On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:41:12PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > I read Gary far differently than you did. I read him as speaking of > relative priorities. Its not that he disagrees with the idea that, in > principal, paying kidnappers is a bad idea. Its not that he thinks he > has an inherent right to the money of other people. Its that, given > that, his priorities are such that his kids' lives mean more to him > than his own, to any risk of inprisonment for theft, than the wrong > inherent in appeasing kidnappers, etc. After having kids for a while, > one has an inherent sense of their relative importance.
If you're right, than apparently, after having kids for a while, one becomes irrational (or remains so if they started that way). Certainly I know the importance of kids to myself as well as you and Gary. I, too, would risk my life or liberty to save kids, IF it was likely to increase their chances. But not if it would not help them. The difference seems to be not the importance placed on children, but the irrationality -- people claiming they would do impractical things, that even if they were practical, would probably not help, in order to feel better. Kind of sad, really. I would do everything I could to hold onto my rationality in order to give the kids the maximum chance that I could think of something to help rather than taking a desperate, useless action. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
