Comment

Free Republic Reacts to Ron Paul's White Supremacist Links

177
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks2/03/2012 12:02:20 am PST

re: #169 Sergey Romanov

Nobody says they were legal.

I’m not implying you are, either. but I do find your position curious.

And of course it’s subjective. “Good” and “bad” are entirely subjective. So when I say “I’ll take the good parts”, I’m being subjective. There’s no pretense of being otherwise.

Never figured there was a pretense. It appeared subjective from the start. Terribly so.

After all, if one hates the Anon for merely doing illegal acts (even when they may be arguably morally justified), then so much more one should hate the governments that committed illegal acts and have escaped any punishment.

Can not argue with that too much, but I will anyway.

1. False dichotomy. Should I accept Anon malfeasance in the face of gov’t malfeasance?

2. Moral equivalence/ambivalence. Should I accept criminal vigilantism if I accept the fact that criminal actors should be punished?

Just a couple of things I think about.

An analogy to illustrate what?

Their criminal activity in a way that isn’t dependent on referencing world leaders or gov’t agencies.