3 ms·
Think about what you said for a second. You start by saying that zed is "high profile". You then assert that if he were polite there would be no public scrutiny
by jshen 17y ago
Think about what you said for a second. You start by saying that zed is "high profile". You then assert that if he were polite there would be no public scrutiny.
The truth is that one must create these false hypotheticals in order to justify zed being an asshole.
- mistermann 17y ago"You start by saying that zed is "high profile". You then assert that if he were polite there would be no public scrutiny." Huh? Maybe try a re-read of my post. I'm not justifying him being an asshole, I am countering your assertion that if you are an asshole while pointing out legitimate shortcomings, that it will have no positive affect.
- jshen 17y agoI re-read, here is what you said "but I am comparing causing visible public scrutiny while being an asshole vs no public scrutiny" This is a false choice as is clear by your statement that zed is high profile. If he were polite there would still be public scrutiny so your binary hypothetical is meaningless.