Well, previous post I made, well the first one that is, created a little response. Quite a few views and strangely even some correspondence which surprised me. Thanks for that. As a result there's two posts in the first day...and maybe now a long stretch with none, who knows. 60 views in less than 6 hours...I is a bit stunned :-)
Ahh the issue of when is lying ok, when is deceit and intellectual treachery ok?
First up some screen shots were discussed. They were from a discussion on FB on what I think is either a pro or anti Live Export page on face book. The exchange between two parties, one pro & one anti Live Export was actually very entertaining...well humorous. Well we won't use names because that's not nice, instead you can view this as a hypothetical if you wish. We'll call pro live export person "R" and anti Live Export "S". Two adjoining members of the alphabet is all ;-)
So S makes the comment about the loading of livestock onto a livestock vessel. There's a number of other comments from other people interspersing the flow, several conversations are happening but its not hard to keep track of the issue our first and only correspondent wanted to highlight.
"R" asks "S" about the access to the wharf area. Now here's an interesting comment it was stated by "S" that this was made easy because it "it helps to know police and other key personnel"
Its pretty much from this point onwards that "R" must have smelt a rat and asks "S" how access was even possible because its a no access area to the public. Now I shouldn't laugh but this is why telling the truth is so much easier and as we all know, bulldusters need to first stop digging when they find themselves in a hole, but generally they don't. This was a train wreck of bulldust session as "S" made a quick off the cuff comment that its probably in a different area to where "R" lives so rules will probably vary in different parts of the country.
I guess at this point "R" smells rat & must have seen the rat in all its rat glory. He then asked quite a number of times, very politely if "S" has a MSI card. It did take quite some time, but eventually "R" got the answer "S" replied no.
I guess in the mind of "R", in front of his/her keyboard the almighty loud thud of a trap slamming shut on a rat head was bringing tears of joy to him/her. Reading it brings tears of laughter to me. Whether you are pro or anti Live Export or for that matter pro or anti any issue, best thing to do is not bull dust. Lying means you have to keep lying and that's actually quite hard because it damage control deception non stop, where as telling the truth is simple easy and in the long run far more fruitful.
Now "R" commented that all ports, all wharves where international trade happens, ship loading etc is restricted access area, that there is no exception and entry is prohibited by non MSIC people in non work related instances. Had a quick dig to check. Its quite correct. If you do not have a state and federal police check pass and do not have a job related need to be on the port you are breaking federal law. There's quite a hefty penalty or two. All thanks to 9-11. Can you access the wharf without an MSIC. Well kinda. You have to be there for the purposes of work, not tourism, not sight seeing, nothing except the work you are gainfully employed to carry out. You must stay within several metres of an accredited MSIC Card holder who vouches for you. It does happen, but its quite uncommon and any other access is illegal. Police, customs, emergency services generally do not have MSIC cards but have port access cards, but again they can only enter in work related circumstances, not checking on the loading of livestock or showing an animal activist livestock loading.
"R" called "S" out along the lines of 'well did you illegally trespass onto federally controlled restricted access area or did you bull dust to try and win a quick cheap point on facebook?' (paraphrased by me for brevity) No reply and since then "S" has taken to calling the comments as fatuous and defamatory. It is absolutely hilarious.
Its been presented to "S" by several other people since apparently, even once as a hypothetical (not by "R") and even the hypothetical with no names mention did not go down well. No straight answer.
To be fair, how can there be a straight answer. If I had bulldusted my pants off, how could I possibly pretend my legs weren't showing???
It raises a core issue Mr Screen Shot Sender was keen on exploring. When one is passionate about a cause or issue, is it ok to lie to try and get your way...even if its in a lowly mean-nothing internet stoush?
Some folk will have differing views possibly, but perhaps I'm old fashioned in thinking that today, as much as any time, in any era, in any age...CHARACTER MATTERS, INTEGRITY MATTERS.
At the end of the day, don't take a claim as face value if it could have longer term impacts. Ask for the data, ask for backing and check the source of the claim (which is really a "truth claim") if what they're saying is legit or whether its bogus bag of bulldust being used to bolster a flagging and failing point of view.
Before you get to that point ask yourself, if a person cannot be trusted on a small issue in debate that doesn't result in any real change, can they be trusted in anything. I had dinner at an event some years ago with a very prominent senior government minister...who was a little tempered with the wine that evening. Turns out he left the event to spend the evening with his mistress. His wife was I would guess home several hundred kilometres away, but he was able to get his mistress there. I now wonder, if his wife cannot trust him, why should I? When it all eventually came out, the marriage imploded and it was pressed & labelled as a personal issue. Perhaps the transgression was, however the integrity and character we're gone, definitely dissolved long before the marriage officially was. Is it wrong to ask for character and integrity in high office and low office?
Lying is it ok?
Well if we use some of the criteria from before lets see.
(LAW) - Well no and if it goes to court then definitely no. Can people be prosecuted for lying, well if its a part of the commission of crime, well indirectly yes. As in fraud, false evidence etc but if I say I went to the last Rolling Stones concert but I didn't then no...it is not a criminal offence.
(ETHICAL) - Well yes kind of is wrong, if its to do with ones work, trade or profession for example. A lawyer, a doctor, company director, executives, the list goes on...those with Codes of Practice or Codes of Ethics can easily lie but they'd be doing something ethically wrong. So no. If a lawyer or board member of an ASX Top 100 company told me he/she went to the last Rolling Stones concert when in fact they were having an affair they can still be doing ethically wrong because many of them have codes of practice, codes of ethics which surround them not just in court or in the board room. These are positions we would expect integrity and character to be first.
(MORALLY) - Again we split this into a couple of camps. Devout people of the "insert your chosen" faith would have to look to their Moral Authority. Quite easy for Christians, lying is against the Creators instructions, so yep its simple, easy & straight forward...lying is MORALLY wrong. Can for example Christians then lie? You bet. Their dogma is quite clear, they're not perfect, they are fallen, they are not worthy and there's nothing they can do on their own bat to be worthy...they're "not perfect, they're forgiven". So yes pretty sure there's been plenty of Christians who have killed, stolen lied, whatever...but those things are MORALLY wrong even if they were sanctioned by the ruler of the day (i.e. legal)
Other thought not lost via the screen shots, was "S" being a caught liar and thinking morals are a personal thing still believed the cause or trade she found most disgusting and disagreeable was "immoral & unethical" yet telling porkies, not very well researched ones, glaringly obvious ones when you sit back and look is ok. I don't know what the worldview according to "S" is, but its imploded and crumbled upon itself at any rate. If morals are a personal thing, then believing in a creator and moral authority are rather slim. If "S" is follower of natural relativism/atheism then "S" kinda actually has a leg to stand on strangely. Anything is fair to get you in front of the other person or thing. Lying has no consequence because we're all animals, evolved through chance and its dog eat dog. Laws and ethics are man made and pretty handy but morals really are fake and all three can be ignored if there's good chance you can get away with it. Fortunately most atheists aren't like this at all. Fortunately most of them are as altruistic and community centred as people of faith.
Of course the leg that "S" has to stand on only works for fellow atheists of the most hedonistic type who agree with her view on the issue. Well those and those who fail to scratch the surface, load fresh batteries in the BS Detector and generally do the absurd thing and test truth claims.
No lying is not ok to win a point or to further an issue. Even more so a moral social issue.
I'm reminded of the young lass who posted her own video on Youtube about the Fremantle rally. She cited some very serious claims of corruption in regards to police response & trucks driving over their protest. The lass got quite wound up. You watch and view for yourselves, make a discerning judgement by viewing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM5KvyaKpDo&noredirect=1
The video is 10 minutes long and I think worth watching, but if you want just have a laugh at something sad, view Jacinta at the 6min mark. I hope she isn't a law student. I have to say the police were pretty good, despite people running onto the road in front of traffic and ignoring police instructions. Dunno who the coppers were, but we're in safe hands if they're all cool heads like those police on the day. Her claim was they blocked of the bridge, not sure if she meant the truck drivers or the police or both but whichever is her intent, its false & misleading...check the video and see who cause the trucks to stop.
In the words of the greatest philosophical genius the world has ever seen (Alexi Sayle) "its a funny ol' world innit?"
No comments:
Post a Comment