International cybercrime, as portrayed by the movies and mass media, is a high-stakes game of shadowy government agencies and state-sponsored hacking groups. Hollywood casting will wheel out a char…
Yeah, but that’s because of an “old boys club” looking out for their members, and limited liability companies protecting directors from the consequences of their direction. Those white collar criminals should suffer the consequences of their crimes: they are deliberate and malicious.
This poor schumck has autism spectrum disorder. He may be genuinely incapable of self regulating various behaviours. Therefore he needs support not punishment.
BTW “what about-ism” is a logical fallacy. You’re creating a false equivalence to argue a point disingenuously.
BTW “what about-ism” is a logical fallacy. You’re creating a false equivalence to argue a point disingenuously.
Did you mean to respond to me? I’m not the other person you responded to. And I didn’t give a “what aboutism” which I’m familiar with that term from reddit.
Given he’s autistic, that’s probably actually impossible for him to do.
Well in that case I guess he’s been cursed by fate in an uncaring world 🤷
But at least we can punish him. Eh?
That’ll teach him for being congenitally neurodivergent.
And… I mean, a criminal.
I’m not commenting on the moral issues but laws exist and they were broken.
He can be convicted of his crime, but there is no need to punish him.
isn’t that what happens with white collar crime?
Yeah, but that’s because of an “old boys club” looking out for their members, and limited liability companies protecting directors from the consequences of their direction. Those white collar criminals should suffer the consequences of their crimes: they are deliberate and malicious.
This poor schumck has autism spectrum disorder. He may be genuinely incapable of self regulating various behaviours. Therefore he needs support not punishment.
BTW “what about-ism” is a logical fallacy. You’re creating a false equivalence to argue a point disingenuously.
Did you mean to respond to me? I’m not the other person you responded to. And I didn’t give a “what aboutism” which I’m familiar with that term from reddit.
Good for you.
That was you.
So, yes. You.