5 ms·

I too think he is guilty. Guilty of breaking non-sense, victim-less laws. Laws that restrict usage of non-addictive mind-altering substances that are much less

by tomp 12y ago

I too think he is guilty. Guilty of breaking non-sense, victim-less laws. Laws that restrict usage of non-addictive mind-altering substances that are much less harmful than other, legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, medical drugs). Laws that shouldn't even be on the books! Laws that cause millions of dollars of damage and thousands of deaths each year. Laws that power organized crime. The drug laws. I totally support him, and I hope he comes out a free man, albeit his business will probably be ruined.

hncomplete 12y ago
SR also sold identity theft kits, hacking tools and such. It was not just a place of victimless crime. It would be nice if just ONE of you DPR-loving sociopaths would be honest enough to admit this.
- etherael 12y ago
  Compared with the crimes of the entity actually mounting the prosecution, everything he was alleged to have done is at worst a misdemeanor. But you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground. Letalone that their treasured institutions are practically identical to the terrorist organisations that they say they exist to protect the innocent from.
  - hahainternet 12y ago
    > you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground If you're willing to post this level of stupidity then just come out with "OBAMA IS HITLER" without mincing words so we can tell you're deluded and ignore your posts.
  - hncomplete 12y ago
    Apparently thinking that identity theft (which harms individuals) sucks also means I worship the state. Right. Religious zealots always get mad when facts ruin their ideological narratives. Ethereal, you are now, and will always be, an utterly worthless shitstain on humanity. I won't couch this in distancing language. I'll own the fact that you're an asshole, that you're passive-aggressive, and that HN would be materially better if the mods had the balls to ban assholes like you.
    - etherael 12y ago
      > Religious zealots always get mad when facts ruin their ideological narratives. Couldn't have said it better myself. You would do well to consider your own criticism. I will not be holding my breath waiting for the penny to drop for you, though. You have that self assured idiocy I instantly recognise from hackneyed talking heads spinning nonsense about topics they don't grasp purely to make those more questioning abandon their pesky skepticism and critical analysis about all things conventional. Keep it up, your attacks serve merely to convince me I'm on the right path.
      - hncomplete 12y ago
        Silk Road had sections for items whose sole and explicit purpose was to harm others for profit. I understand that you are unwilling to admit this (instead trying to make this an argument about something other than SR), but he did. I find it completely unsurprising that you are incapable of admitting this. p.s. there is a lot of research indicating that extremists become more strident when presented with facts that undermine their ideology. As such, your final sentence is completely predictable.
        etherael 12y ago
        I admitted it in my first response. I said it was a misdemeanor if he were guilty of everything he had allegedly done relative to the actions of the prosecuting entity. If you were right and I were claiming SR was some pure bastion of light and holiness I would instead have said he was completely innocent. My point was the relative culpability of the two actors in question. You're not presenting any new facts, you're just sounding off on the righteousness of the state without consideration to the crimes on that rap sheet to which I have taken exception. It is you who are doubling down on your idiocy absent understanding of the actual point being made.
        hnfucktard 12y ago
        No, you're not getting it. "Better than the US government" is a threshold of goodness that even the worst people I've ever met pass. The fact that you put it forth as evidence that DPR is a hero shows that you're a massively broken fucktard. Anyway... thanks for the further confirmation that you're a delusional idiot, and that you have no attachment to reality. You crack me up, you fucking loser.
nhstanley 12y ago
> ...non-addictive... I agree with your general point, but SR was being used for all kinds of things including selling Cocaine and Heroin (and also for not selling drugs but services). Those are very addictive drugs by almost any definition. Fine if you want to argue they are less harmful than, say, alcohol, but they are definitely addictive. Do not allow your point to be weakened by stating something that is clearly incorrect.
- MacsHeadroom 12y ago
  Cocaine is very pleasurable, but it's hardly as addictive as heroine or (the legal drug) alcohol.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    As the comic says, he can't see the difference between using cocaine, and taking everything you own to the back yard and burning it then giving your house away.
  - mikeyouse 12y ago
    > Cocaine is very pleasurable, but it's hardly as addictive as heroine or (the legal drug) alcohol. Not really true; http://i.imgur.com/sBQn1Hr.gif http://i.imgur.com/sBQn1Hr.gif
    - Evolved 12y ago
      Not that I necessarily doubt the veracity of this claim but you should probably point to a better looking graphic than that. Where did you even find it?
      - mikeyouse 12y ago
        Agreed, it's a shitty chart, but it's from a study The Lancet performed; http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60464-4/fulltext#article_upsell http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... Wiki actually sums it up pretty well; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Dependence_potential http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Dependence...
tripzilch 12y ago
SR also sold identity theft kits, hacking tools and such. (I agree with "hncomplete"'s point, minus the "sociopath" remark)
- tomp 12y ago
  When he'll be charged of that and proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and when the only money taken from him will be what he earned with the above activities, I'll completely support the charges/convictions.
hahainternet 12y ago
> I totally support him, and I hope he comes out a free man, albeit his business will probably be ruined. He tried to have people killed. You are defending this. What the hell is wrong with you? I don't support drug laws. I ESPECIALLY don't support attempted murder.
- anon4 12y ago
  I prefer attempted murder to drug laws. One psychopath does less damage than a government of micromanaging geriatrics.
  - hahainternet 12y ago
    Really? You're willing to post publicly that you don't mind him having attempted to kill people to keep his kingpin status? That you still support him?
    - neotek 12y ago
      Don't put words in his mouth, that's a shitty debating tactic.
- wyager 12y ago
  >He tried to have people killed. Do you have any proof of that? It looks like the government doesn't.
  - Touche 12y ago
    I don't know where you get that from. They don't have proof that anyone died, and perhaps no one did. That doesn't mean attempting a hit is any less heinous.
    - wyager 12y ago
      >I don't know where you get that from. The titular "disappearing murder charges". If they had evidence, they would have pressed charges against him for murder.
davvolun 12y ago
Fair enough, I always go back to something a high school teacher mentioned when these types of arguments come up. Martin Luther King Jr. broke the law to make a point, to fight injustice, to "stick it to the man." But MLK unequivocally and publicly broke those laws; he made the statement 'these are unjust laws and they need to be changed' and suffered the punishment for breaking those laws, as determined by a court of law, mitigated by public outcry. Illegally copying and selling movies because you think copyright law is bullshit, as an example, is not living up to MLK's method, it's having your cake and eating it too. You think a law is unjust, fight the law, don't break it and try to get away with it. That makes you, at best, little better than those in organized crime. And, at the end of the day, if you've made tons of money off of the crime, and you stand to make more if the law is repealed, it really waters down your moral/ethical argument.
- scottjad 12y ago
  Apparently MLK did believe that: > "In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." You claim: > You think a law is unjust, fight the law, don't break it and try to get away with it. So you and MLK are claiming that a non-Jew in Nazi Germany who violates legislation by helping a Jew is morally culpable unless they do it publicly? Seems pretty questionable, and I even agree with the strict Kantian maxim of not lying to the murderer at the door! Perhaps you and MLK are confusing a strategy with morality. Perhaps it is strategically valuable to violate unjust legislation openly and suffer the consequences. That shouldn't mean that it is morally wrong to violate them in secret. To me, it seems like there are two claims that are being tied together unnecessarily. 1) one has no obligation to obey unjust legislation 2) one has an obligation to disobey it openly to bring public awareness of the unjustness and increase likelihood of reform. To me, you're just as culpable for not doing #2 whether or not you do #1. In other words, if you're morally culpable for not violating unjust legislation in public, then you bear that culpability whether or not you violate the legislation in private or not, and violating unjust legislation in private entails no culpability on its own. [edit: I completely rewrote when I realized MLK really did say that]

by tomp 12y ago

hncomplete 12y ago

SR also sold identity theft kits, hacking tools and such. It was not just a place of victimless crime. It would be nice if just ONE of you DPR-loving sociopaths would be honest enough to admit this.

etherael 12y ago
Compared with the crimes of the entity actually mounting the prosecution, everything he was alleged to have done is at worst a misdemeanor. But you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground. Letalone that their treasured institutions are practically identical to the terrorist organisations that they say they exist to protect the innocent from.
- hahainternet 12y ago
  > you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground If you're willing to post this level of stupidity then just come out with "OBAMA IS HITLER" without mincing words so we can tell you're deluded and ignore your posts.
- hncomplete 12y ago
  Apparently thinking that identity theft (which harms individuals) sucks also means I worship the state. Right. Religious zealots always get mad when facts ruin their ideological narratives. Ethereal, you are now, and will always be, an utterly worthless shitstain on humanity. I won't couch this in distancing language. I'll own the fact that you're an asshole, that you're passive-aggressive, and that HN would be materially better if the mods had the balls to ban assholes like you.
  - etherael 12y ago
    > Religious zealots always get mad when facts ruin their ideological narratives. Couldn't have said it better myself. You would do well to consider your own criticism. I will not be holding my breath waiting for the penny to drop for you, though. You have that self assured idiocy I instantly recognise from hackneyed talking heads spinning nonsense about topics they don't grasp purely to make those more questioning abandon their pesky skepticism and critical analysis about all things conventional. Keep it up, your attacks serve merely to convince me I'm on the right path.
    - hncomplete 12y ago
      Silk Road had sections for items whose sole and explicit purpose was to harm others for profit. I understand that you are unwilling to admit this (instead trying to make this an argument about something other than SR), but he did. I find it completely unsurprising that you are incapable of admitting this. p.s. there is a lot of research indicating that extremists become more strident when presented with facts that undermine their ideology. As such, your final sentence is completely predictable.
      - etherael 12y ago
        I admitted it in my first response. I said it was a misdemeanor if he were guilty of everything he had allegedly done relative to the actions of the prosecuting entity. If you were right and I were claiming SR was some pure bastion of light and holiness I would instead have said he was completely innocent. My point was the relative culpability of the two actors in question. You're not presenting any new facts, you're just sounding off on the righteousness of the state without consideration to the crimes on that rap sheet to which I have taken exception. It is you who are doubling down on your idiocy absent understanding of the actual point being made.
        hnfucktard 12y ago
        No, you're not getting it. "Better than the US government" is a threshold of goodness that even the worst people I've ever met pass. The fact that you put it forth as evidence that DPR is a hero shows that you're a massively broken fucktard. Anyway... thanks for the further confirmation that you're a delusional idiot, and that you have no attachment to reality. You crack me up, you fucking loser.

nhstanley 12y ago

> ...non-addictive... I agree with your general point, but SR was being used for all kinds of things including selling Cocaine and Heroin (and also for not selling drugs but services). Those are very addictive drugs by almost any definition. Fine if you want to argue they are less harmful than, say, alcohol, but they are definitely addictive. Do not allow your point to be weakened by stating something that is clearly incorrect.

MacsHeadroom 12y ago
Cocaine is very pleasurable, but it's hardly as addictive as heroine or (the legal drug) alcohol.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  As the comic says, he can't see the difference between using cocaine, and taking everything you own to the back yard and burning it then giving your house away.
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  > Cocaine is very pleasurable, but it's hardly as addictive as heroine or (the legal drug) alcohol. Not really true; http://i.imgur.com/sBQn1Hr.gif http://i.imgur.com/sBQn1Hr.gif
  - Evolved 12y ago
    Not that I necessarily doubt the veracity of this claim but you should probably point to a better looking graphic than that. Where did you even find it?
    - mikeyouse 12y ago
      Agreed, it's a shitty chart, but it's from a study The Lancet performed; http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60464-4/fulltext#article_upsell http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... Wiki actually sums it up pretty well; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Dependence_potential http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Dependence...

tripzilch 12y ago

SR also sold identity theft kits, hacking tools and such. (I agree with "hncomplete"'s point, minus the "sociopath" remark)

tomp 12y ago
When he'll be charged of that and proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and when the only money taken from him will be what he earned with the above activities, I'll completely support the charges/convictions.

hahainternet 12y ago

> I totally support him, and I hope he comes out a free man, albeit his business will probably be ruined. He tried to have people killed. You are defending this. What the hell is wrong with you? I don't support drug laws. I ESPECIALLY don't support attempted murder.

anon4 12y ago
I prefer attempted murder to drug laws. One psychopath does less damage than a government of micromanaging geriatrics.
- hahainternet 12y ago
  Really? You're willing to post publicly that you don't mind him having attempted to kill people to keep his kingpin status? That you still support him?
  - neotek 12y ago
    Don't put words in his mouth, that's a shitty debating tactic.
wyager 12y ago
>He tried to have people killed. Do you have any proof of that? It looks like the government doesn't.
- Touche 12y ago
  I don't know where you get that from. They don't have proof that anyone died, and perhaps no one did. That doesn't mean attempting a hit is any less heinous.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >I don't know where you get that from. The titular "disappearing murder charges". If they had evidence, they would have pressed charges against him for murder.

davvolun 12y ago

Fair enough, I always go back to something a high school teacher mentioned when these types of arguments come up. Martin Luther King Jr. broke the law to make a point, to fight injustice, to "stick it to the man." But MLK unequivocally and publicly broke those laws; he made the statement 'these are unjust laws and they need to be changed' and suffered the punishment for breaking those laws, as determined by a court of law, mitigated by public outcry. Illegally copying and selling movies because you think copyright law is bullshit, as an example, is not living up to MLK's method, it's having your cake and eating it too. You think a law is unjust, fight the law, don't break it and try to get away with it. That makes you, at best, little better than those in organized crime. And, at the end of the day, if you've made tons of money off of the crime, and you stand to make more if the law is repealed, it really waters down your moral/ethical argument.

scottjad 12y ago
Apparently MLK did believe that: > "In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." You claim: > You think a law is unjust, fight the law, don't break it and try to get away with it. So you and MLK are claiming that a non-Jew in Nazi Germany who violates legislation by helping a Jew is morally culpable unless they do it publicly? Seems pretty questionable, and I even agree with the strict Kantian maxim of not lying to the murderer at the door! Perhaps you and MLK are confusing a strategy with morality. Perhaps it is strategically valuable to violate unjust legislation openly and suffer the consequences. That shouldn't mean that it is morally wrong to violate them in secret. To me, it seems like there are two claims that are being tied together unnecessarily. 1) one has no obligation to obey unjust legislation 2) one has an obligation to disobey it openly to bring public awareness of the unjustness and increase likelihood of reform. To me, you're just as culpable for not doing #2 whether or not you do #1. In other words, if you're morally culpable for not violating unjust legislation in public, then you bear that culpability whether or not you violate the legislation in private or not, and violating unjust legislation in private entails no culpability on its own. [edit: I completely rewrote when I realized MLK really did say that]