...the above post brings up issues for healthy debate like "did Snowden commit felonies under the espionage act" and begins with a statement that surely even Snowden knows he breached some law. It goes on to say he made a choice. "When is whistle blowing the courageous and moral choice?"
These are valid issues for discussion. However, to respond with "look at the source" implies that the source has an agenda and, therefore, the message is tainted and the issues contained should not be discussed.
Most of us know that internet articles can be reposted anywhere. If they are reposted on a source with an agenda, are they then invalid? I think not. Do "many" sources (websites) with an "agenda" or biased politic preference use valid information that includes some real "truth"? Yes...and those of us who are seeking truth are grateful to have more pieces of info that we can then decipher (throw away or keep)and personally determine whether or not that info might be a piece in the puzzle for us.
My point is that I believe we should always look at the message and not attack the messenger or source. I find nothing wrong with the message above. I find a lot wrong with the responce below"consider the source."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: