The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It has often been said that we are living in the age of cynicism. Admittedly, I usually hear this being said to me pretty soon after I’ve spent a drunken 20 minutes seething about the shortcomings of whichever politician/religious leader/media outlet has aroused my ire on that particular day. And that is usually followed up by “Just chill out for Gods sake; have you always managed to get personally offended by broad social trends?”. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that our current society is regarded as unforgivably cynical by almost every commentator who can be bothered to raise the issue.
It is, of course, incredibly simple to come up with an explanation for this; it’s the fault of the politicians/religious leaders/media outlets for being such a bunch of weasel-faced, conniving, self-serving mongtards. Isn’t it?
Well, to a certain degree I suppose yes, it is. But if you were to walk up to any of the above and ask “Do you see yourself as a weasel-faced, self serving…”, I would doubt very much that you would get the reflective pause followed by the “Since you put it like that, yes I am” answer that one would quite naturally hope for. In fact, shortly before you were hauled off by stewards for asking awkward questions, you would probably find that the target of your question would be rather upset at being thought of in such a way. Everyone likes to think of himself or herself as a basically good person. So why are so many people in positions of responsibility such inveterate splatters of cockjuice?
My answer would be that it is a matter of integrity. More accurately, it is a matter of the upper echelons of society having a serious lack of it. Come to think of it, it is a matter of every single layer of society not having much, if any, integrity.
So what, after having insulted pretty much everyone in the world with that last statement, do I mean? Well, to give an example; both Dubya and Blair claim to be “good” Christians (has anyone ever claimed to be a sub-standard Christian?). They say that the guiding light of what they do comes from the teachings of Jesus. Yet having read chunks of the Bible, I entirely missed the section where our Lord and Saviour launched a pre-emptive strike against another country which lead to the deaths of tens of thousands. I don’t recall Christ being desperately keen to send soldiers to their deaths (as, according to one of his aides, Tony Blair was). And I’m absolutely certain that he didn’t condone torture as a valid method of dealing with people who won’t admit to being a terrorist.
In other words, whilst they are both saying one thing, it’s pretty damned clear that they’re doing another. But do they sit rubbing their hands with demonic glee at how they’ve mislead the public into giving support for their blatant grab for oil? Although it’s a tempting image, I don’t really think they are. I think they genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, even though a mounting body count and an increasingly angry nation would seem to indicate otherwise. The same would go for the shower of schiessekopfs who make up the various Arabic terrorist groups; call me picky, but I can’t really see how blasting innocent people into tiny little pieces is an adequate demonstration of Allah’s mercy and compassion.
What I’m saying is that all of these leaders lack the integrity to DO what they SAY. They’ve fooled themselves into believing that their actions are entirely in keeping with their faith and their beliefs.
They are, of course, not the only politicians to lack the courage of their professed convictions, and that is almost certainly why politics is regarded with disgust (when regarded at all) by most members of the public. In fact I’m hard pressed to think of a politician who actually stuck to their principles, rather than abandoning them in the name of advancement. Robin Cook is one, and George Galloway another (a fact that never fails to elicit howls of rage from the various New Labour slogan-bleaters). I was going to add Alan Clark to that list, but I suppose he never really had many convictions beyond “get into government, and the pants of as many women as possible”.
We’ve also seen the sham that is “the integrity of the independent media” in recent times; the speed at which the BBC backed down over the Hutton enquiry was rather embarrassing (although that pails into comparison beside our national habit of “building ‘em up then knocking ‘em down”). The media still claim to be doing their best to keep the public informed about the issues that matter. Who actually believes that? Was anyone in the tiniest bit shocked or scandalised by the “revelation” that Kate Moss takes cocaine? It’s right up there with the news that Michelle McManus likes her pies in terms of genuine news value (it’s also a valuable lesson that any woman over the age of 30 should know better than to be successful AND attractive; that’ll teach her, eh?).
Yet this is what we are offered as evidence of the media’s claim to be the watchdog of a democratic society. What a steaming pile; they’ve become the prurient watchdog of a Daily Mail morality, nothing more. Where’s the integrity there? When one looks at the warmed-through pile of shark vomit that is offered to us in place of actual news, is it any wonder that we are all so monumentally cynical about pretty much every aspect of life?
Yet for all the criticism I offer of world leaders and nebulous organisations, I can’t in all good conscience, excuse either the public at large, or myself. How many of us have sat there and ignored a friend making a racist joke? How many of us have actually laughed at one? Yet would any of you stand up and say “Yes, I’m proud to be a hater of all skin-hues darker than mine!”? How many people can justify their lack of integrity on the grounds of irony (do you claim to value human life, but prone to laughing at jokes about disasters involving massive loss of human life? Welcome to the Ironic Club!).
Even as I look back on that paragraph, it’s fairly obvious why we don’t have the integrity to speak out against such things; it’s because we all want to be accepted. We don’t want to rock the boat. On a personal level, I lacked the integrity to confront my former girlfriend about just why things were going quite so horribly wrong in our relationship. I smiled, made all the appropriate “I love you” noises, and hoped the bad times would go away. That lack of integrity preserved the status quo, but helped neither her nor I in the long run. Although I did the standard Man thing of blaming her entirely (naturally), there’s no way at all that I can excuse myself from my share of the blame (and, several years later, I no longer do). Thus, I can claim to have regained my integrity (and my face-punchingly annoying sense of smugness).
There is a balance to be struck, I suppose, between maintaining ones integrity in the face of peer pressure, and not becoming a humourless zealot who expresses that integrity by peering down their nose at whomever doesn’t meet expectations. I know that I can’t say I strike that balance at all times. But I can also say that I haven’t irrevocably ruined (or ended) lives because of it. I’d be interested to know what the justifications are of the people and organisations I’ve spent this rant attacking are. I’ll place a large bet that they don’t stand up to scrutiny.
It is, of course, incredibly simple to come up with an explanation for this; it’s the fault of the politicians/religious leaders/media outlets for being such a bunch of weasel-faced, conniving, self-serving mongtards. Isn’t it?
Well, to a certain degree I suppose yes, it is. But if you were to walk up to any of the above and ask “Do you see yourself as a weasel-faced, self serving…”, I would doubt very much that you would get the reflective pause followed by the “Since you put it like that, yes I am” answer that one would quite naturally hope for. In fact, shortly before you were hauled off by stewards for asking awkward questions, you would probably find that the target of your question would be rather upset at being thought of in such a way. Everyone likes to think of himself or herself as a basically good person. So why are so many people in positions of responsibility such inveterate splatters of cockjuice?
My answer would be that it is a matter of integrity. More accurately, it is a matter of the upper echelons of society having a serious lack of it. Come to think of it, it is a matter of every single layer of society not having much, if any, integrity.
So what, after having insulted pretty much everyone in the world with that last statement, do I mean? Well, to give an example; both Dubya and Blair claim to be “good” Christians (has anyone ever claimed to be a sub-standard Christian?). They say that the guiding light of what they do comes from the teachings of Jesus. Yet having read chunks of the Bible, I entirely missed the section where our Lord and Saviour launched a pre-emptive strike against another country which lead to the deaths of tens of thousands. I don’t recall Christ being desperately keen to send soldiers to their deaths (as, according to one of his aides, Tony Blair was). And I’m absolutely certain that he didn’t condone torture as a valid method of dealing with people who won’t admit to being a terrorist.
In other words, whilst they are both saying one thing, it’s pretty damned clear that they’re doing another. But do they sit rubbing their hands with demonic glee at how they’ve mislead the public into giving support for their blatant grab for oil? Although it’s a tempting image, I don’t really think they are. I think they genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, even though a mounting body count and an increasingly angry nation would seem to indicate otherwise. The same would go for the shower of schiessekopfs who make up the various Arabic terrorist groups; call me picky, but I can’t really see how blasting innocent people into tiny little pieces is an adequate demonstration of Allah’s mercy and compassion.
What I’m saying is that all of these leaders lack the integrity to DO what they SAY. They’ve fooled themselves into believing that their actions are entirely in keeping with their faith and their beliefs.
They are, of course, not the only politicians to lack the courage of their professed convictions, and that is almost certainly why politics is regarded with disgust (when regarded at all) by most members of the public. In fact I’m hard pressed to think of a politician who actually stuck to their principles, rather than abandoning them in the name of advancement. Robin Cook is one, and George Galloway another (a fact that never fails to elicit howls of rage from the various New Labour slogan-bleaters). I was going to add Alan Clark to that list, but I suppose he never really had many convictions beyond “get into government, and the pants of as many women as possible”.
We’ve also seen the sham that is “the integrity of the independent media” in recent times; the speed at which the BBC backed down over the Hutton enquiry was rather embarrassing (although that pails into comparison beside our national habit of “building ‘em up then knocking ‘em down”). The media still claim to be doing their best to keep the public informed about the issues that matter. Who actually believes that? Was anyone in the tiniest bit shocked or scandalised by the “revelation” that Kate Moss takes cocaine? It’s right up there with the news that Michelle McManus likes her pies in terms of genuine news value (it’s also a valuable lesson that any woman over the age of 30 should know better than to be successful AND attractive; that’ll teach her, eh?).
Yet this is what we are offered as evidence of the media’s claim to be the watchdog of a democratic society. What a steaming pile; they’ve become the prurient watchdog of a Daily Mail morality, nothing more. Where’s the integrity there? When one looks at the warmed-through pile of shark vomit that is offered to us in place of actual news, is it any wonder that we are all so monumentally cynical about pretty much every aspect of life?
Yet for all the criticism I offer of world leaders and nebulous organisations, I can’t in all good conscience, excuse either the public at large, or myself. How many of us have sat there and ignored a friend making a racist joke? How many of us have actually laughed at one? Yet would any of you stand up and say “Yes, I’m proud to be a hater of all skin-hues darker than mine!”? How many people can justify their lack of integrity on the grounds of irony (do you claim to value human life, but prone to laughing at jokes about disasters involving massive loss of human life? Welcome to the Ironic Club!).
Even as I look back on that paragraph, it’s fairly obvious why we don’t have the integrity to speak out against such things; it’s because we all want to be accepted. We don’t want to rock the boat. On a personal level, I lacked the integrity to confront my former girlfriend about just why things were going quite so horribly wrong in our relationship. I smiled, made all the appropriate “I love you” noises, and hoped the bad times would go away. That lack of integrity preserved the status quo, but helped neither her nor I in the long run. Although I did the standard Man thing of blaming her entirely (naturally), there’s no way at all that I can excuse myself from my share of the blame (and, several years later, I no longer do). Thus, I can claim to have regained my integrity (and my face-punchingly annoying sense of smugness).
There is a balance to be struck, I suppose, between maintaining ones integrity in the face of peer pressure, and not becoming a humourless zealot who expresses that integrity by peering down their nose at whomever doesn’t meet expectations. I know that I can’t say I strike that balance at all times. But I can also say that I haven’t irrevocably ruined (or ended) lives because of it. I’d be interested to know what the justifications are of the people and organisations I’ve spent this rant attacking are. I’ll place a large bet that they don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Page:
> Light wrote:
> As I said, I'm not talking about judging anyone.
Light wrote:
>
> So then, how does one measure whether or not they truly have
> integrity?
Well, it seems that you are.
> As I said, I'm not talking about judging anyone.
Light wrote:
>
> So then, how does one measure whether or not they truly have
> integrity?
Well, it seems that you are.
Light wrote:
>
>
> Freedom to say what? Freedom to say someone should be held as a role
> model? That's not freedom; that's imposing an arbitary standard on
> someone else.
It's using the freedom of speech to suggest such a thing. Standards or not, the suggestion is allowed to be made.
>
> Really? Even if, as originally mentioned, they say one thing and do
> entirely another?
Yep, you couldn't come close to knowing all the factors that affected such a decision unless you are that person and even then various physical and environmental factors might be applicable.
> Yet by invading privacy for the sake of titillation, aren't the press
> displaying a lack of integrity?
Aren't the people who buy the papers?
> So why is that? What has led to that situation; people didn't just
> wake up one day and decide "Y'know what? Who gives a s**t if our
> leaders and ourselves have no integrity?" What do you think led
> to that situation, and why is it tolerated? Aren't you, by arguing
> that integrity isn't all that, simply making an excuse for a lack of
> integrity on your part?
The world isn't perfect. You can spend your entire life trying to make it so but it isn't going to happen. It is human nature to make mistakes and humans are skilled in deception and have been for a very long time. The only way to fully rectify this would be to take away that which makes us human and not simply robots or something.
> A price? What is that price?
Depends. That's going to be different for each individual.
>
> Integrity is personal; it has dick all to do with rules of society.
> Why do you feel that the "rules" of society necessarily
> dictate a persons integrity?
Why do you feel a person's integrity can be judged in the first place? It can't. How can you judge something without rules to apply to how something should be judged? You have to have some sort of framework to judge someone's integrity otherwise you simply can't do it to a decent degree: the rules of society seem like a decent starting point.
But, as I have already said, you can never fully judge a person's integrity.
>
> I disagree; integrity is personal, therefore it's up to the person to
> enforce it.
And that's where they're most fallible because personal circumstances can change and different situations can change a person's stance.
The only role anyone else has any right to play is to
> point out a lack of integrity. One cannot then force that person into
> a position where they do behave with integrity though.
No but they can oust them from a position if they do NOT behave with enough integrity.
>
> As I said, I'm not talking about judging anyone. I'm talking about
> exactly what integrity is.
On some level this will differ from person to person.
>
> If that's the case, (about personal rules) why come up with a set of
> personal rules if one has no intention of following them?
People who mean well? People who want to control other people: "The government says murder is wrong, yet we see governemnt sanctioned murder a lot".
Isn't it
> easier and doesn't it make more sense to be honest with oneself about
> ones abilities and limitations, vices and virtues, and thus display
> integrity about oneself?
If only it were that easy. I would suggest there's more power, success and an easier life can be had from not openly displaying your weaknesses for others to exploit.
The world's not perfect.
>
>
> Freedom to say what? Freedom to say someone should be held as a role
> model? That's not freedom; that's imposing an arbitary standard on
> someone else.
It's using the freedom of speech to suggest such a thing. Standards or not, the suggestion is allowed to be made.
>
> Really? Even if, as originally mentioned, they say one thing and do
> entirely another?
Yep, you couldn't come close to knowing all the factors that affected such a decision unless you are that person and even then various physical and environmental factors might be applicable.
> Yet by invading privacy for the sake of titillation, aren't the press
> displaying a lack of integrity?
Aren't the people who buy the papers?
> So why is that? What has led to that situation; people didn't just
> wake up one day and decide "Y'know what? Who gives a s**t if our
> leaders and ourselves have no integrity?" What do you think led
> to that situation, and why is it tolerated? Aren't you, by arguing
> that integrity isn't all that, simply making an excuse for a lack of
> integrity on your part?
The world isn't perfect. You can spend your entire life trying to make it so but it isn't going to happen. It is human nature to make mistakes and humans are skilled in deception and have been for a very long time. The only way to fully rectify this would be to take away that which makes us human and not simply robots or something.
> A price? What is that price?
Depends. That's going to be different for each individual.
>
> Integrity is personal; it has dick all to do with rules of society.
> Why do you feel that the "rules" of society necessarily
> dictate a persons integrity?
Why do you feel a person's integrity can be judged in the first place? It can't. How can you judge something without rules to apply to how something should be judged? You have to have some sort of framework to judge someone's integrity otherwise you simply can't do it to a decent degree: the rules of society seem like a decent starting point.
But, as I have already said, you can never fully judge a person's integrity.
>
> I disagree; integrity is personal, therefore it's up to the person to
> enforce it.
And that's where they're most fallible because personal circumstances can change and different situations can change a person's stance.
The only role anyone else has any right to play is to
> point out a lack of integrity. One cannot then force that person into
> a position where they do behave with integrity though.
No but they can oust them from a position if they do NOT behave with enough integrity.
>
> As I said, I'm not talking about judging anyone. I'm talking about
> exactly what integrity is.
On some level this will differ from person to person.
>
> If that's the case, (about personal rules) why come up with a set of
> personal rules if one has no intention of following them?
People who mean well? People who want to control other people: "The government says murder is wrong, yet we see governemnt sanctioned murder a lot".
Isn't it
> easier and doesn't it make more sense to be honest with oneself about
> ones abilities and limitations, vices and virtues, and thus display
> integrity about oneself?
If only it were that easy. I would suggest there's more power, success and an easier life can be had from not openly displaying your weaknesses for others to exploit.
The world's not perfect.
Hedfix wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
> Should they be termed as such when they have no desire to be held to
> that standard?
>
> "Freedom of speech"
Freedom to say what? Freedom to say someone should be held as a role model? That's not freedom; that's imposing an arbitary standard on someone else.
> You don't, at best it's a guess since you cannot know everythingg
> about them.
Really? Even if, as originally mentioned, they say one thing and do entirely another?
> Yep, they can become a recluse but generally the press have a fair
> bit of freedom to invade a person's privacy.
Yet by invading privacy for the sake of titillation, aren't the press displaying a lack of integrity?
>
> Our society only seems to value integrity on a small scale, when it
> comes to large sweeping decisions that affect a lot of people
> integrity seems to take a back seat a lot.
So why is that? What has led to that situation; people didn't just wake up one day and decide "Y'know what? Who gives a s**t if our leaders and ourselves have no integrity?" What do you think led to that situation, and why is it tolerated? Aren't you, by arguing that integrity isn't all that, simply making an excuse for a lack of integrity on your part?
>
> Not everyone wants to play by the rules, not everyone agrees with the
> rules and not everyone is held accountable to those rules. It would
> seem that many people's integrity has a price and that seems to fit
> with the model society is based on.
A price? What is that price?
Integrity is personal; it has dick all to do with rules of society. Why do you feel that the "rules" of society necessarily dictate a persons integrity?
>
> We do attempt to enforce standards of integrity but it comes down to
> the question: 'who's watching the enforcers?' and who's watching
> those who are watching them and so on.
I disagree; integrity is personal, therefore it's up to the person to enforce it. The only role anyone else has any right to play is to point out a lack of integrity. One cannot then force that person into a position where they do behave with integrity though.
>
> You cannot truly judge a person's integrity because you aren't them
> and they cannot truly judge their own integrity because they will
> rationalise things they have done to appease their conscience.
> People's personal rules are bent on a daily basis otherwise we'd all
> end up like Kant. :D
As I said, I'm not talking about judging anyone. I'm talking about exactly what integrity is.
If that's the case, (about personal rules) why come up with a set of personal rules if one has no intention of following them? Isn't it easier and doesn't it make more sense to be honest with oneself about ones abilities and limitations, vices and virtues, and thus display integrity about oneself?
> Light wrote:
>
> Should they be termed as such when they have no desire to be held to
> that standard?
>
> "Freedom of speech"
Freedom to say what? Freedom to say someone should be held as a role model? That's not freedom; that's imposing an arbitary standard on someone else.
> You don't, at best it's a guess since you cannot know everythingg
> about them.
Really? Even if, as originally mentioned, they say one thing and do entirely another?
> Yep, they can become a recluse but generally the press have a fair
> bit of freedom to invade a person's privacy.
Yet by invading privacy for the sake of titillation, aren't the press displaying a lack of integrity?
>
> Our society only seems to value integrity on a small scale, when it
> comes to large sweeping decisions that affect a lot of people
> integrity seems to take a back seat a lot.
So why is that? What has led to that situation; people didn't just wake up one day and decide "Y'know what? Who gives a s**t if our leaders and ourselves have no integrity?" What do you think led to that situation, and why is it tolerated? Aren't you, by arguing that integrity isn't all that, simply making an excuse for a lack of integrity on your part?
>
> Not everyone wants to play by the rules, not everyone agrees with the
> rules and not everyone is held accountable to those rules. It would
> seem that many people's integrity has a price and that seems to fit
> with the model society is based on.
A price? What is that price?
Integrity is personal; it has dick all to do with rules of society. Why do you feel that the "rules" of society necessarily dictate a persons integrity?
>
> We do attempt to enforce standards of integrity but it comes down to
> the question: 'who's watching the enforcers?' and who's watching
> those who are watching them and so on.
I disagree; integrity is personal, therefore it's up to the person to enforce it. The only role anyone else has any right to play is to point out a lack of integrity. One cannot then force that person into a position where they do behave with integrity though.
>
> You cannot truly judge a person's integrity because you aren't them
> and they cannot truly judge their own integrity because they will
> rationalise things they have done to appease their conscience.
> People's personal rules are bent on a daily basis otherwise we'd all
> end up like Kant. :D
As I said, I'm not talking about judging anyone. I'm talking about exactly what integrity is.
If that's the case, (about personal rules) why come up with a set of personal rules if one has no intention of following them? Isn't it easier and doesn't it make more sense to be honest with oneself about ones abilities and limitations, vices and virtues, and thus display integrity about oneself?
Light wrote:
>
> Should they be termed as such when they have no desire to be held to
> that standard?
"Freedom of speech"
> So then, how does one measure whether or not they truly have
> integrity?
You don't, at best it's a guess since you cannot know everythingg about them.
> And if they don't want that element of celebrity? Should they have
> the choice?
Yep, they can become a recluse but generally the press have a fair bit of freedom to invade a person's privacy.
> Which takes me back to one of the original points; why don't we
> enforce any standard of integrity? Is it because we don't have much
> ourselves, or did we learn that integrity doesn't pay from those in
> positions of power?
Our society only seems to value integrity on a small scale, when it comes to large sweeping decisions that affect a lot of people integrity seems to take a back seat a lot.
Not everyone wants to play by the rules, not everyone agrees with the rules and not everyone is held accountable to those rules. It would seem that many people's integrity has a price and that seems to fit with the model society is based on.
We do attempt to enforce standards of integrity but it comes down to the question: 'who's watching the enforcers?' and who's watching those who are watching them and so on.
You cannot truly judge a person's integrity because you aren't them and they cannot truly judge their own integrity because they will rationalise things they have done to appease their conscience. People's personal rules are bent on a daily basis otherwise we'd all end up like Kant. :D
>
> Should they be termed as such when they have no desire to be held to
> that standard?
"Freedom of speech"
> So then, how does one measure whether or not they truly have
> integrity?
You don't, at best it's a guess since you cannot know everythingg about them.
> And if they don't want that element of celebrity? Should they have
> the choice?
Yep, they can become a recluse but generally the press have a fair bit of freedom to invade a person's privacy.
> Which takes me back to one of the original points; why don't we
> enforce any standard of integrity? Is it because we don't have much
> ourselves, or did we learn that integrity doesn't pay from those in
> positions of power?
Our society only seems to value integrity on a small scale, when it comes to large sweeping decisions that affect a lot of people integrity seems to take a back seat a lot.
Not everyone wants to play by the rules, not everyone agrees with the rules and not everyone is held accountable to those rules. It would seem that many people's integrity has a price and that seems to fit with the model society is based on.
We do attempt to enforce standards of integrity but it comes down to the question: 'who's watching the enforcers?' and who's watching those who are watching them and so on.
You cannot truly judge a person's integrity because you aren't them and they cannot truly judge their own integrity because they will rationalise things they have done to appease their conscience. People's personal rules are bent on a daily basis otherwise we'd all end up like Kant. :D
Hedfix wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Depends on who someone chooses as a role model. Hence the term 'bad
> role model'.
Should they be termed as such when they have no desire to be held to that standard?
> Well I would assume that's dependent on many factors. Sometimes
> famous people seem to get let off for quite bad offences whilst at
> other times they're hounded for minor ones.
>
So then, how does one measure whether or not they truly have integrity?
> Cult of celebrity, fame etc. People are actually interested in what
> they do and because of this they exert more influence than your
> average person.
And if they don't want that element of celebrity? Should they have the choice?
> Well personally I say drag the ***** down the hague, but that'll
> never happen because it's a dog-eat-dog world and the top dogs don't
> get neutered much. :(
Which takes me back to one of the original points; why don't we enforce any standard of integrity? Is it because we don't have much ourselves, or did we learn that integrity doesn't pay from those in positions of power?
> Light wrote:
> Depends on who someone chooses as a role model. Hence the term 'bad
> role model'.
Should they be termed as such when they have no desire to be held to that standard?
> Well I would assume that's dependent on many factors. Sometimes
> famous people seem to get let off for quite bad offences whilst at
> other times they're hounded for minor ones.
>
So then, how does one measure whether or not they truly have integrity?
> Cult of celebrity, fame etc. People are actually interested in what
> they do and because of this they exert more influence than your
> average person.
And if they don't want that element of celebrity? Should they have the choice?
> Well personally I say drag the ***** down the hague, but that'll
> never happen because it's a dog-eat-dog world and the top dogs don't
> get neutered much. :(
Which takes me back to one of the original points; why don't we enforce any standard of integrity? Is it because we don't have much ourselves, or did we learn that integrity doesn't pay from those in positions of power?
Light wrote:
>
> But a role model, by their very definition, is held to a higher
> standard of behaviour in society.
Depends on who someone chooses as a role model. Hence the term 'bad role model'.
So which of those codes (that of
> the ordinary person, or that of the role model) should they be held
> to?
Well I would assume that's dependent on many factors. Sometimes famous people seem to get let off for quite bad offences whilst at other times they're hounded for minor ones.
> In fact, why are they so different in the first place?
Cult of celebrity, fame etc. People are actually interested in what they do and because of this they exert more influence than your average person.
> How about a mistake that indirectly affects the lives of others,
> rather than directly (eg. the invasion of Iraq on flawed evidence)
Well personally I say drag the ***** down the hague, but that'll never happen because it's a dog-eat-dog world and the top dogs don't get neutered much. :(
>
> But a role model, by their very definition, is held to a higher
> standard of behaviour in society.
Depends on who someone chooses as a role model. Hence the term 'bad role model'.
So which of those codes (that of
> the ordinary person, or that of the role model) should they be held
> to?
Well I would assume that's dependent on many factors. Sometimes famous people seem to get let off for quite bad offences whilst at other times they're hounded for minor ones.
> In fact, why are they so different in the first place?
Cult of celebrity, fame etc. People are actually interested in what they do and because of this they exert more influence than your average person.
> How about a mistake that indirectly affects the lives of others,
> rather than directly (eg. the invasion of Iraq on flawed evidence)
Well personally I say drag the ***** down the hague, but that'll never happen because it's a dog-eat-dog world and the top dogs don't get neutered much. :(
Hedfix wrote:
> Legal standards yes and there are certain codes and ways of doing
> things in society that people would expect others to adhere to.
>
But a role model, by their very definition, is held to a higher standard of behaviour in society. So which of those codes (that of the ordinary person, or that of the role model) should they be held to? In fact, why are they so different in the first place?
> One again it depends on the mistake, an acknowledgment of a serious
> mistake would no doubt have consequences (possibly legal ones) and
> I'd expect the appropraite actions to be taken.
>
> "Yes I shot the man officer, I've admitted it: can I go home
> now?"
How about a mistake that indirectly affects the lives of others, rather than directly (eg. the invasion of Iraq on flawed evidence)
> Legal standards yes and there are certain codes and ways of doing
> things in society that people would expect others to adhere to.
>
But a role model, by their very definition, is held to a higher standard of behaviour in society. So which of those codes (that of the ordinary person, or that of the role model) should they be held to? In fact, why are they so different in the first place?
> One again it depends on the mistake, an acknowledgment of a serious
> mistake would no doubt have consequences (possibly legal ones) and
> I'd expect the appropraite actions to be taken.
>
> "Yes I shot the man officer, I've admitted it: can I go home
> now?"
How about a mistake that indirectly affects the lives of others, rather than directly (eg. the invasion of Iraq on flawed evidence)
Light wrote:
>
> Would it matter if they didn't want to be viewed as a role model, and
> were incredibly open about this fact? Should they be held to standards
> imposed on them when they've made clear they don't think they should
> apply?
Legal standards yes and there are certain codes and ways of doing things in society that people would expect others to adhere to.
>
> Why should it have to be an apology? Do you consider the
> acknowledgement of a mistake (if one is asked about it) to be
> sufficient?
One again it depends on the mistake, an acknowledgment of a serious mistake would no doubt have consequences (possibly legal ones) and I'd expect the appropraite actions to be taken.
"Yes I shot the man officer, I've admitted it: can I go home now?"
>
> Would it matter if they didn't want to be viewed as a role model, and
> were incredibly open about this fact? Should they be held to standards
> imposed on them when they've made clear they don't think they should
> apply?
Legal standards yes and there are certain codes and ways of doing things in society that people would expect others to adhere to.
>
> Why should it have to be an apology? Do you consider the
> acknowledgement of a mistake (if one is asked about it) to be
> sufficient?
One again it depends on the mistake, an acknowledgment of a serious mistake would no doubt have consequences (possibly legal ones) and I'd expect the appropraite actions to be taken.
"Yes I shot the man officer, I've admitted it: can I go home now?"
Hedfix wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
> Why should it only be bad mistakes?
>
> Because if they went around apologising every little thing they'd
> probably be viewed with less respect and become a bit of a joke.
> "Oh I'm really sorry I was 0.1 seconds late for the meeting,
> damn my tardyness".
Okay, fair enough.
>
>
> Why should who the person is make
> a difference?
>
> Well if they're a role model or a person who is looked to by others
> for stability then they might need to be seen as more infallible than
> another person.
Would it matter if they didn't want to be viewed as a role model, and were incredibly open about this fact? Should they be held to standards imposed on them when they've made clear they don't think they should apply?
>
> And that's the point; if they deal with them by denying
> that they've happened, or even denying that it's a mistake when they
> are fully aware that it is, isn't that a lack of integrity.
>
> Depends on the mistake. Like I said above, if someone went around
> apologising for every little thing it wouldn't make them look
> competent.
>
> "I've left my pen on the bus so I shall be starting an immediate
> enquiry into this matter, do you have any more questions for me
> Kirsty?"
Why should it have to be an apology? Do you consider the acknowledgement of a mistake (if one is asked about it) to be sufficient?
> Light wrote:
>
> Why should it only be bad mistakes?
>
> Because if they went around apologising every little thing they'd
> probably be viewed with less respect and become a bit of a joke.
> "Oh I'm really sorry I was 0.1 seconds late for the meeting,
> damn my tardyness".
Okay, fair enough.
>
>
> Why should who the person is make
> a difference?
>
> Well if they're a role model or a person who is looked to by others
> for stability then they might need to be seen as more infallible than
> another person.
Would it matter if they didn't want to be viewed as a role model, and were incredibly open about this fact? Should they be held to standards imposed on them when they've made clear they don't think they should apply?
>
> And that's the point; if they deal with them by denying
> that they've happened, or even denying that it's a mistake when they
> are fully aware that it is, isn't that a lack of integrity.
>
> Depends on the mistake. Like I said above, if someone went around
> apologising for every little thing it wouldn't make them look
> competent.
>
> "I've left my pen on the bus so I shall be starting an immediate
> enquiry into this matter, do you have any more questions for me
> Kirsty?"
Why should it have to be an apology? Do you consider the acknowledgement of a mistake (if one is asked about it) to be sufficient?
Light wrote:
>
> Why should it only be bad mistakes?
Because if they went around apologising every little thing they'd probably be viewed with less respect and become a bit of a joke. "Oh I'm really sorry I was 0.1 seconds late for the meeting, damn my tardyness".
> Why should who the person is make
> a difference?
Well if they're a role model or a person who is looked to by others for stability then they might need to be seen as more infallible than another person.
And that's the point; if they deal with them by denying
> that they've happened, or even denying that it's a mistake when they
> are fully aware that it is, isn't that a lack of integrity.
Depends on the mistake. Like I said above, if someone went around apologising for every little thing it wouldn't make them look competent.
"I've left my pen on the bus so I shall be starting an immediate enquiry into this matter, do you have any more questions for me Kirsty?"
>
> Why should it only be bad mistakes?
Because if they went around apologising every little thing they'd probably be viewed with less respect and become a bit of a joke. "Oh I'm really sorry I was 0.1 seconds late for the meeting, damn my tardyness".
> Why should who the person is make
> a difference?
Well if they're a role model or a person who is looked to by others for stability then they might need to be seen as more infallible than another person.
And that's the point; if they deal with them by denying
> that they've happened, or even denying that it's a mistake when they
> are fully aware that it is, isn't that a lack of integrity.
Depends on the mistake. Like I said above, if someone went around apologising for every little thing it wouldn't make them look competent.
"I've left my pen on the bus so I shall be starting an immediate enquiry into this matter, do you have any more questions for me Kirsty?"
Page: