Hacker News Reader

Comment by deanCommie | Hacker News Reader

Let's dispell with this notion.

Telling only one side of the truth is a form of a lie.

If you are actively soliciting, and distributing dirt on only one of the parties involved in an election, though it may be the entire truth, you are not being HONEST.

Especially if the information you are releasing was providing to you by a malicious 3rd party State who/which is releasing it to you in the hopes of influencing the election so that a candidate preferable to that 3d state comes into power (Russia).

View on HN

> If you are actively soliciting, and distributing dirt on only one of the parties involved in an election, though it may be the entire truth, you are not being HONEST.

By this logic we could say Snowden was not being HONEST because he didn't dish us any dirt on the FBI, or Russia, or any of those other Organizations / countries that he simply doesn't have dirt on.

wikileaks has access to information and they are sharing it. That's important.

How long has Clinton been in the game, receiving a fortune from Saudi Arabia? That's why there is so much dirt to dish. Everyone has been familiar with Trump's dirt since The Apprentice.

Unfortunately, my support of Snowden has waned the more I learned that... A) He actively pursued information to steal (rather than coming across it naturally and deciding he had a moral obligation to reveal it) B) He ignored the pursuit of information damaging to any countries other than the US. C) He shared information with the Chinese government (and possibly the Russian government).

I still think he is a hero who should be pardoned and lauded, but...he's a deeply flawed one.

> He shared information with the Chinese government (and possibly the Russian government).

Evidence, please.

Telling only one side of the truth is a form of a lie.

Real truth doesn't have sides.

You are coming across as being disingenuous, I fear. A side of the truth is just a part of it, but using "side" instead conveys the complex aftereffects that revealing a part of some data (the "truth", if you will) can have.

If you have damaging data on two people who are enemies of each other, publishing dirt on one but not the other is helping the other person -- taking a side, IOW.

>If you have damaging data on two people

Do you have any reason to think that Wikileaks has the data on both sides, but only presents half?

Assange said so himself.

Care to provide a citation? I seem to recall him saying he had nothing on Trump.

Choose any link from a Google search for "assange trump worse" you deem trustworthy. All kinds of news sources across the political spectrum have reported it.

First hit TheHill - the opposite of my trust pool - seems to agree with what I said. Not "Trump lied to the FBI and is funded by the same people who fund ISIS".

You didn't claim "Trump lied to the FBI and is funded by the same people who fund ISIS"

You claimed "he had nothing on Trump". And the links clearly counter that.

That's my last reply to you. I don't like my discussion partners to sleazily try and retroactively change their claims to something nobody ever talked about when shown counter arguments. That's not an honest mistake, that's simply dishonest and a waste of time.

I think "says stupid things"

and "undermines the democratic process by using slush funds, illegal foreign donations and a slew of felonious crimes" is hardly a moral equivalent.

So I double down on my assertion: Wikileaks has nothing on Trump.

wasn't assange's/WL's position that they couldn't really do any worse to Trump than he already does with his own words? something to that effect?

Based on your inability to provide a citation my immediate assumption is that your assertion is untrue. This is generally a reasonable heuristic. If only for the sake of convincing bystanders, can you please provide a citation for this claim?

A side of the truth is just a part of it

Not really. The way I see it (and what I meant), is that although truthful facts can be presented in a way that favours one side, the presentation does not change the value of truth itself. Claiming that "truth has a side" is an attempt to disqualify information because you don't like it, and should not be accepted as valid reasoning by well-thinking people.

publishing dirt on one but not the other is helping the other person -- taking a side, IOW.

Then the publisher has a side, not the truth itself.

> Especially if the information you are releasing was providing to you by a malicious 3rd party [...] who/which is releasing it to you in the hopes of influencing the election [...]

Didn't this already happen to Trump as well, and aren't we glad we know?

So I can't release something bad about one side until I have something equally bad about the other?

Lets be 'HONEST', your problem is that the leak looks bad for the candidate you like. Were you against the Trump video that came out or is that okay?

The side revealed is collusion against the democratic process.

I doubt you will find much info on how Bernie was trying to keep Clinton out by illegal means.

And you're going to need better proof it was Russia than the words of the criminals thus exposed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com