5 ms·

> This document continues to be used for its original purpose - providing a reference to fill in the "code of conduct" box on supplier registration forms. It s

> This document continues to be used for its original purpose - providing a reference to fill in the "code of conduct" box on supplier registration forms. It seems somewhat deceitful to use this list to check those boxes, which makes this entire page self-contradictory (specific points highlighted): > 24. Do not entertain deceit in your heart. > 28. Utter only truth from heart and mouth. > 39. Be not a grumbler.

mort96 4y ago
Where's the deceit? The page is incredibly honest about it, any client which cares will immediately see the purpose of the document. It's working around bureaucracy. Nothing more, nothing less. Given SQLite's position, that's incredibly understandable.
- mmastrac 4y ago
  Working around bureaucracy is still deceit. The spirit of the ethics they state here would suggest a good faith effort to put together a true code of conduct, however basic. The ethics that Christianity teach don't have a backdoor because it's big corporate.
  - logicchains 4y ago
    >The ethics that Christianity teach don't have a backdoor because it's big corporate. Did you not read what Jesus did to the moneychangers in the temple?
  - mort96 4y ago
    Working around bureaucracy is not deceit. At least according to my understanding of the word, "deceit" requires that someone is lead to believe falsehoods. That's not going on here. SQLite has a code of ethics, and if that's all that's required by some bureaucratic process, then that's fair game. If the process requires enforcement of the code of ethics, SQLite should probably not tick the box, and the document puts that information front and centre.
    - mmastrac 4y ago
      I mean that's still deceitful. I get that they don't like codes of conduct, but I can still find it amusing that they violate their own code of ethics on the same page they wrote them on.
      - eitland 4y ago
        At this point your argument is a classic straw man: Define what the opponent means or believes and then put that definition up to tear it down.
        mmastrac 4y ago
        Simply stating a fallacy does not make it one.
        eitland 4y ago
        I pointed out in detail how it matches the fallacy. Next up: The first step to get out of a whole you have dug yourself into is to stop digging and all that.
        mmastrac 4y ago
        > I pointed out in detail how it matches the fallacy. I'm sorry, you did nothing of the kind. The only thing that appears to have happened here, as far as I can tell, is your definition of a strawman, and a cherry-picking, uncharitable read of one of my comments. > Next up: The first step to get out of a whole you have dug yourself into is to stop digging and all that. This hostility doesn't feel like the start of a productive conversation, so I'll bid you a good day and stop here.
        mort96 4y ago
        As far as I can see, you're wrong: my position is that the CoE is not deceitful, /u/mmastrac's position is that the CoE is deceitful (and that it's ironic or whatever because the CoE says not to be deceitful). As far as I can see, this is just a good old disagreement where both parties understand and respond to each other's positions.
  - anon291 4y ago
    In your view, christian ethics don't allow jokes, which is a bit extreme given that many very serious Christian theologians are also quite entertaining and have been so historically as well.
  - 95014_refugee 4y ago
    > The ethics that Christianity teach What "ethics"? And as a precondition, what "christianity"? Neither are unitary nor singular, and further irrelevant to the topic at hand.
  - eitland 4y ago
    Jesus himself was extremely pragmatic in some cases: Give to the Caesar what belongs to the Caesar and all that. People who don't practice should probably study the Bible a whole lot more before telling practicing Christians what to do or not.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      > Give to the Caesar what belongs to the Caesar and all that. Everyone always leaves out the "render unto God that which is God's". That second part (not to mention the preceding context) changes the whole meaning of the verse.
      - eitland 4y ago
        Of course we should not forget that. Thanks!

mort96 4y ago

Where's the deceit? The page is incredibly honest about it, any client which cares will immediately see the purpose of the document. It's working around bureaucracy. Nothing more, nothing less. Given SQLite's position, that's incredibly understandable.

mmastrac 4y ago
Working around bureaucracy is still deceit. The spirit of the ethics they state here would suggest a good faith effort to put together a true code of conduct, however basic. The ethics that Christianity teach don't have a backdoor because it's big corporate.
- logicchains 4y ago
  >The ethics that Christianity teach don't have a backdoor because it's big corporate. Did you not read what Jesus did to the moneychangers in the temple?
- mort96 4y ago
  Working around bureaucracy is not deceit. At least according to my understanding of the word, "deceit" requires that someone is lead to believe falsehoods. That's not going on here. SQLite has a code of ethics, and if that's all that's required by some bureaucratic process, then that's fair game. If the process requires enforcement of the code of ethics, SQLite should probably not tick the box, and the document puts that information front and centre.
  - mmastrac 4y ago
    I mean that's still deceitful. I get that they don't like codes of conduct, but I can still find it amusing that they violate their own code of ethics on the same page they wrote them on.
    - eitland 4y ago
      At this point your argument is a classic straw man: Define what the opponent means or believes and then put that definition up to tear it down.
      - mmastrac 4y ago
        Simply stating a fallacy does not make it one.
        eitland 4y ago
        I pointed out in detail how it matches the fallacy. Next up: The first step to get out of a whole you have dug yourself into is to stop digging and all that.
        mmastrac 4y ago
        > I pointed out in detail how it matches the fallacy. I'm sorry, you did nothing of the kind. The only thing that appears to have happened here, as far as I can tell, is your definition of a strawman, and a cherry-picking, uncharitable read of one of my comments. > Next up: The first step to get out of a whole you have dug yourself into is to stop digging and all that. This hostility doesn't feel like the start of a productive conversation, so I'll bid you a good day and stop here.
      - mort96 4y ago
        As far as I can see, you're wrong: my position is that the CoE is not deceitful, /u/mmastrac's position is that the CoE is deceitful (and that it's ironic or whatever because the CoE says not to be deceitful). As far as I can see, this is just a good old disagreement where both parties understand and respond to each other's positions.
- anon291 4y ago
  In your view, christian ethics don't allow jokes, which is a bit extreme given that many very serious Christian theologians are also quite entertaining and have been so historically as well.
- 95014_refugee 4y ago
  > The ethics that Christianity teach What "ethics"? And as a precondition, what "christianity"? Neither are unitary nor singular, and further irrelevant to the topic at hand.
- eitland 4y ago
  Jesus himself was extremely pragmatic in some cases: Give to the Caesar what belongs to the Caesar and all that. People who don't practice should probably study the Bible a whole lot more before telling practicing Christians what to do or not.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > Give to the Caesar what belongs to the Caesar and all that. Everyone always leaves out the "render unto God that which is God's". That second part (not to mention the preceding context) changes the whole meaning of the verse.
    - eitland 4y ago
      Of course we should not forget that. Thanks!