Comment by edanm
3 days ago
> You’re in a thread arguing that it’s ok for “western governments” to have cyber weapons but not Iran because Iran is morally inferior.
Yes, and the parent's answer to this was "allies of Western governments are also morally inferior". But I never said that allies of Western governments should have cyber weapons, nor did I make any claims on their moral status. Hence parent's comment not addressing anything I said.
> Sophistry is also beneath that level.
I think my argument was clear, but just to reiterate so you don't think I'm engaging in sophistry:
I think Iran's government is morally inferior to Italy's government and to other Western governments, under my value system (a standard Western value system). I think this is blindingly obvious to everyone.
Therefore I think it's worse for Iran to possess cyber weapons than for Western Governments to possess cyber weapons.
> Yes, and the parent's answer to this was "allies of Western governments are also morally inferior". But I never said that allies of Western governments should have cyber weapons, nor did I make any claims on their moral status. Hence parent's comment not addressing anything I said.
First they said that the West did a coup against the Iranian government. Hence according to them they are not morally superior (or rather: “Who’s the evil one again”). That directly addresses your claim.
Then they also went into the bonus topic of arguing that the US doesn’t even make their allies based on who is “moral”, further but more indirectly undermining the shining city on the hill argument.
A datapoint does not prove the point though.
Iran is far from the only country undermined by covert US interference and there are many US trading partners and allies that are morally and ethically challenged.
This is an area that lacks a clear unique singular datapoint, more a landscape of multiple rounds of buckshot.
It absolutely does test the point[1]. Proving the point in some absolute sense is a completely lopsided requirement since the original commenter did not prove anything in that sense to begin with. You are ready to accept the original commenters non-proofs but not counter-factuals?
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove , sense number 3