[bsgreenb]

Trying to identify the motivations of an action from the perspective of the perpetrator doesn't mean that one agrees with their actions. Rather, it's a way of getting a better understanding of the problem

For example, it's useful to look at the causes of various evil historical deeds because they shed light on how to prevent them from occuring. To say that exploring the causes of these deeds is tantamount to supporting them is to throw away any sense of rational discovery.

[ewzimm]

Unfortunately this kind of thinking dominates American politics. We can't even consider why our opponents do what they do. But many people in tech have indulged in accessing secured computers. It's easy to see how somebody on one side could be swayed to the other without acting irrationally.

[duairc]

Trying to identify the motivations of an action from the perspective of the perpetrator doesn't mean that one agrees with their actions, no, but the post that I replied to implied that there exist reasons to support “these types of activities”, which does imply agreement with the actions of the perpetrator.

Edit: And also, it has to be said that trying to identify the motivations of an action from the perspective of the perpetrator far too often amounts to little more than apologetics and defence of the indefensible, empathising with the perpetrator and blaming the victim. I'm not saying it's never useful to consider, but it's not like it's an uncommon thing to do. Blaming the victim is nearly always the default in this culture.

[andrewfong]

"There exist reasons" != "There exist good reasons"

[duairc]

This is true. I tried to clarify this equivocation in another one of my posts in this thread.