On: Cowards

[zaphar]

One of the governments primary jobs is protecting you from aggressors. You may not agree with the method a government uses but that doesn't change it's job description. So when they come for the terrorist they are pursuing a legitimate governmental role.

When they come for the whistleblower and illegal alien it becomes debatable whether they are pursuing a legitimate governmental role. It's very definitely an apples to oranges comparison there.

[bandushrew → zaphar]

If the government gets to deny human rights to anyone it with a specific label - what does it matter what the label is?

The government should not be allowed to deny human rights to anyone.

[zaphar → bandushrew]

I think you may have missed the part where I said you might disagree with the methods. But my point wasn't regarding methods it was regarding purpose.

[14113 → zaphar]

The problem, and what bandushrew is saying, is that purposes can be flexible. Once a system or method is legitimised, legalised or even routinely used it can be repurposed for other means. That's the true message of the OP's post - the "coming for" is the method in this case, while the people listed are the individual purposes.