3 ms·
I didn't advocate for breaking the law. I said I disagreed with the whole thing. I was pointing out that the approach had worked in the past, because the previo
by ipcress_file 4y ago
I didn't advocate for breaking the law. I said I disagreed with the whole thing. I was pointing out that the approach had worked in the past, because the previous poster had argued that "breaking [the law] before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good."
- SideQuark 4y agoThe previous poster made a more defensible statement given the totality of outcomes when breaking the law. If I told someone smoking is bad forr their health, would you follow with "I know a person that smoked till 98" as reasonable advice? This is the same argument. And in this case, the actions of IA may well end them for all of us. That's not such a good outcome for breaking the law, is it?
- ipcress_file 4y agoThis is a faulty parallel. Someone who smokes until they're 98 is not engaged in a quest to change the general outcome of smoking for all others.
- SideQuark 4y agoNot many lawbreakers are doing it to change the law either. And we're seeing the IA possibly going to end because they wanted to break the law, and not completely for some moral cause, but because breaking it helps them. There was plenty of reasonable calling out Brewster's ignorant and self-serving choices on this issue for some time. He didn't need to do this, and he put the entire operation at unnecessary risk, as his critics claimed would happen. This is what lawbreaking generally does.