Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-1

Whatsthepoint wrote

If a man commits a wrong by chopping off your arm. is it right for me, while you are in hospital getting your new bionic arm fitted, to chop of his arm?

Unless you (or the people who did the doxxing), are themselves undocumented immigrants who risk deportation at the hands of ICE, then you are not defending youself. You are enacting revenge and retribution on behalf of someone else, thats something completely different.

You say and ask, while dodging my question, is it immoral to defend yourself. But it is not you that is being attacked.

so perhaps your question is, given the context. Is it immoral to take vengance against someone because they commited a wrong against a third party?

My first quiery to that, is to ask what and who gives you the authority to enact vengance? Who decides what is the right amount of vengance?

If a drunk driver speeds, blind drunk and kills your daughter. Am I morally justified in taking vengance out on him on your behalf? Is it up to me to determine that vengance? What if I decide the right thing to do, eye for an eye, is to kill his daughter? As the self appointed vengance taker, is it for me to decide? Or should I kill him? a life for a life?

which leads us nicely back to the original moral question.

Do two wrongs make a right?

2

leftous wrote (edited )

Firstly, I am not dodging your question. I am disputing your assumptions. When you assume something (i.e. defending yourself or others is a moral wrong), this is called begging the question and is logically fallacious.

Secondly, your analogy (of chopping arms off) is false because that deals with an act of violence in retribution. Doxxing in this case is not an act of violence nor is it an act of retribution. Making it known who an attacker is can only be called a defense. Think of the way women have been outing sexual predators.

Thirdly, my beliefs are such that I do consider it self-defense and self-preservation when I defend the oppressed. This is because I don't want to be oppressed and attacked myself; permitting others to oppress others enables it against myself since I am offering that power to a group of bigots. Perhaps the best way to understand it is the poem First they came... As an anarchist, I accept no authority beyond my own as an individual.

Fourthly, your second analogy is also false for the same reason as first one. What you're describing is a violent act of retribution and not defense.

So by my count that is 3 logical fallacies and no real argument here. My only hope is that you're a troll.