Date: 15/02/2018 01:35:32
From: transition
ID: 1188390
Subject: downstream in the pond

you make a nice intellectual argument, it’s a good one, others agree.

intellectually downstream though, in the pond it’s just material for moron entertainment.

you’re part of a force that downstream lends to something nasty.

what do you do about that?

are you morally responsible for that?

Reply Quote

Date: 15/02/2018 01:37:31
From: SCIENCE
ID: 1188393
Subject: re: downstream in the pond

i undertake empty philosophism

Reply Quote

Date: 15/02/2018 02:14:21
From: Michael V
ID: 1188398
Subject: re: downstream in the pond

transition said:


you make a nice intellectual argument, it’s a good one, others agree.

intellectually downstream though, in the pond it’s just material for moron entertainment.

you’re part of a force that downstream lends to something nasty.

what do you do about that?

are you morally responsible for that?

Eyes pop.

1. Thanks.

2. The comment seems to presume that most people are intellectually inferior (“in the pond”, “moron entertainment”). I have very seriously reservations about this presumption.

3. See 2. The use of “downstream”, in particular.

4. If I am part of a nasty force, then I haven’t explained myself well enough. I apologise now for my shortcomings.

5. What do I do? Be admonished, and try harder to explain myself better. (And have a quiet cry about not being good enough.)

6. I hope not, because I have tried to be otherwise. I dislike nastiness, and try hard not to be any part of it.

Reply Quote

Date: 15/02/2018 04:21:07
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1188414
Subject: re: downstream in the pond

transition said:


you make a nice intellectual argument, it’s a good one, others agree.

intellectually downstream though, in the pond it’s just material for moron entertainment.

you’re part of a force that downstream lends to something nasty.

what do you do about that?

are you morally responsible for that?

Let’s do a paradigm shift here and look at the opposite situation. Than flip it back.

I’d say “No”. And the same applies on the flip side to transition’s concerns. I can’t be held accountable.

Now let’s continue that with a case that is less black and white. The 1992 Los Angeles riots. “The unrest began in South Central Los Angeles on April 29, after a trial jury acquitted four officers of the Los Angeles Police Department for usage of excessive force in the arrest and beating of Rodney King, which had been videotaped and widely viewed in TV broadcasts. The rioting spread throughout the Los Angeles (etc.) This led to 63 deaths and 12,111 arrests.” Is the trial jury, or are other people in the courtroom, morally responsible for the deaths and destruction in the riots?

Again, I’d say “No”, the real culprits are the TV broadcasters, who deliberately fermented the anger that fuelled the riots. Others might disagree with me here.

Reply Quote

Date: 15/02/2018 16:11:25
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1188604
Subject: re: downstream in the pond

> fermented

I meant formented. You know what I mean.

Reply Quote