Re:French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into delet...
by sesqu on Saturday April 06, 2013 @04:08PM
(#5504836)
> you can't claim innocence
If you read very carefully, you'll notice that person you're replying to was delineating between evil and culpable.
Re:French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into delet...
by omonra on Saturday April 06, 2013 @02:29PM
(#5504492)
Meta advice - there is no need to turn every discussion into one about Iraq war.
On the actual statement - I disagree 100%, but we're talking ethics, so rational arguments can't go very far :)
Re:French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into delet...
by fnordfnordfnord on Saturday April 06, 2013 @06:43PM
(#5505338)
No, we don't say that drunks are evil when they get drunk and then drive their car over someone. We do still throw them in prison though.
Re:French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into delet...
by duncan_bayne on Sunday April 07, 2013 @02:00AM
(#5506250)
We? You might not, but I certainly do.
Re:French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into delet...
by omonra on Sunday April 07, 2013 @04:09AM
(#5506487)
Let me explain the problem here.
What you are doing is diluting the 'evil brand'. If you call a drunk driver evil, you have nothing left for the likes of Hitler and Pol Pot. What are they then - double evil?
Re:French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into delet...
by duncan_bayne on Monday April 08, 2013 @09:48PM
(#5515996)
It's a spectrum. It's possible to be 'slightly evil' or 'very evil', or - in the case of Hitler or Pol Pot - 'one of the most evil humans who ever lived'.
If someone throws rocks at oncoming cars, you can't claim innocence because "I didn't mean to kill a family in a car crash!" If you invade an oil-rich Middle Eastern country and cause half a million excess deaths, it's just as bad as if you personally murdered each and every one of them.