Elephant
Don't take it personally. Any of us who have been here for a while could
have predicted the outcome of your attempt to engage Struan in a
meaningful give and take dialogue with the anticipation of finding some
common ground of 'good' in the MoQ. Unlike Strawson, who at least left
open the possiblity of his own misunderstanding, the position Struan
portrays is an absolute and rigidly fixed one that the MoQ is fatally
flawed, is therefore worse than useless, and anyone who cannot readily
see this is a mindless twit. If you held even a glimmer of hope that the
MoQ has any 'good' you lost before you began.
I say "portrays" because it brings up an issue that is more and more
coming to the fore on the Internet in many different venues but it is
particularly of concern in the e-mail lists and chat rooms. How does one
verify that what another posts is an authentic representation of that
person true beliefs and not a portrayal meant to achieve some ends only
known to the other? As a matter of practice we normally don't. It's
based on trust. But because of the perception (mistaken) that this
medium provides complete anonymity it very easy for anyone to abuse that
trust, many purposefully push the line and some intentionally break it.
Most times with trivial, but sometimes with far more serious or even
criminal consequences. Just another instance that 'points' to having a
personal philosophy based on a moral order might just be a 'better'
thing than being fluent in ethics but being unable to find any context
for their personal use.
3WD
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:58 BST