You are lost in semantics. The comparison perfectly applies.
The Founding Fathers were trying to overthrow the oppression of their parent country
What did Snowden try to do if not exactly that? Violating citizen's constitutional rights, lying to and spying on them illegally, locking them up without due-process and sometimes killing them without trial is nothing
but oppression. Wake up.
They wanted freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And what exactly do you think Snowden wants? Ever occurred to you that there might be a link between freedom and right to privacy? You
do know that the constitution, its Bill of Rights and the whole idea of sedition to begin with was an attempt to protect the people against the unjust state power (British crown) they were the victim of, right?
I'm not sure you even understand what's at stake here because you are quoting the very document (constitution) that Snowden tries to defend against the people and institutions which violate it on a daily basis. You defend the very organizations and entities who soil the spirit of the document you implicitly claim to endorse. That's just a conceptual mess.
Eric Snowden had freedom and he did something that he knew would damage the country.
So are you asserting that the founding father didn't anticipate that sedition would damage the empire? Please. They too had freedom and they too chose to undertake drastic actions that would have terrible consequences for their lives and those around them in the name of a higher ideal and motivated by what they perceived to be morally justifiable reasons. Again, the comparison applies.
The motivations, goals, and situation were very different. You might want to pick up some books on the Revolutionary War. These situations are not at all the same.
You have yet to back up those numerous claims. Throwing a bunch of words in the discussion doesn't fool the more astute reader; if those situations are indeed so obviously dissimilar, then demonstrate it. Just repeating they are is not an argument.
As for who's right and who's wrong, in both cases, i don't pronounce myself. I know that in matters of history, there's no right nor wrong, just the winning side writing what will remain forever the "official account", what we commonly refer to as the Historical Truth.
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs
reply
share