4 ms·
I have no idea what you're saying. You're bringing up Edward Snowden, who has literally nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Then you're proposing some
by CocaKoala 12y ago
I have no idea what you're saying. You're bringing up Edward Snowden, who has literally nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Then you're proposing some form of defense for the idea of mugging the drunk guy. Then you're shifting right to omnipresent surveillance, which again has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Your comment is utterly incomprehensible to me; I know what all the individual words mean, but I can't put them together into a cohesive thought that's relevant.
Can you rephrase yourself in a way that's more understandable?
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago> You're bringing up Edward Snowden, who has literally nothing to do with the conversation at hand. That was pretty clearly a response to the line he quoted directly above, i.e. rebutting the notion that an action's morality is solely determined by whether or not that action is classified as a crime.
- CocaKoala 12y agoAh; I must have missed the part where somebody stated that an action's morality is solely determined by whether or not that action is classified as a crime. I agree that that's a silly metric to use as the sole determination of the morality of an action, but can you do me a favour and point to where that was stated? I'm having trouble finding it.
- PhasmaFelis 12y agoA ways upthread, you said: > Well, no. Robbing a passed out drunk is a crime; you should feel bad for committing crimes, even if it's clear that if you didn't somebody else would. Shorting a stock (or a currency) is not a crime; it's an acceptable thing to do in a market. If you didn't intend to imply that robbing the drunk is bad because it's a crime, and what Soros did is acceptable because it's not a crime, then you weren't communicating very clearly.