----- 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. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
