3 ms·
using legality as an ethical corollary doesn't really cut it for me. you're invoking "the worst argument in the world" as seen here on hn. (http://lesswrong.co
by xo 14y ago
using legality as an ethical corollary doesn't really cut it for me. you're invoking "the worst argument in the world" as seen here on hn.
(http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/)
now. there is a difference between those two articles.
just ask yourself: who would i invest in? the guy deceiving to work more, or the guy working to deceive more? no contest.
- famousactress 14y agoYou're absolutely right. Inferring legality==ethical is a fallacy and distraction. I got a bit of a twinge when writing that bit. I think the reason I left it in is because lots of lots of people do make that correlation, and I was asking a question about other people's opinions, not mine. It's frankly surprising (sadly) when folks don't equate law and ethics so I was surprised at the contrast here. It wasn't meant to suggest that I find the two tied together, or that I think you should. As for your question, I have no idea who I would invest in (assuming I was forced to choose one of them, which would be necessary since I'm pretty sure I'd like not to invest in either). I have no idea what interesting things Shirley might be up to. All I have to go on is one techcrunch article for each of them, with obviously diametrically opposed editorial agendas... which is kind of my point.
- Evbn 14y agoAre you really a famous actress? If so, I would like you be a cofounder in my startup.
- famousactress 14y agoNo. I feel like we both probably dodged a bullet here.