Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald
I would hope that no one in FIRST would be the slightest bit concerned about whether or not I consider them a dishonest cretin. I would hope beyond hope that they would be tremendously concerned about whether or not they, in retrospect especially, would consider themselves a dishonest cretin*.
*Edit: it has been pointed out to me that the word "cretin" has many meanings, and the technical definition involves a medical condition -- I didn't know that, and certainly don't mean it that way. I picked up the word from Bugs Bunny; I apologize if I offended anyone with what was meant with mild levity.
|
My point was that you were approaching this is a more hostile manner than is necessary. Mr. Lim clearly set out to make a level-headed and open-minded discussion. Any merit in your responses was quickly overshadowed by the name calling.
The point that you should act in a manner that you would be proud of is valid. The fashion in which you are presenting said point is ruffling feathers. Also, the closed-minded fashion in which you seemingly refuse to accept differing value systems isn't productive to the discussion. Different teams will draw their limits in different places, as should be readily apparent. Simply passing your mental limit of behavior shouldn't make them "cretins." There should be a distinction between violating your moral compass and egregiously violating your moral compass. It's not a binary system. There has to be a point where you go "I do not agree, but I can understand why they did it."