[ExI] Who is safe?
bbenzai at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 13 15:55:29 UTC 2010
Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>However, as this person pointed out, the order not to read Wikileaks
>materials is rational. We have the example of PFC Manning who read
>them and was turned against the US by what he read in those cables,
>not to mention the gunship video.
You're saying that it makes sense for someone who has a certain loyalty to some organisation to refrain from reading certain material, because it contains evidence that might destroy or at least strain, that loyalty?
I don't call that 'rational' at all! It's more like being told to bury your head in the sand, and asking "how high?" (my hobby: mixing metaphors to breaking point).
If nothing else, it's a bloody good reason to read the stuff!
OK, maybe making the order is rational. Marginally. Obeying it is not, though, and neither is expecting anyone to obey it.
To acquiesce is pretty much admitting that you don't care if you support a corrupt system, and don't even want to know. It's not rational, and imo, it's immoral.
This seems to have a pretty close parallel with mediaeval parishioners being kept from reading the bible, by priests who realise how much it will 'test their faith'.
More information about the extropy-chat