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: Solon who wrote (73815)	9/3/2003 1:47:40 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I gave you a metaphor (in the killing of the King's deer) to stand for all those who have fought against tyranny and injustice--" You've scooped so much into the argument that it is impossible for me to determine what you are actually basing your stand on. Here for example we have Robin Hood. The legendary (or fairy tale) hero of Old England. You have assigned him a white hat (as most people do) and the "evil" Prince John a black hat. Good fodder for hollywood. Who was the actual Robin of Noxly and what was he actually up to. He was championing the good "Richard the Lion Hearted." Richard was off attempting a crusade. He failed but what were those crusades about again? Well let's see: In 1099 the crusaders conquored Jeruselum, beheading all men women and children (resident Jews and Muslims est. 50-100k) and leveling Solomon's temple. They found out the Sarasens had swallowed gold coins so they were able to recover this booty. Golly, how did they make that discovery and what do ya suppose they did to recover the coins? I wonder if that is where we get the term cesarian section? There is lots more but... Well you already know probably way more about it than I do, since gruesom acts perpetrated in the name of religion are a specialty of yours... Anyway, here comes good ole Robin saving the kingdom for the good Richard so's he could hang in the forest and eat dear with his hood right...naw, he gets his lordship back, castle and all, so's he and the fam that Maid Mariam produces can go back to lording over the peasants. The one's who he was bribing to keep him hid. Wonder why he didn't give them his family fortune when good ole Dick returned? hmmmm... Maybe that, "rob the rich to give to the poor" schtick was not the whole story? I'll get back to you on the deception/honesty thing, but couldn't help this li'l tangent.

To: Solon who wrote (73815)	9/3/2003 2:44:25 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

As with most words the meanings are restricted to context. I would prefer that we had several words in this case but we have just the synonymous deceit, lie, dishonest, distrust and their antonyms. If we can view one of the goals of society to be to bring a synergistic benefit to all its composite members, then the presence of deception is evidence of social weakness or in the case of war, abject failure. I don’t see the examples you give as finite evidence to the contrary. For example, when we have “undercover cops” it creates suspicion and mistrust among the citizenry. I understand that it makes movies more fun to watch but it also has some negative side effects. Average citizens begin to fear the creeping big brother government invading their privacy. We have found from time to time that police corruption has gotten out of control in the big cities. This is also a side effect of allowing too much secrecy within the ranks. We allow deal making with the crooks to extract undercover information and this contributes even more to the question of trust/deceit. When looking at the complexities of the system, it becomes less and less clear-cut that the benefits of deceit, even among the white hat wearers, is a clear-cut “good.” It is not clear at all whether or not law and order, infused with deceptive practice, is providing a just society. If honesty were the policy among the policing ranks, then the deceitful enemies of the state would at times have an advantage. IMO, this would be short term and over time the honorable, noble and truthful forces would catch them in their own webs of deceit. Under this circumstance the overall impression of the system would be one in which justice prevails. I do not consider keeping your secret strategy in a game such as chess to be an example of breaching someone’s trust. So, I hope that you will agree to narrow our discussion to the actual issue of deceitful lying that is intended to cause harm to another. A chess match is not an example of dishonesty in this context, even though you may be setting traps, traps that you hope your opponent will fall into. It is simply mental exercise not normally intended to do any actual harm to one’s opponent; quite the opposite, in the spirit of healthy competition for which the game is intended. It is an honest game of strategic maneuverings intended in some cases to mislead your opponent in the process. Likewise in war you are not basing your relationship on trust so I don’t think the concepts of deceit/honesty carry the same meanings.