| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > Yes you did. You acted because you *thought* that he didn't want it.
> >
> > No. Because he SAID he didn't want it.
>
> And that's what made you think he didn't want it.
No. Remove "think". He SAID it. Either it is true, or he's a liar. (I am
not going to argue epistemology with you on this)
My mistake was twofold (1) First, forgetting that he's a consistent liar and
thinking that I'd be doing him a service in doing what he said he wanted
done, and second in violating his privacy to do him that service.
> > > Either way, how should we judge your action? Were you moral and/or justified
> > > to do it? Why or why not? Let's say I think *you* want to be/should be
> > > unsubscribed to the same list.
> >
> > Have I said I did? Do you have reason to believe I do? Your whim or feeling
> > carries much less weight than what I say about my desire. Here, let me be
> > clear... I explicitly state that I don't consider it junk mail and that I
> > subscribed on purpose. Those two statements make it clear that my desire is
> > to receive it. NO amount of your reasoning can refute that.
>
> Sure it can. But only if my reasoning is faulty. Point being that people
> aren't necessarily rational. If I'm mentally retarted perhaps I'll come to
> that conclusion. And perhaps as such I'll want to unsubscribe you. Why
> shouldn't I then? But you already answered that.
Are you prepared to face the consequences of your actions? That's the key
question, not whether your reasoning is faulty or not. I am so prepared.
> > Do you apologise to your children before you punish them? I do. I'm
> > sincerely sorry for the inconvenience my punishment causes them. Yet I still
> > punish them.
> >
> > This is nothing like that.... except in the nature of sorrow and of the
> > distinction. I am sincerely sorry for violating Scott's privacy, but not for
> > the larger outcome that resulted, to wit, he's unsubbed from something he
> > previously said he does not want and did not subscribe to.
>
> Alright then, I'll allow that. Though generally I think of an apology as
> saying that in retrospect your actions were incorrect, versus "I'm sorry",
> which perhaps merely denotes your emotional reaction.
>
> > I gave one. Scott hasn't accepted it. Rather he has escalated it, and he has
> > a point. What I did violates the spirit of the ToS and to deny it would be
> > intellectually dishonest.
> >
> > No matter how big a liar he may be every day, it still doesn't give me a
> > pass.... I freely admit that it was a violation in spirit of the ToS.
>
> Interesting then. On threat of being banned from Lugnet/LP group/whatever,
> would you do it again? IE do you hold that it is up to Lugnet Admins/LP
> Email Systems to enact punishment? Such that until you're presented with an
> actual threat you'll keep going? Regardless of whether or not you think you
> *should* be punished?
I am prepared to face the consequences for my actions.
It is not about who enacts punishment, it is about that I feel strongly
enough about this particular slur that the liar Scott has repeatedly put
forth that I am prepared to violate his privacy again to put paid to his
lie. I'll be truly sorry for violating his rights, just as I am this time,
but I may well decide in future to do it again.
Guess what. I'm mostly good (as are most people) but I'm not perfect. He's
irritated me so much about this particular lie that I've backed myself into
a corner. I can't honestly say I wouldn't do it again, even though I know it
was wrong. I'm calmer now than I was a few hours ago, I know I probably
wouldn't do it again even if provoked. I've taken steps to prevent it from
being possible, I sent a very strongly worded note to the LP urging them to
change their system and reminding them of how much money I've donated.
But if you ask me to swear I won't... I cannot in all honesty so avow.
And that makes me more honest than most people who would conveniently lie
and say they would not do it again even if they were not sure... (or
conveniently lie and say "it's not merchandise because I'm a small time
seller", or conveniently lie and say they are getting "junk mail" that they
actually *wanted* to get).
See, I march to my own metronome, and the violation of his privacy rights
when weighed against the harm he causes here on a daily basis with his lies
and slurs and troublemaking just tilted the balance for me to do something I
know is a violation of the ToS.
1 - Pay attention here, Dave! .... not "manifold" as two < many...
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) I found the following: Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Scott: (...) I don't see anything where he said he didn't want to actually recieve the email. I mean, I can imagine wanting to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) And that's what made you think he didn't want it. (...) Sure it can. But only if my reasoning is faulty. Point being that people aren't necessarily rational. If I'm mentally retarted perhaps I'll come to that conclusion. And perhaps as such (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
