Yes, it does. I will never advocate violence but if you look at the reasons that lead to that horrific moment in the suicide bomber's life, then you might see something even more terrifying than the act itself.
Sure, you can blame it on bigotry or ignorance, but it turns out suicide bombers on average are more intelligent and well-educated than those in their society [0]. Camus attempts to explain this in his essay The Rebel. He says a person keeps saying yes until the moment that he says no. The person who rebels is one who thinks the consequences of his actions are less important than those produced by conforming.
So maybe you should consider respecting someone who thinks taking his life and innocent lives to make a point, or at least respect the point he is trying to make.
You can find all sort of things wrong with what I stated above but you cannot possibly ignore the fact that Sunde went to prison on his own for what he believed was right. He didn't hurt anyone except himself. Unless you can explain all these with insanity, which I don't think you have the qualifications to do, you shouldn't completely find this fallacious.
> So maybe you should consider respecting someone who thinks taking his life and innocent lives to make a point, or at least respect the point he is trying to make.
"Even today it takes only the crudity of a persecution to give an otherwise completely indifferent sectarianism an honorable name. How? Does it change the value of a thing if someone gives his life for it? An error that has become honorable is an error which is that much more seductive."
> you cannot possibly ignore the fact that Sunde went to prison on his own for what he believed was right
Yes, but I don't find that in itself worthy of respect. Martyring yourself is a dramatic pose, a type of moralism that appeals to emotion and not reason. What Sunde did with his own personal life has absolutely nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of TPB (btw I am entirely in favor of that sort of filesharing).
But this childish fetish our society has with idolizing people who "feel strongly" and "sacrifice" does us no credit. It just muddies the already murky waters of whatever topic is under debate. The fact that someone makes a sacrifice in favor of some belief or conviction simply makes no difference whatsoever as to the rightness or wrongness of that belief. It is only a symptom of the type of person s/he is. And I see no reason to respect the willingness to sacrifice as a virtue in itself, since one could sacrifice for "evil" (bad/stupid/harmful) ends.
I guess we just differ massively in our perception of people.
To me when an individual person sacrifices himself for a reason, any reason, then it is either that person is crazy or he has a point to make. I often attempt to understand his point and his reasons better. A cause is as strong as people who understand it. If he gets my attention and make realise something that I haven't previously, then the cause becomes stronger.
There is no absolute righteousness. Your point only makes sense if there is a divine set of rules that makes some things right and others wrong. I don't believe there is such a thing.
> Your point only makes sense if there is a divine set of rules that makes some things right and others wrong.
There's a difference between absolutism (which I am arguing against, btw, and my argument against conviction is consistent with my position against absolutism) and abject relativism, where the value of a thing is equivalent to its acceptance. How about the empirical demonstration of the goodness/badness of a thing? (amount of overall harm caused, assuming harm is considered bad, etc).
> A cause is as strong as people who understand it
This is essentially my objection. This is relativism. If you were right here, then all the religious zealots in the world believing in creationism would render that position valid, and the strength of their conviction would be in some sense an asset to that position. My point is that all of that is nonsense. A thing is wrong/false/stupid independently of its believers' numbers, or their zeal or conviction. You don't need to appeal to some divinity to make that point, you can appeal to common empirical demonstrability (aka science). It is more complicated when dealing with "purely" ethical matters, but only more complicated - it is our choice whether we reduce issues to "pure" ethics or not, and I suggest that we should not.
> I don't believe there is such a thing.
Neither do I. I just reject the "feel-good" position that peoples' convictions are all meaningful and valid, and that we have to respect things that people believe strongly in. To me that is nonsense. Plenty of things are simply wrong, stupid and contemptible. You can be kind to people holding those positions without forcing yourself to believe that there is some worth in their ideas simply because they feel strongly about them.
I'm not sure which side of this I'm on, to be honest, but I haven't seen any evidence that there isn't _any_ economic damage done by illegal downloading.
> Sunde went to prison on his own for what he believed was right
This may be true, but it's not like this wasn't a winning venture for him. At a certain point, it could have just been a question of whether he was willing to gamble that he'd gain millions of dollars rather than get locked up.
> I haven't seen any evidence that there isn't _any_ economic damage done by illegal downloading.
Burden of proof is on the accuser and no I don't think X number of people pirated it, it costs $Y, therefore, it caused $X * Y is a proof.
> it could have just been
Exactly. But don't you think it seems quite unlikely given that he is demonstrably a pretty smart individual and large corporations with deep pockets are coming after him. He should have completely failed to anticipate the consequences.
Sure, you can blame it on bigotry or ignorance, but it turns out suicide bombers on average are more intelligent and well-educated than those in their society [0]. Camus attempts to explain this in his essay The Rebel. He says a person keeps saying yes until the moment that he says no. The person who rebels is one who thinks the consequences of his actions are less important than those produced by conforming.
So maybe you should consider respecting someone who thinks taking his life and innocent lives to make a point, or at least respect the point he is trying to make.
You can find all sort of things wrong with what I stated above but you cannot possibly ignore the fact that Sunde went to prison on his own for what he believed was right. He didn't hurt anyone except himself. Unless you can explain all these with insanity, which I don't think you have the qualifications to do, you shouldn't completely find this fallacious.
[0] http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/13/1084289823327.html