Yeah like I said morality is derived from history.
It's distressing you think yourself so wise and aloof.
"I would go so far to say that you are very, very, misinformed about Monsieur de Tocqueville's political and social philosophy"
Did I say I was informed? No.
"I like to cast a wide net to see what knowledge I can snare from the rapidly receding seas of wisdom on this planet"
Wow, what you're suffering from is called cognitive dissonance, it's where you judge yourself intelligent because you are not intelligent enough to make a proper judgement of intelligence.
"As a philosopher, I can, and often do, argue for one side of a moral issue in the morning, and then defend the other side in the afternoon."
This one is the real kicker. Well then I can safely put zero stock in what you have to say, for your opinions are as wishy-washy as the tides. So you've played devils advocate, invoked some historical figure and now you've stated that you would just as easily take the other side of the issue and fight tooth and nail for it. This is what one would call pointlessly argumentative.
Keep in mind the original discussion was about using a method similar to a sit-in to take down child-porn websites. So you opened your trap and squawked about 'mobs' breaking the law. To which the majority of responders set you straight about the value of resistance and protest, in spite of the authority driven consequence. You were 'touting' a line of buckle to authority and don't break the law you punk kid mobs. Three comments in a row had essentially the same ideas, then in this third and last comment you try to squeeze out of your position by claiming what 'philosophical right'?