[FoRK] Re: The Shift...
Stephen D. Williams
sdw at lig.net
Thu May 26 20:11:10 PDT 2005
Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Jeff Bone wrote:
>> Jim says:
>>> "Jefferson fought against slavery all his life. Even in the
>>> Declaration of Independence, he had inserted in the original draft a
>>> section condemning the slave-trade, but that was deleted by Congress."
>> Is it hypocrisy to give up an impossible fight to achieve bigger and
>> more important goals?
>>> Perhaps the same can be thought of the smoking issue. Its not
>>> possible to
>>> eliminate workplace risk in all industries, but perhaps it's
>>> possible to
>>> eliminate one risk (smoking) in one (restaurants/bars), and create
>>> such a
>>> well-known example that it starts raising questions about practices
>>> in the
>> I'm not buying it.
>> The goal of the prohibitionists is not about eliminating risk *for
>> others.* It's just not, Jim. I believe that in your heart you know
>> this just as well as I do. In your heart you know this is bald
>> hypocrisy, and I'm embarrassed for you that you're continuing to
>> advance this extremely specious "argument."
>> And it's not about *eliminating personal risk* either. It is
>> solely, purely, and completely a function of two things: an
>> activist minority
> Everyone serves their master. To give their life meaning. 'god',
> 'family', 'nation', 'nature', 'environment', 'technology', 'hedonism',
> whatever. Pick your cause de jour; these do gooders are not serving
> anyone but their own sense of self.
I would have put it differently, but yes, you have to choose between
"do-good", "do-nothing", and "do-bad", right? Aka: construct / create /
reverse entropy / increase pleasure/happiness, consume / waste life /
take up space, destruct / destroy / make miserable.
What is the viable alternative to a "do gooder"? Perhaps you are
arguing with the connotation of interfering with others, which arguably
is a negative mixed with a positive goal. In that case, I agree that it
is bad, however the analysis must be made whether there is an overriding
positive or not. (I agree that interfering with others may not be
supportable; still, when it does have effects on the interferer,
progeny, and society as a whole, it is not pure meddlesomeness.)
swilliams at hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw at lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
More information about the FoRK