Re: Loser Loser tom dial Still not "secure" @Plump & Bleaty
@Plump & Bleaty
Remarkably long post, plumps, derailed by your misrepresentation of my clearly stated position, and failure to address my question.
> A simple example is Treasury spending - I do not need to know the exact sums used by the Treasury to calculate
Your words: "the exact sums". Indeed, exact is unnecessary, an approximation is necessary as you tacitly admit (by using the word 'exact'). So you do need information.
> I do not need to know exactly what the SAS, MI5, MI6 or the GCHQ (and by extension, the CIA and NSA) are doing
Again, the word 'exact', implying that you do need enough information to know.
> because we are not seeing the daily bombings and other attacks rampant across many other areas of the World where the terrorists can act more freely.
Prove that without such tapping these events would be daily, and that they are being prevented by mass undeclared surveillance. Oh you can't? Because you don't have the necessary info? So you take it on trust Farmer is doing a good job!
Extra salt lick for Bryant tonight! You've earned it plumps.
> You are attempting to insist that democracy cannot be real democracy unless there is complete transparency, which is obvious horse manure.
Oh, agreed about the horse manure! because I never claimed complete transparency was desirous. You even quoted my exact words. Let me quote your exact quote of my words back at you: "....but my point is that without the relevant information (deriving from substantial transparency, not necessarily total transparency but a good in-principle idea of what's occurring), we tautologically cannot know how they are governing and therefore cannot cast an informed vote.....
Read it again pillock.
> suppose the government withheld all information except what it wanted us to know, would that be acceptable to you?
It would appear that your answer is yes, because they already do ("Except that is exactly what they do."), so you admit that we are not being given the information we need and you're happy with that. OK.
Right, now the question you dodged, the one about whether if you endorsed torture you'd be willing to do it yourself. I'll repeat it, broken down into two for ease of comprehension:
* Do you agree that if a person is willing to sanction an action that they (if they are physically capable of it) should be morally willing to perform that action personally?
* If the above is true do you therefore accept that you would be willing to personally torture another person?
It's a simple and important question, please answer it directly without spewing clouds of chaff and attempted misdirection.