> You're bringing up Edward Snowden, who has literally nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
That was pretty clearly a response to the line he quoted directly above, i.e. rebutting the notion that an action's morality is solely determined by whether or not that action is classified as a crime.
Ah; I must have missed the part where somebody stated that an action's morality is solely determined by whether or not that action is classified as a crime. I agree that that's a silly metric to use as the sole determination of the morality of an action, but can you do me a favour and point to where that was stated? I'm having trouble finding it.
> Well, no. Robbing a passed out drunk is a crime; you should feel bad for committing crimes, even if it's clear that if you didn't somebody else would. Shorting a stock (or a currency) is not a crime; it's an acceptable thing to do in a market.
If you didn't intend to imply that robbing the drunk is bad because it's a crime, and what Soros did is acceptable because it's not a crime, then you weren't communicating very clearly.
That was pretty clearly a response to the line he quoted directly above, i.e. rebutting the notion that an action's morality is solely determined by whether or not that action is classified as a crime.