3 ms·

What in the world are you talking about? Politicians blackmailing each other for personal gain is unethical. And I'm pretty sure that "the electorate" doesn't q

What in the world are you talking about? Politicians blackmailing each other for personal gain is unethical. And I'm pretty sure that "the electorate" doesn't qualify as a "governmental official". "Is it not possible to profit by bribing/blackmailing a government official and benefit the public at the same time?" The ethical content of an action is not determined by accidental effects. If I shoot a gun blindly into a street and accidentally save someone by shooting their attacker, that doesn't make my actions ethical. Bribing an official for information that you can then sell to the highest bidder is corruption. The intent matters. "Please think these things through next time before you cathartically post that someone is "the enemy"." I don't think that word means what you think it means.

webXL 15y ago
Did I imply in any way that such political misconduct was ethical? No. Did I suggest "the electorate" qualified as a "government official"? No. I was simply impugning an absolute statement that blanketed a great number of honorable intelligence gathers as "the enemy", and promoted a great number of sketchy government officials as allies. Corruption is paying an official to change or ignore a law to benefit you at the expense of others. Incentivizing an official to leak intelligence (most likely not constitutionally obtained in the first place) doesn't fit that definition. If it did, half of the New York Times' Washington bureau would qualify as "the enemy". No, "cathartically" means what I think it does. I wouldn't call someone an enemy and really mean it unless that enemy was deliberately trying to harm me or my family. Any other use would be an attempt to invoke emotions.
- reitblatt 15y ago
  "I wouldn't call someone an enemy and really mean it unless that enemy was deliberately trying to harm me or my family." I didn't literally call them the enemy, I put it in scary quotes as a reply to the (IMO) naive sentiment of the OP that because they're "not the CIA", they're not a legitimate target of WikiLeaks. Please ask for clarification next time before you cathartically lecture someone based on your own misunderstanding.
  - cynoclast 15y ago
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cathartic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cathartic
    - reitblatt 15y ago
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony
  - webXL 15y ago
    Well, that's a fair point and I'll ask for clarification when I see something in quotes next time. When a disqualifying statement (not "the enemy") is flipped like that and directly applied to something, it carries more weight, especially when a loaded term like "enemy" is used. Politicians get in trouble for "with us or against us" rhetoric all the time. Not everything is so black and white, unless you make a compelling case that it is.

webXL 15y ago

Did I imply in any way that such political misconduct was ethical? No. Did I suggest "the electorate" qualified as a "government official"? No. I was simply impugning an absolute statement that blanketed a great number of honorable intelligence gathers as "the enemy", and promoted a great number of sketchy government officials as allies. Corruption is paying an official to change or ignore a law to benefit you at the expense of others. Incentivizing an official to leak intelligence (most likely not constitutionally obtained in the first place) doesn't fit that definition. If it did, half of the New York Times' Washington bureau would qualify as "the enemy". No, "cathartically" means what I think it does. I wouldn't call someone an enemy and really mean it unless that enemy was deliberately trying to harm me or my family. Any other use would be an attempt to invoke emotions.

reitblatt 15y ago
"I wouldn't call someone an enemy and really mean it unless that enemy was deliberately trying to harm me or my family." I didn't literally call them the enemy, I put it in scary quotes as a reply to the (IMO) naive sentiment of the OP that because they're "not the CIA", they're not a legitimate target of WikiLeaks. Please ask for clarification next time before you cathartically lecture someone based on your own misunderstanding.
- cynoclast 15y ago
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cathartic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cathartic
  - reitblatt 15y ago
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony
- webXL 15y ago
  Well, that's a fair point and I'll ask for clarification when I see something in quotes next time. When a disqualifying statement (not "the enemy") is flipped like that and directly applied to something, it carries more weight, especially when a loaded term like "enemy" is used. Politicians get in trouble for "with us or against us" rhetoric all the time. Not everything is so black and white, unless you make a compelling case that it is.