Denariax said:
the clockmaker said:
Denariax said:
Oh no, I'm against humanity in general; including myself. If I said it in real life, I'd be put in another mental hospital. So yeah, I can say it here, and thats where the 'non-logic' comes from. That I can say things here and remain undisclosed by the general masses.
The freedom to say anything is kind of what Anon is for. Then again everyone believes they're some kind of criminal mastermind of terrorism. Then again everyone thinks that "FOX" actually reports real news. So you get the drift.
We're in a society where money controls freedom. The internet doesn't need that. Defending the belief that the internet doesn't need freedom is like saying you want to work as a slave.
Wow, I think the only relation that your response has to my post is that it includes the word unlogic. But hey, your new points are just as aweful as your last ones so here we go again.
Firstly, what prevents you from saying things isn't whether they are right or wrong, but whether or not you will get caught, what does that say about your integrity? And that is not unlogic, that is just flat out dishonesty. Unlogic, going back to my origonal post is Anon refusing to have any identifiers to the people they are trying to convince while expecting them to believe them when they claim that attacks weren't their doing.
Anon is not for the freedom to say anything, Anon is for the freedom to say what they approve. Look at their main method of protest, taking down sites, denying their owners the ability to speak. If they were for freedom, they would take a more defensive approach. What does the Greek bailout have to do with Internet freedom? How does threatining to silence their opponents promote the idea of freedom of speech?
Next up is your continued obsession with your superiourity to 'everyone' just like how much you 'despise the insipid masses'. I covered this in my previous post, but I'll do so again, you are not superiour to everyone, and even if you were that would not be justification for hatred.
Finally, the idea that money controlls freedom. What specific freedoms are you being denied, if you think about it you are only losing things that are actually illegal anyway. And then the strawman idea that I don't want freedom on the internet, which flows nicely into your 'with us or against us' idea that anyone opposing Anon is pro slavery. I mean I know that I said it to open this post, but wow.
Its funny because as much as you cry on this post nothing you say will effect anyone elses opinion.
Again, like I stated way back, there is no exact way to identify who is Anon. The really good ones, as in the actual ones, aren't batshit stupid enough to throw their entire name out there. They're the ones who do it and nobody even sees it coming.
The Sony thing, the 'lets hack the white house' bullcrap, thats all done by people outside of the group who use the name as a scapegoat.
I'm not superior to anyone, but I'd still like to see all of it burn. I have my own reasons for hating people just as you have your reasons to go on a webpage mashing your keyboard in attempt to try persuading a cynic.
And yes, money controls freedom. How does it control freedom? Lets look at all those lobbyist asshats backing things like SOPA. Yes, that ones dead, but they're (the government) is still going to push things like that because they're getting paid. And, effectively, destroy much everything else.
I think the main problem is that too many people look at whats going on now, and not whats more than likely to happen.
It seems that you are either unable or unwilling to reply to any of the points I actually put out, deciding that it is a decent idea to simply claim that I am crying and mashing my keyboard in frustration at my futile attempts to penetrate your aloof, mysterious cynical facade. I dont' doubt that I won't convince anyone, but then, that is the nature of discussion about moral stances, it is rare that anyone changes their position.
But I keep going because it is a fun little diversion for me after work in between getting home and studying and so lets carry on eh?
Now let me tell you a story about a man I knew in my home town. He hated the order of the world, he hated that hard drugs were illegal, so he sold them as often as he could. He hated that police , so he sicced an attack dog on one. He hated that someone owned some land that he didn't, so he set fires on it. This was a man who wanted to 'burn it all down', what you are is a little fish in a little pond, trying to puff itself up with how much it hates 'the man' and 'the system'. You tell me and you tell the world and you tell yourself that you want to 'see it burn' but what you really want is to have the leaders of the world say the right things and maybe change things up slightly, so long as it doesn't interupt your comfy life and your internet connnection.
In my experiance, only people who want to seem edgy identify themselves as 'cynics' most people who are actually cynical call themselves 'realists'. And the whole thing about hating humanity, mate, give it a rest, really. That is the sort of thing that only the ones who have truelly suffered the worst the world has to offer have any right to claim, and most of the ones that I've met are actually very positive people. But I think you may have just thrown it in there to add to the 'bad arse enigmatic figure' idea.
And of course there is no way of finding out who is and is not a member of Anon, that is exactly the problem that they are facing, that they have no way of claiming attacks that they commited and the ones that they did not. They can either man up and accept that their name will be linked to whatever people decide to link it to, allowing greater coverage but an unfocused message, or institute some form of accountability, losing the safety of the shaddows, whilst gaining legitimacy and a focused image. Alternatively, they can sit and sulk and achieve nothing.
And I think that the main problem is how boring and mundane the world is. People want there to be shoddowy men running the government while plucky underdogs (who are of course jsut flawed enough to be cool) fight them using something the forces of old and evil just don't understand. I think that the problem is that people don't realise that massive paradigm shifts in society occur due to massive instigating effects. The government does not want to take away your free speech, what does it gain them? THey are better served by letting people say what they want and then responding. But that just feeds back into a fear of the mundane, I mean, of course the government is a moustache twirling villan, just waiting to throw up the fences and start barcoding our skulls, that is the way things work.
You have more freedom right now than any person has enjoyed in the history of civilisation, the trend over man's history has been increasing personal liberties. Think on that next time you start talking about how the government is going to pretty much destroy everything.
And looking back over your posts, most obviously the repeated mentions of my 'crying' and 'mashing' a am more than a little inclined to think that you are a troll, so if you reply to this, and you are still dedicated to ignoring logic, I think that this will be my last post in this thread.
