>> Claims about "helping the world" are highly subjective and often bullshit > It seems you are making the point that using technology to punish subjective pol

>> Claims about "helping the world" are highly subjective and often bullshit > It seems you are making the point that using technology to punish subjective politics is the right way?! My point was to not trust claims that so-and-so is "helping the world," is a vague but positive description that is abused and often collapses on further scrutiny (especially because the speaker may have different subjective interests, what's "helping the world" to him can be "harming the world" to you). Your response was weird. I was talking about something that I specified clearly, but you took it as I was speaking about something else. > Using sanctions in retributions to unfavourable opinions might seem against the spirit of US Constitution in other contexts... No. What are you smoking? > Why not let arguments do their work in open debate? The ICC isn't a bunch of loonies or Saddam's Baath party. These are reasonable people, with dissident opinions, for sure. But reasonable. Ok then. I claim authority over you and your friends, but you never consented. I'm not a loony, why don't you recognize my authority over you and engage with me in open debate? That's "why not."