5 ms·

> drive to a Starbucks Didn't help Ross. It's a bad idea to do illegal stuff in public.

by zelly 7y ago

HideousKojima 7y ago
Ross was dumb enough to get fake passports/ids shipped directly to his home address
- not2b 7y ago
  He made lots of stupid mistakes. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/03/five-stupid-things-dread-pirate-roberts-did-to-get-arrested https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/03/five-stup...
- edm0nd 7y ago
  While Ross did do some bad things, I do not think it is enough to warrant a double life sentence plus forty years without the possibility of parole. El Chapo, an actual drug cartel member who is directly responsible for thousands of deaths, only got a single life sentence. Ross got screwed on his sentencing and it is totally unjustified. Free Ross!
  - saber6 7y ago
    You're insane. His site facilitated numerous drug deals for profit. He also paid bitcoin in what he thought was a hit-job (he was duped). This dumbass can rot in prison. Screw him.
    - ieS7rpVU 7y ago
      There is nothing wrong with facilitating drug deals and there is not a shred of evidence to support the other allegation. An allegation from the US government means absolutely nothing to me. It's also quite ironic that an organization that has assassinated numerous people are attempting to destroy the reputation of one of their enemies by claiming that he attempted to assassinate somebody.
      - saber6 7y ago
        > It's also quite ironic that an organization that has assassinated numerous people are attempting to destroy the reputation of one of their enemies by claiming that he attempted to assassinate somebody. The United States Government (USG) enjoys a monopoly of violence (consent of the governed). However, a citizen (or group of them -- org/corp) does not enjoy such rights. Your comparison is invalidated.
        ieS7rpVU 7y ago
        Ignoring the fact that many of the people assassinated by the US government where not US citizens and never set foot on anything the US government claimed as territory... Who exactly is consenting to be governed? I know I'm not consenting but I also know that some other people support the government that purports to govern them. Is it enough for one person to consent or does something magic happen at a particular number or portion?
        saber6 7y ago
        > Is it enough for one person to consent or does something magic happen at a particular number or portion? Nah. We have these things called elections (and representational democracy). In general that mechanism decides how society will progress forward from a political perspective.
        ieS7rpVU 7y ago
        Imagine this hypothetical scenario: The US government, acting in accordance with its constitution invades and occupies Canada. Congress creates 13 new states corresponding to the previous provinces and territories and elections are held. Almost all of the elected members from the newly annexed areas are opposed to the annexation and introduce a bill to allow the 13 new states to secede from the US but the bill is overwhelmingly defeated by members of Congress from the other 50 states. Does the US government in this scenario enjoy the consent of the governed? If they do, imagine that the original US population was more split on the issue so that the secession bill would have passed with Canada divided into 13 states. However the pre-annexation Congress anticipated this and resolved to make Canada a single state that would consequently not have sufficient representation to pass the bill even with the support of opponents from some of the other 50 states. Does the US government still enjoy the consent of the governed in the second scenario?
ChrisCinelli 7y ago
It is a bad idea to do illegal stuff.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Depends on your value system. Another perspective is that some laws ought to be broken, in spite of the potential consequences.
  - ChrisCinelli 7y ago
    If the values of a person are "achieving personal power" in first position and "respect others" in last, that person may be ok to steal. I hear some people arguing that in business "not breaking the laws" is not the problem unless they get caught and even in that case, it is a problem only if the consequences end up costing more than the gain they receive in doing it. So a person with those value may end up breaking the law. Are you saying it is ok?
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      There are numerous unjust laws that infringe on the rights of the individual. Not only is it morally defensible to break such laws, but it is a good for respectable people to do so in order to reclaim behavioral territory and psychological freedom from the police state. This demonstrates to others that being a "criminal" is not a moral status but a legal one. It may even be a social duty.
      - ChrisCinelli 7y ago
        It is a dangerous ground thought... Who decide what is just or unjust? Different people have different values and believes in what is just or unjust. I agree that some laws may need to be changed. But should we not have discussions on changing the laws instead of breaking them? This obviously implies a good democratic system so it may be different is some nations.
        7y ago

> drive to a Starbucks Didn't help Ross. It's a bad idea to do illegal stuff in public.

by zelly 7y ago

> drive to a Starbucks Didn't help Ross. It's a bad idea to do illegal stuff in public.

HideousKojima 7y ago

Ross was dumb enough to get fake passports/ids shipped directly to his home address

not2b 7y ago
He made lots of stupid mistakes. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/03/five-stupid-things-dread-pirate-roberts-did-to-get-arrested https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/03/five-stup...
edm0nd 7y ago
While Ross did do some bad things, I do not think it is enough to warrant a double life sentence plus forty years without the possibility of parole. El Chapo, an actual drug cartel member who is directly responsible for thousands of deaths, only got a single life sentence. Ross got screwed on his sentencing and it is totally unjustified. Free Ross!
- saber6 7y ago
  You're insane. His site facilitated numerous drug deals for profit. He also paid bitcoin in what he thought was a hit-job (he was duped). This dumbass can rot in prison. Screw him.
  - ieS7rpVU 7y ago
    There is nothing wrong with facilitating drug deals and there is not a shred of evidence to support the other allegation. An allegation from the US government means absolutely nothing to me. It's also quite ironic that an organization that has assassinated numerous people are attempting to destroy the reputation of one of their enemies by claiming that he attempted to assassinate somebody.
    - saber6 7y ago
      > It's also quite ironic that an organization that has assassinated numerous people are attempting to destroy the reputation of one of their enemies by claiming that he attempted to assassinate somebody. The United States Government (USG) enjoys a monopoly of violence (consent of the governed). However, a citizen (or group of them -- org/corp) does not enjoy such rights. Your comparison is invalidated.
      - ieS7rpVU 7y ago
        Ignoring the fact that many of the people assassinated by the US government where not US citizens and never set foot on anything the US government claimed as territory... Who exactly is consenting to be governed? I know I'm not consenting but I also know that some other people support the government that purports to govern them. Is it enough for one person to consent or does something magic happen at a particular number or portion?
        saber6 7y ago
        > Is it enough for one person to consent or does something magic happen at a particular number or portion? Nah. We have these things called elections (and representational democracy). In general that mechanism decides how society will progress forward from a political perspective.
        ieS7rpVU 7y ago
        Imagine this hypothetical scenario: The US government, acting in accordance with its constitution invades and occupies Canada. Congress creates 13 new states corresponding to the previous provinces and territories and elections are held. Almost all of the elected members from the newly annexed areas are opposed to the annexation and introduce a bill to allow the 13 new states to secede from the US but the bill is overwhelmingly defeated by members of Congress from the other 50 states. Does the US government in this scenario enjoy the consent of the governed? If they do, imagine that the original US population was more split on the issue so that the secession bill would have passed with Canada divided into 13 states. However the pre-annexation Congress anticipated this and resolved to make Canada a single state that would consequently not have sufficient representation to pass the bill even with the support of opponents from some of the other 50 states. Does the US government still enjoy the consent of the governed in the second scenario?

ChrisCinelli 7y ago

It is a bad idea to do illegal stuff.

homonculus1 7y ago
Depends on your value system. Another perspective is that some laws ought to be broken, in spite of the potential consequences.
- ChrisCinelli 7y ago
  If the values of a person are "achieving personal power" in first position and "respect others" in last, that person may be ok to steal. I hear some people arguing that in business "not breaking the laws" is not the problem unless they get caught and even in that case, it is a problem only if the consequences end up costing more than the gain they receive in doing it. So a person with those value may end up breaking the law. Are you saying it is ok?
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    There are numerous unjust laws that infringe on the rights of the individual. Not only is it morally defensible to break such laws, but it is a good for respectable people to do so in order to reclaim behavioral territory and psychological freedom from the police state. This demonstrates to others that being a "criminal" is not a moral status but a legal one. It may even be a social duty.
    - ChrisCinelli 7y ago
      It is a dangerous ground thought... Who decide what is just or unjust? Different people have different values and believes in what is just or unjust. I agree that some laws may need to be changed. But should we not have discussions on changing the laws instead of breaking them? This obviously implies a good democratic system so it may be different is some nations.
      - 7y ago