Subject:
|
Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 02:35:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1451 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
Larry,
> Having said that, just about(1) every one of my factors, including you,
> is someone I would vouch for as being an extremely reliable trading
> partner, and the one that isn't, I am dealing with. I built that
> feeling up by trading, by observing trades, and so forth. So it's a lot
> more reliable than political leanings.
(I rearranged your posting to stick this first as I thought that was important)
I'd like to emphasize that on that score the feeling is mutual. You've
provided
a very valuable service. I firmly believe in maintaining high trading
standards.
As far as I'm concerned, if I'm selling something to someone, that makes
them
a client of mine, and I'd feel honour-bound to make sure they get the same
service off me that I would normally expect (and demand) off any companies
that
I buy things from. I hope that other people feel the same way - and in
general
I think that virtually all the people who hang around lugnet do so.
The fact that you've indicated you're prepared to
take steps against any factoree who you feel
doesn't provide a good, honest and reliable
trading service makes me feel even more happy - and even quite proud - to
be a part of that factoring network.
And the fact that we can have these debates here, while at the same time
maintaining those solid trading links is very nice as well.
Anyway - back to the argument...
> > But to try and link trust to political views in the way you
> > just have sucks.
>
> I'm not sure what to say here, but it IS what I do and I'm not going to
> apologise for it. My world view, which is right there out on the table
> for everyone to examine, says that once I make a deal I am honor bound
> to follow through on it. I'm not sure that's as true for someone who
> espouses "from each according to their ability, to each according to
> their need...".
I'd say that if you feel that way then that is quite a misunderstanding the
rationale
behind redistributionist[1] thinking - but I've addressed that in my reply
to Chris
Weeks.
I think part of the reason I found what you said a bit offensive was that
there seemed to be a tone in it of 'anyone who agrees with me must
be intrinsically more trustworthy' Sorry if that wasn't what you intended -
but I think you can probably see the problem with that attitude without me
commenting on it :).
Your post raises some interesting questions though. In one sense, yes
you are within your rights to use whatever evidence you want to to
judge other people's likely trustworthiness. However, if you use
inappropriate
'evidence', I wonder whether that could be interpreted as interfering with
other peoples' rights.
As an example, a few people have discussed the fact that blacks are in
general more likely to commit crimes. Whatever the reasons for that,
that means that I would presumably be quite correct to trust a black man
whom I didn't know less than I would trust a white man that I didn't know -
because the truth is that the black man _is_ statistically more likely to
turn out to be someone who's going to beat me up[2]. Your argument seems
to suggest that I'm quite within my rights to take that attitude.
Unfortunately
if I do that I'm also contributing to racism - and interfering with the
rights
of the vast majority of blacks (who are perfectly good citizens) not to
be discriminated against.
So what's the correct solution here? I honestly don't know - I'm presenting
it for
discussion, and because I think that if you try to judge people's honesty
by their declared political views then you are potentially
putting yourself in the same
league as someone who judges someones character by their colour.
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
[1] My new word for the day. Sounds awful but I can't think of anything else
that fits.
[2] This example is more real than you might imagine. In London there's been
some arguments about the police being more likely to stop and question
blacks than whites. So the ethnic minority community feels they are being a
victim
of racism. But many in the police would probably feel they are doing their
best
to make good use of their limited resources to prevent crime where it's most
likely to occur.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
