Re: Man faces prison for leaving water in desert

In article <7o2ibdF3nc26bU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAMDIE@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sir David" <sirdavid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

The tone of the article that Ian cited implies that Staton is being
imprisoned for an act of compassion. Whilst all of what you have written
above is true, the 'spin' of the article would warrant a headline 'man
imprisoned for an act of compassion' and it therefore seems unreasonable to
me to blame Ian for the article's title and tone.


That was how I read the article. At a guess I'm not as much of a bleeding
heart as the average Quaker. The subject line was chosen because I thought
it would be one which Quakers would relate to. I try to target my words
to the audience. Also I saw a lot of commonality between the way that
Staton was behaving and the type of approach to issues that many Quakers
take to social action. I am not myself a social activist, and while I'm
quite happy for others to be, I was misunderstood if it was assumed I had
a prior position on this issue. I was thinking things out myself in
wondering if a sensible compromise between having illegal migrants
stupidly die, and aiding a crime, would be to have water buried in
plastic milk jugs, which would set off an alarm permitting law
enforcement to apprehend any who tampered with these jugs. Has to
be cheaper than telephone lines, or whatever.

Twisting the facts, as part of a pattern of hatred of the USA, is
still twisting the facts. It's a complex issue, and it's all too easy
to dishonestly simplify it to fan the flames of hatred.

"Twisting the facts" - Ian did not so much twist the facts as continue with
the bias already present in the article (that was consistent with his own
natural biases). Ian offered a viewpoint based on the article - - but that
does't mean he 'twisted the facts' any more than if another person suggested
Staton's sentence should be far longer because what Staton had done would
help drug traffickers.


My natural bias is to assume that people crossing borders illegally should
be apprehended and then given all legal rights they are entitled to under
national and international law. I Personally don't think they should be
dying as a consequence of stupidity if their lives can be saved by others.
To the extent that society is able we have a long tradition of trying to
protect the stupid from themselves. We also have a tradition that
negligence is involved if in circumstances where death can be easily
prevented, no effort is made to prevent death.

I really wonder if perhaps the deserts of the Sahara, Australia and the
US might be made safer, at only a small start up cost.

(There are alot of other articles out there that reflect Ian's viewpoint on
this, and they seem to be written by Americans. Do they also hate America?)


And there are an awful lot of articles out there written by people who far
more deserve the label USA hater than I. The US is a second home to me.
It is for almost every single Canadian. Pick the state next to you..
pick the one you like least if you've a choice. If you don't hate the
state next to you why should it be assumed that I hate the nearest
state to me; that being New York State.

But I suppose there is an upside to the dishonest post.

The title of the article is "Man faces prison for leaving water in desert".
The /angle/ of the article is clear, it says the man left water out for
"thirsty immigrants" rather than "illegal border crossers" or "drug
traffickers" (if the wanted to be even more extreme). Ian obviously has
views on such things, and the tone of this article clearly fits his world
view, but that doesn't mean Ian is *dishonest*, simply that he has a
particular set of preferences and biases (just like everyone else).


The article might have been dishonest, but I struggle to see how my post
or my follow up can be labelled dishonest. If I am not saying one thing
believing another, from where might spring dishonesty?

Had you said 'biased' I probably would have agreed with you, but you are
calling him "dishonest". Thats a different thing all together, and I don't
see where Ian is being dishonest, especially when one can reasonably assume
that all Ian knew of the subject was what the article said, rather than what
you knew, and Ian's personal opinions and preferences have always been
clear.

I know of no information about this story beyond the article posted. I'm
not yet sure what my "bias" is regarding the subject, beyond what I've
said above. I just thought the moral and ethical issues raised by the
article worth exploring here.

Ian.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!
    ... Another misrepresentation of facts by Fred. ... :I do not claim to be a Canadian, nor an American, nor a dual citizen, nor ... Statements of fact, unfortunately for you, Ian. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!
    ... Another misrepresentation of facts by Fred. ... :I do not claim to be a Canadian, nor an American, nor a dual citizen, nor ... Statements of fact, unfortunately for you, Ian. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!
    ... Another misrepresentation of facts by Fred. ... :I do not claim to be a Canadian, nor an American, nor a dual citizen, nor ... Statements of fact, unfortunately for you, Ian. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Pat Tillman
    ... constantly engage in fact-avoidance is Tom. ... couple of days it has been quite clear that the facts mean little to you. ... decide I am being dishonest (well in between your baseless insult lunacy ... I fully expect you to fill another reply full of insults free of actual ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Definition of insanity
    ... Then point out the difference Snit! ... So in truth the original post was not "complex" at all...it was merely ... How amazingly dishonest of you! ... I was "focusing" on the facts at the time, you have now added to those ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)