3 ms·

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

by 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
Okay. I'll play along as long as this isn't getting emotional. 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? Perhaps you missed the several times that I said I did not make that choice. Let me be clearer: I do not think that is right for me to do in this case, and I do not support doing it. What do you mean by "right"? The point I was making is that you have to make the choice. Life is something you participate in. You have an obligation to make the choice. Quite frankly I don't care which one you pick. I chose not to support hacking their sites. You may choose otherwise. Or not. Instead of just asking "what makes it OK?" perhaps the better question is "How is this different from X for me?" It's your job to figure out your own rules; not go around saying the problem is insolvable. That's whacked. Nobody is looking for a universal solution. What's required is a personal choice. Leave ultimate truth to the philosophers.
- zcrar70 17y ago
  Perhaps you missed the several times that I said I did not make that choice I didn't miss you saying that, but I also noticed that you replied to my original post with an unequivocal answer - so you don't support doing it, but you also think it's OK? Did I understand that correctly? In any case, I should perhaps have been clearer: What makes it OK for someone to hijack Iranian government websites based on hearsay they read on the internet, but makes it bad for the Chinese to hijack the Dalai Lama's computers? I wasn't talking about you in particular - you did seem to defend those that carried out the attacks. You still haven't answered that question. Moral relativism as a popular meme is very recent in the historical record Who talked about moral relativism? Not me. The point of my question was twofold: * One person's right is another's wrong, and that arriving at some sort of greater truth is something we (as a civilisation) haven't been able to figure out yet. This has nothing to do with moral relativism as far as I'm concerned, and I still don't think it's an easy question to answer. * We only have partial, incomplete and possibly biased information about what's going on in Iran, the same way that Chinese DDoSers' understanding of Tibet is probably heavily skewed by the information they have access to. That's why I don't think it's OK for us to DDoS Iranian government sites, and then complain about Chinese hackers doing it to anyone else. Life is something you participate in. You have an obligation to make the choice. I think it's perfectly fine not to have a strong opinion about something that you don't know enough about.

by zcrar70 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Okay. I'll play along as long as this isn't getting emotional. 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? Perhaps you missed the several times that I said I did not make that choice. Let me be clearer: I do not think that is right for me to do in this case, and I do not support doing it. What do you mean by "right"? The point I was making is that you have to make the choice. Life is something you participate in. You have an obligation to make the choice. Quite frankly I don't care which one you pick. I chose not to support hacking their sites. You may choose otherwise. Or not. Instead of just asking "what makes it OK?" perhaps the better question is "How is this different from X for me?" It's your job to figure out your own rules; not go around saying the problem is insolvable. That's whacked. Nobody is looking for a universal solution. What's required is a personal choice. Leave ultimate truth to the philosophers.

zcrar70 17y ago
Perhaps you missed the several times that I said I did not make that choice I didn't miss you saying that, but I also noticed that you replied to my original post with an unequivocal answer - so you don't support doing it, but you also think it's OK? Did I understand that correctly? In any case, I should perhaps have been clearer: What makes it OK for someone to hijack Iranian government websites based on hearsay they read on the internet, but makes it bad for the Chinese to hijack the Dalai Lama's computers? I wasn't talking about you in particular - you did seem to defend those that carried out the attacks. You still haven't answered that question. Moral relativism as a popular meme is very recent in the historical record Who talked about moral relativism? Not me. The point of my question was twofold: * One person's right is another's wrong, and that arriving at some sort of greater truth is something we (as a civilisation) haven't been able to figure out yet. This has nothing to do with moral relativism as far as I'm concerned, and I still don't think it's an easy question to answer. * We only have partial, incomplete and possibly biased information about what's going on in Iran, the same way that Chinese DDoSers' understanding of Tibet is probably heavily skewed by the information they have access to. That's why I don't think it's OK for us to DDoS Iranian government sites, and then complain about Chinese hackers doing it to anyone else. Life is something you participate in. You have an obligation to make the choice. I think it's perfectly fine not to have a strong opinion about something that you don't know enough about.