So it's either "the good folk vs the evildoers" or complete moral relativism?
No concept of an interplay between transparency/civil rights and security? No room for disagreement between people who value both but disagree about the relative worth of these goals when applied to a specific circumstance?
It's funny. You're arranging words in a seemingly meaningful pattern, but when I parse it, you aren't saying anything at all other than calling me childish.
You can disagree with someone about a moral question, but the only way you can both be right is through moral relativism. Otherwise, one person is doing the right thing and the other person is doing the wrong thing even though they think it's right. I wouldn't use the words "good and evil" because they have a bit of a manichean connotation to them, but if you take the plain, everyday meanings of "good and bad", they make sense in this context, and what you're saying doesn't.
I wasn't aware that reasonable adults were only allowed to have one opinion regarding WikiLeaks. How does the thoughtcrime work in this scenario? Does Julian Assange come dox me himself, or should I wait for someone with a Guy Fawkes mask?
For future instances where I might try to think of things using my own brain, who from WikiLeaks should I get approval from? Is the request form available electronically as an HTML form, or do I need to use PDF? The latter is kind of important as I don't have a PDF-form-capable viewer most of the time.
Thanks, and I look forward to locking myself totally and subserviently to what other people think.
I guess my point was unclear. I was taking issue with the childish idea of there being "good guys" and "bad guys" for pretty much the same reasons you stated.
