3 ms·

> everyone agreed the law required, but nobody was happy about it That's cognitive dissonance. Aaron was simply the voice of reason for one of the arguments b

> everyone agreed the law required, but nobody was happy about it That's cognitive dissonance. Aaron was simply the voice of reason for one of the arguments being held in consideration - open and free information. Nobody is happy about following the law when they realize the laws in place are the less important piece of a greater discussion.

raldi 13y ago
If you had a home subscription to an online scholarly journal archive, and I snuck in through an open window, found your LAN equipment, and tampered with it until I was able to use your credentials, would you chalk that up to me being the voice of reason and a proponent of open and free information, or would you call it burglary?
- kordless 13y ago
  The law is the law, so it's burglary. Not sure why I'm answering an obvious question for you - feels a bit ad hominem-ish as it's not the same situation Aaron was in. There would be circumstances where I'd be ok with it, like if you were a neighbor and I knew you and you apologized for it. My choice to prosecute. Sometimes laws need to be broken or bent when there is no other way to bring awareness of a newly forged wrong to light. Whether or not Aaron approached the freedom of information issue correctly here is not the issue, but how the school reasoned through 'handling' it is. They were the ones with the power to make a hard decision regarding the interpretation of the law. As for me, I'm simply trying to clarify how to spot cognitive dissonance in the wild - you look for statements that are conflicting and then try to understand why both sides of the 'argument' were weighed in making a decision. In this case the school would appear to hold some value in Aaron's actions, even though what he did was clearly wrong. It's worth wondering if they did the right thing when considering the validity of some portion of his actions. Frankly, I'm not sure how to feel about it other than what has become the norm. We (the US) tends to over-react to things a fair amount. It's getting a little old and needs to stop.

raldi 13y ago

If you had a home subscription to an online scholarly journal archive, and I snuck in through an open window, found your LAN equipment, and tampered with it until I was able to use your credentials, would you chalk that up to me being the voice of reason and a proponent of open and free information, or would you call it burglary?

kordless 13y ago
The law is the law, so it's burglary. Not sure why I'm answering an obvious question for you - feels a bit ad hominem-ish as it's not the same situation Aaron was in. There would be circumstances where I'd be ok with it, like if you were a neighbor and I knew you and you apologized for it. My choice to prosecute. Sometimes laws need to be broken or bent when there is no other way to bring awareness of a newly forged wrong to light. Whether or not Aaron approached the freedom of information issue correctly here is not the issue, but how the school reasoned through 'handling' it is. They were the ones with the power to make a hard decision regarding the interpretation of the law. As for me, I'm simply trying to clarify how to spot cognitive dissonance in the wild - you look for statements that are conflicting and then try to understand why both sides of the 'argument' were weighed in making a decision. In this case the school would appear to hold some value in Aaron's actions, even though what he did was clearly wrong. It's worth wondering if they did the right thing when considering the validity of some portion of his actions. Frankly, I'm not sure how to feel about it other than what has become the norm. We (the US) tends to over-react to things a fair amount. It's getting a little old and needs to stop.