Um... I think you either misunderstood the point I was trying to make, or you didn't read the Wikipedia page you so kindly linked me to very thoroughly. This is NOT what the point I was trying to make:BVBFanatic said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculumThe Long Road said:Here's a statement that everyone in the world would be well-advised to follow:
Do NOT tangle with the United States.
Immoral? Well, morality is a matter of comparison. Is it more "right" to sit by and watch your laws be broken and subverted by someone sitting in front of a screen or send him to be a very large man's prison wife? I think Big Al will be very pleased with the result.
"Anonymous is wrong for doing this because the government thinks so and will try to arrest them"
Not at all. Whether the US gov't thinks something is right/wrong has no bearing on whether or not it actually is one or the other. THIS is the point I was trying to make:
"The government will try to arrest them because they are breaking US law, and they are foolish for provoking the best-equipped government in the world".
The use of force in any way is the end result, not an argument for anything. What I was saying in general was that the bloody-nose approach is proven to deter similar crimes and will likely be employed by the Justice Department if/when they catch the right guy. This rather unfortunate individual will likely be jailed for a very long period of time.
Please read more carefully in the future to avoid situations like this.