Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

Your post does not make sense, dmc.
You practically presented two "points". Let's designate your paragraphs first. Then I will prove your post does not answer anything, just senseless rant.

Paragraph (1):

Paragraph (2):

In paragraph (1), you are trying to disprove my statement that ensuring national security is difficult without restricting some freedom rights. Yet, you just do two things:

1.1: You say that I use an assumption, namely "that curtailing the freedoms set forth in the US Constitution is somehow necessary to secure a better national security". Even without 1.2., you try to make the impression here that this assumption is necessarily wrong. How do you know that it's solvable without restricting freedom rights? I can also say: prove that my assumption is wrong. You can say to me that instead I must prove my assumption. Well, instead, think of this: if you're right and I AM wrong (=> my assumption is wrong) and my assumption is still implemented, freedom rights are restricted. However, if you're WRONG (=> my assumption is correct) and it's NOT implemented, there will be successful terrorist attacks.
So my question (Q1): Which has a more catastrophic effect, if you're wrong, or if I'm wrong?

1.2: After saying that I use "an assumption", you bring an EXTREME EXAMPLE of a possible implementation based on my assumption. This is cheap trick, dmc Talking about chips in people? Everyone knows that nothing is either black & white. There are less extreme solutions. Don't make a fool of yourself by trying to discredit an assumption by providing an EXTREME example of its application. This belongs to primary school, man.

In paragraph (2), you write:

I was aware of this fact. But human error and mistakes happen everywhere. National security cannot have humans as weak points (even single points of failure). A more robust system is needed, which tolerates human errors and negligence to a great degree. (Did you know that mission-critical applications such as airplane systems are designed as such?!)
Consequently, the argument "but they made personal mistakes" does not itself prove that security can be guaranteed IN EVERY CASE without further changes in the law/constitution. Maybe, in the next situation, the terrorists will be lucky again but this time due to a different type of human negligence. And as we know, not just the "good guys" improve, the terrorists improve too. They will have more and more advanced & apt tricks and techniques. Here is my second question: (Q2) do you think that national security certainly does not require any freedom restrictions JUST BECAUSE 9'11 happened due to human negligence ?

And then you conclude your post like a well-fed child after eating:

This is rather lawyer-paranoia than anything that is PROVED objectively. But even if it's not paranoia, it is still not a sure thing.

Dmc, as you can see, you didn't do else than this:
1. Made an attempt to misrepresent my assumption (that antiterrorism might require freedom right restriction) by providing an EXTREME example of its application.
2. Implied that since 9'11 happened because of human negligences, it could probably have been prevented without restricting any freedom rights.
3. Based on 2., you seemed to imply that hence there is no need to restrict the freedom rights.
4. You concluded Patriot Act was not needed.

Your train of thought is flawed, as you can see. I disproved every above point (where it was needed at all). Also see the question (Q1).

Because yes, I may be wrong with my assumption that successful antiterrorism may require the restriction of freedom rights. BUT WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH INNOCENTS IF YOU'RE WRONG AFTER ALL (i.e. the assumption is correct)?

 

A pointless tag game (using absolute fault logic to tear down an argument then concluding that you are right), but two can play at it.

Your logic here is flawed and really completely arbitrary, especially when coming together with some of your other counter-'arguments'. What you have done is pretty much used the Global Warming game theory argument here - it does not apply, as there are key different facts. You have giving two competing possibilities:
(1) That you are right - that an act like the Patriot act is needed and without lots of people will die;
(2) That you are wrong - that there are other ways to save these people without restricting rights.

You have them proceeded to give the result of each a value. You have assigned a high rating to people dying and a low rating to people's rights been restricted. This is Assumption #1.

Following that, you have concluded that therefore it is better to risk the chance of been wrong and imply the restrictions than risk the chance of not implementing the restrictions. Assumption #2.

Assumption #1 is not an assured fact. Have you never heard of the saying "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir de rodillas" (Emiliano Zapata Salazar), or "It's better to die upon your feet than to live upon your knees!"? This simple statement claims someone has assigned ratings to the two possibilities that are opposite to yours. I could go on to use a Baronius-esq type argument and conclude that therefore your first assumption is wrong, that makes your argument false, therefore I'm right and you're wrong, nay ne nay na na, but i'll refrain.

Instead I'll go on to mention that even assuming that death is worse than having your freedoms curtailed that there are different degrees that your simplified argument failed to take into account. If the option is for one person to die in this subway of yours vs creating a police state it is vastly different from ten thousand people dying in this subway vs having scanners at the airport. Therefore, even given (for argument sakes) that dying is worse than living on your knees, when taken on a aggregated rating (measuring social utility, let's say) your ratings may be completely false, therefore Assumption #1 fails to hold.

Assumption #2 builds on this faulty logic and adds a further degree of probability into the mix. I'm going to return breifly to the above mentioned Global Warming game play below for a bit.

Code:

Actions       |   Global Warming   |   No Warming
---------------------------------------------------
Take Action    |   Small             |   Medium 
---------------------------------------------------
No Action       |  Scaryingly High   |   None

If you are not aware of this argument and matrix but the values represent cost to humanity given various outcomes. From there, one can assign probabilities of each outcome occurring to work out the ideal solution. The argument roughly holds that no matter how low the probability assigned to global warming occurring was, humanity still faces a higher cost in not acting vs acting.

You seem to be using the same logic in your theory, however it does not hold there for two reasons. First, as we've already discussed above, is the exact degree of the costs involved. This is merely your application of the costs, which may not be the same to another person, and will certainly be different if applied on an aggregated scale.

Second: even given a lower cost (proportionally) than in the global warming game play, one could still argue in favour of curtailing rights. This would rely on increasing the probability of an attack if there was no curtailing (ie. increasing the probability of [1,2] occurring). To increase it to such a level that your argument for curtailing rights still applies relies on an absolute extreme claim, and making such a claim definitely places the burden of proof upon you.

I do believe Mr Baronius just shot himself in the foot. Let me copy across a line there just for extra emphasis.

There are less extreme solutions.

The exact same argument can be used against your curtailing of rights to provide protection. What DMC is saying is that there are less extreme solutions. The fact that, in countering his hyperbole you have resorted to that argument, it can obviously be concluded that that argument does hold ground with you. Therefore it can be flipped back the other way and in answer to your question about Subway Bomb vs Patroit Act we can say in reply "There are less extreme solutions".

Not a sure thing? Oh, you mean just like every argument you used? Ah right. I understand now.

His logic here does hold. #1 has nothing to do with the conclusion. #2 you have agreed with yourself in your post that human error happens, so therefore the assumption there holds. #3 is as strong an assumption than your assertion to the opposite. In fact, the burden of proof would fall on you to disprove this assumption, given that it is the status quo. Therefore, his conclusion holds.

See what fun long pointless replies are?

 

I didn't really assign any probabilities to anything. The question was simple:

- (Considering you aren't an experienced security official and expert) how do you know whether an acceptable level of security can be ensured without restricting freedom rights at all? Even experienced experts often argue over such matters (which is good, of course; constructive arguments bring things forward)

Sometimes I get the impression that some people don't want to accept the option about the restriction of ANY rights due to terrorism, even if they don't know what efficient antiterrorism requires. I also don't know it in details, so I never said it needs the restriction of "MANY" rights. I just said it definitely needs certain level of restrictions in certain places, and I'm not the only one with this view. But even this case, I may be wrong, I never denied that. But the question is arisen here: what if my view is not wrong and too weak security is implemented?!

Before my point would appear differently as originally it was: I never said I "know" how much restriction is needed (hell, I can't know USA nearly as deeply as you Americans here). But what is generally known in the world is that national security is damn hard without restricting ANY universal rights (which apply to terrorists as well unfortunately, until we learn they are terrorists, and that is often late). Of course, the exact implementation of such possibly-right-restricting solutions must be done very professionally, and that depends on the country in question (e.g. USA), taking into account the current status of freedom rights, and other local specifics.

 

Here's a thought: the Patriot Act hasn't actually stopped further terrorist attacks on the US (as a whole, I have no idea if it's helped stop any individual attacks or not). One of the biggest reasons we haven't had further devastating attacks is luck. Bombs failed. Repeatedly. Those bombs got through all security and, had they gone off, would have killed lots of people and terrorized the rest. The dichotomy isn't Patriot Act or Terrorist Attacks, it's Patriot Act and Terrorist Attacks, or No Patriot Act and Terrorist Attacks.

The truth is that stopping terrorism is damn hard even if you do restrict universal rights. The despotism in Africa hasn't exactly protected the people much, and countries like China and North Korea seem to do it more by preventing most anyone from entering or leaving the country, rather than anything else.

 

But still easier.

True. I never implied that restricted rights ALONE would help to accomplish anything. They just provide higher efficiency for a well-organized national security. So if national security is not organized and implemented well, indeed the restrictions do not improve anything. You surely know it better than me, but I also remember that USA was known to use weaker and less HUMINT before 9'11 and relied too much on SIGINT instead. I don't know if this has been disapproved since then, or still a valid statement.

 

When you made the statement that

Your argument rested on the fact that it is better to have these measures in place and not get attacked over not having them and running the risk of been attacked. Even if probabilities were not explicitly stated, they were definitely implicitly implied to back your argument up. Besides, if I hadn't replied to that, you would have concluded we were too cowardly and that you had won.

This goes back to my comment about the arbitrary nature of your question/assertion. I can ask: What if your view is wrong and too weak security is implemented? Indeed, what happens if DMC's hyperbole turns out to be right and that everyone does need chips, hospital clothes and so forth? My answer in both cases would be I'm going to buy a one-way ticket to some other safer country.

 

Tal was right, there is no conspiracy
Zoltán Kovács, Secretary of State for Communication, his words are really apt:

Yeah, an entirely different value system. I'm really glad Hungary returns to the real values (such as protecting children, punishing sh**ty reality shows, and that news shouldn't be full with bloody images about crimes etc.).

He also added that the Western left is deeply involved in the entire campaign.

I especially liked this part: "In the West, many join the campaign blindly; they think that by doing this they do something for liberty and plurality." This is what certain posters were doing here, too. It's so funny

Nonetheless, maybe when your many-millionth child dies due to O.D. (drug overdose), you will start thinking that the Hungarian value system might not be that bad.

 

The idea that many Westerners blindly jump on board to "causes" is a valid one. People who couldn't find Tibet on a map stage hunger strikes, or they sponsor a child in an African country they know nothing about other than what they've been told by a celebrity on an infomercial. Their hearts are in the right place, mind you, and they truly feel that they are reaching out and making a difference in the lives of those who are less fortunate than they are.

Now, I at least admit that I don't know what I don't know. What I do know from what you are telling me, Baronious, is that the law you are discussing is NOT resulting in a hue and cry from the Hungarian populace as a whole. They don't feel it is oppressive, nor are they marching in the streets demanding its repeal. That says to me that they either agree with the law or they feel that it won't disrupt their lives too much.

Another view (to which I do not subscribe, as it is arrogant, ethnocentric, and paternalistic to the nth degree) is that the Hungarians are too stupid to understand they are being hosed, or that they are blinded by propaganda. Given your ability to organize your ideas in writing, and extrapolating from that that other Hungarians are like you, I don't buy that for a second. But there are those in the West who do have such a mindset, and are more than willing to launch invective in an effort to "save those poor people from a threat they don't even understand!"

Still others are the ones who have a "lifestyle of slander", who as I mentioned before have political / economic axes to grind and like nothing better than to write about how those poor former Bloc countries are still so backward! I re-iterate my advice to you regarding such people -- ignore them. Move forward with confidence and don't let the naysayers try to tell you that up is down, left is right, or the oceans are fresh water. You'll be vindicated in the end. It's one thing to carefully consider someone's criticism and engage in some self evaluation. That's healthy. It's something else to let your frustration at the arrogance / paternalism of others give you an ulcer.

 

Oh Tal, the two are easily reconciled: It is a conspiracy of capitalists blinded by greed, and an irrational, visceral hatred for Orbáno-Hungary!

 

I see you are cooking well in your own soup, envious insignificant "clever" ones

 

Ooh, Tal and Rags are insignificant! I bet you guys feel really bad now!!

 

When only cynicism remains, and "supporting" each other like that, it already shows how miserable certain people are. Cynicism is all what is left to the disillusioned.

If you prefer to be ordinary, just be ordinary.

 

Dude, I think they just disagree with you. They have more than demonstated their points (Constitutional concerns), just as you have. Your points about democracy and the Will of the People have been well put. But the whole world-wide "media baised" thing? Not so much.

 

Disagreeing has its ways. Go read my post about what tact and basic rules of communication mean. This type of cynical talk that these guys lately seem to use to "feed" each other is more than miserable to me.

Look, "dude", Taluntain & co. live with the assumption "whoever refuses the totally justified international attacks on the media law must be a personal fan of Orbán and blindly supports the obviously problematic and antidemocratic media law". They do not notice that actually its they who don't know **** about Hungary and Orbán's achievements and the current situation in Hungary. They prefer to be morons who believe everything what they hear and read. Because oh, "there is no international conspiracy". Sure not. But there is money. And money can move things, big things. It can make processes stronger, it can make small attacks big. Money can move things. But those who don't feel much from it (because e.g. they don't have business experience and have never decided about the allocation of e.g. 10 million euros) rather prefer to use the cynical "oh, big conspiracy against Hungary" approach. They do not dare to think big. They do not dare to be big. They prefer to be naive and ordinary. Because that's the easiest and most comfortable, while it still allows you to sound "clever" and "thoughtful" on forums such as AoDA.

In the future, when/if Ragusa gets some experience in business life in the practice, he will probably have a better understanding of international movements and money/interests. The same applies to Tal. This is not "capitalist conspiracy" or "the populism of Orbán vs. international companies". It is the reality. Just the people who prefer to be "clever" yet simple rather choose not to see this reality. Instead, they escape to cynicism and irony. Because it helps to keep their illusion of maintaining their "credible" and "reasonable" user image in little web forums.

Do I sound like looking down on some users? Can be, but I don't look down on anyone. I don't look down on anyone, but I just had enough of the cynical talk such as "wow, international conspiracy against Orbán". If certain people prefer to be stupid, it will not be me who saves them. But I can still point out that they are pretty lost, even if they find 79 other users who agree with their funny views. And I can still reject the cynical statements that try to misrepresent the point of my earlier posts.

 

OK, Dude.

Yes. I agree. It moves against the will of the people. And no doubt that's a big factor.

That's where you are wrong. Ragusa understands this from an historical perspective; a Constitutional perspective; and protecting the institutions of law. These just can't be brushed aside with "The Will of the People." Or, "big money runs everything." These are basic, fundamental aspects of good and fair governance. They need to be addressed upon their own merits. Ragusa and Tal have informed viewpoints, but they are informed from a different PoV than your own, which is embracing newly won democratic governance informed by the people of Hungary, and further represents the Will of the Majority, over that of the special, big money interests.

 

Baronius,
arrogance, to be accepted, is something that has to be earned, and be backed with more than just the persistent assertion of awesome rightness. That's why it doesn't work with you. If you were good, articulate, plausible or even compelling or maybe at least charming you could be forgiven your arrogance, but alas, you're not. To the contrary.

One more thing about the 'will of the people': Considering the extent to which the Hungarian electorate has protested against the last government I would be careful to ascribe a to Fidezc the institutionalisation of 'the will of the people'. The last time they got 49%. Odds are the gains are just pissed off protest voters and not true believers like you. In light of how they rushed laws with profound constitutional impact through parliament (by direct representative initiatives, without a formal analysis of impact and consequences and debate) it appears the content of these laws was something they didn't want to concern the will and attention of the people with.

If their laws are so awesome, why not debate them in parliament and wax over how awesome they are in debate? That was something they didn't want, despite their 2/3 majority and full control over the entire legislative process. Startling.

 

Of course they don't. Have you ever had a debate with an Hungarian?