posted
It seems, from a quick perusal of the first five pages of Hatrack that all of Bean Counter's threads have been deleted. Possibly by him.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might not have been by him, all things considered.
No biggie though, either way.
I am still going to read that book again, and when I am finished I will want to discuss it....this time with people who have read up on the subject. I was enjoying some of that thread, despite BC's obvious thrust and agenda.
posted
In any case, people who are banned don't have all their posts deleted, so that's no indication of anything.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it was definitely deleted by someone. That thread was open on my browser, and when I hit refresh I got the "no such thread" message.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, and I was flirting with the idea of bringing up The Affluent Society, tulip-mania, Nash Equlibria, alienating individualism, and the holes in comparative self-esteem to take a look at the related problems of manufactured illusuary deprivation and the destruction of meaningful evolutionary pressures that results from the pursuit and attainment of comfort. Now I'll not have another chance.
"Someone left the cake out in the rain And I don't think that I can take it Because it took so long to make it And I'll never have the recipe again. Oh no!"
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He said that he had a few days to cool his heels before he left, so thought he'd do a litle posting while he waited.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I'll be the bad guy. BC claimed he was leaving for Iraq. Whether you choose to take that as meaning that he left for Iraq or not is really a matter of whether you feel you can trust him to tell the truth about it.
I'm personally about 60% towards believing that he is actually in the military and 40% towards waiting for his next screename(s) to show up.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Squick, I'd reverse the odds. Especially with the post deletion trend now, he reminds me even more strongly of some other unpleasant people in hatrack's past...
(Sigh, I really got burned by that incident. I've tried not to let it alter my posting style but if anything I know I've become more intolerant of stupidity as a result)
posted
Banna, I'm making my probability judgements based on his apparently accurate knowledge regarding the military relative to his ignorance in other matters and his suiciding of the JarHead handle. He could have sources for that information other than personal experience or it might not actually be valid, but I think it was enough to get the 60% assessment. I also thought that, if he was lying about the military, JarHead would be his go to handle after the time when he "left".
Doesn't really matter to me either way. I'm sure the web will throw up other people for me to "What the crap?", whether they be Bean Counter in disguise or no.
posted
Yeah you might be right. *shrug* I'm sure he'll end up as a hatrack footnote if at all... he really wasn't up to the sheer vituperativeness of Baldar.
posted
I will vouch for Bean Counter's being genuine. He has been very consistent with himself, and I have had some personal contact with him.
He did delete some posts because he was upset about the way the forum had treated a friend of his (not sure who, maybe JarHead?) I don't know the details of what happened to make him upset, but I am pretty sure that he had no idea that whole threads would be deleted. He apologized to me personally.
Please go easy on him, guys. He is indeed headed to Iraq. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Consistency itself isn't a good or a bad thing, it's morally unconcerned, like arithmetic.
Confusing consistency with virtue is a bad thing, as it degrades truth and thinking. It's a shame that we have come to confuse truth and consistency. If truth is well-behaved and consistent, it's only by an accidental feature.
We can find ourselves head long into very consistent paths that have nothing to do with truth.
For example, I imagine everybody with more than one kid understands this. Heck, it was even in the bible. Cain and Abel both gave God gifts, and like me, God likes a good leg a lamb more than he likes vegatables. Cain was so upset at the inconsistency of God's love that he killed Abel out of jealousy, that's how deep our love of consistency is, and also how morally abitrary it is.
posted
Hypocrisy is deeper crime. I'm not sure, but the word looks like it means hypo-under, (think of hypodermic needle) and crisy, probably the same root as cracy, (power). Hypocrisy seeks to undermine something.
Consistency calls for you do what you say. As in, "I'm going to hunt down and kill you," and then going about the business of hunting down and killing you. The thing is that the morality of this statement isn't in the consistency, the morality of the statement turns on the killing.
Hypocrisy is deeper. It's a more fundamental lie, that maybe brought to light by consistency, but the moral element is located somewhere else. I think the problem is hypocrisy is in the intent and deception. _____
Anyway, overall, I think that we elevate consistency because it puts us in charge of right and wrong. There is a feeling of mastery that comes along with falsely putting consistency as a virtue, in and of itself. That's a longer argument to develop, though.
posted
Consistency can be bad, when one is consistently wrong. This is the trivial case.
The more interesting cases are when things may be consistent with each other in different ways. A classic example is the intersection of views on abortion and the death penalty in this country. The large numbers of people who are pro-life on abortion but pro-death penalty, or pro-choice on abortion but anti-death penalty, lead to various accusations of inconsistency from both sides.
What's really happening is that people are generally being consistent within their own ethical framework. Usually it is based on differing priorities being given to moral principles by different people.
You see this even more in legal analysis, where an issue can be decided to be consistent with one precedent or another, depending on which factual issues are deemed most important.
Basically, it boils down to what factors one is using to compare two different situations.
quote:Hypocrisy is deeper crime. I'm not sure, but the word looks like it means hypo-under, (think of hypodermic needle) and crisy, probably the same root as cracy, (power). Hypocrisy seeks to undermine something.
I've always remembered it as hypo (under) and critical, that is, not being critical enough. This was how I remembered how to spell it. The actual etymology is:
quote:c.1225, from O.Fr. ypocrisie, from L.L. hypocrisis, from Gk. hypokrisis "acting on the stage, pretense," from hypokrinesthai "play a part, pretend," also "answer," from hypo- "under" + middle voice of krinein "to sift, decide" (see crisis). The sense evolution is from "separate gradually" to "answer" to "answer a fellow actor on stage" to "play a part." Thus hypocrite (c.1225) is ult. Gk. hypokrites "actor on the stage, pretender."
I agree that hypocrisy is different than inconsistency. Hypocrisy is experessing or practicing beliefs one does not hold. In my mind it holds an element of intent, which inconsistency may or may not.
quote:What's really happening is that people are generally being consistent within their own ethical framework. Usually it is based on differing priorities being given to moral principles by different people.
I really disagree with this. You've either pretty much said that hypocrisy is impossible by explaining it away as alway the product of an underlying consistent ethic framework or at least imputed this type of framework to this individual case.
People are only rarely moved by strict ethical concerns. I'd put a lot more emphasis on differing motivation imperatives than on this supposed unified ethical framework. People are for something (in this case the death penalty) because they want to be for it. They are against something (here abortion) because they want to be against it. The ethical framework is usually something that is added later, if at all, to justify this apparent contradiction to the person and to others.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
This was the excuse used by a prominent member of the Student Council at UVA when I was a first year there to take away funding from the conservative political publication.
What they forgot was they had to be consistent with the First Amendment, not just their little PC predelictions.
quote:I really disagree with this. You've either pretty much said that hypocrisy is impossible by explaining it away as alway the product of an underlying consistent ethic framework or at least imputed this type of framework to this individual case.
Are we talking hypocrisy or consistency?
quote:People are only rarely moved by strict ethical concerns. I'd put a lot more emphasis on differing motivation imperatives than on this supposed unified ethical framework. People are for something (in this case the death penalty) because they want to be for it. They are against something (here abortion) because they want to be against it. The ethical framework is usually something that is added later, if at all, to justify this apparent contradiction to the person and to others.
In your cynical little view of the world, this discussion is utterly meaningless then. Why are we having it at all?
posted
Dagonee, you are right, I should have looked it up. Hannah Arendt went on a long discourse on hypocrits and acting in On Revolution. I remember that it was good, and I'm sure I've taken something from it subconsciously, but I can't remember her exact understanding. It's something along the lines of what we have been saying.
quote:I really disagree with this. You've either pretty much said that hypocrisy is impossible by explaining it away as alway the product of an underlying consistent ethic framework or at least imputed this type of framework to this individual case.
I've got to come back to this part. Where did I say hypocrisy was impossible? Where even did I say that inconsistency was impossible.
I said there are a class of situations where "things may be consistent with each other in different ways."
Certainly someone who says, "All life is precious and we shouldn't allow anyone to take it, so abortion must be banned" and then says "We should kill murderers" is being at least facially, and likely actually, inconsistent. You'll note I didn't say "Everyone who favors banning abortion while favoring the use of capital punishment" is consistent. I said that many, many, many times the accusation of inconsistency is thrown out due to a misunderstanding of the ethical framework being used.
posted
And I missed those qualifications, sorry about that. I shouldn't have.
You did me one right back though, by missing my qualifications on my statement about motivation trumping cognition. I didn't claim that mindfullness was impossible, just unpopular.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As often happens. I'm not sure which perspective is more heartening. I think that we live in a pretty crappy world that has immense potential for (possibly very difficult change) and, as far I as can trace it out, you either believe we live in a relatively good world or a relatively bad one where change (at least by increasing people's mental maturity) is not all that possible. Or maybe you see it in a way I'm not anticipating.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, I think the world is pretty crappy overall, and you know what I think the cause of that is. I do think that people are often more thoughtful about ethical matters than I think you do, and I seem to usually think that their motivations are different than what you seem to think they are. I get the impression that I believe in greater free will and that people are more responsible for their thoughts, actions, and general mental state than you do.
In many ways, I find my view a little more depressing because it involves the conscious choice of evil more often.
Ultimately, I think that human efforts are utterly insufficient to fix everything that's wrong with the world, that evil is adept and changing forms in front of us, that the idea of progress will always betray us somehow, and that none of these facts absolves us from trying to do what we can.
Dagonee Edit: I forgot to add, though, that ultimately I think my worldview is more optimistic once you take God into account.
posted
By any reasonable measure, the world is better for more *humans* now than it has ever been before.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
