[ExI] Yes Sam Harris Can

[Stefano Vaj]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 5:54 PM, <aiguy at comcast.net> wrote:

> My Reponse:
>
> The practical requirement to stay with a church in order to get elected is
>
>
> a byproduct or the wishes of the majority.  And the will of the majority
> and their
>
> right to vote for a candidate they are comfortable with is what demcarcy
> is all about.
>
>
Sure. I happen to select my employees, as it is my right. Candidates are
selected through majority votes, as it is the people rights. Neither
scenario tell us if my human resources selection process or the democratic
election process actually pick the right people in a given circumstance, or
prevent independent observers (say, a consultant) from criticising the way
the exercise of the right was directed. :-)

The honor and honesty of a candidate should always be considered and
> explored because
>
> without those nothing else the candidate tells us can have any meaning.
>
>
There again, taking your previous statement at face value, shouldn't be the
majority to decide about that? The truth is that there is much worse than
dishonesty, as much as we may find it disgusting in a politician (and I
certainly do). Well-intentioned stupids, e.g., are at least as dangerous;
and I not only respect, but find plausible, the fact that people are often
ready to accept a modicum of disingenousness if the alternative is crazy
fundamentalism or utter incompetence.

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080326/137c0b19/attachment.html>