I mean isn’t this the gaming concept of scrub mentality? If I believe a specific moral act outweighs a minor dishonourable act, then shouldn’t I still do that act?
Say I know someone is being beaten in a locked room. It is an important government room, and only key holders elected by the community should enter.
I think it’s justifiable to kick down the door and stop the beating, because beating people up is against my morals so much more than ensuring proper procedure.
But when if someone does that, and everyone endlessly gripes about how “passerbys should not have authority to enter the special room” instead of “well at least I’m glad someone isn’t being beaten up anymore”, then I have to wonder if most people are fine with beatings?
Terrible analogy, non-equivalent etc, but do you see what I’m saying. Because I agree with you that card companies shouldn’t set the terms of what’s acceptable - I mentioned it in my first post.
Using the card company to stop the distribution of tape material is a cheap tactic, but if preventing harm is winning, then saying it’s never justified is scrub mentality, as if beating someone by spamming hadoken doesn’t count.
Patch the game later if it’s so unfair, this is the only way to get it removed right now. The deck is stacked against activists - usually the only effective options they have are disruptive and outside the system.
Why would speaking while reading affect memory at all? I guess news hosts who regurgitate teleprompter lines are all Mensa members now