4 ms·

What makes it right for you to take down an Iranian government website, but wrong for someone in Iran to take down a US government website, or for someone in Ch

by zcrar70 17y ago

What makes it right for you to take down an Iranian government website, but wrong for someone in Iran to take down a US government website, or for someone in China to take down the Dalai Lama's website?

sweetdreams 17y ago
I agree, and I also think that for something to be legitimate civil disobedience, you have to at least be a member of the civil society that you're disobeying. While there might be some westerners of Iranian descent involved in the denial of service attacks, most of the people involved probably are not directly connected to Iranian society.
- madair 17y ago
  It's called Solidarity.
  - zcrar70 17y ago
    Actually, it could equally be called 'Misguided'.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Because when you attack something, you are attacking the people that hold it? In the United States, every citizen owns part of every government website, so to attack one is to attack us all. In a sham government, it's just some assholes who pretend to represent the people that own the buildings and websites, and they do so by use of force. To attack those websites is to attack those people, and some people deserved to be attacked. I have no obligation to view the legitimate property of a democracy in the same way as a bunch of thugs ruling a country by force of arms. They are not equivalent. I'm not advocating one way or another -- in fact, I'm opposed in this instance. But your question deserved an answer. And it didn't look like you were able to come up with one.
- zcrar70 17y ago
  > But your question deserved an answer. And it didn't look like you were able to come up with one. Actually, my question was rhetorical, and your answer was arrogant. > In a sham government, it's just some assholes who pretend to represent the people that own the buildings and websites, and they do so by use of force. To attack those websites is to attack those people, and some people deserved to be attacked. You have no idea whether or not the Iranian government is legitimate, all you know is what you've read on a couple of western websites. To take the higher moral ground based yon your own sense of morality (which may be different to that of those people your purport to defend), and enforce your beliefs by force (by attacking a government website) makes you no better than the 'assholes' you claim to be defending against.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Your question might have been rhetorical, but it was inane. Not everything is the same. To just throw out some nonsensical relative moralism and expect it to float in a room full of critical thinkers seems a little far-fetched. You have no idea whether or not the Iranian government is legitimate It's not for me to decide. It's up to the Iranians. It's only up to me to decide how to deal with their public policies that effect me. The Iranians are perfectly content going door-to-door, gathering up satellite dishes and televisions, imprisoning their opposition, shooting demonstrators -- all of those things that dictatorships do. And guess what? I am perfectly happy letting them. As are you, it seems. But some folks have higher moral standards than you or I, and to them, injustice of this nature requires action. There's no higher moral ground that I'm taking, nor you, for that matter. I'm simply pointing out that there IS a higher moral ground than "everybody does it, and who are we to judge?" You might not like it, but it exists nonetheless.
    - zcrar70 17y ago
      Your question might have been rhetorical, but it was inane. I didn't think it was, but I'm once again surprised by the arrogance and self-righteousness of your statement. I thought that this kind of bombast had no place here, but perhaps I'm mistaken? in a room full of critical thinkers I take it you're including yourself from that group, but that I'm not a part of it? Or at least that's the implication I'm getting from your comment. nonsensical relative moralism / You might not like it, but it exists nonetheless. Err, no - it was actually a genuine question. When the Chinese hijack the Dalai Lama's computer network, they genuinely think that they are in the right. But you might disagree with that; what makes your right truer than theirs? This type of question has confounded philosophers for thousands of years. It's not an easy problem to solve, and is fraught with contradictions. The best we've arrived at is that principles like 'equality' are enshrined in our constitutions; each of our opinions are considered to have equal importance, and that includes the opinions of the Chinese and the Iranians. You seem to show no awareness of this, which makes me think that your bombast and self-righteousness may be misplaced. You may be right that there is such a thing as a higher moral ground, and you may even be right that it applies here; I think it would be difficult to define in an off-hand 10 line comment, but I'd be glad to read your attempt should you care to try.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by zcrar70 17y ago

sweetdreams 17y ago

I agree, and I also think that for something to be legitimate civil disobedience, you have to at least be a member of the civil society that you're disobeying. While there might be some westerners of Iranian descent involved in the denial of service attacks, most of the people involved probably are not directly connected to Iranian society.

madair 17y ago
It's called Solidarity.
- zcrar70 17y ago
  Actually, it could equally be called 'Misguided'.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Because when you attack something, you are attacking the people that hold it? In the United States, every citizen owns part of every government website, so to attack one is to attack us all. In a sham government, it's just some assholes who pretend to represent the people that own the buildings and websites, and they do so by use of force. To attack those websites is to attack those people, and some people deserved to be attacked. I have no obligation to view the legitimate property of a democracy in the same way as a bunch of thugs ruling a country by force of arms. They are not equivalent. I'm not advocating one way or another -- in fact, I'm opposed in this instance. But your question deserved an answer. And it didn't look like you were able to come up with one.

zcrar70 17y ago
> But your question deserved an answer. And it didn't look like you were able to come up with one. Actually, my question was rhetorical, and your answer was arrogant. > In a sham government, it's just some assholes who pretend to represent the people that own the buildings and websites, and they do so by use of force. To attack those websites is to attack those people, and some people deserved to be attacked. You have no idea whether or not the Iranian government is legitimate, all you know is what you've read on a couple of western websites. To take the higher moral ground based yon your own sense of morality (which may be different to that of those people your purport to defend), and enforce your beliefs by force (by attacking a government website) makes you no better than the 'assholes' you claim to be defending against.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Your question might have been rhetorical, but it was inane. Not everything is the same. To just throw out some nonsensical relative moralism and expect it to float in a room full of critical thinkers seems a little far-fetched. You have no idea whether or not the Iranian government is legitimate It's not for me to decide. It's up to the Iranians. It's only up to me to decide how to deal with their public policies that effect me. The Iranians are perfectly content going door-to-door, gathering up satellite dishes and televisions, imprisoning their opposition, shooting demonstrators -- all of those things that dictatorships do. And guess what? I am perfectly happy letting them. As are you, it seems. But some folks have higher moral standards than you or I, and to them, injustice of this nature requires action. There's no higher moral ground that I'm taking, nor you, for that matter. I'm simply pointing out that there IS a higher moral ground than "everybody does it, and who are we to judge?" You might not like it, but it exists nonetheless.
  - zcrar70 17y ago
    Your question might have been rhetorical, but it was inane. I didn't think it was, but I'm once again surprised by the arrogance and self-righteousness of your statement. I thought that this kind of bombast had no place here, but perhaps I'm mistaken? in a room full of critical thinkers I take it you're including yourself from that group, but that I'm not a part of it? Or at least that's the implication I'm getting from your comment. nonsensical relative moralism / You might not like it, but it exists nonetheless. Err, no - it was actually a genuine question. When the Chinese hijack the Dalai Lama's computer network, they genuinely think that they are in the right. But you might disagree with that; what makes your right truer than theirs? This type of question has confounded philosophers for thousands of years. It's not an easy problem to solve, and is fraught with contradictions. The best we've arrived at is that principles like 'equality' are enshrined in our constitutions; each of our opinions are considered to have equal importance, and that includes the opinions of the Chinese and the Iranians. You seem to show no awareness of this, which makes me think that your bombast and self-righteousness may be misplaced. You may be right that there is such a thing as a higher moral ground, and you may even be right that it applies here; I think it would be difficult to define in an off-hand 10 line comment, but I'd be glad to read your attempt should you care to try.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]