Anonymous Splinter Group Targeting Sony Executives
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Meh, anons a group with no formal leadership but a whole lotta idealism. So a mob. And mobs are typicaly as smart as the lowest common denominator (The biggest moron). So even though many of them are smart enough to see that this is counter productive, they will all tag along due to mob rulership.
Sad really, I was starting to like those guys.
Sad really, I was starting to like those guys.
"Lets show them how awesome hackers can be! BY FORCE!"
L2logic. This can only hurt. People in the justice system do read the news.
L2logic. This can only hurt. People in the justice system do read the news.
Erm that's completely constitutional... it's just terrible terrible PRPaulH said:
Also, at the end of the day vigilante justice IS no different than any other form of justice. They are all people trying to settle the score by whatever means seem to serve their best interest; Justice is just a construct created on an individual basis... bleh got onto a reletivist babble. anyway... ya.
Really? I thought bounty hunting was illegal in the US. Sorry, might be cultural (Australian) bias bleeding through, but I thought the practice was scrapped in ... pretty much the entirety of 'the West' ... and most of 'the East' ...Kamehapa said:
Nevertheless ... there's a reason why vigilante justice is generally opposed. And it's because a mob of people who listen to the passion of their convictions rather than rational thought to dictate a course of action.
That's why 'vigilante justice is no justice' ... because a mob or cell of people who perform actions to damage property and threaten the normal, day-to-day operations of people tend to make matters worse ... and of course when you allow vigilante justice, where does it end? If you allowed people to take justice into their own hands (people who are neither trained, nor recognised by the people, as a legal judicial body) then you're going to end up with a very ugly situation.
It's not 'relative' .. it's a case of order and collective prosperity over street-level tyranny.
'I left chocolate rain on a judge's voice mail'
So...great, are anonymous really as badass and as cool as they say they are, or do the hackers have 8 year olds representing them?
smh.
So...great, are anonymous really as badass and as cool as they say they are, or do the hackers have 8 year olds representing them?
smh.
On the same hand,
While vigilante justice often does tend to clash more with societal views (mostly because if there are enough people to agree with them it either IS taken care of by the state or not deemed vigilante) that does not mean it is unjust.
While vigilante justice is typically frowned upon, in the end it IS the same except that typically vigilanties represent the minority instead of the majority.
And you are certainly right, if everyone attempted to take matters into their own hands, things can get chaotic. That is why people have tried to create a unified state recognized justice, but this justice will rarely or ever be the same as any one particular persons idea of justice. However, this has nothing to do with wetherer or not the action was just. even if vigilanty justice were to completely destablize a country, if the countries own sense of justice was so withdrawn from that of the people within, is the countries demise in itself not just?
EDIT: I think I should clarify here, I am not saying the vigilante justice is amazing, I am saying that since justice is a construct of man it varies person by person. This means there is no ultimate justice, and in the grand scheme of things NOTHING is just so the standard for judging others is in and of itself scewed.
On the same hand, organized justice can also cause terrible actons. I hate to go all Reducio ad Hitlerum here, but when they saw inferior cultures doing an injustice to their great country, they took action that was legitamized by the state.PaulH said:
While vigilante justice often does tend to clash more with societal views (mostly because if there are enough people to agree with them it either IS taken care of by the state or not deemed vigilante) that does not mean it is unjust.
While vigilante justice is typically frowned upon, in the end it IS the same except that typically vigilanties represent the minority instead of the majority.
And you are certainly right, if everyone attempted to take matters into their own hands, things can get chaotic. That is why people have tried to create a unified state recognized justice, but this justice will rarely or ever be the same as any one particular persons idea of justice. However, this has nothing to do with wetherer or not the action was just. even if vigilanty justice were to completely destablize a country, if the countries own sense of justice was so withdrawn from that of the people within, is the countries demise in itself not just?
EDIT: I think I should clarify here, I am not saying the vigilante justice is amazing, I am saying that since justice is a construct of man it varies person by person. This means there is no ultimate justice, and in the grand scheme of things NOTHING is just so the standard for judging others is in and of itself scewed.
Yes, judicial bodies can do horrible horrible things. But in a state whereby judicial powers are dictated by elected officials you can enact change if you get enough people believing that change is necessary or that it will allow a collective good to occur by their implementation.Kamehapa said:
Street-level violence and damage to proerty to pursue political and social goals that are antithesis to the idea of collective trust in one's administration is by it's own merits wrong.
Vigilantes are generally driven by deluded power fantasies, grief or personal bias, or fear bordering on paranoia... Would you trust the widow who lost their spouse due to faulty brakepads to be an effective judicator in, say, a case where a mechanic is being charged with criminal neglect?
Of course it is unjust. If people wish to be police officers, then they should be police officers. In a stable society it requires training, temperance and restraint to effectively, and fairly, perform judicial practices. You will not get that with vigilantes, but it is a requirement if a society wishes to develop a lasting peace.
Would you trust someone not recognized by a judicial body, to patrol up and down your streets with weapons. Would you trust vigilantes to do the right thing with DUI's or petty thefts?
Whilst there are plenty of cases of police doing the wrong thing, but it's a farcry to say that 'this is every police officer' .. or whether vigilantes would somehow be better than police officers who require extensive psychological assessment and professional training before going into that field of labour.
Ther first thing that people seem to forget is that justice is a shield ... to protect and serve the community ... it is not a weapon to simply beat people with it until they submit.
And how exactly is that justice?
Justice isn't a 'construct' ... it's built into every 'right thinking' individual (as per Kantian logic). It's a concept. A romantic notion whereby Man can live both equally free but equally beholden to another. To act with good will and to have that good will returned.
Just because it has yet to be properly emulated matters not, and I certainly do not see vigilantism as the picture of orderly and inobtrusive lawful conduct.
Okay, while I get that you're fighting Sony, you guys ALWAYS take things like this one step too far.4Chan said:
It's when you do things like this that will make me never support you 4Chan.
Great. Just bloody peachy.
Geohotz is a jerk.
Sony's being delusional.
And Anon are being more stupid than usual.
I'd kill for some news about kittens once in a while, ya know?
Geohotz is a jerk.
Sony's being delusional.
And Anon are being more stupid than usual.
I'd kill for some news about kittens once in a while, ya know?
What are the odds it'll be something like a story about Anonymous threatening someone's kitten because the person managed to accidentally annoy them somehow?AbsoluteVirtue18 said:
You forget that in a capitalistic system the one who holds the cash holds the power, Sony is able to turn the world upside down in order to protect their little gaming system same cannot be said for smaller company'sPaulH said:
You yourself must understand that sony is just bullying this person with threats while the hacker is doing a good for the public.
And you forgot that we are not run by the rule of law..no its the rule of money and sony sure has alot
That's funny ... I live in a nation with boundless corporate interests in public social life, whereby the entire financial system is dominated by only 4 national banks, and where we pay tax through the nose .... and yet, still the companies don't run my life.ionveau said:
Infact I make a tidy profit off them ^_^
Last time I checked, no big corporate guy has stomped down my door and demanded something unreasonable .... welll Energy Australia gave me a monthly bill of 80 dollars which is like, almost twice the usual rate ... which is bullshit but what are you going to do? <.<
Sure Sony is acting like a twat, but at the same time trying to damage the personal property of some workers in Sony Corporation? If anything why not just petition your government to crack down on frivolous lawsuits?
Allowing people to sue about anything and everything is a waste of taxpayer money and the judiciary's time. I don't see it as one company beating up on 'the little guy' ... I just see it as a collection of people wasting everybody's time.
But by the same token this has nothing to do with the merit of a company or the rights of a consumer, really ... and let's be blunt here ... it's a social problem. Frivolous lawsuits. Purely a social problem ...
Because I support anyone making speech free and who sues people for ludacris sums of money when they probably can't afford it. With people so deep in debute, sueing someones for mountians of money so it'll make them be in debute and paying off their legal fees AND the money owed to Sony for winning the legal battles would take them years to pay off, if they ever do.Shadie777 said:
Plus I'm a 360 gamer. Fuck Sony!