[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
>>> others.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.)

sdw

-- 
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 mailing list