3 ms·

Seeing no ethical issues with lying and fraud at a mass scale is an interesting take.

by d23 3y ago

esrauch 3y ago
I don't share OPs view but I think it can make sense in a "murder is wrong, but murdering murderers isn't wrong" kind of sense.
kerkeslager 3y ago
I think the point of the post was that "government manipulators and monetary system monopolists" are also engaged in lying and fraud at a scale much more massive than Holmes ever was. If you don't like lying, you might want to edit at your post, where you misrepresented the content of the post you're responding to by removing pretty vital context.
- d23 3y ago
  The context is as readily available as it gets -- it was the message I was responding to. It's absurd to reduce all investors to "government manipulators and monetary system monopolists". In what way were all the victims of Theranos's fraud lying at a larger scale?
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    This isn't a team sport: just because I'm pointing out that you're wrong, doesn't mean I'm agreeing with the other guy. It's absurd that you ignored half the comment you were responding to. Whatever point you might have had, you burned all your credibility when you decided to make a dishonest argument by taking someone else's words out of context. Why should anyone talk to you if you've shown you're unrepentantly taking words out of context to win an argument? I'm not talking about Theranos with someone like that, because that discussion would require nuance which you'll just ignore half of.
    - d23 3y ago
      > It's absurd that you ignored half the comment you were responding to. Whatever point you might have had, you burned all your credibility when you decided to make a dishonest argument by taking someone else's words out of context. As I said before, the context is readily available. I have also responded to the totality of the original message. And in doing so, I also quoted you. Leading to this: > This isn't a team sport: just because I'm pointing out that you're wrong, doesn't mean I'm agreeing with the other guy. Do you want me to address the person (and your!) claims or not? You just spent three paragraphs repeatedly calling me an unrepentant, untrustworthy liar with no credibility and no capacity for nuance.
      - kerkeslager 3y ago
        > As I said before, the context is readily available. ...which is why it's obvious that the following is not true: > I have also responded to the totality of the original message. Anyway... > Do you want me to address the person (and your!) claims or not? 1. Yes, I would like you to address the person's claims. 2. Now you're telling me what my claims are? Cooooool. > You just spent three paragraphs repeatedly calling me an unrepentant, untrustworthy liar with no credibility and no capacity for nuance. I didn't say you had no capacity for nuance. ;) I'm sure you could participate in a nuanced discussion if you chose to, it's just clear you're making other choices.

Seeing no ethical issues with lying and fraud at a mass scale is an interesting take.

by d23 3y ago

Seeing no ethical issues with lying and fraud at a mass scale is an interesting take.

I don't share OPs view but I think it can make sense in a "murder is wrong, but murdering murderers isn't wrong" kind of sense.

kerkeslager 3y ago

I think the point of the post was that "government manipulators and monetary system monopolists" are also engaged in lying and fraud at a scale much more massive than Holmes ever was. If you don't like lying, you might want to edit at your post, where you misrepresented the content of the post you're responding to by removing pretty vital context.

d23 3y ago
The context is as readily available as it gets -- it was the message I was responding to. It's absurd to reduce all investors to "government manipulators and monetary system monopolists". In what way were all the victims of Theranos's fraud lying at a larger scale?
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  This isn't a team sport: just because I'm pointing out that you're wrong, doesn't mean I'm agreeing with the other guy. It's absurd that you ignored half the comment you were responding to. Whatever point you might have had, you burned all your credibility when you decided to make a dishonest argument by taking someone else's words out of context. Why should anyone talk to you if you've shown you're unrepentantly taking words out of context to win an argument? I'm not talking about Theranos with someone like that, because that discussion would require nuance which you'll just ignore half of.
  - d23 3y ago
    > It's absurd that you ignored half the comment you were responding to. Whatever point you might have had, you burned all your credibility when you decided to make a dishonest argument by taking someone else's words out of context. As I said before, the context is readily available. I have also responded to the totality of the original message. And in doing so, I also quoted you. Leading to this: > This isn't a team sport: just because I'm pointing out that you're wrong, doesn't mean I'm agreeing with the other guy. Do you want me to address the person (and your!) claims or not? You just spent three paragraphs repeatedly calling me an unrepentant, untrustworthy liar with no credibility and no capacity for nuance.
    - kerkeslager 3y ago
      > As I said before, the context is readily available. ...which is why it's obvious that the following is not true: > I have also responded to the totality of the original message. Anyway... > Do you want me to address the person (and your!) claims or not? 1. Yes, I would like you to address the person's claims. 2. Now you're telling me what my claims are? Cooooool. > You just spent three paragraphs repeatedly calling me an unrepentant, untrustworthy liar with no credibility and no capacity for nuance. I didn't say you had no capacity for nuance. ;) I'm sure you could participate in a nuanced discussion if you chose to, it's just clear you're making other choices.