Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Roots of the New Left
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Eagle Eye  
View profile  
 More options Jun 19 2001, 7:52 pm
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.impeach.bush, alt.politics, alt.politics.bush, talk.politics.misc
From: Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 19 Jun 2001 23:52:56 -0000
Local: Tues, Jun 19 2001 7:52 pm
Subject: Re: Roots of the New Left
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <3B2E9FA0.BF61...@verizon.net> Scott Erb

<vze2k...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Lynette Warren wrote:
>> Scott Erb <scott....@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > Such questions are pretty useless.
>> So you no longer hold the following sentiment?:

>> "Was I stealing?  Sure, according to the law.  But I felt
>> morally justified and still do.  He was stealing from us, having
>> us work hard to make him rich, paying minimum wage to most of
>> us."

>> > There was a point in my life
>> 1997 is the point in your life when you wrote the above
>> justification for stealing from your employer.
>It's still a tough call.  I do think that the employer was
>exploiting workers, and there is justification in retaliatory
>force.  It is similar to how Billy justifies not paying his taxes,
>which is also considered by most a form of theft.

The employees agreed to work for their salary.  You agreed to work
for your salary and to honestly charge the price that the owner
wanted to charge.

Beck never asked for any government services.

How is it similar?

>But in thinking it through I'm leaning much stronger towards
>avoiding that kind of logic, as it makes it too easy to
>rationalize what is convenient.  But it's a tough call.

How could it possibly be a "tough call"?  You cheated your
employer.  No matter what a loudmouth asshole he was, you still
agreed to do your job.

If you thought he was lousy, you could have quit.  You could have
picketed the business.

This is an ethical no-brainer.  You failed.  You're a thief.

>> > I would rationalize on the grounds of "defensive use of force"
>> > theft if it was because I believed people were being exploited
>> > (e.g., giving free food to employees when they should pay half
>> > price, etc.)  Over time, I've decided that is inappropriate,
>> "Inappropriate" as in wrong or as in, "I'd better stop admitting
>> to the pizza thing or people will realize what a morally
>> bankrupt weasel I really am."
>Given the kind of folk you hang around with on the internet group,
>your comment is ironic.

Honest people who don't demand that others knuckle under to
government?

>> > Here's one we talked about today in a seminar: a man's wife is
>> > dying and she needs medication.  The druggist refuses to lower
>> > the price, and the man can't afford it.  He pleads, but to
>> > know avail.  If the woman doesn't get the drug, she will die.
>> > Should he steal it?  Surprisingly, EVERYONE argued that he
>> > should,
>> Surprisingly.  You're surprised that in the Age of Entitlement
>> the educational system and a generation of mostly braindead
>> parents have delivered a bumper crop of mind numbed relativists
>> to your classroom doorstep.
>Must be tough for you to live in this world when you're so
>convinced that almost everyone has it wrong and only you and a few
>others see the light.  But hey, that's where the fantasies of
>"ruination" come in, dreaming it all come crashing down, and the
>those with the proper belief will emerge on top!  Pathetic.

I can't say that I agree with Lynette and Billy on every
issue.  That is irrelevant to the issue of your thievery.

What I do agree with them is that no one should take anything of
value (money, pizza, labor, property, etc.) from another person
who has not agreed to give up that value.  You cannot rationally
dispute this principle with your usual litany of fallacies:

  http://www3.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

    e.g., Professor Fuforah of Haughty University wrote a book called
    "Very Boring Paragraphs Excusing Marxism" in which he disputed this
    principle.

  http://www3.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practic...

    e.g., We've had government for thousands of years and modern democracy
    for hundreds, during which people have had to pay taxes, become
    drafted, etc., so your principle must be wrong.

  http://www3.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html

    e.g., If we don't permit government to coerce people, it will all
    collapse and de facto Mafias will arise.

  http://www3.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

    e.g., Most people support our current form of government and reject
    your principle.

  http://www3.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

    e.g., "Must be tough for you to live in this world when you're so
    convinced that almost everyone has it wrong ... that's where the
    fantasies of 'ruination' come in ... Pathetic."

  http://www3.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

    e.g., X is a grassy knoll nutcase, so we shouldn't take anything
    he says seriously.

Try to justify taking something from someone which they didn't agree
to give you.  Try to explain how stealing pizza from a loud-mouthed
whore-monger is a "tough call."

 =====
 EE

    Take from no man what he hasn't agreed to give you.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google