On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:32:43 -0500, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 4:07 PM > Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... > > > 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. > > Let me try to re-explain things, because we are having a failure to > communicate. I went way back to Gary's original quote to make sure that > read it correctly. It is: > > <quote> > Would I pay all the money in a bank to ransom my children or sacrifice > someone else to save my children from imminent death? Yes I would. > The instinct to protect ones children, at almost any cost, is as basic > as the instinct for survival. > <end quote> > > The way I read it was expressing priorities in terms of what he would be > willing to give up in order to obtain something more valuable. For > example, when a sports fan states "I'd trade Barry Bonds for A-Rod", he > actually isn't operating under the illusion that he has the power to make > that trade. He is expressing a hierarchy of importance. > > Gary can correct me, but he is not saying that, if his child were kidnapped > he'd either rob a bank or kill someone immediately in order to attempt to > save his child. He is saying _given the choice_, he'd pick someone else's > death over his child's, or spend someone else's money to save his child. > Left unstated is the question of whether he thought he could successfully > rob a bank and pay off kidnappers in order to save his child. Also, left > unstated is whether he thought trying either one of these was really within > his power. > > We could ask Gary what he meant; I certainly don't always read posts the > way the author intends them to be written. But I'd be happy to bet a beer, > a buck, etc. that my interpretation is closer to his meaning than yours. A > literal interpretation of the words also supports my contention. If he > pays the money and the child is not returned safely, then he has failed in > his attempt to ransom his child; he has not ransomed his child. > > As an aide, my interpretation goes with JDG's view of an economics of > priorities.
I have found this topic fascinating as an example of why some people use fear as a basis for political campaigns - it works with many people. The other Gary, Gary Denton _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
