5 ms·

It does harm people physically when, say, their sandwich purchase doesn't work and they become overly hungry -- physical stomach pains. And maybe a diabetic som

It does harm people physically when, say, their sandwich purchase doesn't work and they become overly hungry -- physical stomach pains. And maybe a diabetic somewhere will end up in the hospital. And what about the guy who was buying safety equipment and now he has to do the first day without it?

jasonlotito 16y ago
I can apply the same "what if" logic to Rosa Parks, who caused police to be sent to arrest her rather than patrolling their location and stopping a murder. Or someone on the bus that got delayed being late for a job interview, not getting it. Or that same diabetic not being able to get to his medicine he left at home. Edit: I should also remind you that even if you want to accept your arguments, they aren't impacting actual transactions. Merely SecureCode transactions done online. So I highly doubt a diabetic in need of medicine now is going to order online. Edit 2: And seriously, a guy get's a bit more hungry because he has to wait a tad longer because he can't order Fat Man's Pizza online because SC is down, and that's violent? Heck, then I guess Gandhi wasn't so peaceful after all, what with his salt march causing less money for people, and therefore, less money to buy food with, and therefore, less food to eat.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  It's hard to think of a plausible way that Rosa Parks hurt anyone but it's very easy to think of plausible ways that having your credit card denied could hurt you. But I didn't know it was online only. In that case it's hard to think of plausible ways it would do physical harm. I didn't say "violent" so don't complain about me calling stuff "violent". All I said is that economic harm can cause physical harm, it's not harmless (contrary to the person who said it is harmless. not low on harm but literally harmless). You should not be upset with people who make corrections without expressing any opinion. Factual, literal-minded minor corrections are no threat to your side unless your side is mistaken.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > It's hard to think of a plausible way that Rosa Parks hurt anyone but it's very easy to think of plausible ways that having your credit card denied could hurt you. No. I can't think of a way having my CC being denied online is going to physically hurt me. Maybe you can give an example. Seriously though, your logic is flawed. > I didn't say "violent" so don't complain about me calling stuff "violent". Sorry, but what would you call an attack that causes physical harm? Peaceful? You don't have to say the word violent, but you can still describe it. > All I said is that economic harm can cause physical harm And a butterflies wing could flap because of it can cause a hurricane causing the deaths of millions. Yes, everything is connected. I can create all sorts of crazy scenarios. Let's stick to reality. Anon is doing a DDoS. Twisting that round and saying "Anon is attacking people causing physical harm" is dumb. > Factual, literal-minded minor corrections are no threat to your side unless your side is mistaken. I'm fine with factual, logical minded corrections. Your comment was void of that. You should remember context. Until you can show anon attacking people causing physical harm, your actually not saying anything.
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      Why so hateful?
Daishiman 16y ago
That's an intellectually dishonest argument. In my opinion the restriction of funding to Wikileaks is far more damaging.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  i'm pretty sure it's the other way around: overlooking or complaining about the fact i pointed out, b/c one cares for a global conclusion, is intellectually dishonest. I didn't say a word about wiki leaks, I simply corrected the person who said that economic harm doesn't have any real life harmful consequences, which is false. I did not even try to say what that means; I just think we should use true premises whatever judgment we end up making.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    Your probably is your being thickheaded. On purpose, or because that's who you are. Yes, economic harm has real life consequences. Everything relates. Heck, you could make arguments that NOT DDoS could save someones life because someone couldn't pay for a gun they were going to use to kill someone with. You can go crazy with all sorts of stupid thought experiments. I mean, hell, let's go all out. Your posting of comments is killing living things, what with all the electricity needed to power the servers that connect your computer to this server. Your purchase of your computer keeps low-wage works in low-conditions. But all that is stupid. And that's not what I meant. And you know it. That's what makes you dishonest.
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      Why so hateful again? Why go to a different part of the thread, where I'm talking to someone else, to call me stupid, dishonest, thickheaded, and intentionally immoral? Is it because you think I posted something wrong on the internet?

jasonlotito 16y ago

I can apply the same "what if" logic to Rosa Parks, who caused police to be sent to arrest her rather than patrolling their location and stopping a murder. Or someone on the bus that got delayed being late for a job interview, not getting it. Or that same diabetic not being able to get to his medicine he left at home. Edit: I should also remind you that even if you want to accept your arguments, they aren't impacting actual transactions. Merely SecureCode transactions done online. So I highly doubt a diabetic in need of medicine now is going to order online. Edit 2: And seriously, a guy get's a bit more hungry because he has to wait a tad longer because he can't order Fat Man's Pizza online because SC is down, and that's violent? Heck, then I guess Gandhi wasn't so peaceful after all, what with his salt march causing less money for people, and therefore, less money to buy food with, and therefore, less food to eat.

xenophanes 16y ago
It's hard to think of a plausible way that Rosa Parks hurt anyone but it's very easy to think of plausible ways that having your credit card denied could hurt you. But I didn't know it was online only. In that case it's hard to think of plausible ways it would do physical harm. I didn't say "violent" so don't complain about me calling stuff "violent". All I said is that economic harm can cause physical harm, it's not harmless (contrary to the person who said it is harmless. not low on harm but literally harmless). You should not be upset with people who make corrections without expressing any opinion. Factual, literal-minded minor corrections are no threat to your side unless your side is mistaken.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > It's hard to think of a plausible way that Rosa Parks hurt anyone but it's very easy to think of plausible ways that having your credit card denied could hurt you. No. I can't think of a way having my CC being denied online is going to physically hurt me. Maybe you can give an example. Seriously though, your logic is flawed. > I didn't say "violent" so don't complain about me calling stuff "violent". Sorry, but what would you call an attack that causes physical harm? Peaceful? You don't have to say the word violent, but you can still describe it. > All I said is that economic harm can cause physical harm And a butterflies wing could flap because of it can cause a hurricane causing the deaths of millions. Yes, everything is connected. I can create all sorts of crazy scenarios. Let's stick to reality. Anon is doing a DDoS. Twisting that round and saying "Anon is attacking people causing physical harm" is dumb. > Factual, literal-minded minor corrections are no threat to your side unless your side is mistaken. I'm fine with factual, logical minded corrections. Your comment was void of that. You should remember context. Until you can show anon attacking people causing physical harm, your actually not saying anything.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    Why so hateful?

Daishiman 16y ago

That's an intellectually dishonest argument. In my opinion the restriction of funding to Wikileaks is far more damaging.

xenophanes 16y ago
i'm pretty sure it's the other way around: overlooking or complaining about the fact i pointed out, b/c one cares for a global conclusion, is intellectually dishonest. I didn't say a word about wiki leaks, I simply corrected the person who said that economic harm doesn't have any real life harmful consequences, which is false. I did not even try to say what that means; I just think we should use true premises whatever judgment we end up making.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  Your probably is your being thickheaded. On purpose, or because that's who you are. Yes, economic harm has real life consequences. Everything relates. Heck, you could make arguments that NOT DDoS could save someones life because someone couldn't pay for a gun they were going to use to kill someone with. You can go crazy with all sorts of stupid thought experiments. I mean, hell, let's go all out. Your posting of comments is killing living things, what with all the electricity needed to power the servers that connect your computer to this server. Your purchase of your computer keeps low-wage works in low-conditions. But all that is stupid. And that's not what I meant. And you know it. That's what makes you dishonest.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    Why so hateful again? Why go to a different part of the thread, where I'm talking to someone else, to call me stupid, dishonest, thickheaded, and intentionally immoral? Is it because you think I posted something wrong on the internet?