Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7693)	3/6/2001 4:41:46 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

This example reminds me of a habit of an old friend of mine. If someone called that she didn't want to talk to, she would step out onto the porch so that her mother could say, without fibbing, that she was not at home. needless to say, I didn't trust her much. I am somewhat similar in one way to that friend of yours if perhaps slightly more honest. I normally will try to say the truth without intent to deceive, however if I am going to try to deceive someone I will if possible still speak the literal truth. The difference seems to be that I don't try to deceive people very often. I don't feel right doing it (somehow I feel less wrong if what I say is the literal truth but I still feel wrong), and I am not very good at it. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (7693)	3/6/2001 5:17:03 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"...but I do not agree that it's moral to squirm out of a promise because it's inconvenient. It's just less immoral than the alternative." I was out for a while on errands. I have to strongly disagree here. The immoral choice that exists is the one given not the one taken. 1. The given was a promise that could not with good conscience or right mindedness be kept. I did not make that choice you gave it to me as the circumstance under which to operate. 2. If the given "promise" to keep a secret were one that I had allowed then it would have been allowed under the presumption I stated. That is, that I would not agree to keep a secret about a plan to commit an evil act. Its not at all like your friend who plays with the facts to deceive a friend who calls on the phone. 3. The person who then discloses a plan to commit an evil act has violated the conditions of the promise to keep a secret (a trust) by attempting to implicate me as a co-conspirator. The "promise" then is null and void. It no longer exists and I am free to disclose at will. I have played out this scenario in the case of a disclosure of a plan to commit suicide. I confront the person with the fact that the promise is no longer valid under these conditions and that I will have to proceed in a responsible manner. I see absolutely no act of deception on my part or attempt to deceive. I do feel a little squeemish in the sense of the discomfort felt but there is no immorality on my part of this struggle. It is not a matter of convenience at all, it is a matter related to the conditions of the deal (promise). When the conditions are not present the deal is no longer valid. I made that clear in my original response, you seem to have ignored it. Right?