Of course not, and that's a highly uncharitable reading bordering on bad faith.

1) the current state of affairs does not remove threats, because the agencies are starting trouble, too;

2) the people are the ones who have to live with the effects of something, in the US a result of a democratic system where the agencies may prioritize their own imaginations over citizens' actual lives, where the agencies may have perverse incentives.

Just to be clear, is there any form of this conversation where you admit to being anything except absolutely correct on all points you're attempting to make?

I get the feeling you're one of those folks who won't accept anything except what you've already concluded.

To be fair to him, you accused him of saying something he didn't.

No, I didn't, I rephrased what he wrote in terms that more obviously illustrate the absurdity of the argument he's making.

Some times when you rephrase an argument, it becomes a different argument.

Some times when this happens, we call it a strawman argument.

No, we call it a strawman if it's not an accurate equivalent. If it's accurate, it's not a strawman, such as in this situation.

Your reply had literally no connection to any of the words in my post except, presumably, in your imagination. Can you lay out its accuracy for us? Obviously we're curious how you made the jumps in logic you did, and it appears you left some words out.

Well you don't have to be rude about it.

I think your attitude deserves the response I gave, if not something much harsher. You kill intellectual debate.

As a casual reader of the NSA/GCHQ/Snowden threads on HM I have mentally check-marked nearly every comment of yours within this thread as a different form of documented tactic of subversion used by forum plants.

You sling personal insults, you point out trivial errors and falsehoods in statements by others which have nothing to do with the given point, you attempt to diminish reputations, and whatever other tactics available at the particular avenue in order to derail the original point/argument, while pushing pro US government talking points and stereotypical 'save-the-children' rhetoric.

I don't know who you are, but I have recently begun ignoring your posts, attempting to derive wisdom only from the replies directed towards your usually greyed/dead comments, but I hope that people who read my reply to you will take the chance to read your past comments and attempt to pick up on any potential biases before considering your opinion on things.

And even if I am completely wrong about your stake in this game, the hostility that you inject into these discussions is uncalled for, and adds nothing but scorn and hurt feelings, quelling the debate and discussion of the topics at hand; what I believe is your very objective.

Although I was late to read it, this comment is at least as bad as the one I chastised in this thread.

It's fine for users to neutrally remind each other when they're breaking the HN guidelines. But it's not ok to insinuate evil motives, let alone that another user is a "forum plant". Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

More like not at all persuaded. He's not persuaded.

Please don't make comments like this or be personally rude on Hacker News. Even when you're sure you're right, it harms the site for everyone. That's why it's against the rules:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

What? Come on, I wasn't being rude, I was making a point. The nature of the responses on this topic, particularly on Hacker News are completely aggressive and kill any intellectual exploration or useful conversation.

I can't voice an opinion on this website that doesn't mesh with the popular opinion on this specific topic without being severely marginalized, mocked, and even ridiculed -- I think pointing that out should be allowed.