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: Neocon who wrote (73638)	8/29/2003 1:17:23 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Game, set, and match, IMO.

To: Neocon who wrote (73638)	8/29/2003 2:04:30 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

We are now faced with the usual limitations we have with language. “Truth” in the context I have been using it is a commitment to seeking, honoring, and presenting facts with sincerity of action, character, and utterance in the context of trust with one's self, one’s fellows, and society at large. Deception against an enemy? There is a poorly understood, or misunderstood, contradiction of terms here. The basis for being truthful is bound to a foundation of trust. The presumption in identifying an enemy is that we are suspending the notion of trust specifically between the entities. You have not decided to be untruthful, you have decided to match wits, outside the parameters of truth. I know as your enemy that you are practicing deception and in fact I trust you to do that so it is neither dishonest or untruthful when you do. “Would you employ deception against an enemy, say the Nazis, as the Allies did in trying to make them believe that they would invade France through Calais?” A strategy designed to outwit an opponent whether it is in chess or war is hardly qualifies in the vein of dishonesty. There is no basis for trusting the information being delivered or received. And so there is no untruth in hidden strategies. In the case of chess the parameters of forthright honesty are still present. I don’t expect you to remove one of my rooks while I am pouring tea. The nature of the strategies you label as deceptive hardly qualify as dishonest or being untruthful with your opponent. What I would do in a “what if” situation is hard to say. I hate to take the kholt position of “I would never be stupid enough to get my self into that in the first place” but it may be appropriate here. I do understand myself enough to know that were I put in tragic situations, I am capable of acting in ways that I would myself find regrettable. If a loved one were put in harm’s way, I cannot guarantee that my irrational emotions would not rule the day. That would indicate only that I have reached the limits of my ability to employ wisdom to resolve the issues and have freaked out. That does not justify my actions. I am grateful that this is not the case presently. ”Is it okay for the police to use undercover agents to break crime rings? Is it okay for us to use human agents in various countries to gather intelligence, and for them to assume a false identity to survive? Is the Witness Protection Program legitimate, to protect witnesses from retaliation by manufacturing a new identity? It seems to me that if it is okay to kill in self- defense, it can hardly be wrong to decieve in the aforementioned instances.........” Actually, you are using a means justifies the ends argument (as is society). I do have some problems with it. If you look only at the “bust” itself, the strategy seems beneficial. If you look at how we regard our security systems and the justice system in general, there is a great deal of distrust that has been generated for the average citizen. And consequentially many average citizens justify some of their illicit behavior on these grounds. Recent surveys of how we view our own justice system support that. What you are in danger of and, in fact, what you have promoted is a suspension of truth and justice in general, in favor of survival or mundane personal interests and against the nobler goals of a society. We could do better...IMO