|
MM, here is the common thread: I take it that the members of Wikileaks are neither better than I nor endowed with greater rights or intrinsic value. I further take it that, like me, they have not been vested by any genreally recognized institution with the authority to make decisions about how any aspect of society is to be run.
Therefore, given that they are in the precise same position as I am, and given that they apparently believe they and their allies are entitled to act on their judgments about proper social organizations, without regard to whether others agree with them, why am I not entitled to do precisely the same thing? Why can't I make judgments about my own preferences for social organization and then take matters into my own hands to implement them?
In principle, it makes no difference whether or not you agree with their goals -- the propriety of their actions can be evaluated independently of that. Just as it makes no difference if a murder victim was a lowlife, the murderer still should be punished.
The principle I was hoping you would enunciate was why you think it's ok for them to do what they do but it's not OK for me (or you, or the guy next door) to do the same thing.
---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------
yeah, Filtherton, that's a great line. Kudos.
|