For those of you who don't know, Anonymous is a group of... well... Internet protesters? I really have no clue myself here. They are called a lot of... unmentionable names, as well as being blamed for the PSN hacking(Im still unsure of this). The FBI are also supposedly tracking them down, and, for those of you who dont know, Operation Empire State Rebellion started today... or something like that, concerning Bernanke.
Linky to their video:
When I google them, I simply get a generalization of their organization... I honestly have no clue, but my question is:
Do you think they are Good, Bad, or somewhere in between the two?
Footsloggin wrote:For those of you who don't know, Anonymous is a group of... well... Internet protesters? I really have no clue myself here. They are called a lot of... unmentionable names, as well as being blamed for the PSN hacking(Im still unsure of this). The FBI are also supposedly tracking them down, and, for those of you who dont know, Operation Empire State Rebellion started today... or something like that, concerning Bernanke.
Linky to their video:
When I google them, I simply get a generalization of their organization... I honestly have no clue, but my question is:
Do you think they are Good, Bad, or somewhere in between the two?
Both, some acts they commit are good, others are bad, and others yet are just plain immature
If they try to track Anonymous, they are gak out of luck.
Remember the last guy to try to oust Anonymous? His Social Security, phone number, Home Address, Cell Phone number and other private info was posted onto his Twitter account.
Chowderhead wrote:If they try to track Anonymous, they are gak out of luck.
Remember the last guy to try to oust Anonymous? His Social Security, phone number, Home Address, Cell Phone number and other private info was posted onto his Twitter account.
Anon is bad, and I hope someone figures out a way to shut their asses down. I don't disagree with their goals or ideology, I disagree with how they go about it.
They have the right to demand Bernanke's resignation. They have the right to demand Pvt. Bradley Manning's release from prison (this I disagree with), and so on. They DON'T have the right to then hack into government computers, ruin peoples lives, etc. etc. in order to try to coerce them to listen to your demands.
chaos0xomega wrote:Anon is bad, and I hope someone figures out a way to shut their asses down. I don't disagree with their goals or ideology, I disagree with how they go about it.
They have the right to demand Bernanke's resignation. They have the right to demand Pvt. Bradley Manning's release from prison (this I disagree with), and so on. They DON'T have the right to then hack into government computers, ruin peoples lives, etc. etc. in order to try to coerce them to listen to your demands.
A group of people with strong opinions and a self-righteous streak the size of Kanye West's ego with no chance in hell of actually achieving anything other than being a massive annoyance for everyone who has to deal with their shenanigans.
Sounds like a typical charity protest group to me
I hate protestors. Stop wasting my air with your pointless yelling
Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Yes. I'm sure the goals of most hackers are to do wonderful things. Not waste everyone time by stealing information and violating civil rights and generally achieving no good in the world. Like the church of Scientology as wacko as it is is going to fold or even be more than slightly displeased with the actions of a bunch random internet guru's.
Hacksters are the hippes of the new millennium with less free love and all the classical silliness... except they mostly do it for the lulz instead of the drugs... or do they
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Yes. I'm sure the goals of most hackers are to do wonderful things. Not waste everyone time by stealing information and violating civil rights and generally achieving no good in the world. Like the church of Scientology as wacko as it is is going to fold or even be more than slightly displeased with the actions of a bunch random internet guru's.
Hacksters are the hippes of the new millennium with less free love and all the classical silliness... except they mostly do it for the lulz instead of the drugs... or do they
Hey, that again sounds like typical protestors
The system works
"Most Hackers" are not Anonymous. Lulzsec is not Anonymous. 4chan is not Anonymous.
Anonymous was initially a protest group against scientology. however because Anonymous is anonymous and decentralised and has no form of leadership or requirements for membership or ability to qualify members. Thus it is inevitable that individuals who may or may not be connection to Anonymous' initial campaign would steer the organisation, or hijack its name for other purposes.
Are they still Anonymous when they go after secondary targets, who is to say. With no means of qualifying Anonymous members or membership the movement could head in multiple directions at once, and even contradict itself. Anonymous should have prevented all activity outside their core goal of opposing Scientiology, fro the outset not to do so was a mistake. Initial commentsd of, itf its not against scientiology its not 'Anonymous' would have been able to stick, not doing so with the openness of the movement guarantees eventual abuse. Sure it should reasonable to go after Westboro baptists, but those who did so should have done so under a different name, after all anonymous is what it is because of the particular threats and practices of Scientology, other groups that use different methods of handling opponents do not need to face a protest group of the type or methodology of Anonymous. As those speaking for Anonymous were slow to prevent 'mission creep' it is now impossible to determine where the movement can expand next. Indeed due to its genericity those who founded the movement have no more say than anyone else who makes a video in an electronic voice and uses the cultural themes associated with the movement.
So if you or I made an Anonymous video agaisnt say, whaling. That is no less Anonymous than any other Anonymous video. Anonymous may not be about 'save the whales', but with no qualification and no central ideology who is to say what Anonymous is all about.
I would not be suprised if savvy organisations made Anonymous videos in order to steer the movement or to highlight a cause, or even to covertly advertise. There would be no evidence to say who or what was behind anything done. I would take a soft bet on the idea that the internet departments of Chinese intelligence have at least thought of doing this, and if they did use Anonymous we wouldn't notice.
The irony is that the unwitting mission creep of Anonymous is quite likely to let tghe Church of Scientology off the hook. Scientology was in trouble, now they only need to sit it out until Anonymous burns itself or its credibility out.
I'm firmly against anonymous. Regardless of whether I agree with their views I don't like the way they achieve them. They often claim to support people right to make their own choices but do this by shutting down sites they don't like- That seems a bit hypocritical to me.
If you don't like scientology protest about it. That doesn't mean you should attack them and websites that are linked to them. If people still choose scientology after all your protests then bad luck, it's their choice in the end.
A group of hackers using their power to leverage their interests
can be just as corrupt as the figures they claim to keep in
check. I mean, seriously, has no one seen Keanu Reeve's
movie Brotherhood of Justice.
It's one of those terrible movies I can't help referencing from
time to time. I suppose I should post it in the guilty pleasures
thread.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Yes. I'm sure the goals of most hackers are to do wonderful things. Not waste everyone time by stealing information and violating civil rights and generally achieving no good in the world. Like the church of Scientology as wacko as it is is going to fold or even be more than slightly displeased with the actions of a bunch random internet guru's.
Hacksters are the hippes of the new millennium with less free love and all the classical silliness... except they mostly do it for the lulz instead of the drugs... or do they
Hey, that again sounds like typical protestors
The system works
"Most Hackers" are not Anonymous. Lulzsec is not Anonymous. 4chan is not Anonymous.
You said yourself anyone is anonymous. That's what happens in the 'anonymity' of the internet. It's not even a coherent group anymore. It's a mass of groups and individuals who simply use a name. They have no clear goal, no clear platform, and do more attacks against law enforcement and random other groups than against scientology or people who actually deserve it. All hackers don't claim to be anonymous, but anonymous is a typical group of hackers in the sense you can talk about it being a group.
They're activists, software pirates, anarchists, griefers and generally in it for the lulz. Early Anonymous actions were more coherent, but now it's just chaotic. They're more a extremist fringe operating off cyber space now than what they were in the first two years (in the first two years they weren't even restricted to the internet they organized boots on the ground to protest too). I'd almost claim they're cyber terrorists, but they're not quite there yet. I think it's only a matter of time till they reach that point.
The irony is that the unwitting mission creep of Anonymous is quite likely to let tghe Church of Scientology off the hook. Scientology was in trouble, now they only need to sit it out until Anonymous burns itself or its credibility out.
They already have burned out. Only overly idealistic people with limited knowledge of hacker culture seem to back them these days. Their credibility went out the window with things like retaliating against law enforcement agencies who arrest their members and stuff like the Operation Pay Back incident. The stance of "we want to be free to steal whatever we want and if you try to stop us we will be very mean to you" doesn't fly very far in the public imagination. Plenty of people still think they're behind the attack on the Playstation Network even though Lulsec claimed responsibility.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Which is called a terrorist freedom fighter I suppose. Being one doesn't exclude you from being the other.
Footsloggin wrote:For those of you who don't know, Anonymous is a group of... well... Internet protesters? I really have no clue myself here. They are called a lot of... unmentionable names, as well as being blamed for the PSN hacking(Im still unsure of this). The FBI are also supposedly tracking them down, and, for those of you who dont know, Operation Empire State Rebellion started today... or something like that, concerning Bernanke.
Linky to their video:
When I google them, I simply get a generalization of their organization... I honestly have no clue, but my question is:
Do you think they are Good, Bad, or somewhere in between the two?
Hang them from the Golden Gate Bridge as a warning to Berkeley that freedom is NOT just another word for nothing left to lose?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:
Blitza da warboy wrote:Hacking is illegal. Anonymous is bad.
If you set your moral code by what is legal and what isn't, the world must constantly be a disappointment to you.
Busted flat in Baton Rouge, us heading for the train,
Feeling nearly faded as my jeans.
Bobby thumbed a diesel down just before it rained,
Took us all the way to New Orleans,
I took my harpoon out of my dirty red bandana,
And was blowing sad while Bobby sang the bluuuuues,
With them windshield wipers slapping time,
And Bobby clapping hands,
We finally sang up every song, that driver knew.
They proved that real regulation of the internet needs to happen. We can't keep having big organisations like this being hacked all the time. Seriously, the videogame mess was appalling. They are largely teenagers with dreams who have no understanding of the way the world works. You can't just steal people's personal details and post them on the net; regardless of what they have done.
LordofHats wrote:
You said yourself anyone is anonymous. That's what happens in the 'anonymity' of the internet. It's not even a coherent group anymore. It's a mass of groups and individuals who simply use a name. They have no clear goal, no clear platform, and do more attacks against law enforcement and random other groups than against scientology or people who actually deserve it. All hackers don't claim to be anonymous, but anonymous is a typical group of hackers in the sense you can talk about it being a group.
They're activists, software pirates, anarchists, griefers and generally in it for the lulz. Early Anonymous actions were more coherent, but now it's just chaotic. They're more a extremist fringe operating off cyber space now than what they were in the first two years (in the first two years they weren't even restricted to the internet they organized boots on the ground to protest too). I'd almost claim they're cyber terrorists, but they're not quite there yet. I think it's only a matter of time till they reach that point.
I told myself that I would posting in this thread until I was away from work's (probably monitored) internet connection, but life's too short to not point out just how ironic your avatar is at this EXACT moment.
Which is called a terrorist freedom fighter I suppose. Being one doesn't exclude you from being the other.
*bemusement*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:They proved that real regulation of the internet needs to happen. We can't keep having big organisations like this being hacked all the time. Seriously, the videogame mess was appalling. They are largely teenagers with dreams who have no understanding of the way the world works. You can't just steal people's personal details and post them on the net; regardless of what they have done.
Glad to see some anons were arrested recently.
I agree, most people who play video games are largely teenagers with dreams who have no understanding of how the world works. That fact that such an 'attack' was even possible shows they had an amount of network security equivalent to just printing out the individual user information and leaving it face up on the corporate office receptionist's desk.
Sony should be held liable and the persons responsible there should be arrested.
Ratius wrote:Busted flat in Baton Rouge, us heading for the train,
Feeling nearly faded as my jeans.
Bobby thumbed a diesel down just before it rained,
Took us all the way to New Orleans,
I took my harpoon out of my dirty red bandana,
And was blowing sad while Bobby sang the bluuuuues,
With them windshield wipers slapping time,
And Bobby clapping hands,
We finally sang up every song, that driver knew.
Forgive me but who is the Rose?
I know Kristoffeson wrote it originally but didnt actually release it as his own until later.
Janice Joplin probably made it famous but Kris' version > all imho.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Which is called a terrorist freedom fighter I suppose. Being one doesn't exclude you from being the other.
I think you entirely missed the point of that saying.
It's only a good point if you don't understand the difference between the two. Fortunately, many people do.
Now I think you might have missed it. I mean....really? It's pretty obvious what the saying is trying to get at. How people with different points of view interperet things differently.
Ratius wrote:Forgive me but who is the Rose?
I know Kristoffeson wrote it originally but didnt actually release it as his own until later.
Janice Joplin probably made it famous but Kris' version > all imho.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Which is called a terrorist freedom fighter I suppose. Being one doesn't exclude you from being the other.
I think you entirely missed the point of that saying.
It's only a good point if you don't understand the difference between the two. Fortunately, many people do.
Now I think you might have missed it. I mean....really? It's pretty obvious what the saying is trying to get at. How people with different points of view interperet things differently.
I didn't miss the point. It's just not a good point.
A "terrorist" is someone who uses the means of terrorism. A "freedom fighter" is someone who seeks the goal of freedom. The two are not exclusive.
I believe you are taking the phrase too literarlly. The point is a very good one as long as you don't get hung up which words are used.
Terrorist is often used as a negative term to describe armed organisations that attack governments. Whether they actually use terror is often overlooked. Cyberterrorists aren't causing terror they are just being disruptive.
Freedom fighter is a positive term used to desribe someone fighting a bad goverment.
Which description is acurate depends entirely on your view of the current goverment.
Cyber Terrorists are the same as terrorists; just that rather than killing people and spreading terror; they attack the economy, governments and corporations. (under the foolish guise of 'Sticking it to da man!")
Sony should be held liable and the persons responsible there should be arrested.
When it comes to hackers, in a weird way I am kind of glad they exist. Computer security seems pretty vulnerable and they're making a mockery out of professional security systems everywhere. Those systems need to be tested and improved upon and often times hackers will become undercover agents for the government as well. Of course its reprehensible if something truly harmful occurred as a result.
In the 80's I used to consider "hackers" as cool people who could get into their school's computers and change their grades to all A's like in War Games. But nowadays, they just seem like immature emo brats that will do whatever they can to get their epeen noticed, mistakenly thinking people other than themselves actually care.
As far as Anonymous goes.... are they even anonymous anymore? I think they need to find a new name, like Not Anonymous
Necros wrote:In the 80's I used to consider "hackers" as cool people who could get into their school's computers and change their grades to all A's like in War Games. But nowadays, they just seem like immature emo brats that will do whatever they can to get their epeen noticed, mistakenly thinking people other than themselves actually care.
As far as Anonymous goes.... are they even anonymous anymore? I think they need to find a new name, like Not Anonymous
I consider hackers as absolute criminals. They steal our identities and ruin lives. Hang them off a bridge.
Cane wrote:When it comes to hackers, in a weird way I am kind of glad they exist. Computer security seems pretty vulnerable and they're making a mockery out of professional security systems everywhere. Those systems need to be tested and improved upon and often times hackers will become undercover agents for the government as well. Of course its reprehensible if something truly harmful occurred as a result.
Would you want someone to break into your house and steal something just to show you how your home system can be improved upon?
Cane wrote:When it comes to hackers, in a weird way I am kind of glad they exist. Computer security seems pretty vulnerable and they're making a mockery out of professional security systems everywhere. Those systems need to be tested and improved upon and often times hackers will become undercover agents for the government as well. Of course its reprehensible if something truly harmful occurred as a result.
Would you want someone to break into your house and steal something just to show you how your home system can be improved upon?
Cane wrote:When it comes to hackers, in a weird way I am kind of glad they exist. Computer security seems pretty vulnerable and they're making a mockery out of professional security systems everywhere. Those systems need to be tested and improved upon and often times hackers will become undercover agents for the government as well. Of course its reprehensible if something truly harmful occurred as a result.
Would you want someone to break into your house and steal something just to show you how your home system can be improved upon?
Actually there was a show that did that...
With permission obviously but they did hire an ex-burglar to do it...
I'm glad to know there are still people out there trying to make a difference, even if it is from the comfort of their computer desks, even if it's completely futile thanks to all the cattle who think they live in a democracy because they get to pick a new guy to **** on their head every 4 years and think they're free because they're not literally in chains.
Cane wrote:When it comes to hackers, in a weird way I am kind of glad they exist. Computer security seems pretty vulnerable and they're making a mockery out of professional security systems everywhere. Those systems need to be tested and improved upon and often times hackers will become undercover agents for the government as well. Of course its reprehensible if something truly harmful occurred as a result.
Would you want someone to break into your house and steal something just to show you how your home system can be improved upon?
Nope but home security and computer security for the government and other entities are about as different as they come. I've also been hacked before so I know what both of those incidents feel like and its gak!
I loathe hackers but I also loathe huge corporations who are vulnerable to such pirate ships. Its remarkable how little Sony and other entities can protect your information and their own. Even top level executives still use one password for all of their accounts which is just asking to get compromised.
FBI needs to recruit these hackers or put 'em behind bars.
Cane wrote:When it comes to hackers, in a weird way I am kind of glad they exist. Computer security seems pretty vulnerable and they're making a mockery out of professional security systems everywhere. Those systems need to be tested and improved upon and often times hackers will become undercover agents for the government as well. Of course its reprehensible if something truly harmful occurred as a result.
Would you want someone to break into your house and steal something just to show you how your home system can be improved upon?
lord_blackfang wrote:I'm glad to know there are still people out there trying to make a difference, even if it is from the comfort of their computer desks, even if it's completely futile thanks to all the cattle who think they live in a democracy because they get to pick a new guy to **** on their head every 4 years and think they're free because they're not literally in chains.
And this is why 'Anonymous' gets to act like douches or people claim they're "freedom fighters".
Because people out there thinks they're "making a difference".
They're not interested in causes. They're not interested in championing the people. They're a disorganized mass of individuals who find it hilarious to compromise security systems and claim afterwards that they were doing it for a good reason.
lord_blackfang wrote:I'm glad to know there are still people out there trying to make a difference, even if it is from the comfort of their computer desks, even if it's completely futile thanks to all the cattle who think they live in a democracy because they get to pick a new guy to **** on their head every 4 years and think they're free because they're not literally in chains.
The problem is they aren't trying to make a difference, they live by the whole 'Trolling is good' outlook, they don't give a rats rear about anything or anyone, its just a game thanks to boredom and a lack of focusing their skills where it would make them money.
As to the whole anti democracy thing, yeah, I always roll my eyes at the G8 protestors and anarchists, because I would not want to see the world their broken idealism would bring. It'd fall flat on its face in weeks and we'd be in a worse place than we are now.
Although I wouldn't worry, the population issue is coming to a crossroads, and China will feth everyone over hard when its ready.
Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why 'Anonymous' gets to act like douches or people claim they're "freedom fighters".
Because people out there thinks they're "making a difference".
They're not interested in causes. They're not interested in championing the people. They're a disorganized mass of individuals who find it hilarious to compromise security systems and claim afterwards that they were doing it for a good reason.
If it results in people discussing in an open forum the causes being attributed to them, does it matter what their motive is?
What I'm trying to say is, saying that they 'do it for the lulz' or that they're just punk kids, or somehow otherwise vilifying them is great fun. It's up there with discussing if Tom's gay, or whatever the media considers news nowadays. Let's have us a detailed conversation about some fething baseball teams afterwards and then take pride in that we're responsibly up on current events. Gossip has always been a great source of recreation for lots of people. However, it's not adding value. Arguing the morality of the actions of Anonymous is not adding value on any topics that matter. What would add value is discussing their claims. Watch that video and read their claims. Are they valid? Do they have a point? Are the things they list 'Bad'? No. No. Don't say it doesn't justify Anon's actions. I know you were about to. That doesn't figure in to this. The viewpoint is so fethed up here that we're eating from the hand of the media by discussing the morality of the group rather than actually listening to their message. So you don't agree with their methods, or you think their methods aren't suitably focus toward the goal. Great. Is their message any less valid?
This is, of course, @Daedalus
So what you're saying is "The ends justify the means"?
You're on a very slippery slope there. The vast majority of their "causes" have never actually been any "good". Their methods are at best underhanded, and at worst blackmail.
I know, I know. Mainstream media bad, Anonymous good.
You want to know why it's so easy for the media to vilify Anonymous? Because Anonymous HAS NO ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OR CONTROL OVER ITS OWN 'MEMBERS'.
They have no goals. They have no viewpoint, they have no morality, they have no justification other than "because we felt like it". To act as if they're some kind of great driving force driving discussion of causes is to demean anyone who actually has strove to champion a cause.
Wolfun wrote:Anonymous aren't a group, more like a selection of groups.
People just use them as a scapegoat, but I know plenty of anons that don't do anything massively lawbreaking.
No. Anonymous is a title people use to justify their actions. It's why they're such a fantastic scapegoat.
Anyone can claim "I'm with Anonymous" when in reality they have no clue what the feth Anonymous is. It's like the "I support our soldiers" bumper stickers you see. In many cases, people bought them at the height of patriotic frenzy.
But since then, they've done buttkiss to actually support our soldiers.
Sure. But does that mean that the Fed HASN'T done the things Anonymous is screaming about at the moment? Is Goldman Sachs innocent? As far as the "media bad" fad I seem to be bandwagoning on, fair enough. However, doesn't it bug you though that they're not even touching anon's claims? Doesn't that seem a little odd? They just argue from authority saying "anon bad". I would think true journalism would be chomping at the bit to tear that apart. Hell, if its 100 percent bs, then you could argue that anonymous is bad AND incorrect. That puts every nail in the coffin right there. Why not?
daedalus wrote:Sure. But does that mean that the Fed HASN'T done the things Anonymous is screaming about at the moment? Is Goldman Sachs innocent?
OK, and?
You don't respond to someone doing something wrong by doing the wrong thing yourself.
That's what you don't seem to be getting. There's legal ways for them to go about the same thing, the difference is that they actively choose not to in most cases.
daedalus wrote:Sure. But does that mean that the Fed HASN'T done the things Anonymous is screaming about at the moment? Is Goldman Sachs innocent? As far as the "media bad" fad I seem to be bandwagoning on, fair enough. However, doesn't it bug you though that they're not even touching anon's claims? Doesn't that seem a little odd? They just argue from authority saying "anon bad". I would think true journalism would be chomping at the bit to tear that apart. Hell, if its 100 percent bs, then you could argue that anonymous is bad AND incorrect. That puts every nail in the coffin right there. Why not?
And what is really cool is none of that has ing all to do with anonymous and what it does.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
Pointless little Interweb Warriors desperate to appear cool and street and hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for 'highlighting stuff that has to be highlighted' etc..
Well, when it comes to hacking a public network and distributing the stolen information, it's a bit like me setting out to prove your model of car isn't hammer proof, by fething your car over with a hammer, then expecting you to be pissed off with the manufacturer for not making it completely hammer proof, rather than me, and my conscious decision to feth your car with a hammer....
And what is really cool is none of that has ing all to do with anonymous and what it does.
Anonymous is a label, not a specific group of people. The specific group of people calling themselves anonymous that the op was talking about were the ones who made that YouTube video. Long as we are assigning "human" characteristics to anonymous, lets ultimately just consider it schitzophrenic. It certainly shows the symptoms. Now, can you really judge morality of a schitzophrenic? I don't think so. Their actions are too erratic and seemingly inconsistent with any particular goal.
And what is really cool is none of that has ing all to do with anonymous and what it does.
Anonymous is a label, not a specific group of people. The specific group of people calling themselves anonymous that the op was talking about were the ones who made that YouTube video. Long as we are assigning "human" characteristics to anonymous, lets ultimately just consider it schitzophrenic. It certainly shows the symptoms. Now, can you really judge morality of a schitzophrenic? I don't think so. Their actions are too erratic and seemingly inconsistent with any particular goal.
No. You don't get to say that it's a case of it being "schitzophrenic" or some kind of mental illness.
It's a case of they have no impulse control because their mothers didn't ever say "No sweetie don't do that", and they don't care that their actions have consequences.
And what is really cool is none of that has ing all to do with anonymous and what it does.
Anonymous is a label, not a specific group of people. The specific group of people calling themselves anonymous that the op was talking about were the ones who made that YouTube video. Long as we are assigning "human" characteristics to anonymous, lets ultimately just consider it schitzophrenic. It certainly shows the symptoms. Now, can you really judge morality of a schitzophrenic? I don't think so. Their actions are too erratic and seemingly inconsistent with any particular goal.
Sure I can. Schizosd can be criminals too. You just need less ropes when you hang them off the bridge.
Pointless little Interweb Warriors desperate to appear cool and street and hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for 'highlighting stuff that has to be highlighted' etc..
Well, when it comes to hacking a public network and distributing the stolen information, it's a bit like me setting out to prove your model of car isn't hammer proof, by fething your car over with a hammer, then expecting you to be pissed off with the manufacturer for not making it completely hammer proof, rather than me, and my conscious decision to feth your car with a hammer....
Street? Europe must have a different meaning for this term than I do. As far as you example goes, I don't think it works. Far as the government sites go, I own it, as much as everyone else who pays their taxes. I'd rather idealists crack them exposing flaws than the Chinese.
As far as the Sony stuff, well, I'm not affected and you can't prove that was the same anonymous. I honestly have a hard time caring. I do know that any company that doesn't store data like passwords one way hashed deserves the worst coming to you.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Why do people get in to such a rage about scientology? To me it seems pretty much like the 1500s Catholic Chur-oh. Everything is wrong with scientology.
And I also laughed at the illegal=bad thing. So a politician says it's wrong, so it's wrong?
Anyways, they're a group of people with no real leader and no real cause. What they do is actually what X teenager from X does, not some kind of massive KGB assassin conspiracy. In short, they aren't anything but a group of people with lots of differing beliefs.
They're the real life Alpha Legion. The difference here of course is that whilst Alpharius does have a central goal, Anonymous seems to do things more for I beleive it's called 'the lulz'. I am not paticularly pro or against them, in fact their goals are sometimes my own, but I will not confess to having any great love for them.
Also, the idea of 'tracking' them seems laughable.
TrollPie wrote:
Anyways, they're a group of people with no real leader and no real cause. What they do is actually what X teenager from X does, not some kind of massive KGB assassin conspiracy. In short, they aren't anything but a group of people with lots of differing beliefs.
And that's the big issue.
They're not really a "group of people with lots of differing beliefs". They're a shield for people to hide behind when doing illegal activities and claiming some kind of moral high ground.
Mr Mystery wrote:So my other point, or rather comparisson, are you seriously telling me you would pat them on the back when their next attack feths you over?
No then he would be mad, irate even.
Off a bridge I tell you, after they are tarred and feathered.
TrollPie wrote:
Anyways, they're a group of people with no real leader and no real cause. What they do is actually what X teenager from X does, not some kind of massive KGB assassin conspiracy. In short, they aren't anything but a group of people with lots of differing beliefs.
And that's the big issue.
They're not really a "group of people with lots of differing beliefs". They're a shield for people to hide behind when doing illegal activities and claiming some kind of moral high ground.
Again, they're a group of people. They don't do everything together and they aren't lead by everyone. Some people will hide behind it as you said, and some people will use it because they actually have a message they're trying to spread.
TrollPie wrote:
Anyways, they're a group of people with no real leader and no real cause. What they do is actually what X teenager from X does, not some kind of massive KGB assassin conspiracy. In short, they aren't anything but a group of people with lots of differing beliefs.
And that's the big issue.
They're not really a "group of people with lots of differing beliefs". They're a shield for people to hide behind when doing illegal activities and claiming some kind of moral high ground.
Again, they're a group of people. They don't do everything together and they aren't lead by everyone. Some people will hide behind it as you said, and some people will use it because they actually have a message they're trying to spread.
I dunno about you, but I'm the sort of person that, when part of an organisation, wouldn't think twice about resigning my position should the group endorse activities I do not approve of. Like, you know, massive breach of data privacy, just to show off their tiny little todgers online.
TrollPie wrote:
Anyways, they're a group of people with no real leader and no real cause. What they do is actually what X teenager from X does, not some kind of massive KGB assassin conspiracy. In short, they aren't anything but a group of people with lots of differing beliefs.
And that's the big issue.
They're not really a "group of people with lots of differing beliefs". They're a shield for people to hide behind when doing illegal activities and claiming some kind of moral high ground.
Again, they're a group of people. They don't do everything together and they aren't lead by everyone. Some people will hide behind it as you said, and some people will use it because they actually have a message they're trying to spread.
TrollPie wrote:Again, they're a group of people. They don't do everything together and they aren't lead by everyone. Some people will hide behind it as you said, and some people will use it because they actually have a message they're trying to spread.
So they're only a group in so far as they're classed together. Gotcha.
When most people say group, the mean the meaning: A number of people who work together or share certain beliefs.
I probably would be mad then were that to be the case. At the group of people calling themselves anonymous who did that. Not at the people who call themselves anonymous who are doing all the work against the government. Your posts seem to imply that you assume anonymous to all be meeting at a VFW hall under a big club banner. I believe the anonymous who dis the Sony thing has never had anything to do with the 'good' (not my word) anonymous. Chances are the Sony thing was a handful of people who took advantage of the situation and used the title as misdirection and are laughing about the confusion even today. Assume I took the name Frazzled and posted at warseer and et cetera, espousing such notions as legality does not equal morality and that gunslinging Texan justice was bad. Would you accuse this Frazzled of being a sissy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote:
TrollPie wrote:Again, they're a group of people. They don't do everything together and they aren't lead by everyone. Some people will hide behind it as you said, and some people will use it because they actually have a message they're trying to spread.
So they're only a group in so far as they're classed together. Gotcha.
When most people say group, the mean the meaning: A number of people who work together or share certain beliefs.
Consider the south park episode about NAMBLA. It two (or more) groups of people sharing the same name.
Mr Mystery wrote:No, I'd expect this Frazzled to make it clear that the other Frazzled is sod all to do with him, and is abusing his good name.
Not just hide behind anonymity like a big girls blouse.
Indeed. The problem with it is that, since there's no requirement or accountability for membership nor any leadership, there IS no different group. You're making a distinction that doesn't exist, Daedalus, because there is no difference by their own admission(or lack there of).
Mr Mystery wrote:No, I'd expect this Frazzled to make it clear that the other Frazzled is sod all to do with him, and is abusing his good name.
Not just hide behind anonymity like a big girls blouse.
You'd quickly be able to tell because one Frazzled would be found chasing kids off his lawn with a shotgun, while another one appeared on a TV clip report fo the only person to ever be eaten by wiener dogs. Angry yard Frazzled would be pleased.
Put it this way, a newspaper once hassled my family, because somebody with a name very similar to mine, murdered his Dad, who had a very similar name to my own.
And yes, I put them straight as quickly as I could.
(Reporter ambushing MM Jr. as he steps out of his house for a jog to the pub. )
"Why did you kill your dad?"
"What? off you er"
(MM Sr. leaning out the window above them )
"Right! I'm not dead you daft cow! Now off you er!"
daedalus wrote:
I told myself that I would posting in this thread until I was away from work's (probably monitored) internet connection, but life's too short to not point out just how ironic your avatar is at this EXACT moment.
I know. It's glorious, right
Emperors Faithful wrote:I think you entirely missed the point of that saying.
I'm well aware of the point. My point is that people often use that statement to suggest that the difference between the two is purely a subjective matter and ignores the fact that you can in fact be both at the same time.
It's a teenagers argument. If you're trying to examine the usefulness of a groups actions (or the inherent nature of their goals), debating semantics and perspective is worthless when examining the matter actually at hand when one can be both a freedom fighter and a terrorist at the same time.
In other words:
Kanluwen wrote:
This axiom is so ridiculously overused in the wrong context and is so flawed to begin with that words cannot describe.
QFT.
4M2A wrote:Terrorist is often used as a negative term to describe armed organisations that attack governments. Whether they actually use terror is often overlooked. Cyberterrorists aren't causing terror they are just being disruptive.
A terrorist is someone who seeks to insight fear or 'terror' in order to coerce action from the victim (the term itself is applied strictly to groups that do this to achieve political aims separate from nationality but this criteria is not part of the actual definition of the term which has no clear or agreed definition). Effectively, many of the most recent actions taken by Anonymous boarder on cyber-terrorism (The Operation Payback attacks for example). I don't really want to chalk them up as cyber terrorists (they are but they're a pathetic example), because they're using DDoS attacks, which is like Al Queda throwing rocks at sky scrappers. it doesn't scare anyone. Just annoys the crap out of them.
Now, Anonymous could be said to support internet freedom, but that idea itself isn't necessarily good and not all of Anonymous' actions really support the cause. If anything, Anonymous is the Taliban of the internet (loosely speaking using a weak analogy). If they escalate their attacks like they've been doing (along with other groups) governments the world over will bring the hammer down on the internet and crush them and likely destroy the internet freedom the original Anonymous groups were trying to support.
Wolfun wrote:Anonymous aren't a group, more like a selection of groups.
People just use them as a scapegoat, but I know plenty of anons that don't do anything massively lawbreaking.
I would separate Anonymous into three distinct sub-groups.
The original Anonymous that appeared in 2007 may not actually be a group at all but separate internet based whistle blowers who all simply used the same alias, either as a result of the actions of the others or by chance. Anonymous appeared as a coherent entity/movement in 2008 with Project Chanology and organized protests against the Church of Scientology. This got them a lot of media attention. As a result the second group of Anonymous appeared, the griefers (youtube porn day, hacking the Epilepsy Foundation), who simply commit cyber-crime for fun and then use the Anonymous name. The most dangerous one is the new group, the actual cyber-terrorists. These are the guys who launched attacks against Operation Payback, support pirating, and attack anti-pirating as well as launch attacks with political agendas and actually are organized a lot like terrorist groups with a cell structure (attacks on Fine Gael, a conservative political group). They've also begun engaging in retaliation against law enforcement.
Now, the griefers seem less active now, probably they're organizing into newer groups like LulzSec.
I don't think Anonymous ever had much credibility. Most people think of hackers as being pimple faced nerds or thirty year old fat kids in their parent's basements (and of course a name like Anonymous doesn't help this misconception). Anonymous' failure to separate itself from the extremists using their name to commit cyber-crimes and cyber-terrorism killed any other credibility they might gain outside of the politically un/misinformed or their own circles. By not saying "these guys aren't us" they're playing bad PR or they really are united in those particular ends.
EDIT: And come people. Lets face the truth. DDoSing servers and stealing account information and griefing do no good to anyone and bring about no change (especially when the most obvious goal that can be attributed to Anonymous today is being pro-piracy). It's juvenile. Anonymous was at its best years ago when they were still largely playing the whistle blower game. The day has passed.
Anonymous is a public curiosity. Many people have called it a successor to wikileaks which I think is a misconception. Rather Anonymous is a lot like the early Tea Party. It's a mashed up mess of groups operating under a name with no real clear objective or goals. Likely Anonymous will die off along the same lines and result in more mature organizations.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
Oh like DDoS attacking Scientology websites? Or hacking the PSN (not the big hack, there was a hack a few weeks before) because Playstation sued someone who broke End User agreement contract by jailbreaking a ps3.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
Oh like DDoS attacking Scientology websites? Or hacking the PSN (not the big hack, there was a hack a few weeks before) because Playstation sued someone who broke End User agreement contract by jailbreaking a ps3.
Don't compare it to crap like that, all I'm saying is in certain situations doing something criminal is sometimes the morally just thing to do.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
Oh like DDoS attacking Scientology websites? Or hacking the PSN (not the big hack, there was a hack a few weeks before) because Playstation sued someone who broke End User agreement contract by jailbreaking a ps3.
Don't compare it to crap like that, all I'm saying is in certain situations doing something criminal is sometimes the morally just thing to do.
The problem is generally thats Anon's actions, not hacking for the poor and downtrodden, just their viewpoints.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
Oh like DDoS attacking Scientology websites? Or hacking the PSN (not the big hack, there was a hack a few weeks before) because Playstation sued someone who broke End User agreement contract by jailbreaking a ps3.
Don't compare it to crap like that, all I'm saying is in certain situations doing something criminal is sometimes the morally just thing to do.
The problem is generally thats Anon's actions, not hacking for the poor and downtrodden, just their viewpoints.
I never stated that I agree with Anon, I was responding to Frazzled's about how crime can be justified.
Cheesecat wrote:
I never stated that I agree with Anon, I was responding to Frazzled's about how crime can be justified.
Except in almost every Western society, there's programs in place to feed those who are unable to afford food for themselves or their families or provide them with funds for affording food for themselves or their families.
Cheesecat wrote:
I never stated that I agree with Anon, I was responding to Frazzled's about how crime can be justified.
Except in almost every Western society, there's programs in place to feed those who are unable to afford food for themselves or their families or provide them with funds for affording food for themselves or their families.
Your justification falls flat in that case.
It was an example not every thing I say can apply to every country. In Canada assisted suicide is considered illegal but what if the person was suffering from a major, debilitating disease is it the morally right thing to
Cheesecat wrote:
I never stated that I agree with Anon, I was responding to Frazzled's about how crime can be justified.
Except in almost every Western society, there's programs in place to feed those who are unable to afford food for themselves or their families or provide them with funds for affording food for themselves or their families.
Your justification falls flat in that case.
It was an example not every thing I say can apply to every country. In Canada assisted suicide is considered illegal but what if the person was suffering from a major, debilitating disease is it the morally right thing to
let he/she suffer for the rest of their life?
Nope. send them with the Penal Legionaires or DKoK
Cheesecat wrote:
I never stated that I agree with Anon, I was responding to Frazzled's about how crime can be justified.
Except in almost every Western society, there's programs in place to feed those who are unable to afford food for themselves or their families or provide them with funds for affording food for themselves or their families.
Your justification falls flat in that case.
It was an example not every thing I say can apply to every country. In Canada assisted suicide is considered illegal but what if the person was suffering from a major, debilitating disease is it the morally right thing to
let he/she suffer for the rest of their life?
The argument for why "assisted suicide" is considered illegal is a relatively simple one and similar as to the arguments for why the mentally ill have to be considered "fit for trial".
Namely: are they capable of understanding the consequences of their actions/requests.
Many debilitating diseases attack the mental state of a person and erode their ability to make decisions. It's why some states do not allow a decision for termination of life support to be made by the individual on life support(even if they're full conscious).
So once again: your point is invalid. Assisted suicide has nothing, whatsoever, to do with this particular set of circumstances. Nor does stealing food to feed your family, or any number of the common talking points used to justify illegal acts.
This is simply wonton deviancy for the sake of deviancy in a great many cases.
Cheesecat wrote:
I never stated that I agree with Anon, I was responding to Frazzled's about how crime can be justified.
Except in almost every Western society, there's programs in place to feed those who are unable to afford food for themselves or their families or provide them with funds for affording food for themselves or their families.
Your justification falls flat in that case.
It was an example not every thing I say can apply to every country. In Canada assisted suicide is considered illegal but what if the person was suffering from a major, debilitating disease is it the morally right thing to
let he/she suffer for the rest of their life?
The argument for why "assisted suicide" is considered illegal is a relatively simple one and similar as to the arguments for why the mentally ill have to be considered "fit for trial".
Namely: are they capable of understanding the consequences of their actions/requests.
Many debilitating diseases attack the mental state of a person and erode their ability to make decisions. It's why some states do not allow a decision for termination of life support to be made by the individual on life support(even if they're full conscious).
So once again: your point is invalid. Assisted suicide has nothing, whatsoever, to do with this particular set of circumstances. Nor does stealing food to feed your family, or any number of the common talking points used to justify illegal acts.
This is simply wonton deviancy for the sake of deviancy in a great many cases.
All I'm trying to say is that morality and the law are not the same thing.
There's a reason that a great many moral aspects of society are also laws. Things like "don't kill people" or "don't steal" aren't considered societal norms for no real reason.
The argument of "morality and the law are not the same thing" is a fallacy. It, more often than not, is true--but it's not a definitive statement and it's more often than not true simply because a great many societal norms that are imposed upon us through laws are creations of a government to ensure that order is maintained and the 'system' doesn't fall apart.
Kanluwen wrote:There's a reason that a great many moral aspects of society are also laws. Things like "don't kill people" or "don't steal" aren't considered societal norms for no real reason.
The argument of "morality and the law are not the same thing" is a fallacy. It, more often than not, is true--but it's not a definitive statement and it's more often than not true simply because a great many societal norms that are imposed upon us through laws are creations of a government to ensure that order is maintained and the 'system' doesn't fall apart.
Blitza da warboy wrote:Hacking is illegal. Anonymous is bad.
If you set your moral code by what is legal and what isn't, the world must constantly be a disappointment to you.
It isn't my opinion if anonymous is bad or not, rather its the law. Plus the fact that the FBI is investigating on who is anoymous is costing tax dollars; that just annoys me. I break the law (hell I listen to judas priest too) and I know its bad.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
OOO ooo I have one too. What if the theft was intended to release the spirit of zombie Hitler and start the 4th Reich?
Scientology needs to be opposed by mass process because of their insidious means of propogation and negatiing opposition. Anonymous became a manifestation of that mass process, but its a movement that has a beginning and an initial direction but no planned journey or end point. ?everything that has happened regarding Anonymous since inception could be summed up by three words 'created a monster.'
Orlanth wrote:Scientology needs to be opposed by mass process because of their insidious means of propogation and negatiing opposition. Anonymous became a manifestation of that mass process, but its a movement that has a beginning and an initial direction but no planned journey or end point. ?everything that has happened regarding Anonymous since inception could be summed up by three words 'created a monster.'
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
OOO ooo I have one too. What if the theft was intended to release the spirit of zombie Hitler and start the 4th Reich?
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
OOO ooo I have one too. What if the theft was intended to release the spirit of zombie Hitler and start the 4th Reich?
I think Frazzled just compared problems that effect real people, and many die from, to something a mentally handicapped war veteran would think of.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
OOO ooo I have one too. What if the theft was intended to release the spirit of zombie Hitler and start the 4th Reich?
I think Frazzled just compared problems that effect real people, and many die from, to something a mentally handicapped war veteran would think of.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
Ah, so stealing food from another person's family is morally just because you need to feed your own family? Taking from others is morally justifiable because you need it more? That, my good sir, is a very slippy slope.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
Ah, so stealing food from another person's family is morally just because you need to feed your own family? Taking from others is morally justifiable because you need it more? That, my good sir, is a very slippy slope.
If it's a matter of need I wouldn't think so. If one starving family stole food from another family becuase they needed it, I don't you could reasonably consider that immoral. After all, what's their alternative? Remain law-abiding and starve?
More often than not though in most Western societies, criminal activity isn't committed over basic necessities like food. You're far more likely to have someone shoplifting a piece of jewelery or technology than pocketing a loaf of bread.
Your still putting your need over theirs. While I wouldn't look down on people for it (I can understand them justifying it) how far do you take the argument? Can I steal a car from a worldwide company because my need of it is greater than theirs? Where to draw the line is a personal decision. The decisions that they should be allowed to steal to save their lives is an emotion decision based on empathising with the starving individual. Someone who can emotionally justify stealing a car can use exactly the same argument as you are come to the conclusion it is ok.
The Law needs to remain firm and people should be punished regardless of whether they were doing it for the right reasons otherwise people will believe it is ok the break the law for good. As good is subjective some people will be allowed to break the law to do what they want and others won't, which doesn't seem fair.
Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.
They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.
I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"
Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.
Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.
What if the theft is done for a good cause like stealing food to feed your starving family.
Ah, so stealing food from another person's family is morally just because you need to feed your own family? Taking from others is morally justifiable because you need it more? That, my good sir, is a very slippy slope.
If it's a matter of need I wouldn't think so. If one starving family stole food from another family becuase they needed it, I don't you could reasonably consider that immoral. After all, what's their alternative? Remain law-abiding and starve?
More often than not though in most Western societies, criminal activity isn't committed over basic necessities like food. You're far more likely to have someone shoplifting a piece of jewelery or technology than pocketing a loaf of bread.
You're full of gak. I need a car, house and stuff. I think I'll take yours. Its ok. I need it more.
4M2A wrote:Your still putting your need over theirs. While I wouldn't look down on people for it (I can understand them justifying it) how far do you take the argument? Can I steal a car from a worldwide company because my need of it is greater than theirs? Where to draw the line is a personal decision. The decisions that they should be allowed to steal to save their lives is an emotion decision based on empathising with the starving individual. Someone who can emotionally justify stealing a car can use exactly the same argument as you are come to the conclusion it is ok.
The Law needs to remain firm and people should be punished regardless of whether they were doing it for the right reasons otherwise people will believe it is ok the break the law for good. As good is subjective some people will be allowed to break the law to do what they want and others won't, which doesn't seem fair.
I think you've confused want and need in my argument. I specifically mentioned items the people don't necessarily need, but still steal becuase they want them. You don't need a car or ipod, but you may need food on the table, or shelter. As others have already mentioned, Western societies tend to provide these freely to those in need.
It's not outlandish to say that doing something, that would normally be considered immoral, to preserve your life or the life of another, is not immoral. After all, that's why we have Self-defence. I would think necessity does impact on morality, as well as illegality in some cases.
Frazzled also seems to have misunderstood me. You, Mr.42, weren't a dick, sorry, so obtuse about it though.
4M2A wrote:Your still putting your need over theirs. While I wouldn't look down on people for it (I can understand them justifying it) how far do you take the argument? Can I steal a car from a worldwide company because my need of it is greater than theirs? Where to draw the line is a personal decision. The decisions that they should be allowed to steal to save their lives is an emotion decision based on empathising with the starving individual. Someone who can emotionally justify stealing a car can use exactly the same argument as you are come to the conclusion it is ok.
The Law needs to remain firm and people should be punished regardless of whether they were doing it for the right reasons otherwise people will believe it is ok the break the law for good. As good is subjective some people will be allowed to break the law to do what they want and others won't, which doesn't seem fair.
I think you've confused want and need in my argument. I specifically mentioned items the people don't necessarily need, but still steal becuase they want them. You don't need a car or ipod, but you may need food on the table, or shelter. As others have already mentioned, Western societies tend to provide these freely to those in need.
It's not outlandish to say that doing something, that would normally be considered immoral, to preserve your life or the life of another, is not immoral. After all, that's why we have Self-defence. I would think necessity does impact on morality, as well as illegality in some cases.
Frazzled also seems to have misunderstood me. You, Mr.42, weren't a dick, sorry, so obtuse about it though.
I didn't understand you. You're just what we call, wrong.
In first world countries there is no need where there is no government availability. Everything else is a want.
Well I want your stuff. Its ok you said it was, plus I have this pointy stick to help you understand how much I'm right...
4M2A wrote:Your still putting your need over theirs. While I wouldn't look down on people for it (I can understand them justifying it) how far do you take the argument? Can I steal a car from a worldwide company because my need of it is greater than theirs? Where to draw the line is a personal decision. The decisions that they should be allowed to steal to save their lives is an emotion decision based on empathising with the starving individual. Someone who can emotionally justify stealing a car can use exactly the same argument as you are come to the conclusion it is ok.
The Law needs to remain firm and people should be punished regardless of whether they were doing it for the right reasons otherwise people will believe it is ok the break the law for good. As good is subjective some people will be allowed to break the law to do what they want and others won't, which doesn't seem fair.
I think you've confused want and need in my argument. I specifically mentioned items the people don't necessarily need, but still steal becuase they want them. You don't need a car or ipod, but you may need food on the table, or shelter. As others have already mentioned, Western societies tend to provide these freely to those in need.
It's not outlandish to say that doing something, that would normally be considered immoral, to preserve your life or the life of another, is not immoral. After all, that's why we have Self-defence. I would think necessity does impact on morality, as well as illegality in some cases.
Frazzled also seems to have misunderstood me. You, Mr.42, weren't a dick, sorry, so obtuse about it though.
I didn't understand you. You're just what we call, wrong.
In first world countries there is no need where there is no government availability. Everything else is a want.
Well I want your stuff. Its ok you said it was, plus I have this pointy stick to help you understand how much I'm right...
Exactly. You didn't understand me, likely becuase you didn't read my post properly. Now, please Granpa, drink your prune juice and go to bed.
4M2A wrote:Your still putting your need over theirs. While I wouldn't look down on people for it (I can understand them justifying it) how far do you take the argument? Can I steal a car from a worldwide company because my need of it is greater than theirs? Where to draw the line is a personal decision. The decisions that they should be allowed to steal to save their lives is an emotion decision based on empathising with the starving individual. Someone who can emotionally justify stealing a car can use exactly the same argument as you are come to the conclusion it is ok.
The Law needs to remain firm and people should be punished regardless of whether they were doing it for the right reasons otherwise people will believe it is ok the break the law for good. As good is subjective some people will be allowed to break the law to do what they want and others won't, which doesn't seem fair.
I think you've confused want and need in my argument. I specifically mentioned items the people don't necessarily need, but still steal becuase they want them. You don't need a car or ipod, but you may need food on the table, or shelter. As others have already mentioned, Western societies tend to provide these freely to those in need.
It's not outlandish to say that doing something, that would normally be considered immoral, to preserve your life or the life of another, is not immoral. After all, that's why we have Self-defence. I would think necessity does impact on morality, as well as illegality in some cases.
Frazzled also seems to have misunderstood me. You, Mr.42, weren't a dick, sorry, so obtuse about it though.
I didn't understand you. You're just what we call, wrong.
In first world countries there is no need where there is no government availability. Everything else is a want.
Well I want your stuff. Its ok you said it was, plus I have this pointy stick to help you understand how much I'm right...
Exactly. You didn't understand me, likely becuase you didn't read my post properly. Now, please Granpa, drink your prune juice and go to bed.
But can I have your bed. Its much more comfy. Come on I really neeeeed it.
4M2A wrote:Your still putting your need over theirs. While I wouldn't look down on people for it (I can understand them justifying it) how far do you take the argument? Can I steal a car from a worldwide company because my need of it is greater than theirs? Where to draw the line is a personal decision. The decisions that they should be allowed to steal to save their lives is an emotion decision based on empathising with the starving individual. Someone who can emotionally justify stealing a car can use exactly the same argument as you are come to the conclusion it is ok.
The Law needs to remain firm and people should be punished regardless of whether they were doing it for the right reasons otherwise people will believe it is ok the break the law for good. As good is subjective some people will be allowed to break the law to do what they want and others won't, which doesn't seem fair.
I think you've confused want and need in my argument. I specifically mentioned items the people don't necessarily need, but still steal becuase they want them. You don't need a car or ipod, but you may need food on the table, or shelter. As others have already mentioned, Western societies tend to provide these freely to those in need.
It's not outlandish to say that doing something, that would normally be considered immoral, to preserve your life or the life of another, is not immoral. After all, that's why we have Self-defence. I would think necessity does impact on morality, as well as illegality in some cases.
Frazzled also seems to have misunderstood me. You, Mr.42, weren't a dick, sorry, so obtuse about it though.
I didn't understand you. You're just what we call, wrong.
In first world countries there is no need where there is no government availability. Everything else is a want.
Well I want your stuff. Its ok you said it was, plus I have this pointy stick to help you understand how much I'm right...
Exactly. You didn't understand me, likely becuase you didn't read my post properly. Now, please Granpa, drink your prune juice and go to bed.
But can I have your bed. Its much more comfy. Come on I really neeeeed it.
1) I live in a student flat. I doubt the comfiness is at all deisreble.
2) You still don't get the difference between needs and wants.
You still don't get that outside of food, water, and shelter its all wants. As you can get food, water, and shelter via government assistance, its ALL wants.
Again, I need you stuff. I know I may have more stuff than you, but I really neeeeed it. Its morally required that you give it to me, and I can be excused for any crimes I commit in procuring them. You don't want to be immoral now do you?
What you need depends on your view. IMO no one needs anything. If you don't eat you will die but thats the same as me needing a TV so I am entertained. It all depends on whether you put your life / entertainment / whatever else above the other persons claim to there own things.
It's entirely subjective which states (being alive, being happy, being entertained) are more important than the other persons.
Frazzled wrote:You still don't get that outside of food, water, and shelter its all wants. As you can get food, water, and shelter via government assistance, its ALL wants.
Yes. That is what I said. Neccessities, such as food/water/shelter are needs. And in most western countries these are provided for regardless of your situation.
Please read.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
4M2A wrote:What you need depends on your view. IMO no one needs anything. If you don't eat you will die but thats the same as me needing a TV so I am entertained. It all depends on whether you put your life / entertainment / whatever else above the other persons claim to there own things.
It's entirely subjective which states (being alive, being happy, being entertained) are more important than the other persons.
Things that are necessary for the continuation of human life are needs. Things like entertainment and comfort, while nice, are not absolutely necessary.
Frazzled wrote:You still don't get that outside of food, water, and shelter its all wants. As you can get food, water, and shelter via government assistance, its ALL wants.
Yes. That is what I said. Neccessities, such as food/water/shelter are needs. And in most western countries these are provided for regardless of your situation.
Please read.
I can't. I'm too busy needing all your stuff. So I'll sned someone around Tuesday for the pickup. Does that work on your end?
Frazzled wrote:You still don't get that outside of food, water, and shelter its all wants. As you can get food, water, and shelter via government assistance, its ALL wants.
Yes. That is what I said. Neccessities, such as food/water/shelter are needs. And in most western countries these are provided for regardless of your situation.
Please read.
I can't. I'm too busy needing all your stuff. So I'll sned someone around Tuesday for the pickup. Does that work on your end?
Frazzled, Champion of Texas and Not-admitting-that-he-might-have-misread-someones-post-and-made-a-mistake...again.
I didn't misread your post at all. You're arguing its morally acceptable to commit crimes for needs. I'm saying I really needs me some money for a new SOB list, or alternatively I really have an eye on a Weatherby .22LR so I can compete in NRA smallbore competitions. Come on mayyn, help a brother out.
(note I used to agree with this too. Then I gots me some money and I didn't believe it anymore. Its almost like how life should be).
Frazzled wrote:I didn't misread your post at all. You're arguing its morally acceptable to commit crimes for needs. I'm saying I really needs me some money for a new SOB list, or alternatively I really have an eye on a Weatherby .22LR so I can compete in NRA smallbore competitions. Come on mayyn, help a brother out.
(note I used to agree with this too. Then I gots me some money and I didn't believe it anymore. Its almost like how life should be).
I agree, and frankly I don't give a feth if its morally acceptable. I'll steal everything I need to survive in the way I want to, be it food, clothes, or money.
Frazzled wrote:I didn't misread your post at all. You're arguing its morally acceptable to commit crimes for needs. I'm saying I really needs me some money for a new SOB list, or alternatively I really have an eye on a Weatherby .22LR so I can compete in NRA smallbore competitions. Come on mayyn, help a brother out.
(note I used to agree with this too. Then I gots me some money and I didn't believe it anymore. Its almost like how life should be).
I agree, and frankly I don't give a feth if its morally acceptable. I'll steal everything I need to survive in the way I want to, be it food, clothes, or money.
I'm sure. In fact I'm sure you're gettin your "gat" right now to go pop some caps to get some more bling as we speak.
Frazzled wrote:I didn't misread your post at all. You're arguing its morally acceptable to commit crimes for needs. I'm saying I really needs me some money for a new SOB list, or alternatively I really have an eye on a Weatherby .22LR so I can compete in NRA smallbore competitions. Come on mayyn, help a brother out.
(note I used to agree with this too. Then I gots me some money and I didn't believe it anymore. Its almost like how life should be).
I agree, and frankly I don't give a feth if its morally acceptable. I'll steal everything I need to survive in the way I want to, be it food, clothes, or money.
And this is why I own a firearm. Have you ever had a job?
Frazzled wrote:I didn't misread your post at all. You're arguing its morally acceptable to commit crimes for needs. I'm saying I really needs me some money for a new SOB list, or alternatively I really have an eye on a Weatherby .22LR so I can compete in NRA smallbore competitions. Come on mayyn, help a brother out.
(note I used to agree with this too. Then I gots me some money and I didn't believe it anymore. Its almost like how life should be).
I agree, and frankly I don't give a feth if its morally acceptable. I'll steal everything I need to survive in the way I want to, be it food, clothes, or money.
What a pathetic worldview you have. Whilst hardly the biggest capitalist pig out there, I get a real kick, looking round my flat, and knowing everything in here is mine, bought and paid for, by the sweat of my own brow.
Try and take any of it from me, and well, I hope you're not too fond of your decidedly light fingers....
Frazzled wrote:I didn't misread your post at all. You're arguing its morally acceptable to commit crimes for needs. I'm saying I really needs me some money for a new SOB list, or alternatively I really have an eye on a Weatherby .22LR so I can compete in NRA smallbore competitions. Come on mayyn, help a brother out.
(note I used to agree with this too. Then I gots me some money and I didn't believe it anymore. Its almost like how life should be).
I agree, and frankly I don't give a feth if its morally acceptable. I'll steal everything I need to survive in the way I want to, be it food, clothes, or money.
What a pathetic worldview you have. Whilst hardly the biggest capitalist pig out there, I get a real kick, looking round my flat, and knowing everything in here is mine, bought and paid for, by the sweat of my own brow.
Try and take any of it from me, and well, I hope you're not too fond of your decidedly light fingers....
Judging from that persons profile pic, they are a teenage girl, and she probably has no idea what the real world is like.
Frazzled wrote:I didn't misread your post at all. You're arguing its morally acceptable to commit crimes for needs. I'm saying I really needs me some money for a new SOB list, or alternatively I really have an eye on a Weatherby .22LR so I can compete in NRA smallbore competitions. Come on mayyn, help a brother out.
(note I used to agree with this too. Then I gots me some money and I didn't believe it anymore. Its almost like how life should be).
I agree, and frankly I don't give a feth if its morally acceptable. I'll steal everything I need to survive in the way I want to, be it food, clothes, or money.
And this is why I own a firearm. Have you ever had a job?
Frazzled wrote:I didn't misread your post at all. You're arguing its morally acceptable to commit crimes for needs. I'm saying I really needs me some money for a new SOB list, or alternatively I really have an eye on a Weatherby .22LR so I can compete in NRA smallbore competitions. Come on mayyn, help a brother out.
(note I used to agree with this too. Then I gots me some money and I didn't believe it anymore. Its almost like how life should be).
So you're classing a new SoB list as a need?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karon wrote:I grew up in a much different place than all of you, its hard to understand where I'm coming from.
That's a very broad claim to make. You have absolutely no way of kowing the background of the other posters present here.
I mean, what if we were both raised in a Sudanese refugee camp? Wouldn't that be a coincidence?
Karon wrote:I don't play Tabletop anymore much, the person who got me into it, my girlfriend, still plays avidly.
I do have a quite nice computer, and I do indeed play video games, not as much I would like to however.
I turned 24 recently, I know what its like to go through a life that requires you to steal to survive.
@Frazzled - Dude, don't reveal my true identity...
24 isn't a teenager. Consistency is vital to fiction (but then the hallmark of most melodrama is that it isn't consistent so you could run with it).
I think...and I'm just going out on a limb here, that Karon might not actually be a teenage girl. Am I right?
I'm more skeptical of the melodramatic pity plea of the downtrodden survivalist forced to steal to live but has the time/money for internet and video games than the girl part (I'm sorry, no matter how someone spins it that just doesn't fit). There are ways to become a girl if your into that sort of thimg
Monster Rain wrote:Mom's basement is a rough place.
How long must we suffer? How long must we slave away at our monitors, our eyes glued to the monitor as we post, our vapid gaze borken only when our Lord-and-master remembers to bring pop-tarts and KFC. You! Yes, you, with the tissues! When did you last see true daylight? When did you last walk amonsgt the marbled paths of whatever gleaming metropolis you might live in?
Enough. Enough, says I! No more. Follow me, brothers! Rise from your crypts, from your caves, your dark places of the world. Arise! Shower and arise! Look hence, how our former master pales upon realising our intent. To me, brothers, to meeeeee!
Monster Rain wrote:Mom's basement is a rough place.
MR--I think it's time for a "It's a hard knock life" photoshop of a 'gangsta' white boy with "You don't know what I've been through! Mom's basement is a rough place! Jerry doesn't let me stay up past 10!" pasted in.
Monster Rain wrote:Mom's basement is a rough place.
How long must we suffer? How long must we slave away at our monitors, our eyes glued to the monitor as we post, our vapid gaze borken only when our Lord-and-master remembers to bring pop-tarts and KFC. You! Yes, you, with the tissues! When did you last see true daylight? When did you last walk amonsgt the marbled paths of whatever gleaming metropolis you might live in?
Enough. Enough, says I! No more. Follow me, brothers! Rise from your crypts, from your caves, your dark places of the world. Arise! Shower and arise! Look hence, how our former master pales upon realising our intent. To me, brothers, to meeeeee!
Oi! Not today!
I'm having a relaxing day watching classic Dr Who in my pants!
And yes, I'm actually serious. Having your own flat is awesome! Though it might disqualify my objection, as its not a basement.
Monster Rain wrote:Mom's basement is a rough place.
MR--I think it's time for a "It's a hard knock life" photoshop of a 'gangsta' white boy with "You don't know what I've been through! Mom's basement is a rough place! Jerry doesn't let me stay up past 10!" pasted in.
Frazzled wrote:You still don't get that outside of food, water, and shelter its all wants. As you can get food, water, and shelter via government assistance, its ALL wants.
Food, shelter, and water are also wants. You only need them if you want to live.
Needs are contingent upon wants. For example, if I want to work in corporate America, I need home internet access and a phone in order to communicate with my employer.
Frazzled wrote:
Again, I need you stuff. I know I may have more stuff than you, but I really neeeeed it. Its morally required that you give it to me, and I can be excused for any crimes I commit in procuring them. You don't want to be immoral now do you?
Why would you want to be moral at all?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:There's a reason that a great many moral aspects of society are also laws. Things like "don't kill people" or "don't steal" aren't considered societal norms for no real reason.
The argument of "morality and the law are not the same thing" is a fallacy. It, more often than not, is true--but it's not a definitive statement and it's more often than not true simply because a great many societal norms that are imposed upon us through laws are creations of a government to ensure that order is maintained and the 'system' doesn't fall apart.
No, morality and law are not the same thing. Often times the law reflects morality, but that doesn't mean their the same anymore than your reflection in a mirror is the same as you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
This is simply wonton deviancy for the sake of deviancy in a great many cases.
So?
And why is wanton deviancy any different from wanton conformity?
Karon wrote:I know what its like to go through a life that requires you to steal to survive.
I highly doubt this. The fact that you're in to wargaming and own a computer shows that you are not that needy. You probably just have a sense of entitlement because of numerous issues, including getting things handed to you your whole life. Good luck making it on your own kiddo.
I agree with the views of certain parts of it, that is, stopping large corporations from trying to control the internet (sounds stupid right?). Of course, stealing films, books, music is bad, but once it's on the internet then it should be out of their control. Effectively, if a film is up-loaded on to say, Pirate Bay, then they should try to stop that from happening, but once that specific copy of data is on a public domain then it shouldn't be theirs anymore. I'm not ignorant to think that Anonymous holds a specific philosophy, being a basically a name-tag for a huge number of hackers, but parts of it actually holds decent enough values but are out-numbered by the vast numbers of people who do it for fun.
And the picture of the cat was Hipster Kitteh. Using that image is so mainstream.
i approve of their efforts to uphold freedom of speech and to tell the truth about the strongarm tactics taken by the church of scientology. I don't always approve of their methods, however.
Karon wrote:I know what its like to go through a life that requires you to steal to survive.
I highly doubt this. The fact that you're in to wargaming and own a computer shows that you are not that needy. You probably just have a sense of entitlement because of numerous issues, including getting things handed to you your whole life. Good luck making it on your own kiddo.
ing 
