From: Dr Sebby (drsebby@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 15 2003 - 04:43:59 MST
...in some ways this is the dumbest debate i've seen in a long time.
"integrity" is soooooooo up to interpretation that it's ridiculous to
discuss. does the anti-abortionist gauge his peer's integrity on whether or
not he is willing to risk the law in opposing pro-choice legislation? e.g.
killing an abortion doctor?
...im sure such issues have been brought up already (i tired of reading this
subject) , so what are the parameters by which youre operating? what keeps
this discussion alive?
....how's this for establishing my integrity; "i shall do exactly as i feel
i am in the mood to do, whenever that mood shall strike me. on this you may
depend." how's that?
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Kalkor" <kalkor@kalkor.com>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: New virian virtue
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:04:26 -0800
[Metahuman]
<snip>
The knight is a hypocrite for he has sworn allegiance to his lord yet has
gone against his will. However, the knight is honorable (integrity) because
he remains adherent to the Code of Chivalry which was esteemed far higher
than allegiance to a particular lord.
[Kalkor]
So what you're saying, in effect, is:
1) The knight esteems the Code of Chivalry higher that allegiance to his
lord.
2) When faced with a dilemma between the two (obeying the code of chivalry
or obeying the lord), the knight choses the one he esteems more.
That is internal consistency. Whichever way he choses, he lacks integrity
(unless he can obey both, as promised - integrity). But if he choses the
lord, he's chosing the code that he esteems LESS, which is hypocrisy. Lack
of internal consistency.
[Metahuman]
I suppose by Kalkor's logic the soldier who enlists in the Marines and
enters a warzone, saves the lives of his fellow soldiers against the orders
of his commander is a man of little integrity. ::) Silly logic, Kalkor.
[Kalkor]
Your analogy fails to take into account point #1, which paraphrases you,
above. Your inability to construct analogy does not constitute "silliness"
on my part. Try again.
[Metahuman]
<snip>
Back to Kalkor's logic now that I have thought about this a bit more...
Kalkor assumes that consistency and integrity are different enough to
dilineate. They are not. Although according to simul, integrity is the
opposite of hypocrisy which would make Kalkor right, however, simul's
definition of integrity lacks correctness meaning that Kalkor's assertion is
based on the false assumpton that simul's definition is correct.
<snip>
[Kalkor]
Ahhhhh. I assume, eh? In fact, they are surely different enough to
delineate. They have separate entries in all the dictionaries I've checked.
I even checked a thesaurus. The closest those two words came to each other
were as synonyms for "coherence" (as in "structural integrity").
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=consistency
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=integrity
"...according to simul, integrity is the opposite of hypocrisy..."
"...Kalkor's assertion is based on the false assumpton that simul's
definition is correct."
And how exactly do you explain the fact that I've been arguing that
integrity is NOT the opposite of hypocrisy?
Now, your problem with my "assumption" about consistency, above, probably
comes about from your not reading EVERY word in the sentence. "Internal
Consistency" is what I said, not just "consistency.” Or, as the CoV puts it:
http://virus.lucifer.com/sins.html
and
http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/hypocrisy
“When our actions reflect inconsistent beliefs we are guilty of hypocrisy.”
In the example, inconsistent beliefs can be as simple as professing a belief
that animal testing of beauty products is bad, but then using beauty
products that are developed with animal testing.
Or holding a Code of Chivalry higher than Allegiance to Lord, but then
chosing to follow the path of Allegience to Lord instead of the Code of
Chivalry.
Having two conflicting obligations and then chosing one... while this is not
hypocricy as long as the one chosen is the one believed to be more important
or good or right or whatever... this IS however lack of integrity because an
obligation is broken. A promise made and then not fulfilled shows a lack of
integrity. Not hypocrisy.
Kalkor
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 15 2003 - 04:44:31 MST