Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Latest users (4): feelythefeel, jewishcommunazi, lulzformalaysiaair, youregaylol, anonymous(24).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2143 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
Julian Assange.

Go.
User avatar #2147 to #2143 - AreyouSerious (06/24/2012) [-]
He was a whistle blower that was a thorn in the side of big corporations like News Corp. We need more people like him.
#2151 to #2144 - largenintimidating (06/24/2012) [-]
Assange goes for governments, not corporations.

And they're both in the wrong. Just like you keep some things secret for good reason (e.g. unflattering opinions of people that you have to deal with on a daily basis), governments keep some things secret for a reason (e.g. candid assessments of world leaders that can be less than flattering). Same thing with "Collateral Damage"; just like you try not to let people know that you did something incredibly stupid that would irreparably tarnish your reputation (e.g. drinking too much at a wedding and making a pass at the bride before passing out in the toilet), governments try not to let people know that they fucked up (e.g. shooting civilians by accident, which, if it got out, could jeopardize the entire war effort).

TL;DR = Some secrets are kept secret for good reason, and if you dig them up and reveal them to the world without the secret-keeper's consent, you're a dickhead regardless of what the secret was or from who it was stolen.
User avatar #2235 to #2151 - FuckingMagnets (06/25/2012) [-]
Comparing the collateral damage incident to "not tarnishing your own reputation at a wedding" is a massive straw man. I.... I can't even... uhh.
User avatar #2156 to #2151 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
I completely disagree.

Lying and deception is immoral and outright dangerous enough when done by civilian individuals, just imagine the damage governments could do with it.
No, scratch that, research the damag governments have done with it.
Senseless wars have been fought over nothing but disinformation and secrecy; millions of lives have been lost.

Jeopardizing the war effort? Without lying governments, there would be no war.
And even then, a war that has to be won through the slaughter of innocents and civilians is a war you deserve to lose.

TL;DR: A government that has to lie and keep secrets is a government worth abolishing.
#2164 to #2156 - largenintimidating (06/24/2012) [-]
Because you've never lied, told less than the whole truth or kept something secret, and if you haven't it's always resulted in the best case scenario.

Some things are kept secret, and some lies are told for good reason. Because sometimes the truth won't set you free, it will just destroy a good friendship or marriage with a one-off moment from years ago that some absolute moralist fuckhead couldn't let be. Maybe that friendship or marriage will be repaired, but it'll never be the same, not stronger for it, but weaker because the trust, which both parties may actually be worth, is gone.

Governments keep their candid assessments of world leaders secret for the same reason private individuals don't tell everyone what they think of them. You can't live with that kind of person; the kind who pass off the fact that they lack the social skills to hide their, possibly petty and biased, criticisms of others as just them "being brutally honest".

Without lying government's, there would be constant war, because diplomatic fuck-ups wouldn't be covered up. They'd just be left in the open, feeding simmering resentments between countries and their people, forever damning every country as an asshole because the human brain isn't designed to conceive of the fact that other people are just as complex emotionally as you. Countries in the same situation as the USA and USSR during the Cold War would have wiped out humanity 20 times over, because the methods that the CW was fought with wouldn't work if lying was impossible.

All wars involve civilian casualties. It's a sad fact that collateral damage happens when you pit men with weapons against each other on such a scale. No war is won by killing civilians, and broadcasting that it happened by accidentdoesn't help anybody.

TL;DR = Lies and secrets are necessary for society to work, because brutal honesty is a quick-fix solution that only allows the person practicing it a moment of relief before everything goes to shit.
#2173 to #2164 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
"Because you've never lied, told less than the whole truth or kept something secret"   
I have and I'm not proud of it. It blew up right into my face often enough, too.   
   
"Because sometimes the truth won't set you free, it will just destroy a good friendship or marriage"   
Yeah, because relationships based on lies are so great.   
I'd rather have an outright enemy than a "friend" who doesn't consider me worth being honest to.   
   
"Without lying government's, there would be constant war, because diplomatic fuck-ups wouldn't be covered up."   
   
Now kindly tell me, what diplomatic fuck-ups would there be without lying governments?   
Without one government double-crossing another, then throwing the people it's supposed to protect into war to keep the lid on or as last resort when getting caught?   
   
Everything else you said relies on that invalid circular logic and comes toppling down right now. God, I love popping balloons like this.   
   
"broadcasting that it happened by accidentdoesn't help anybody."   
It's the truth though and however unconvenient, the second you try to supress it you become a tyrant of Stalinist scale.   
   
TL;DR: Lies and secrecy are cancer that poison everything they touch. At best.   
At their worst, they're timebombs waiting to trigger violence and bloodshed, on any scale.
"Because you've never lied, told less than the whole truth or kept something secret"
I have and I'm not proud of it. It blew up right into my face often enough, too.

"Because sometimes the truth won't set you free, it will just destroy a good friendship or marriage"
Yeah, because relationships based on lies are so great.
I'd rather have an outright enemy than a "friend" who doesn't consider me worth being honest to.

"Without lying government's, there would be constant war, because diplomatic fuck-ups wouldn't be covered up."

Now kindly tell me, what diplomatic fuck-ups would there be without lying governments?
Without one government double-crossing another, then throwing the people it's supposed to protect into war to keep the lid on or as last resort when getting caught?

Everything else you said relies on that invalid circular logic and comes toppling down right now. God, I love popping balloons like this.

"broadcasting that it happened by accidentdoesn't help anybody."
It's the truth though and however unconvenient, the second you try to supress it you become a tyrant of Stalinist scale.

TL;DR: Lies and secrecy are cancer that poison everything they touch. At best.
At their worst, they're timebombs waiting to trigger violence and bloodshed, on any scale.
#2191 to #2173 - largenintimidating (06/24/2012) [-]
Then you're shit at telling lies, but I doubt you would have minded nobody finding out about them, and having some third party rip it from a diary of yours and then broad

A relationship based on a lie is very different from the situation I described. To be based on a lie, the very foundation of the relationship must rest upon that lie. I'm talking about the kind of lie where something inconsiderate done once without much forethought is kept secret because it'll ruin things for no good reason, because you'll be pissed about it for twenty minutes, and then realize you're being an idiot, but by then the damage is done.

Of course, this would require the friendship/marriage to have gotten anywhere with both parties telling each other what they dislike about the other from day one, since opting not to tell the person you just met that you fucking hate how they ruffle their hair would be suppression of the truth, and then you're just as bad as Stalin. Congratulations, human society is done for as nobody is capable of socializing, since to do it succesfully requires less than total honesty.

I'm sorry, there would indeed be no diplomatic fuck-ups, because we'd have skipped the part where we try to be nice to each other, and just gone straight to "fuck you, no fuck you, this means war".

Example: Country A opens diplomatic relations with country B, and starts off with "I want your oil, and that's why I'm talking to you. I couldn't give less of a shit about you people if I didn't". Country B responds with "well you can't have it, and by the way, I think you're a bit of a prick, so fuck you". Country A then invades, because there's no need for a pretense other than "we want their shit". Negotiations, after all, would require less than complete honesty.

Since you went for essentially Godwin's Law, I'm done with this one.

TL;DR = Society can't survive with total honesty, because the human brain literally cannot have as much sympathy for anyone else as it does for itself.
User avatar #2201 to #2191 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
There's a difference between a personal secret that's nobodies business and the state making secrets of things concerning the whole collective.
One deserves to be ripped out of its secret folder and be broadcasted. Preferably internationally. Guess which one I mean.
And guess how much of your bullshit analogies go out of the window with that.
That's right, all of them.

A nation willing to invade another one for nothing else than resources will not be stopped by diplomacy.
What a laughable notion.

"Example: Country A opens diplomatic relations with country B, and starts off with "I want your oil, and that's why I'm talking to you. I couldn't give less of a shit about you people if I didn't". Country B responds with "well you can't have it, and by the way, I think you're a bit of a prick, so fuck you". Country A then invades, because there's no need for a pretense other than "we want their shit"."

You think international relations work like this? You must live in some dreamworld.
This is ridiculous.

"TL;DR = Society can't survive with total honesty, because the human brain literally cannot have as much sympathy for anyone else as it does for itself."
That statement is literally impossible to prove, if there's anything literal about it.

TL;DR: You haven't said anything logical in that post. Not a single thing.
#2192 to #2191 - largenintimidating (06/24/2012) [-]
Just in case you didn't get it, we're done here.

You used a Communist version of Godwin's Law, and next you'll probably fulfill the Law to it's fullest, but more importantly:

I've got better things to do than argue on FJ with some 14-year old (or maybe college-aged) kid who still believes in absolute moralist fuckwittery because he can't understand that the reason people think he's a prick is that his "brutal honesty" is not, in fact, proof of "how much more real than everybody else" he is, but instead just simply known as being an asshole.
User avatar #2202 to #2192 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
Oh, I'll tell you when I'm done with you, don't worry.

And your assumptions are off. Way off. Hilariously off.
If you knew me, you'd be ashamed of having typed that.

Anyway...
#2203 to #2202 - largenintimidating (06/24/2012) [-]
But I don't know you, and I'm not.

Hey, we've had a conversation where neither of us has hidden anything about what we think of the other, and I hate your ass already. The beauty of the internet, showing you just what's wrong with human nature.

Adios.
User avatar #2207 to #2203 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
I just realized something.
Namely that I can't believe I just had an argument about whether crimes should be exposed and brought to justice or not.
Whatever.

Do I care if you hate me, do you wanna know the truth?
C'est la vie, adiĆ³s, good riddance, fuck you.
#2177 to #2173 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/24/2012) [-]
I think the lie "we'll bomb the shit out of Japan if you don't surrender" helped end WW2, even though we only had those bombs that we used.
User avatar #2178 to #2177 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
A lie?
There's hundreds of thousands of Japanese people suffering from radiation until today that would surely like to disagree with you.
And then beat you up, most probably.
#2265 to #2178 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/25/2012) [-]
you misread his comment shit for brains, what he said was the two atomic bombs we dropped was all we had, which is true, we only had two atomic bombs, so we did in fact lie when we said we would continue to bomb them cause we already launched all we had and they weren't wiped out yet
User avatar #2270 to #2265 - techketzer (06/25/2012) [-]
I see. My mistake.

Still I do not think that was a lie, as there was nothing stopping the US from constructing more and bigger nuclear bombs.
The threat was a real one, I'd reckon.
 Friends (0)