3 ms·
While that final conclusion might definitely be true, have you even considered how that exact behavior may already led us to a rather nasty reality? A reality
by elmo2you 6y ago
While that final conclusion might definitely be true, have you even considered how that exact behavior may already led us to a rather nasty reality?
A reality in which many companies might regularly get away with malice by just claiming incompetence? As if that should even have any influence on their (legal) responsibilities in the first place(?)
Assuming malice does happen, and I certainly think it does, at which point would you consider this approach willful ignorance? Would it not make one actually part of the problem, instead of just an observer?
More to the point, when is personal happiness more important than discovering the truth? Is the latter not a personal responsibility to anyone, given a capacity?
- simonbarker87 6y agoYou’ve sort of blown right past the word “assume” in this expression. Assumption is what we go on when we have no proof - so, until you have proof, assume incompetence. Making this initial assumption (effectively giving the benefit of the doubt) does not mean you should stop looking for proof/under lying reasons. What it does is reduce the dopamine hit you get from being angered/outraged and let’s you think with a clearer head moving forward in your thinking/investigating. I at no point said “assume incompetence and then stick your head in the sand and pretend all is fine” that’s has its own saying “ignorance is bliss”
- simonbarker87 6y agoAh, ok - I didn’t used the word assume in my initial comment, picked it up from yours. Probably a better version would be “don’t assume malice when it can be explained by incompetence”