in reply to (OT) Is retaliation ethical if a spam source can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt?

You've already heard a lot of good reasons why not. Here's one that hasn't been mentioned - if you hit someone, you have committed a crime. It doesn't matter if you hit them because they hit you first. You still hit them. If you're ok with hitting someone after they hit you, then that sounds like you're ok with hitting someone without that provocation.

I understand you said "I do believe in honor". Honor, imho, has traditionally been used as a cover for doing things one wants to do that one cannot justify in any other way.

My criteria for good software:
  1. Does it work?
  2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
  • Comment on Re: (OT) Is retaliation ethical if a spam source can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: (OT) Is retaliation ethical if a spam source can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt?
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 17, 2008 at 04:00 UTC
    Honor is not an objective term.
[reply]

In Section Meditations