4 ms·

> 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 ar

by 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.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    No bombast intended. Chill out. This type of question has NOT confounded philosophers for thousands of years. Moral relativism -- the idea that everything is just about the same, depending on how you look at it --as a popular meme is very recent in the historical record. Look. It's lazy thinking, that's all. I'm sorry to have to say that. Critical thinking requires of you to make moral choices. So make some. I've made mine in the matter. Nobody is saying your thinking skills or any better or any worse than anybody else. I'm just asking you to use them. If you're still having problems, try a little Kant: only do those things that you would want the rest of the world to do. If your code says it's okay to attack sites because you "think you are in the right", whatever that means, then you should expect everybody to do that. If your code involves other things, then formulate your rules and stick to them. But don't sit around saying it's just all kind of the same. That's the starting point: without your brain analyzing it, yes, it's all kind of the same. But that's why you have a brain; its to tell the difference. Look I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings or was rude or something. I really am. But there's an important point here. So I'll bow out now and perhaps the next time you hear it you'll get it.
    - zcrar70 17y ago
      No bombast intended. Chill out. / perhaps the next time you hear it you'll get it. Contradictory? Look I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings You didn't - but you still didn't answer my question. What makes it OK for you to hijack Iranian government websites based on hearsay you read on the internet, but makes it bad for the Chinese to hijack the Dalai Lama's computers? Now that this story is a couple of days old, there seems to be a little more perspective on this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=660169 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=660169 This is an article explaining how an echo chamber effect through Twitter and the net may have convinced people that the election was stolen, even though it may not have been. The situation isn't black and white like you painted it; things rarely are. I don't suppose you'll even consider that you might be wrong, but it would certainly be nice if you had gone about it with a little less conceit.
      - DanielBMarkham 17y ago

by zcrar70 17y ago

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.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  No bombast intended. Chill out. This type of question has NOT confounded philosophers for thousands of years. Moral relativism -- the idea that everything is just about the same, depending on how you look at it --as a popular meme is very recent in the historical record. Look. It's lazy thinking, that's all. I'm sorry to have to say that. Critical thinking requires of you to make moral choices. So make some. I've made mine in the matter. Nobody is saying your thinking skills or any better or any worse than anybody else. I'm just asking you to use them. If you're still having problems, try a little Kant: only do those things that you would want the rest of the world to do. If your code says it's okay to attack sites because you "think you are in the right", whatever that means, then you should expect everybody to do that. If your code involves other things, then formulate your rules and stick to them. But don't sit around saying it's just all kind of the same. That's the starting point: without your brain analyzing it, yes, it's all kind of the same. But that's why you have a brain; its to tell the difference. Look I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings or was rude or something. I really am. But there's an important point here. So I'll bow out now and perhaps the next time you hear it you'll get it.
  - zcrar70 17y ago
    No bombast intended. Chill out. / perhaps the next time you hear it you'll get it. Contradictory? Look I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings You didn't - but you still didn't answer my question. What makes it OK for you to hijack Iranian government websites based on hearsay you read on the internet, but makes it bad for the Chinese to hijack the Dalai Lama's computers? Now that this story is a couple of days old, there seems to be a little more perspective on this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=660169 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=660169 This is an article explaining how an echo chamber effect through Twitter and the net may have convinced people that the election was stolen, even though it may not have been. The situation isn't black and white like you painted it; things rarely are. I don't suppose you'll even consider that you might be wrong, but it would certainly be nice if you had gone about it with a little less conceit.
    - DanielBMarkham 17y ago