The point is you shouldn't hack ANY websites that aren't yours. Your "joke" was basically saying "well, if you don't hack the people you don't like then who do you hack?" My answer was NO ONE.
You really need to understand what a joke is, lad. I was poking fun of two things at once. The first was the simple "people you disagree with vs. people you do agree with" as a hacking target. The second was about hacking in general.
And for those without a sense of humor I clearly labeled it as a joke--not to be taken seriously.
"You shouldn't eat your sister's ice cream snack before dinner." Turn this one around and say, "well it must be okay to eat your sister's ice cream snack *after* dinner", when of course you shouldn't eat it at all--it belongs to your sister, not you. This is known as a humorous twist.
sidebottom wrote:My comment on the topic being closed was not literal. I meant that AY7 covered EVERYTHING that needed to be covered and didn't need any rebuttal if you are an advocate of free speech (which surprisingly it seems you and some others here are not).
Again, you missed the mark. My half-joke was aimed at your comment that the topic be closed. That is, that no one else should say anything about it, either pro or con. I say half-joke because it amused me that a self-proclaimed advocate of free speech would not want a topic debated. What does *not* amuse me is that you brand me as being against free speech.
sidebottom wrote:If you believe silencing the hate speech of others is OK then you DO NOT believe in free speech and you don't deserve it either.
Okay, now you fascinate me. Explain further how some people 'deserve' rights ( when they agree with you ), and some people do not 'deserve' rights( when you think they disagree with you).