Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
To admit to not know something is an honest and upright thing to do, as long as you know that the people who are listening to you are not going to use it against you.
|
In other words, it is the right thing to do except when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable or doesn't suit your purpose. That is some fine situational ethics right there. For someone who tends to see things in absolutes your ethics are remarkably flexible when your own self-interest is at stake. |
You would do the same thing Angakuk if you knew people were twisting your words, or going to use something against you unfairly. It has nothing to do with convenience or comfort at the expense of honesty. It has to do with motive, and people have been very quick to judge based on standards that have nothing to do with the knowledge being presented. People in this thread do this a lot. They judge a person based on his formal credentials which may not have any bearing on what he actually knows. Just like Lessans said: 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 8 has nothing to do with where you went to school or what you happen to do for a living. They judge according to what side of an issue a person is on (an us against them mentality), and then feel justified calling him all kinds of names, which gives them a false sense of superiority. Can't you see why I had to weasel at times (I had no free choice in the matter
) due to the fact that I believed the questions, just like in an interrogation, were aimed at finding me guilty of willful ignorance so the book could be thrown out?