Then it makes more sense to argue from this standpoint. If a person does horrible things, they likely don't need doxxing for horrible to be done in return. We don't consider releasing information to police agencies, and police agencies exclusively, doxxing. If the law disagrees with what you find horrible, is it not wiser to focus on changing the law, or is it appropriate to take the law into your own hands?
I am arguing from that stance.
Don't get me wrong, i have my own answers to these questions, but I ask them to not bother with potentially pointless justifications. There's no point to even frame discussion on doxing as appropriate or not in the context of what's acceptable justification or not if what is reasonably appropriate is already available. If that makes sense.
I'm not giving any justifications for doxxing.
EDIT: To clarify, the conversation is basically about whether or not doxxing is an appropriate response to a person's opinions, when doxxing inherently comes with the necessary risk of escalation beyond words, where as opinions don't.
Also to clarify, in the example I gave the pedophile (the real one that was the original intended target) was an actual one that had... 'solidified'... the title if you get my meaning and not someone with a disgusting opinion.
The point being, even when the target is 'justified' the doxxing is a form of vigilantism that can backfire... and it did... horribly. An innocent person was horribly scarred over doxxing and the harassment that followed.
I AGREE WITH YOU ON EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID. You seem to think that I'm suggesting doxxing is sometimes a good thing... I'm not saying that.