Oh, please. Spare me the hypocritical lecturing. Did you come into this thread to debate the merits of the issue? Did you add anything useful or germane to the discussion? No. Your first post in this thread was nothing more than a blatant ad hominem.
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
I can’t help but notice that you get into quite a lot of petty dick-measuring contests around here. Guess what the only thing they all have in common is? I’ll give you a hint: it ain’t everyone else.
Woah there! Has this been answered for yet? Because I missed it if so. Are you saying, samclem, that you have no ethical concerns whatsoever about doing your volunteer job? You wouldn’t quit if they started telling you to shut down threads about gay folks, or Polish people, or whatever? Or were you just being (a little too goddamn) flippant? Your point seems to be precisely that you don’t care about the ethics of what you do, though, so…what the fuckity fuck?
You’re incapable of processing anyone’s input into a discussion like this without first obsessing over your take on their motives and history. It doesn’t matter to you one whit whether what I, or samclem, or whoever says is true. You’ll only consider the content of the post if the poster can withstand your judgment of their personal issues.
Dude, look up “ad hominem.” It’s a fallacy, not a “tactic.”
Seriously. Practice ignoring the name of the poster for a while, and just concentrate on what they have to say. You might eventually become a decent debater. You have a long, LOOOOONG way to go, but who knows? Anything is possible.
Since I know you won’t actually look it up, I’ll add it here. My point being you should really consider the actual meaning of the term. “Ad hominem” doesn’t necessarily always mean “attack,” despite current usage problems. It just means focusing on the arguer rather than the argument:
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.
You’re completely ignoring all my posts, except the ones that appear to back up this claim. Cherry-picking isn’t a valid debating tactic either. I’ve made my case for why I believe samclem’s decision was wrong. Why don’t you address those as well, then?
Dude. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. The use of the ad hominem fallacy IS a tactic, albeit, an admittedly poor one.
You’re doing the exact thing you’re accusing me of. This does not strike you as a bit hypocritical?
Sorry, but that line of reasoning seems pretty ridiculous to me. A Chinese guy who would even think of trying to get firewall-breaking nformation would not be some schmoe who just stumbled across the site. It would be someone who already has some political will and has been looking for ways to access forbidden information. It’s complicated stuff, besides, and it’s hardly going to tempt otherwise patriotic or non-political Chinese youths from tearing away from their next Counterstrike or Warcraft game…
By the way, I had no idea I’d stir up such a hornet’s nest with my original OP. Didn’t actually think the ignorance-fighting board would stop this line of inquiry…
Okie-dokie. All you need is an iron-clad yardstick with which to determine which laws are bad and should be violated. Let’s call it the Arbitron Athenea®.
No. Wait! I’m sorry… laws ‘YOU agree with’. That’s more difficult. Alrighty, I hereby sign over my voting rights to you. You only have 250MM more to go in the US and 3Bn in China.
You’re missing the part where I agreed with you, aren’t you? Is that intentional or are you just reading selectively?
It’s legal for me to wear a bikini to work. On my office’s property they can tell me to change into something else. Whether or not I think they’re right, I have two choices – do as they have asked or leave.
I’ll say this again, and maybe you will hear me. THAT BEING SAID, I BELIEVE THE DECISION TO CLOSE THE THREAD WAS WRONG.
I’m not missing it but you’re extrapolating a very simple bad decision into talks about social protest and the internet. I just keep resimplifying it. It’s probably partly due to the broken record habit I picked up when I was working tech support, so if it seems like I’m getting personal I apologise.
Has samclem decided to abandon this thread? If so, it is because he knows he doesn’t have any legitimate counter-argument to th responses being posted here.
To be fair, I believe he is waiting for official word regarding the matter from the PTB, as one of his last posts suggests. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and wait.
And I didn’t intend to imply you were foolish, and believe me, I understand what it’s like to have to be a broken record. I’m not so much extrapolating as saying that while I think we should be allowed to say anything we darn well please on here as long as it’s not breaking any U.S. laws, if the mods are going to be cranky about it, there are other places to go.
It’s like taking your computer apart with a magnetized screwdriver. It’ll work, but it might screw things up. Better to get a different tool.
Believe me, o fishy, I get your point. I’m just looking at the situation from a “so where do I, a non-mod, go from here?” standpoint.
Or we could call it “individual conscience.” You’re not actually arguing that just because something is against the law, we’re obligated to be morally opposed to it, are you? China’s internet law is stupid and unethical, I don’t have a problem with it being violated by Chinese citizens. Since I live in the US, it’s not actually possible for me to violate it myself, as I’m not subject to Chinese laws, but if I were, I wouldn’t have a problem violating it myself, either.
I feel the same way about US drug law, which is equally stupid and destructive. It’s not a law I feel any qualms about violating, and if someone in another country (or in this country) wants to write about how to violate US drug laws on the internet, I don’t have a problem with that. Why should I?
I agree here that this was a poor moderating decision. I think I see why samclem made it, but I hope TPTB reverse it: we ought not confine ourselves according to the wills of dictators, especially when said dictators are powerless over us and our risk-free defiance of their rules may end up helping those who suffer from their tyranny.
Did you read the quote? He didn’t need a yardstick at all. He had answered my question, and clarified that he “might not agree with it morally if it broke a US law I agree with.” In other words, he wants his own moral compass to set the path for others. At best, that takes audacity. I tend to think of it as silly. Dangerous silliness, but silliness nonetheless.
I think many US drug laws don’t serve their purpose. Do I support an off-shore website teaching people how to get around those laws? Nope. Many Chinese don’t agree with US patent law. Do I support the violation of those laws? Nope. Do I think the Chinese government should restrict the flow of information? No, I don’t, but neither am I so full of myself to think that I’ve got the right to help people violate that law, nor do I pretend to fully understand what implications that could have.
I personally think it would suck get some poor schmuck in Shenzhen arrested so that I could feel morally superior for 10 minutes. You do what you want.
Ludovic?! You’re too dim to discuss this with. I’d rather clog dance with broken glass in my clogs.
What is dangerous or silly about that? Seems like an eminently sensible, ethical position to me. People ought to evaluate the morality of their actions irrespective of what the law says. Some laws are good laws that ought to be followed. Some laws are stupid, but should be followed because it’s not worth the risks of being caught violating them. And some laws are so totally wrong that it becomes a moral imperative to violate them. China’s censorship laws fall somewhere between the last two categories, IMO.
Why not?
I don’t, either, but that’s because I think those are (for the most part) good laws that serve a useful purpose. If it’s a bad law, or a useless law, or an immoral law, violate the fuck out of it.
Why? No one is forcing him to violate the laws of his own country. He’s aware of the consequences of what he’s doing as I am. If he chooses to follow my advice, and gets caught, why is that my fault?
Do you think that it’s ever okay to violate a law? Or do you view the law as something that must be followed, no matter what the law actually states?
