A Little Bedtime Story

One could argue that it was just "reckless indifference"
but then, Kane seems to be choosy about when that
takes place. Can there be a moral or ethical reason
for "reckless indifference" ?


Greegor wrote:
Doan: From his perpective it was most certainly
a moral and ethical lie.
His perceived ends justify any deceptive means.

Doan wrote:
If he has to resort to lies to support an agenda then
I would question the agenda. Doan

Greegor wrote:
One could argue that it was just "reckless indifference"
but then, Kane seems to be choosy about when that
takes place. Can there be a moral or ethical reason
for "reckless indifference" ?

....snip the diversionary Doanation.....

Yes, Greg, one could argue that. However what I invited you to do was
contact the owners of the website, and ask them to prove their story as
being true. Have you done so?

If not then you are prattling speculatively.

Your privilege, of course, but don't presume you know what you are
talking about, are logical, or have a real argument.

Let's see where you can take this.

If the hitting of the child's hand was in fact 'reckless indifference'
what effect would that have no the impact of the child presuming daddy
took her hand and could give it back if she'd just behave?

Or did you miss that point?

And the man's attempted suicide? Do you think that's not true?

One of the most powerful speakers on the risks of drug abuse (cocaine
in his case) came from a former wealthy stock broker, that had his
daughter for the weekend, (divorce), and put her to bed with the window
open in her room in his apartment, and proceeded to go on a toot.

He overdid it, woke the next morning to discover a very nasty icestorm
had blown in, and when he ran to check his daughter found her with a
raging fever.

She did in the hospital of pneumonia.

He did some jail time over it.

It pretty much took everything away from him.

I know he was not lying because I knew the parties involved, including
his Ex and the child.

Pretty extreme, eh?

And never in the newspaper either, oddly enough. But then a lot of
child abuse and death doesn't make it to the media, contrary to your
belief.

Now go find out if the folks with that site I linked to were lying or
not.

Okay?

Best to you as the holiday season approaches.

0:-]

On 10 Oct 2006, 0:- wrote:


Greegor wrote:
One could argue that it was just "reckless indifference"
but then, Kane seems to be choosy about when that
takes place. Can there be a moral or ethical reason
for "reckless indifference" ?

...snip the diversionary Doanation.....

Hihihi! IOW, you can't handle the truth!

Yes, Greg, one could argue that. However what I invited you to do was
contact the owners of the website, and ask them to prove their story as
being true. Have you done so?

Have you done so, Kane?

AF

Doan wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006, 0:- wrote:


Greegor wrote:
One could argue that it was just "reckless indifference"
but then, Kane seems to be choosy about when that
takes place. Can there be a moral or ethical reason
for "reckless indifference" ?

...snip the diversionary Doanation.....

Hihihi! IOW, you can't handle the truth!

Yes, Greg, one could argue that. However what I invited you to do was
contact the owners of the website, and ask them to prove their story as
being true. Have you done so?

Have you done so, Kane?

Nope, I'm neutral. It's you folks that bring your doubt.
You can follow up or not, at your descretion.

Have you done so, Doan?

Doubting without proof is a problem for you, not me.


AF

0:-]

On 11 Oct 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006, 0:- wrote:


Greegor wrote:
One could argue that it was just "reckless indifference"
but then, Kane seems to be choosy about when that
takes place. Can there be a moral or ethical reason
for "reckless indifference" ?

...snip the diversionary Doanation.....

Hihihi! IOW, you can't handle the truth!

Yes, Greg, one could argue that. However what I invited you to do was
contact the owners of the website, and ask them to prove their story as
being true. Have you done so?

Have you done so, Kane?

Nope, I'm neutral. It's you folks that bring your doubt.
You can follow up or not, at your descretion.

Have you done so, Doan?

I don't need to. Anyone with normal intelligent will see right through
the propaganda.

Doubting without proof is a problem for you, not me.

"Doubting without proof"???? That's a new one! ;-)

AF

Kane, I wasn't thinking about the Father in the fairy tale
committing reckeless indifference. That night have
been, if the story wasn't a FICTION.

I was thinking you perpetrated reckless indifference
by posting a heart rending propaganda story without
figuring out whether it is true or not.

Posting a bogus story without checking it doesn't
quite make you a liar, does it?

Was it moral or ethical?



Greegor wrote:
One could argue that it was just "reckless indifference"
but then, Kane seems to be choosy about when that
takes place. Can there be a moral or ethical reason
for "reckless indifference" ?


Greegor wrote:
Doan: From his perpective it was most certainly
a moral and ethical lie.
His perceived ends justify any deceptive means.

Doan wrote:
If he has to resort to lies to support an agenda then
I would question the agenda. Doan

Greegor wrote:
Kane, I wasn't thinking about the Father in the fairy tale

Your proof it's a 'fairy tale' would be?

committing reckeless indifference. That night have
been, if the story wasn't a FICTION.

We don't know. I don't, at any rate. Are you suggesting that no one
post anything here until all proof is in that it's exact, factual, and
true?

Please advise Doug of this new requirement of Greg the group
comptroler.

I was thinking you perpetrated reckless indifference
by posting a heart rending propaganda story without
figuring out whether it is true or not.

Really? That would lead one to believe that I intended harm. Or did not
care of anyone was harmed by reading the story.

What proof have you that that was my intent?

And what harm could come by someone reading the story and taking care
not to hit a child thereby?

Is a child going to lose a hand if they are NOT spanked?

Posting a bogus story without checking it doesn't
quite make you a liar, does it?

No, it does not. I made no such judgement. I simply posted the story,
and even labelled it "A Little Bedtime Story," leaving it up to the
reader, with THAT obvious clue, to take the story with a grain of salt.


It's YOU and Doan that wish to declare it a lie, a false story. While
I've not said one way or the other, but simply invited you to determine
yourself.

By making a positive claim about it as a lie YOU have obligated
yourself to prove it a lie.

Was it moral or ethical?

Of me? Sure. I labelled it accurately as being unknown as to it's
validity.

Surely you have read Bedtime Stories to children. Do you know for
certain that Humpty indeed had a great fall, or was he pushed? Did all
the Kings Horse and ALL the kinds men really try, or did they give up
to easily, and were some not even there, but off carousing with Queen
and her handmaidens.

Now, show where I exercised "reckless indifference" and that I claimed
the story was true, after calling it a bedtime story, or get honest for
once in your life and apologise for making false accusations against
me.

Or go find out for yourself if it were true or not.

Do you demand that everyone, by the way, provide full facts for their
claims here?

How is it you have not addressed Doan on this issue then?

Is your inconsistency honest, Greg? Or are you just expressing your
hatred and bias for someone that shows you to be a liar and fool, on a
regular basis?

0;-]


Greegor wrote:
One could argue that it was just "reckless indifference"
but then, Kane seems to be choosy about when that
takes place. Can there be a moral or ethical reason
for "reckless indifference" ?


Greegor wrote:
Doan: From his perpective it was most certainly
a moral and ethical lie.
His perceived ends justify any deceptive means.

Doan wrote:
If he has to resort to lies to support an agenda then
I would question the agenda. Doan

Burden of proof...

Greegor wrote:
Burden of proof...

Since I did not claim the story was true, or false, the burden goes to
those that do, one way or the other.

It seems you have repeatedly claimed that the story is not true.

Logically, you have the burden of proof then.

Thanks for playing.

By the way, I noticed that you never to my knowledge responded to my
question if you would lie, ethically, to protect someone's life and
physical safety.

Since you keep bringing up this question, when you have not established
that there IS such a premise relating to those you attack, I guess you
have yet another burden of proof, as well as a moral bias to deal with
about YOUR behavior in the circumstances I outlined.

Will I get a cogent answer?

Not likely.

0:-

#1. The child was left unattended in a
car. #2. The father needs some anger-
management courses. #3.Yes, it coud have been handled better. If you
have to spank, you do it for a worse offense, and
on the behind. Not on a small hand.


M.E.