O'Reilly evidence

From reading some of Phatboy's posts, it's clear he's a caring, giving individual. I think he does exactly what you suggest.I don't do much of anything for others. I try to avoid criticizing others about things like this, unless I truly believe I back up my criticism with actions, i.e. I literally do what I criticize them for not doing. There's intellectual discussion, and then there's true action. I don't think you should be saying this unless you're "doing what you can to assist." I listen to Phat because he's no blowhard; he puts his money where his mouth is.Without knowing what you, Rrhain, do to assist those in need around the world, I have no idea how much credibility to put into what you said here. I'd much appreciate (and I think it's the right thing to do) to tell us a bit about how you yourself put your words into action.I hope you can understand and honor this request. I've done my best to describe my motives and intentions respectfully.Ben

Rrhain, This is exactly what I tried to avoid. I tried to tell you that I know about me, I know about Phat, but I don't know about you. I can't judge. So I ask. I'm sorry I failed to communicate this fairly straightforward item. I don't know anything about you, I have no reason to call you a hypocrite. I tried to avoid implying that you're a hypocrite, but I found that (given the limited language ability I have) it depended more on reader interpretation than any modification I could make. And when it comes to intellectual discussion about math or science, that's fine. But when it comes to discussions on ethics and especially talking about how we should act, I think how people themselves act is just as important as what they say. For me, "veracity" is not the only important thing in ethics. Another important thing about having an ethic is to put it into action. I like to hear about people's ethics, IF I know they are doing what they can to put it into action. So I asked you. There's so many ways to "give." It's your ethic; it'd be great to hear of your living example of how you do it. Well, of course, if I've read enough to know Phat well enough, I pretty much know your approach too. Your response isn't at all disappointing. It's almost exactly what I expected. I'm sorry about that. I knew there was a good chance that you'd think so, but because I respect your posts intellectually, I went out on a limb, just to see if I would be more interested in your ethic.To be fair, I also posted because you (someone who I don't know how to think of your ethic, because I don't know you) were questioning the ethic of Phat (someeone whose ethic I already respect). I couldn't fairly understand your critique without knowing more about you. For me, it's important that every question is able to be asked. Of course it's fine to answer "I'm not going to tell you." I don't think asking is disrespectful, I think it's simply the manner in which the question is asked.I bent over backwards trying to ask in a polite way. I'm sorry I failed in your eyes. I outlined my "logical justification" above. This is how I judge whether or not to be interested in someone's ethic. Not that I want to involve somebody else in this, but one reason I'm interested in (for example) holmes' posts, especially those on ethics, is because I find him very consistent and feel that he genuinely follows the ethics that he writes about here.You may not judge ethics the same way as me, but in my eyes that's just a personal preference.If you want to see how I put my words into action, read this. It's the opening post to a thread I started simply based off emotion. Of course that's your right. That's all you had to say, brother.Ben[edited to more clearly state my purpose in initially responding, and to add a link to another post of mine]This message has been edited by Ben, Saturday, 2005/04/02 06:46 PM

This "feels" off-topic to continue this discussion here, but I've no idea what to do about it. So I'll just post my thoughts and pretend like I didn't even realize that we're way off-topic. Maybe if I say "we're 'promoting' this thread by bumping the 'activity meter,' then I can justify my off-threadedness?" Maybe not.Rrhain, I simply tried to say that I don't know you. Of course, that makes me doubt as to whether or not you carry out your philosophy. Rather than assume, I ask a question.It really is that simple. Anyway, successful communication requires matching the intent of the speaker with the assumptions of the reader. Clearly my intent didn't match your assumptions, there's a failure in communication. I think we can leave it at that. On here, many people (notable to me are jar and Arach) take the philosophy of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Since my philosophy is to "put your money where your mouth is," I did that. I didn't expect you to care at all. Actually, it's your "calling me on it" that I find slightly annoying. I STILL haven't judged you; I don't have enough information to do it. All I've determined is that, since I don't know about your actions, that your words about ethics don't mean much to me. So I'll choose to ignore them.If you read the previous post again, maybe you'll see that I was trying to show respect. As I said, I was interested in your ethics in the first place because I respect your logical thinking. (Repeating again) But for me, the action has to be there too. Otherwise I don't have respect for the person, and I lose interest in their ethics. Ethics is not a purely logical enterprise in my eyes.To state again, I haven't judged you or "lost respect" for you. I don't know enough about you to have a thought either way. I'm not claiming that it matters to you either.That's a lot of disclaimers. Dude, lighten up. When it comes to things based on logic, I agree. Ethics is not a logical enterprise. Ethics is all about how people act. You can use your brain to think about the best way to act. But how people implement things, and how they think about things, is different. Things that you think about in the brain never pan out the way you thought in real life. It's the difference between declarative, symbolic knowledge and non-declarative, unconscious action / skill / knowledge. In my experience, trying to live your own "logical" ethic gives you invaluable insight into if it's reasonable or not. After all, ethics is about how people act. There's so little point in an "idealist" ethic. Ethics is a practical enterprise.I'd be happy to discuss it more clearly and fully in another thread. Open one up (or tell me to do it) if you're interested. That's poorly thought out and written by me. I actually changed this in edit, but I guess you were already reading / posting. You're right, that's just poor quality posting on my part. And that's why I don't feel bad in offending you. What people find offensive is often not shared, and can be diametrically opposed. Usually when people live within the same "culture" they share the same idea of "offensive," but that obviously didn't happen here. That's the way the cookie crumbles. I didn't mean to offend you, but I'd do the same thing again. It's up to us to find a way to work together and tolerate each other. No, I want to judge you based on my idea of morality in order to decide whether or not your ideas on ethics are worthwhile to me. You choose not to tell me what I was interested in hearing, and so I'm not so interested in hearing your ideas on ethics. The onus is on me to ignore that kind of post.Discussing "HOW to think about ethics" is a different matter. I AM interested to discuss that with you.Ben