Facebook question

[Manoli]

Seems to me at least some of that would be necessary to give you enough background for a valid opinion on the subject.

On that basis, you'd equally need to have 

• smoked to have a (valid) opinion on lung cancer
• taken LSD to expound on the effects of hallucinogenics
• be gay to comment on homosexuality in the armed forces, and
• be one of 500,000 to have a valid opinion on military rape: 'Fighting the invisible war'

[Tim Lookingbill]

I'm more perplexed by the very few changes brought about by this sophisticated global communication revolution that allows millions to be informed.

So much information, so very relatively little accomplished with it globally speaking. But at least there's still time. I just wish someone would provide an accurate inventory of the change brought about in order to keep faith and hope alive in the internet.

[amolitor]

Well it turns out that access to information is largely irrelevant. We had access to more information than we could usefully assimilate 100 years ago. Having access to more, less organized, information was not (in hindsight) a solution to anything.

Our opinions and ideas are formed out of far weaker stuff than we imagine. Ultimately practically everything we "know", we "know" because someone we trusted to some degree told us so.

[Tim Lookingbill]

You seem to have moved unsophisticated/sophisticated from people to the global communications revolution?


Sarcasm?

Isaac, I have no idea what you are inferring. So much for communicating. And no, I'm not being sarcastic now and in my previous post.

Just say what you mean, dude.

[Jeremy Roussak]

The military really did a number on your brain, didn't they?

Childish insults don't really add anything but noise to the conversation. I have no contact, and have never had any contact, with the military; but I agree entirely with Russ's views.

Jeremy

[amolitor]

Just for reference, I disagree with Russ quite thoroughly on any number of political issues, but as a grownup I am capable of being pleasant about it. Also, I know perfectly well that he's not an idiot, not crazy, and not ill-informed. He and I just have different ideas about some things.

[RSL]

Thanks, Andrew. We may not agree, but I have a lot of respect for your ability to deal with ideas.

Here's something those who think telephone metadata tracking is invasive ought to consider: What the NSA was doing -- not always as well as one might hope -- was trying to prevent another 9/11. If, because we've shut down the "invasive" pursuit of metadata correlations by the NSA, we have another 9/11, two things are almost certainly going to be true: (1) The destruction will be much more extensive than the destruction associated with 9/11, and (2) There'll be an overwhelming demand by the people of our country for much more invasive data tracking than anything we've seen to date. The requirement to take a suspicious metadata correlation before a judge before NSA people are allowed to listen to conversations will fall away. In the end, we'll all lose a lot more privacy than we were losing as a result of previous metadata tracking.

It's worth thinking about.

[AlterEgo]

Here's something those who think telephone metadata tracking is invasive ought to consider: What the NSA was doing -- not always as well as one might hope -- was trying to prevent another 9/11.

NSA has a better job to do... here is what NSA shall be preventing, a lie like this one = http://www.businessinsider.com/the-iraq-war-by-numbers-2014-6

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

On that basis, you'd equally need to have...

Actually, Manoli, the answer to all that is Yes.

Otherwise, you are just one of the now-oh-so-popular and wide-spead professional armchair outragers, as I call them. People who philosophize about  things they have no clue about, other than regurgitating what they read or heard, in line with their preconceived notions.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

NSA has a better job to do... here is what NSA shall be preventing...

It is not NSA's job to determine the country's foreign policy, but to provide for its security.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Otherwise...

Let me remind you what Russ actually said (emphasis mine):

... Seems to me at least some of that would be necessary to give you enough background for a valid opinion on the subject.

You wouldn't dispute, I hope, that those with a direct experience can add a rather valuable, if not irreplaceable, insight in those things? Not the whole truth, mind you, but that isn't something either Russ or I claimed.

[jjj]

I have no contact, and have never had any contact, with the military; but I agree entirely with Russ's views.

Ah, but will that count in Russ's eyes as you have no experience?  

[jjj]

Actually, Manoli, the answer to all that is Yes.

Otherwise, you are just one of the now-oh-so-popular and wide-spead professional armchair outragers, as I call them. People who philosophize about  things they have no clue about, other than regurgitating what they read or heard, in line with their preconceived notions.

Not necessarily, some people are capable of reading up on subjects and making their own minds up.
Out of curiosity what are you qualified by your own reasoning to give an opinion about?

The other point to be borne in mind is that being outside of something can give you an alternative or fresh perspective. Which can be as useful as insight from the heart of something.

[RSL]

Far too often I respond reflexively to the sound of a rattling head. This time I've decided not to do it.

[Isaac]

Obviously you did respond. Obviously your response was an insult.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The other point to be borne in mind is that being outside of something can give you an alternative or fresh perspective. Which can be as useful as insight from the heart of something.

If you read my subsequent post on the subject, you'd see that I essentially agree with you.