That seems a remarkably inconsistent position for Jeff to take, given his advocacy for a free market of informed individuals and companies: one would almost think that withholding information would create some sort of dissymmetry in the marketplace...or at least an asymmetry, if that's the word I'm stretching for.
For whatever reason, he thinks that the market for information on products is one that should be entirely voluntary and consumer-driven. If you want to know whether products you consume have peanuts in them, it's up to you to find that out.
The problem is that to looks a little too like cyber-bullying the vulnerable.
In what sense does it look like "cyber-bullying?" All that I have done here is provide a (what I believe to be true and fair) account of what Jeff has publicly said on a particular subject. This is a public forum in which he participates, so if it is not true and fair, he by all means is free to say so. (Although it turns out that it is exactly that, as he has demonstrated.)
Jeff endures and engages in far more severe "cyber-bullying" than I have undertaken here, and I am far less kind to others in this community than I have been with him at my worst, but as far as I've ever seen, neither you nor anyone else has undertaken to scold me or others for doing so. It seems to me that what's triggering your reaction here is the fact that I am referring to him obliquely, rather than in a direct exchange. What's ironic about that, of course, is that it is the only way in which he engages with me, now.
I'm sure Jeff is a resilient sort of cove, and fully capable of getting into his own hot water: but if this path is to be taken, which I advise against, cite references please.
Simply put, no. I read Jeff's comments. I think about them and often attempt to engage them thoughtfully, even though I know he won't respond. I remember things that he's said, and I understand and know enough about his views to be able to say both general and specific things about them. I am not going to restrain myself from commenting about his views unless and until I can gather links from thousands of comments over dozens of posts that will enable anyone else to assess what I say for themselves. If you don't think I have a leg to stand on, fine - don't believe me.
Jeff's Argument from cited discussion + reference and link is at least ethically neutral, I reckon.
Absent any demonstration from you that what I'm doing is ethically dubious in the first place, apart from your gut-feel, I'm disinclined to care what you think.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-04-29 11:38 pm (UTC)For whatever reason, he thinks that the market for information on products is one that should be entirely voluntary and consumer-driven. If you want to know whether products you consume have peanuts in them, it's up to you to find that out.
The problem is that to looks a little too like cyber-bullying the vulnerable.
In what sense does it look like "cyber-bullying?" All that I have done here is provide a (what I believe to be true and fair) account of what Jeff has publicly said on a particular subject. This is a public forum in which he participates, so if it is not true and fair, he by all means is free to say so. (Although it turns out that it is exactly that, as he has demonstrated.)
Jeff endures and engages in far more severe "cyber-bullying" than I have undertaken here, and I am far less kind to others in this community than I have been with him at my worst, but as far as I've ever seen, neither you nor anyone else has undertaken to scold me or others for doing so. It seems to me that what's triggering your reaction here is the fact that I am referring to him obliquely, rather than in a direct exchange. What's ironic about that, of course, is that it is the only way in which he engages with me, now.
I'm sure Jeff is a resilient sort of cove, and fully capable of getting into his own hot water: but if this path is to be taken, which I advise against, cite references please.
Simply put, no. I read Jeff's comments. I think about them and often attempt to engage them thoughtfully, even though I know he won't respond. I remember things that he's said, and I understand and know enough about his views to be able to say both general and specific things about them. I am not going to restrain myself from commenting about his views unless and until I can gather links from thousands of comments over dozens of posts that will enable anyone else to assess what I say for themselves. If you don't think I have a leg to stand on, fine - don't believe me.
Jeff's Argument from cited discussion + reference and link is at least ethically neutral, I reckon.
Absent any demonstration from you that what I'm doing is ethically dubious in the first place, apart from your gut-feel, I'm disinclined to care what you think.