Anonymous vs. vigilantism

[Jetboogieman]

I don't understand? nature itself says that violence is acceptable in many situations. Food, territory, mating rights, removal of the weak and crippled from the herd? According to nature, violence is all sorts of justified.

That is true.

However we as human beings have evolved to be self aware of what violence is as a means to an end.

An animal does not, with a few possible exceptions including Dolphins, who it turns out are capable of being blood thirsty, gang rapists when they want to be. Much to my surprise.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I highly doubt what you're saying. I found Anonymous's hacking techniques to be quite primitive. Their DDos attacks are less sophisticated than the North Korean cyber warfare's DDos attacks, which was created only 3 years ago.
I stand firmly by my belief that they're nothing but teenage punks who have too much time at their mother's basement

Depends on the situation, perhaps I should have put "some members".

I'll clarify by saying that Anonymous has a massive member base, and part of their strategy in using the DDos attacks is precisely because of what you just explained, that it is primitive, and that's why they use it, they pick a target and get their large member base to do the simplest thing they can think of, but don't kid yourself, they have some ace members out there.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

You do realise it's virtually impossible to bring down anonymous as the point is they're anonymous (largely) they probably have more members then all the drug cartels in the world combined, they have members that are better computer experts then most of the top law enforcement agencies have at their disposal and they exist on every corner of the globe.

Tell me Vicchio, how do you plan to get them "caught".

Impossible seems a bit impossible. How do you know the qualifications of people that are anonymous? All it takes is one jaded hacker to turn everyone over to the authorities. Or perhaps a undercover agent will worm his way into Anon. There are many scenarios that could bring down Anon.

 

[TNAR]

What if I put out information about a man who was POTENTIALLY a rapist? And then someone decided to give him "what he had coming?"

Then I would say that that "someone" should be held responsible for unlawful physical aggression and you should be sued for libel/slander.

My big thing is that they support the Occupy movement, they called America an Imperialist(the PROPER term is Capitalist...we do not have an Empire) nation which is a huge flag to anyone who actually holds a valid political opinion on world politics, and they are vigilantes.

I'm a vigilante if you put me in the right scenario. I would think that most people would given extreme corruption. Would you prefer that we allow an extreme opposition force which holds "legitimacy" of law to run roughshod over us? Just lay back and let them slaughter us like pigs? (Extreme, yes, but a viable question I think.)

Furthermore, I agree that America is not an empire in the typical definition. ("Capitalist" simply states the economic setup, not the foreign policy.) However, America certainly has a de facto empire status in the world (or perhaps we might label it extreme hegemony?).

I would like to add that they are wasting government time and money. ... They are vigilantes, and vigilantism is wrong because the potential it has to simply become a witch hunt.

As opposed to the government wasting the taxpayers' time and money? Does the government not engage in "witch hunts"?

I don't understand? nature itself says that violence is acceptable in many situations. Food, territory, mating rights, removal of the weak and crippled from the herd? According to nature, violence is all sorts of justified.

I agree that violence is acceptable in certain situations: self-defense (which includes defense of one's family and property). However, we are not animals. We do not cull the crippled from our herd. We don't attack nearby males in order to mount a female. I am simply saying that it is unlawful and morally unacceptable to initiate violence.

I found Anonymous's hacking techniques to be quite primitive.

Denial of service is only one example of their work; hacking into sites is much more difficult a task. That said, DDoS is very effective and virtually impossible to stop save removing the recipient computer from the network.

 

[blackjack50]

Then I would say that that "someone" should be held responsible for unlawful physical aggression and you should be sued for libel/slander..

And this is what they are doing. They certainly have the potential to do it even worse if they so choose to hurt the reputation of someone. No matter how it is spun, it is wrong for them to do it.

I'm a vigilante if you put me in the right scenario. I would think that most people would given extreme corruption. Would you prefer that we allow an extreme opposition force which holds "legitimacy" of law to run roughshod over us? Just lay back and let them slaughter us like pigs? (Extreme, yes, but a viable question I think.)

Only a viable question if the government boot heel is literally on our throat. It is not. I certainly do not agree with a group that lives life OUTSIDE the law attempting, and that willfully breaks laws, to become a group that we listen to as a legitmate group. As I have said. They are open to corruption as any government is. They are anarchists. You cannot trust them because all they want is to be anti-establishiment.

Furthermore, I agree that America is not an empire in the typical definition. ("Capitalist" simply states the economic setup, not the foreign policy.) However, America certainly has a de facto empire status in the world (or perhaps we might label it extreme hegemony?).

In terms of Imperialism, we are not an empire. Capitalist IS an economic setup, and it certainly does play a role in our foreign policy. Capitalism has more or less shaped what nations are important which are not. I would not call us a De Facto Empire. I would call us a superpower. I think it defines it perfectly. We influence many nations because of the economic and military power we yield. Not because we colonize nations.

As opposed to the government wasting the taxpayers' time and money? Does the government not engage in "witch hunts"?

Government wouldn't be wasting money if anon would turn themselves into an organization that opperates within the law. But as it stands they are not. They are simply pirates, no cause, no flag, and essentially opperate on a system of essential anarchy.

And a government witch hunt is far easier to end than a criminal witch hunt in which you cannot pick out any member of the group.