Open Daily Quickfire Debates!

[DeletedUser]

Don't think of it as being a statement purely about the US.
Put it into a global context and what Jefferson is saying is that countries would benefit more from not grouping together in economic alliances.

Looking around the world today it is clear that developed nations like to group together, largely because it benefits them to do so. We live in a world where no nation will want to hinder its development in order to aid the development of the poorer nations in the world. Jefferson was right to believe that more international cooperation is a positive thing, however it was a rather naïve view as he failed to consider the fact that economically developed countries benefit most from grouping together and it is the poorer nations in the world who lose out as a result, not the rich ones.

 

[DeletedUser]

Wow... umm.... not sure this is a good topic for a daily quickfire debate... more like a good topic for 10,000 Dissertations...

But my general observation is that economic activity isn't as much based on the political wranglings of national governments as much as it is based upon an extremely large number of extremely diverse businesses... which build upon each other... need each other.... service each other... , and therefore direct the flow of governmental regulations in their favor.

That combined with the base-need for raw resources creates the flow of "economic alliances"... the rising tree... as a self perpetuating entity that feeds upon itself.

There are of course, examples... the embargoes against Cuba and Iran... for example... where political battles interfere with the *natural* course of business evolution, but I see that as the exception, not the rule.

Simply put, its the human element that creates the business world... based on millions of "what's best for me?" decisions made over hundreds of years.

 

[DeletedUser]

Should whistleblowing be illegal?

(No jokes about people blowing actual whistles please, though if you must make them, at least make them funny).

 

[DeletedUser33530]

*clears throat*

A tin whistle player was sick of the band abusing him, and decided to start his own.
He walked into a music shop, planning to buy the first instruments he saw.
"Give me the red saxophone and that accordion!", he said.
The assistant said, "You play the whistle, don't you?"
"That's right. Why?"
"Well, the fire exinguisher I can sell you - but the radiator stays."


What's the difference between a snake and a whistle in the road?
People MIGHT swerve to miss the snake.


If you got lost in the woods, and you came across a whistler that played very well, a whistler that played badly, or Santa Claus, which one should you ask for directions?
The whistler that plays badly. The other two show you have been having hallucinations.

What's the difference between a whistle and a trampoline?
You take off your shoes when you jump on a trampoline.

How do you get two whistlers to play in unison?
Shoot one.


"Gentlemen" defined: Someone who knows how to play the whistle, but doesn't.



Thank you! and goodnight

 

[DeletedUser29066]

Should whistleblowing be illegal?

Whistleblowing - no, not when using the proper channels. Can be instrumental in revealing corruption, abuse, illegal activities, mismanagement, imcompetence, etc. In some countries laws are in place to protect whistleblowers from prosecution.

Treason - yes, and should be swiftly & harshly dealt with.

 

[DeletedUser]

lulz CoD, and i agree with Hassan.

 

[DeletedUser]

Should whistleblowing be illegal?

No, most definitely not. In fact, I'd argue that whistleblowers should be protected from being convicted for whistle blowing.
In my opinion, any institution, be it country or company, should promote transparency and honesty. Ensuring ethical behaviour will boost relationships, internal and external, national and international. Whistleblowing is an extremely useful tool which helps prevention and detection of malpractices, corruption and other illicit activities.
Should whistleblowing be outlawed then there is no incentive for anyone to not be corrupt. Misconduct would become more commonplace. Especially nations will be able to get away with much more clandestine, corrupt behaviour; they don't have to adhere to any laws, at least not when they do something secretly. This would be a step towards a dictatorial regime.

The very notion of whistleblowing becoming illegal just seems strange to me. Why should anyone be convicted for exposing the crimes of someone else.

Whistleblowing - no, not when using the proper channels. Can be instrumental in revealing corruption, abuse, illegal activities, mismanagement, imcompetence, etc. In some countries laws are in place to protect whistleblowers from prosecution.

Treason - yes, and should be swiftly & harshly dealt with.

Define treason though..
Google defines it as "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government."

If we use that definition then the two are not mutually exclusive. Betraying is a very broad and subjective word and I'm sure that a government would see someone who informs the world of said government's illicit activities as a betrayer. But as I've said above I definitely do not think the whistleblower should be charged with treason, or anything for that matter.

 

[DeletedUser]

I completely agree with Skully on this, I can't see it as treason when your airing out a nations dirty secrets.

Now if you are trying to use this information to bring harm to the people as far as military strategy and future plans then yes you deserve what you get.

 

[DeletedUser19042]

*clears throat*

A tin whistle player was sick of the band abusing him, and decided to start his own.
He walked into a music shop, planning to buy the first instruments he saw.
"Give me the red saxophone and that accordion!", he said.
The assistant said, "You play the whistle, don't you?"
"That's right. Why?"
"Well, the fire exinguisher I can sell you - but the radiator stays."


What's the difference between a snake and a whistle in the road?
People MIGHT swerve to miss the snake.


If you got lost in the woods, and you came across a whistler that played very well, a whistler that played badly, or Santa Claus, which one should you ask for directions?
The whistler that plays badly. The other two show you have been having hallucinations.

What's the difference between a whistle and a trampoline?
You take off your shoes when you jump on a trampoline.

How do you get two whistlers to play in unison?
Shoot one.


"Gentlemen" defined: Someone who knows how to play the whistle, but doesn't.



Thank you! and goodnight

lol'd.

But shouldn't we first try to define 'whistle blowing' more specific?

Like is whistle blowing what Snowden did to the NSA, or more like some kid that tells his teacher that he got hit by an other kid?
I mean, if we consider the latter illegal...where are we going with this world..

 

[DeletedUser]

As we're talking about legislation the appropriate definition would be the one used in US law, namely:
Whistleblowing
The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing.

 

[DeletedUser39847]

In the case where someone is in danger or it affects the health of that person then yes I agree with squeals...ugh I mean "whistleblowers"

In cases such as tax fraud or compensation fraud no I would not agree for the simple fact that corporation's/Government deserve to pay out for the treatment of people subjected by them.

 

[DeletedUser]

But shouldn't we first try to define 'whistle blowing' more specific?

Like is whistle blowing what Snowden did to the NSA, or more like some kid that tells his teacher that he got hit by an other kid?
I mean, if we consider the latter illegal...where are we going with this world..

that's snitching not whistle blowing, and it's cowardly, not illegal.

 

[DeletedUser5819]

that's snitching not whistle blowing, and it's cowardly, not illegal.

So....its cowardly to let someone know you're being bullied? That's an interesting perspective :|
I wonder who would have a perspective like that.

In the case where someone is in danger or it affects the health of that person then yes I agree with squeals...ugh I mean "whistleblowers"
In cases such as tax fraud or compensation fraud no I would not agree for the simple fact that corporation's/Government deserve to pay out for the treatment of people subjected by them.

This confuses me.
Being as the money government has is taxpayer's money, yep that's my money and likely yours, why would it be ok for someone to defraud us of it, or not to pay their share? It is not "the government" that suffers, it is the honest law-abiding citizen, who has to pay more, or experiences cuts in services.

I am supportive of whistleblowing, and think it should be encouraged. Bringing shady practices and downright criminality to light is in the public interest and should be encouraged. It could even be given the trendy treatment with an ad campaign.

Treason should normally be confined to selling secrets, or spying for another nation imo. Also for revealing info which impacts the safety of real people such as publishing secret troop movements or the identities of agents overseas would be treason even if no money changed hands and the release were public.
Similarly industrial espionage should remain a criminal offence.

 

[DeletedUser39847]

So....its cowardly to let someone know you're being bullied? That's an interesting perspective :|
I wonder who would have a perspective like that.


This confuses me.
Being as the money government has is taxpayer's money, yep that's my money and likely yours, why would it be ok for someone to defraud us of it, or not to pay their share? It is not "the government" that suffers, it is the honest law-abiding citizen, who has to pay more, or experiences cuts in services.

I am supportive of whistleblowing, and think it should be encouraged. Bringing shady practices and downright criminality to light is in the public interest and should be encouraged. It could even be given the trendy treatment with an ad campaign.

Treason should normally be confined to selling secrets, or spying for another nation imo. Also for revealing info which impacts the safety of real people such as publishing secret troop movements or the identities of agents overseas would be treason even if no money changed hands and the release were public.
Similarly industrial espionage should remain a criminal offence.

Why is it the governments money? When we work we pay income tax's ect. But for what?
To pay for road maintenance? no road tax pays for that.
For medical care? no insurance pays for that.
For electricity? No we pay an electrical company for that.

So really when you pay the likes of income tax it's giving free money away.

In regards to insurance fraud....everyone needs a new sitting room or car now and again. Why else would you pay insurance? for the satisfaction of being a top notch person? I don't think so.

 

[DeletedUser]

Should whistleblowing be illegal?

(No jokes about people blowing actual whistles please, though if you must make them, at least make them funny).

If we make whistleblowing illegal, we must make everything it combats illegal and be assured that an impartial body will have the unrestricted capabilities to monitor and enforce such regulations. Given the heightened probability that attempted such safety measures (Yes, NSA, we're all looking at you. Scum.) tend to become part of the issue in themselves, I find it highly improbable that there are enough competent and morally sane professionals to oversee such a strategy. People need taking down a peg or two every now and again, regardless of the cost - if you fixate on a rigid system, people will adapt and abuse it. It takes a zealot - amateur or otherwise - to do this.

I suppose the alternative is to make every single piece of data at the government's disposal open to the public. If the populace were stupid enough to believe that in the first instance, I don't feel the need to patronise you with the plethora of flaws it would entail.

Generalised assertion over.

 

[DeletedUser]

So....its cowardly to let someone know you're being bullied? That's an interesting perspective :|
I wonder who would have a perspective like that.

yes, deal with your own problems, couple kids have tried to mess with me, but they never do it twice, and your insinuation is below you steaky. the point is finding your own solution for things, not running to daddy.

 

[DeletedUser]

Try telling that to France.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

If we make whistleblowing illegal, we must make everything it combats illegal and be assured that an impartial body will have the unrestricted capabilities to monitor and enforce such regulations. Given the heightened probability that attempted such safety measures (Yes, NSA, we're all looking at you. Scum.) tend to become part of the issue in themselves, I find it highly improbable that there are enough competent and morally sane professionals to oversee such a strategy. People need taking down a peg or two every now and again, regardless of the cost - if you fixate on a rigid system, people will adapt and abuse it. It takes a zealot - amateur or otherwise - to do this.

I suppose the alternative is to make every single piece of data at the government's disposal open to the public. If the populace were stupid enough to believe that in the first instance, I don't feel the need to patronise you with the plethora of flaws it would entail.

Generalised assertion over.

Pushty has spoken! His word is law.

 

[DeletedUser]

In the case where someone is in danger or it affects the health of that person then yes I agree with squeals...ugh I mean "whistleblowers"
In cases such as tax fraud or compensation fraud no I would not agree for the simple fact that corporation's/Government deserve to pay out for the treatment of people subjected by them.

You're against exposing fraud? You're in favour of fraud? What? That's certainly an... interesting point of view to have. Do you think there could be a functioning economy, on any scale, in which fraud is commonplace, and the people trying to prevent it are convicted?

I am supportive of whistleblowing, and think it should be encouraged. Bringing shady practices and downright criminality to light is in the public interest and should be encouraged. It could even be given the trendy treatment with an ad campaign.

When you say encourage would you go as far to say that, for example, someone who exposes a co-workers illicit activities should be given something like a monetary bonus? Because although it might help with catching more culprits it could also seriously damage trust on the workfloor.

Treason should normally be confined to selling secrets, or spying for another nation imo. Also for revealing info which impacts the safety of real people such as publishing secret troop movements or the identities of agents overseas would be treason even if no money changed hands and the release were public.
Similarly industrial espionage should remain a criminal offence.

I fully agree.

Why is it the governments money? When we work we pay income tax's ect. But for what?
To pay for road maintenance? no road tax pays for that.
For medical care? no insurance pays for that.
For electricity? No we pay an electrical company for that.

So really when you pay the likes of income tax it's giving free money away.

In regards to insurance fraud....everyone needs a new sitting room or car now and again. Why else would you pay insurance? for the satisfaction of being a top notch person? I don't think so.

Wow, this is such an uninformed post, again, advocating fraud. I'm not going into too much detail to not stray too much from the topic, but you pay insurance for: an arrangement by which a company or the state undertakes to provide a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a specified premium.
Not for the satisfaction of being a good person, that comes with not abusing the system. Frauds and swindles are the exact reason why we need whistleblowers. They are the ones where a chunk of the honest taxpayers' money is being wasted on.

If we make whistleblowing illegal, we must make everything it combats illegal and be assured that an impartial body will have the unrestricted capabilities to monitor and enforce such regulations. Given the heightened probability that attempted such safety measures (Yes, NSA, we're all looking at you. Scum.) tend to become part of the issue in themselves, I find it highly improbable that there are enough competent and morally sane professionals to oversee such a strategy. People need taking down a peg or two every now and again, regardless of the cost - if you fixate on a rigid system, people will adapt and abuse it. It takes a zealot - amateur or otherwise - to do this.

I suppose the alternative is to make every single piece of data at the government's disposal open to the public. If the populace were stupid enough to believe that in the first instance, I don't feel the need to patronise you with the plethora of flaws it would entail.

Generalised assertion over.

Well said.

yes, deal with your own problems, couple kids have tried to mess with me, but they never do it twice, and your insinuation is below you steaky. the point is finding your own solution for things, not running to daddy.

This is just such an extremely inconsiderate, egocentric thing to say. We are all very impressed with your badass ability to stand up for yourself, but as your fallacy is anecdotal, not everyone is such a marvellous bruiser as you apparently are. Bullying is a problem and even though I would rather call it telling on someone than whistleblowing, even at this scale, it is necessary and should definitely not carry any repercussions.

 

[DeletedUser]

My view on the matter is that it seems crazy to me that a government could make whistleblowing illegal.
If a person knows that there is something inherently wrong with an institution, e.g. Corruption within the justice department in the US (hypothetically, or not :S), it is illegal for them to reveal that fact and if they tried to do anything through the 'correct means', they would clearly not get very far.

it is not in the public's interest in any way at all for whistle blowing to be illegal... it is in the interest of authoritarian governments and has no place in a democratic country.