Then the outcome of that decision is inevitably war, except all of the worlds largest militaries are controlled by the intolerant countries.

The proper equivalent scenario would instead be someone making a hack that amplified and encouraged equality and tolerance……which doesn’t happen.

That’s not the same and it’s not even the argument lol. My argument was that you’re tying whether a crime was committed based on who it was against rather than what was done and your response was if what was done is different then it isn’t a crime.

So the law is already not being applied equally, and “the high ground” of tolerating intolerance simply backfires. That is exactly the paradox.

Except that the flaw is in the law itself. Enforcement of the law in this case is not properly established to prevent the faithless action, but the conclusion of your argument is that because the law isn’t working we should abandon those laws.

I’ll further argue that the Paradox of Intolerance, used in this instance, implies that if we do not tolerate intolerance we can effectively snuff it out or meaningfully prevent it and thus we do not have to tolerate intolerance at all. The sad fact is that that is not true unless you are willing to cull opposing opinions. Whether you do so within your own country or if it spreads into nation state conflicts, if you fail to tolerate intolerance you inherently move toward the assumption of violence.

You’re still not getting it.

You’re talking about measured health impacts on an overall population not about ideologies. The idea that other ideologies are anti-social or harmful precludes the idea that your view of society is the correct one. That works out fine so long as you maintain the majority, but if the tides of time change against you then the very opposite would be true.

A rural community of racist white people in the US aren’t anti-social or harmed by their view until that dynamic changes, such as a person of color entering the community. Objectively that community lacks diversity of experience which promotes growth and development in the community (this is referencing your discussion about objective measures), but the desire to not change is part of why we these people are called conservatives and isn’t fundamentally wrong. The thing you are repeatedly missing is that calling these ideologies anti-social or undesirable and not deserving of protection under the law only is your express opinion, not an objective truth, and you only support this opinion so long as you remain part of the in crowd. If the situation were reversed your opinion on whether all ideologies deserve the protection of law would reverse as well.

You’re operating under some sort of legislation=ethics and morals framework that’s flawed in incredibly fundamental ways. Any ideology that violates the social contract cannot be protected by it.

It’s quite the opposite, I’m declaring that legislation is not equal to ethics. Ethics function purely on an implied social contract whereas laws function on explicit statements. Laws allow people of opposing opinions to coexist and instead of relying on implied incompatible social contracts they all have equal protection under the law. This by nature is the difference between Just and Fair or Equality and Equitable.

I feel like you are not understanding that the determination of which ideologies are harmful and aren’t is ultimately a matter of opinion and you only support it so long as you agree with the outcome. Iran, China, North Korea, and many other countries are examples of the other side of your argument.

I’m not saying that ideologies are intrinsic characteristics, I’m saying that people have the right to believe in what they want to believe and that right to believe, regardless of what it is, is an intrinsic characteristic. Some countries might not have freedom to express those beliefs but that’s literally denying rights.

Sending a link with no additional context doesn’t make a point. What are you trying to say with this?

It’s kinda hard to claim self defense when you are launching the attack to someone in another country. If you flipped the situation around and a radical conservative hacker in Russia hacked an LGBTQ site you would immediately call that a crime. The only difference is ideological and who controls the power to determine which ideology is correct.

I feel strongly that rules and laws should be enforced equally and that you can’t put them on a spectrum. Here is another example; when Democrats were found to have potentially taken top secret files, by accident or not, the party had to investigate them with the same level of conviction as they had with Trump because failing to do so undermined their own argument.

You’re right, using a slippery slope argument is a type of logical fallacy, but for it to be a logical fallacy it has to preclude a result and also be implausible in it’s steps.

My argument was did not preclude a result and was more a statement of fundamental change in the nature of law. If you change the application of laws from a definite system (the law applies to everyone) to a spectrum (the law applies to some people) then you are now on a slippery slope where as before you were not. As to the plausibility of the argument, we are literally seeing this effect in real time with Trump. Laws switched from being definite to being suggestions and now no one is truly certain what laws do apply and to who.

Yeah it does, even mass murders are due the process of law and protections under it. We don’t drag murderous sociopaths into the public square and execute them without trials. You can’t fight for fair and equal rights while also saying other people aren’t entitled to those same rights.

Laws are supposed to be just and equal, it is a common mistake in believing that they should be equitable or that they will be implemented justly or equally.

I agreed with another comment that this is probably not cyber terrorism, because definitions of cyber terrorism indicate a wide spread impact on people while this only impacts a relatively small group. Your definition isn’t quite right either as one potential goal for cyber terrorism is to cause disruption or fear. Terrorism as a general term may be politically motivated but it doesn’t have to have the goal of influencing policy directly. Technically revenge can be a goal of terrorism.

You’re probably right, I went back and double checked the definition of cyber terrorism and the main difference is scale of impact. To be cyber terrorism it would probably have to impact a larger group of people.

Ideologically there is a lot of difference between sovereign citizens and anarchists, but functionally there is not. One is delusional in their disbelief of a state while the other believes that a state shouldn’t exist. At the end of the day both are opposed to the proper function of government.

That’s literally the risk we all face.

No it’s not, the vast majority of law abiding citizens are not at risk in any legal based county. Even if the laws of the country change, so long as you follow the laws you are at little risk. There are exceptions of course, but the majority of people do not face that risk.

Look at all the law abiding immigrants in America who are rotting in concentration camps because the one with the keys to the kingdom changed.

Look, I’m against putting people in concentration camps but this isn’t the argument we were having. If you want to use that example then immigrants who aren’t committing crimes but are not in the US under legal methods are still technically criminals. I will happily agree with you that their treatment isn’t right, but their status as illegal immigrants is still true. If you want to talk about legal immigrants and US citizens who have been detained or deported then that also has happened, but that is more a function of US officials breaking the law. You don’t go to Russia with a vape pen and expect not to be arrested because you’re an American or famous. Likewise you don’t go to China and call Xi Weenie the Pooh and expect to not get fucked with.

If your argument is that a government in the world is breaking the law then it’s ok for a private citizen in another country to break the law then you’re truly delusional. Hey, North Korea starved a bunch of people, and Iran killed a bunch of women who didn’t want to wear veils, so it’s ok for a guy in my country to hack a hate group in China.

That argument is ridiculous as well.

I’m also commenting like an Anarchist, not a SovShit.

Functionally there is no difference

They can exist all they want, I do not respect them and I do not adhere to them. I live parallel to them. One does not need to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber to have meaning, that is an extremist understanding of change. One simply needs to live the life they believe to be ethical.

So, as long as you believe it’s ethical then it’s okay regardless of law and order. I hope the winds of change never turn against you such that you find the precedent reversed against you.

Yet you live in a world where laws and nation states exist. Just because you divorce yourself from these rules or think they do not apply to your beliefs does not make it so. You’re commenting like a Sovereign Citizen in the US, but the laws and legal frameworks exist whether you believe in them. To a point you must frame your discussion in their context and if you do not then your opinion doesn’t matter until you change that very framework.

If your argument hinges on ignoring the legal framework then you have to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber, anything less is meaningless.

Nothing you are saying makes sense in the framework of legal functionality. You’re basically advocating for non-gun castle doctrine in which you have the right to do whatever you want against people who you disagree with and who have the potential to do something against you. We live in a society where rules apply, when you say these things you should take a second to think how these decisions would apply if they were turned against you.

I’m not certain on much, but what I do know is that I believe in law. I like rules and I like order. Even more so I want rules and order to apply universally. You are arguing on the side of chaos against others with the privilege of law to protect you. That’s all well and good until those same standards are applied against you.

I agree with the sentiment, but sadly can’t agree with the implementation. Laws exist in a neutral environment, you can’t bypass them just because the other party is someone society disagrees with. Even if they are committing crimes you can’t unilaterally exact justice against them due to vigilante laws.

This event took place in Germany, Crimical Code §§ 202a-d criminalizes unauthorized access, interception, and manipulation of data, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, covering acts like phishing and data espionage. Within German law this should be a crime. Germany has laws against neo-nazis, but this would be vigilantism which Germany also prohibits.

It’s a slippery slope to ignore your own laws because they support the popular narrative.

Eh, I want to like this statement because I hate these people, but I can’t in good conscious call it something it isn’t. This sort of thing is the essence of debate because we have good people doing bad things to bad people and then have to justify why it’s ok despite it being bad. It’s justice vs righteousness, it’s lawful neutral vs lawful good. The only reason why this is acceptable is because it’s against people that we deem not worthy of legal protection, but as a precedent that’s dangerous territory. As soon as the definition of people not worthy of legal protection changes it suddenly becomes a problem.

At it’s core this person probably committed a crime, but people don’t care because it’s against a bad ideologue. It’s like if we said it’s ok to round up and execute neo-nazis, a lot of people would rejoice, but if you change that to most any other group they would cry about human rights. At the end of the day rounding up and killing anyone is a bad thing no matter who it’s against.

I mean, it is technically true, but in a trial with a jury of peers it wouldn’t matter. This reminds me of the old school outlaw definition. If you were declared an outlaw the laws of the land no longer applied to you. You could commit crimes, but it also meant anyone and everyone could commit crimes against you without repercussions. It was a bit of a given that you would commit crimes because if you were declared an outlaw you probably were already committing crimes, but now anyone could rob, harm, or even kill you and it wouldn’t be a crime.

I say fuck these neo-nazis but this is cyber terrorism technically.

I’m a relative basic bitch, I don’t want to spend forever in terminal. Mint has been a god send and I’m so happy I left windows for it. A special shout out to steam for being the goat and making what little gaming I do easy.