opinion though. An inconvenient truth sure, but that doesn't mean it can't be real.

In fact, even within those societies people are sometimes willing to make exceptions to that rule- war, capital punishment, etc.

As for vegetarianism, I am familiar with those arguments (a friend of mine is very big on vegetarianism, I personally do eat meat and we've had that whole discussion for kicks in the past). It was an example though and I know for a fact that he truly sees it as immoral. To the anatomy argument he might say something like those are similar remaining traits from our evolutionary past and that we are moving away from meat-eating. But that is besides the point here, you can apply this to any argument that uses morality. Capital punishment is another good one- some see it as immoral, others see it as justice. It's arguable.
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#20
Morality being a human construct- we might just disagree on that.
ok. doesn't make the risks associated with considering it a human construct any less true

I believe that even with religion, a lot of morality is socially driven (and changes as you noted) and that a lot of that is just driven by human opinion at the time.
Do you mean to say: People of faith act atrociously with some regularity?

If so, yes, absolutely they do. They are people. People are imperfect and even evil at times. But that ignores the point I was making. These nasty people of faith were behaving immorally. Most were probably aware of that fact. If not then they are sociopaths and as such outliers.


When it comes to murder, yes most societies find it wrong.
? Which ones don't?

That doesn't mean it isn't opinion though.
Who holds these dissenting opinions?

Murder is wrong is not an opinion it is a moral absolute.

An inconvenient truth sure, but that doesn't mean it can't be real.
Murder is real. Opinions are real. Murder is wrong is true. Universally. Not sure what you meant by this last sentence.

In fact, even within those societies people are sometimes willing to make exceptions to that rule- war, capital punishment, etc.
No. Here's why I said the explanation was simplistic. Neither of those are acts of murder. the DP is punishment for murder. Even in war it is possible to murder. However, troops killing troops is not murder. There are very old rules of war etc that govern this.

As for vegetarianism, I am familiar with those arguments (a friend of mine is very big on vegetarianism, I personally do eat meat and we've had that whole discussion for kicks in the past). It was an example though and I know for a fact that he truly sees it as immoral.
He's wrong.

To the anatomy argument he might say something like those are similar remaining traits from our evolutionary past and that we are moving away from meat-eating. But that is besides the point here, you can apply this to any argument that uses morality. Capital punishment is another good one- some see it as immoral, others see it as justice. It's arguable.
some may think the DP is immoral

none will disagree that murder is immoral

part of the problem, again, is that some regard the DP as murder. It isn't.

in our society murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

execution is not only legal it lacks malice (the process from arrest through trial through appeal and execution demonstrate objectivity - not subjectivity which would be malicious)
 

Similar Discussions