« Retraction | Main | Phone Calls! »

June 05, 2007

Comments

jkrudis: "You have a committment to your spouse and family, and if you can't even be trusted within your closest circle of responsibility, why should you be trusted outside it?"

People have different ideas about what sorts of trusts they're willing to break. Maybe a man who'll make a pun will pick your pocket, but maybe not.

"You have a committment to your spouse and family, and if you can't even be trusted within your closest circle of responsibility, why should you be trusted outside it?"

Probably because people's beliefs as to what they've committed to and how strongly they've committed vary wildly from one category of commitment to the next.

Insisting that people regard all of their committments and obligations -- particularly as seen by someone else -- as of identical seriousness, and that people always act on that basis, is clearly factually in error. Most people don't actu in that way.

Therefore acting on a basis of a factually incorrect assumption is of questionable usefulness.

Holding the opinion that people should act that way, in your opinion, isn't the same as accurately describing how people behave.

In point of fact, most adulterers are not also embezzlers, thieves, or otherwise particularly untrustworthy. If you have factual evidence to prove, or even indicate, otherwise, please do put it forward.

Otherwise, you're free to act on your preferences, but your stated reasoning seems to lead to factually incorrect conclusions.

Out of curiosity, may I ask if you've ever told someone something that wasn't entirely true (lied, proving you are untrustworthy in all situations forever thereafter), or have you ever taken home a pencil or pen or some Post-It notes from work (you're a thief, and can't ever be trusted to not steal everyhing)?

If your answers are "no," that's admirable, but I think you'll find that if that's the standard, some 90%+ of the human race is untrustworthy by your standard.

jrudkis, FWIW, when I ask someone to recommend an attorney or an accountant, I want them to recommend based on their professional skills and behavior, not their private life. Your admission that for you their private life takes priority over their professional skills suggests that no one should ever ask you for a professional recommendation.

And I still want to know if you just never recommend or hire women as accountants or attorneys, or if you consider that a woman can be unfaithful to her spouse without it affecting your opinion of her honesty.

How is this any different from any hostile work place claim, where those performing sexual favors get professional benefits that others do not?

First, you'd have to prove that Lewinsky wouldn't have had the access or connections she had if she'd not been having an affair with the President. Somehow I doubt you can do that, but if you've got the evidence, feel free to cite it.

On topic: I thought I'd read that today was the day we find out if Libby is going to jail or if he gets to remain free until Bush pardons him, uh, until he finishes the appeals process.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad