Multiple Subkey Pairs

[Martin Behrendt]

Am 17.03.2014 17:54, schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
>> That is an odd comparison. What does a statement about a fundamental
>> law of physics which you can't change have to do with a statement
>> about what you are doing, where you are perfectly free to do something
>> else than you say?
> 
> Try some variations.
> 
> I deny that I've ever been to Vienna; is it logical to believe, based on
> that, that I've traveled extensively in Europe?
> 
> I deny that I've ever seen _Star Wars Episode III_.  Is it logical to
> believe, based only on that, that I've seen every other installment?
> 
> I deny that I've ever read the second stanza of Coleridge's 'Kubla
> Khan'.  Is it logical to believe, based only on that, that I've read the
> first?
>

All this examples lack the dimension of illogical, untruthful and
purposely misleading communication, humans are capable of. Of cause in a
pure logical environment all of your examples have to be answered with:
You can't draw these conclusions.
But taking into account that humans are not strictly logical, and taking
into account the past we can reasonably make conclusions which we can't
by pure propositional logic.

Just one example from the not so far past: "We are not and we will not
spy on chancellor Merkel"
Without any context and background information it is not "logical" to
draw the conclusion that there has been spying in the past. But knowing
e.g. who said that, it is reasonable to assume so.

> This is all rather irrelevant, though, since it's clear you _a priori_
> believe nothing claimed by that outfit.  (Which may be justified, mind
> you.  Saying "I do not trust them and I consider all of their statements
> a nullity: I will only trust what I can independently verify" is a
> perfectly logical position.)
> 
>> You have not spend time understanding how YYY work it seems to me.
> 
> There are two options here: either I confess my ignorance, in which case
> you'll claim to be more knowledgeable and thus right, or I claim my
> knowledge, in which case you'll think I'm clearly "too close to them to
> be trusted."

There are at least three options: 3. My impression is wrong.

> At this point, I don't care what you think.  My original statement -- "I
> have seen no credible claims that anyone anywhere in the world is doing
> bulk surveillance of email content on an internet-wide scale" -- stands.
> 

I was referring to this statement of yours:

> I cannot accept this assertion, as it is offered without either direct
> evidence or logically sound inferences.

I don't care about the direct evidence but the logically sound inference
that bulk surveillance of email content on an internet-wide scale is
happening is reasonable.
But if you want evidence [1]:
"At least some of the data traffic coming through the German internet
exchange point DE-CIX is diverted to German intelligence and other
agencies."
They (and this is just the "Germans") divert a certain percentage. It
would be illogical if they wound analyze that in some way. Therefor by
pure logic a mass surveillance is happening. Now we can argue about how
"mass" and "internet-wide scale" are defined, but my assumptions is,
that for you this example doesn't fulfill the criteria and because there
is no evidence that other countries doing the same your statement will
stand. I hope you never have a reason to start caring about what I
think. Because your world seems to be the more righteous and calm place
and I wish I didn't have to worry about the future of free societies as
much.

[1]
http://www.h-online.com/news/item/PRISM-scandal-internet-exchange-points-as-targets-for-surveillance-1909989.html