I haven't seen many good arguments against Snowden either - but your comment here is a huge strawman. Just because you feel strongly about what Snowden did doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant/dumb.

I didn't say anyone was ignorant or dumb. I said they're not providing a worthwhile argument, but resorting to generalities and vague ominous implications.

I wouldn't call that a strawman. It's an explicit challenge to provide an actual argument, while showcasing a behavior that is not meant to be an argument.

strawman: "Their argument is this weak thing that's easily disproved."

this post: "I haven't heard a single actual argument from them."

Snowden had, perhaps, a duty to disclose that the NSA was spying on Americans. He went too far by also revealing the list of targetted embassies.

I think the real argument against what Snowden did was that he gave journalists way too much information on certain topics, relative to what one could argue are "legitimate" operations of the NSA. The fact that the NSA is spying on foreign leaders seems pretty straightforward, and basically in their job description.

I think this argument holds a lot less strongly than it did with what Manning released (notably the cables that listed "infrastructure weak points" that would basically be a list of high-value targets for anyone looking to do pain to the allies of the US. Things like schools and pipelines). But it's a question of where you think the line lies in "legitimate" surveillance.

But if you don't think it makes sense for the NSA to be spying on Chinese research institutions, for example (if only to keep tabs on Chinese military research), then I don't know if you have any task that the NSA could do given its mission statement. Obviously a balanced position, but I think most people in the US believe some spying infrastructure is necessary.

Agreed entirely.

People get insulted when there is information which implies the USA has done something wrong. On some level, they admit the truth, but they react against it strongly by suppressing that admission and focusing their anger on the person or people who brought it to their attention.

Similarly: "I've never seen a plausible argument supporting what Snowden did that boiled down to more than [my morality is more important than your laws]. At most, you get a side order of [George Orwell] mumble mumble [he wouldn't have been able to accomplish anything if he tried to do it differently] mumble mumble [The government was so evil towards him that he fled to RUSSIA!]". These aren't arguments that people actually make. If they ARE making either claim, you're choosing some poor conversational partners.

Perhaps you could be one of those better conversational partners instead of implying that he's lying?

Also I think you have something to learn about human nature if you don't believe people will bluff on a political opinion without being able to give a coherent argument.

An interesting detail is that while I was complaining about a non-argument, he at least advanced an actual argument while trying to parody it.

And you know what? Where "my morality" is our Constitution and the principles of a constrained government that serves (and is accountable to) the people, then yes, that trumps the Hell out of laws designed to allow what's going on and keep it secret from us.

Given the context of the original memorial that the bust was added to, I wish I could say I was still surprised at people like cdbajorin.

Out of curiosity, what actual(valid?) argument did I actually produce?

The fact that you are somehow extracting an opinion from my statement is fascinating. No where have I stated my beliefs, no where have I implied my beliefs. Your statement is a simple display of black and white thinking: "If you criticize my comment, you disagree with everything I believe". The fact that "people like me" exist in the context of this commentary is probably a good thing.

Let me reiterate: My opinions were never stated anywhere in this entire thread. I criticized your train of thought and your straw man argument. Nothing more.

Seriously?

When you responded with "I've never seen a plausible argument supporting what Snowden did that boiled down to more than [my morality is more important than your laws]", you were trying to mock my complaint. However, while I was complaining about a lack of argument, you were complaining about an actual, very valid argument that I endorsed.

Or to put it another way, snarking about people who think morality is more important than law is kinda hilarious when we're talking about a monument to the Revolutionary War. Or much of American history, for that matter.

> you were complaining about an actual, very valid argument that I endorsed

Here's a list of people that were morally justified in breaking the law:

Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Eric Rudolph, Mohamed Atta

Some you may agree with, hopefully some you don't. But it's YOUR morality, so I'm sure it's OK.

Not just my morality, as stated above. But you're clearly not following the discussion, so I'll leave you be.

I don't really understand how you read that from my comment. I didn't imply he was lying. I was demonstrating how easy it is to straw man. It's clearly very easy to dismiss opinions you may disagree with by twisting them into something else. "You're stupid because I can mock you" doesn't give any validity to your arguments.

>These aren't arguments that people actually make.

That looks like an implication of lying to me.

I already explained how it's not a straw man, it's not meant to represent an actual argument.