All my explanations about your and krellin's circularity read the same if you replace "depression" with "not sane".

Shitty logic is just shitty logic. Sorry.

That isn't what the statement says. You are leaving out the "otherwise complete and functioning" part of the statement which rules out any other possible source for the problem.

But now I believe you are either a total moron who should repeat basic logic classes or are trolling. Either way, I'm done getting frustrated by your obtuse refusal to grasp the obvious.

I really should get back to work now. But I can give you some more examples latter if you're still struggling with this.

You can't leave out part of a statement to suit your needs. *Both* statements put a qualifier in that you are ignoring.

Don't bother. Your an idiot and anything you say is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

I imagine getting back to work for dirge means his crayon book...because that mental midget wouldn't be able to argue his way out of a paper bag.

I fear he represents yet another failure of the public schools...some moron who doesn't know shit, who's never properly scolded, whom - no matter how bad he did - was always told how wonderful and smart he is...and then some asshole like Putin gave him a passing grade regardless of his performance just to get him the hell out of there...

bradley manning is a faggot, whoa ctually endangered lives, however assange and snowden are guys with balls of steel, so fk you dirge.

Wait a minute...OBI is Bradley Manning!??!?

I can tolerate Assange, but Snowden was a spook. He knew exactly what he was getting into and yet acts all surprised when he finds out the depth of the rabbit hole. You don't go to work for one of the world's largest spy organizations then decide to release everything you find. That is, quite simply, seditious. His actions were intended to cause the people to rise up in some manner and he broke a sworn oath to keep the secrets of the NSA *secret*!

I have respect for Snowden even though I disagree with what he did.

Assange is a useless narcissistic waste.

@Draugnar "You can't leave out part of a statement to suit your needs. *Both* statements put a qualifier in that you are ignoring."

sorry to have to correct you again, but this is the original comment in its entirety, we call all see and agree there is no hedges or qualifying clauses:

Krellin: "And one can make the argument that people who are otherwise healthy and successful don't choose to take their lives unless they are not sane. Fucktard moron."

so follow me closely kids and I'll walk you through it again. But listen this time:

1) Aaron completes suicide. This is an objective event we all agree on (at least until the truthers get on here).
2) Krellin asserts that no one who commits suicide is not sane (double negative is krellin's)
3) This is some kind of apparent proof of Aaron's "not saneness."

Here the hypothesis (2) is used as proof (3). This is circular because the hypothesis is being used to prove itself.

And while it is kind of sad in a way, I don't personally feel that Mr. Manning's gender identification is particularly relevant to whether s/he is an ethical activist or a criminal (or both). But it does suggest unstable identity and attention seeking.

"But it does suggest unstable identity and attention seeking."

Considering that Manning tried to keep his identity a secret, how were his actions "attention seeking" exactly?

i don't know. I mean afterward. but maybe not.

@dirge - read again...

otherwise healthy and successful

That is a clarifying modifier of the suicidal.person's condition. It clarifies that the suicide is not due to depression brought on by circumstances such as being on the street and homeless nor by someone who is dealing with a permanent or terminal condition (paraplegic or debilitating disease with a limited time to leave whose condition and pain will only get worse).

@draugnar, you yourself asserted earlier that depression and "not sane" are two different things and we are specifically talking about "not sane." Health and success are immaterial to the problem of krellin's circularity. Not sane = Suicide. Suicide = Not Sane. Ad infinitum.

If you want to have a conversation about etiology, that's another issue.

"Considering that Manning tried to keep his identity a secret, how were his actions "attention seeking" exactly?"

It was more of a snap judgment, but considering how f'ed up her-his life is right now, I suppose all bets are off. Perhaps it was a matter of "might as well come out now . . ."

You confuse equivalency with cause and effect. Krellin did not say suicide = insanity. He said suicide by a healthy and successful person was proof of insanity.

If weighing a gallon milk jug shows a weight of mere ounces, then that is proof the milk jug is empty.

In short, suicide = not sane, but he didn't say not sane = suicide. It's simple set theory. All suicides are insane. But not all insane people commit suicide and he never claimed that.

just short hand. don't want to go through the whole explanation again. If you haven't got it by now, you aren't going to. Even if you subtract healthy and successful from the equation we still have a single fact of a single suicide. The premise that suicide = not sane whether or not you subtract healthy+successful, is still not proven by the incident of this suicide. The premise needs to be supported by something other than the suicide.

Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!

"considering how f'ed up her-his life is right now, I suppose all bets are off. Perhaps it was a matter of "might as well come out now . . .""

Or more likely, it was a matter of a diminutive 5'2" young man not wanting to spend the next sixteen years getting ass-raped in the general population of a federal prison. "Coming out" will likely get him some small protections from the deliberate sadistic brutality of the American prison system.

"The premise needs to be supported by something other than the suicide. "

I agree, but that doesn't make the statement circular, it merely makes his conclusion flawed.

Tolstoy, I don't know his/her motive. I think you make a good point.

Draugnar, he made an unsupported proposition in the form of a statement: suicide - (healthy + successful) = not sane. And, as I read it, the implied conclusion that Aaron was therefore not-sane. The statement and the implication together create an unfalsifiable argument.

T: suicide - (healthy + successful) = non sane; non sanity >caused> Aaron's suicide; how do we know? because, suicide - (healthy + successful) = non sane . . . ∞

If I want to test the proposition that Aaron made a choice to end his life, it is not possible within this system because by krellin's unfalsifiable tautology Aaron was not sane and therefore could not have made a choice.

krellin has a knack, you might say, for coming up with arguments that simply cannot be argued with.

@Draugnar

You do make some excellent points.

I'd like to counter that pretty much no-one seems to understand the role of dissent and whistle-blowing in the sustenance of a healthy social democracy.

I mean, even if we agree that what Mr. Snowden did was on some level illegal, the people clamoring for his blood don't seem to acknowledge that the problems that he has exposed were *even more illegal* by an order of magnitude.

What concerns me about certain people's perspective - yours for example - is that you don't vocalize that whistleblowing is an intrinsic part of the system as it is designed. I don't think any perspective on the issue can be considered realistic that doesn't acknowledge that what Snowden did was incontrovertibly *right* on some level.

I have to admit my own perspective on Snowden has shifted. I do see him as a sincere whistleblower (not Assange). He apparently planned this for some time before he did it. But still I think he went too far. He released too many specifics and how much more we don't know. I doubt that he considered how much repressive governments are going to gain from his actions, not the least of which is Russia where he has taken refuge. The best thing I could say for him is he was probably well meaning if naive. His revelations will have both positive and negative impacts.

His escape to Russia is ethically problematic, much like his mentor's love affair and sanctuary with a government that criminalizes speech.

As the President put it: Whistleblowing is about bringing someone to take for breaking the law and hiding it. When a 28 year old releases top secret government documents about operations that fulfill policies set down by his superiors and not in violation of the law, it isn't whistle blowing. No, it is sedition. Iran-contra was illegal. Metadata gathering of phone records (they only have who you called and when, not the contents) is not and was not illegal. That wasn't whistleblowing. That was sedition.

I can't fault your reasoning Draugnar, I think you are absolutely correction about both 1) NSA was not breaking the law (so far as we know a this juncture) and 2) Snowden committed a crime (or several). I guess the only real point I was intending was that MAYBE his motives were based on some kind of ethical beliefs, no matter how misguided. And I do think they were misguided.