5 ms·

Fighting petty people that are much wealthier than you can run your life nearly as thoroughly. I'm fascinated when people skip understanding the analogy but arg

Fighting petty people that are much wealthier than you can run your life nearly as thoroughly. I'm fascinated when people skip understanding the analogy but argue anyway.

nullc 4y ago
So, just so I get this right: you and MichaelCollins are of the view that anyone who criticizes a corporation is a member of a "death cult"?
- knewter 4y ago
  No. I am of the view that people claiming others have an ethical obligation to report these things are making this claim from a position of safety that is not shared by the person they are advising.
  - nullc 4y ago
    But surely you would agree one is obligated to write an uncritical puff piece about someone they suspect is a fraud? -- they could say nothing instead.
    - knewter 4y ago
      Suspecting someone is a fraud is one thing. Implying someone is a fraud in print without clear evidence is another, and it is typically followed up on with at least a threatening letter on corporate lawyer letterhead. Maybe they could've written another piece. I'm sure they invested a fair bit of time into learning what they did to write the piece they had. At any rate, none of that matters. The ancestor post that matters was: > "First ethical rule: If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud." I disagree with that statement for all of the reasons I have mentioned. In fact, all I did was point out that you were being obtuse, either intentionally or otherwise, because you couldn't make the analogy-leap from "death by trolley" to "your life is now only about this lawsuit and all of your other interests must be ignored for 6-14 months". > So, just so I get this right: you and MichaelCollins are of the view that anyone who criticizes a corporation is a member of a "death cult"? No. Those are the words of another commenter. My thinking that it's laughable that people pretend they don't know how analogies work does not logically imply that I share the views of the person that happened to encourage you to demonstrate it. Anyway, I think he's conceptually right. I wouldn't use the phrase "death cult." Not because there's anything wrong with it - it's just not in my regular vernacular.

Fighting petty people that are much wealthier than you can run your life nearly as thoroughly. I'm fascinated when people skip understanding the analogy but argue anyway.

nullc 4y ago

So, just so I get this right: you and MichaelCollins are of the view that anyone who criticizes a corporation is a member of a "death cult"?

knewter 4y ago
No. I am of the view that people claiming others have an ethical obligation to report these things are making this claim from a position of safety that is not shared by the person they are advising.
- nullc 4y ago
  But surely you would agree one is obligated to write an uncritical puff piece about someone they suspect is a fraud? -- they could say nothing instead.
  - knewter 4y ago
    Suspecting someone is a fraud is one thing. Implying someone is a fraud in print without clear evidence is another, and it is typically followed up on with at least a threatening letter on corporate lawyer letterhead. Maybe they could've written another piece. I'm sure they invested a fair bit of time into learning what they did to write the piece they had. At any rate, none of that matters. The ancestor post that matters was: > "First ethical rule: If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud." I disagree with that statement for all of the reasons I have mentioned. In fact, all I did was point out that you were being obtuse, either intentionally or otherwise, because you couldn't make the analogy-leap from "death by trolley" to "your life is now only about this lawsuit and all of your other interests must be ignored for 6-14 months". > So, just so I get this right: you and MichaelCollins are of the view that anyone who criticizes a corporation is a member of a "death cult"? No. Those are the words of another commenter. My thinking that it's laughable that people pretend they don't know how analogies work does not logically imply that I share the views of the person that happened to encourage you to demonstrate it. Anyway, I think he's conceptually right. I wouldn't use the phrase "death cult." Not because there's anything wrong with it - it's just not in my regular vernacular.