A Brief Dialogue on Theft, Vandalism, Morality, and Partisanship
Me: So this guy Flash once had some stuff stolen.
Randomly Chosen Rhetorical Foil: That’s terrible.
Me: Yeah, but he says he learned a valuable lesson from it.
RCRF: Oh? What lesson was that?
Me: I’m not entirely sure. Something like, “count your blessings,” I guess. It’s difficult to tell because he only brought it up in defense of his suggestion that some guy who vandalized and destroyed a bunch of stuff owned by another person and then apologized was a stand-up guy who should make us all proud.
RCRF: That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
Me: Well he didn't have to apologize.
RCRF: He didn't have to vandalize either.
Me: True.
RCRF: Are you sure Flash really meant to excuse that?
Me: Well his actual words in defense of the vandal were:
RCRF: You’re putting me on.
Me: No, seriously. That’s a direct quote. This about a guy who vandalized and destroyed someone else’s stuff and later apologized for it.
RCRF: "Matt" is the name of the vandal presumably?
Me: Correct.
RCRF: What’s so great about a guy apologizing if he hadn’t done anything wrong in the first place?
Me: Good question.
RCRF: I mean, I wouldn’t apologize to you for saying, “Have a nice day.” That would be stupid.
Me: Agreed.
RCRF: I wouldn’t apologize to you for calling you on the telephone either. I mean, that’s the kind of stuff where no one did anything wrong. So an apology makes no sense.
Me: Right
RCRF: But here there was a noteworthy apology, so apparently there is some underlying sense here that someone DID do something wrong, despite the silly spin.
Me: Would you go back to being my rhetorical foil and let me drive the conversation here?
RCRF: Sorry.
Me: What a standup guy! Anyway, back to Flash… He says when his stuff was stolen he left it with a bunch of people he didn’t know at a place he was moving from.
RCRF: That sucks.
Me: Yeah, I guess he thought he could trust these other guys not to… well, not to steal his stuff. But they did. And then they denied any knowledge about it.
RCRF: Not even an apology.
Me: Right. But then, Flash didn’t know these other guys. In the case of this other vandal, it wasn’t a stranger involved.
RCRF: You mean the guy who apologized… he knew the guy whose stuff he destroyed?
Me: Not like best buds, but yeah.
RCRF: What a dick!
Me: But he apologized.
RCRF: For being a dick.
Me: Essentially.
RCRF: And then Flash goes around saying he wasn’t being a dick at all AFTER he apologizes for being a dick?
Me: Yeah, that’s the part that confuses me too. I mean, if Flash’s thieves came forward only able to return a tiny fraction of what they stole, how would he feel if some of his own buddies told the thieves they hadn’t done anything wrong, chastised Flash for not taking better care of his stuff, and then took the thieves out for drinks in celebration of their great courage coming forward?
RCRF: There were drinks involved?
Me: I made that part up. I’m thirsty. Consider it a metaphor for offering great praise.
RCRF: Good metaphor.
Me: Thanks.
RCRF: So you’re suggesting Flash’s metaphor isn’t quite right.
Me: I’m suggesting his metaphor ignores the role he himself has played in this little vandalism incident – acting as an apologist for vandalism. I mean, he literally said about the vandal, “He didn’t do anything wrong.” Which is saying it’s okay to vandalize other people’s stuff. That’s pretty fundamental moral confusion.
RCRF: Hard to interpret it another way.
Me: Well, there is another interpretation. But it’s a little unkind.
RCRF: Unkind? How so?
Me: See there is a political angle too all of this. The vandal is a lefty like Flash, and the guy whose stuff was destroyed is a righty.
RCRF: What does that have to do with anything?
Me: It shouldn’t. But it turns out there wasn’t a single lefty, Flash included, who condemned the vandalism. So there is a bit of a pattern here.
RCRF: But surely Flash wouldn’t excuse basic thuggery in the name of politics.
Me: I told you the other interpretation was unkind.
RCRF: So which interpretation do you believe.
Me: I was going with “moral confusion” at first.
RCRF: Only at first?
Me: Well at first I expected to see something pop up somewhere on the left, however mild, condemning the original vandalism. Even if the apology exonerated the vandal in their eyes.
RCRF: And now?
Me: A guy can only wait so long before he has to admit the unkind version fits better with the facts in hand.
Randomly Chosen Rhetorical Foil: That’s terrible.
Me: Yeah, but he says he learned a valuable lesson from it.
RCRF: Oh? What lesson was that?
Me: I’m not entirely sure. Something like, “count your blessings,” I guess. It’s difficult to tell because he only brought it up in defense of his suggestion that some guy who vandalized and destroyed a bunch of stuff owned by another person and then apologized was a stand-up guy who should make us all proud.
RCRF: That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
Me: Well he didn't have to apologize.
RCRF: He didn't have to vandalize either.
Me: True.
RCRF: Are you sure Flash really meant to excuse that?
Me: Well his actual words in defense of the vandal were:
Now in reality, he didn't do anything wrong. You snooze you lose, right. Maybe so, but the class and integrity of Matt was more then just staying within the guidelines of the Blogger rules. Sometimes one must do what is morally right, not legally correct, and Matt took the moral high road.
RCRF: You’re putting me on.
Me: No, seriously. That’s a direct quote. This about a guy who vandalized and destroyed someone else’s stuff and later apologized for it.
RCRF: "Matt" is the name of the vandal presumably?
Me: Correct.
RCRF: What’s so great about a guy apologizing if he hadn’t done anything wrong in the first place?
Me: Good question.
RCRF: I mean, I wouldn’t apologize to you for saying, “Have a nice day.” That would be stupid.
Me: Agreed.
RCRF: I wouldn’t apologize to you for calling you on the telephone either. I mean, that’s the kind of stuff where no one did anything wrong. So an apology makes no sense.
Me: Right
RCRF: But here there was a noteworthy apology, so apparently there is some underlying sense here that someone DID do something wrong, despite the silly spin.
Me: Would you go back to being my rhetorical foil and let me drive the conversation here?
RCRF: Sorry.
Me: What a standup guy! Anyway, back to Flash… He says when his stuff was stolen he left it with a bunch of people he didn’t know at a place he was moving from.
RCRF: That sucks.
Me: Yeah, I guess he thought he could trust these other guys not to… well, not to steal his stuff. But they did. And then they denied any knowledge about it.
RCRF: Not even an apology.
Me: Right. But then, Flash didn’t know these other guys. In the case of this other vandal, it wasn’t a stranger involved.
RCRF: You mean the guy who apologized… he knew the guy whose stuff he destroyed?
Me: Not like best buds, but yeah.
RCRF: What a dick!
Me: But he apologized.
RCRF: For being a dick.
Me: Essentially.
RCRF: And then Flash goes around saying he wasn’t being a dick at all AFTER he apologizes for being a dick?
Me: Yeah, that’s the part that confuses me too. I mean, if Flash’s thieves came forward only able to return a tiny fraction of what they stole, how would he feel if some of his own buddies told the thieves they hadn’t done anything wrong, chastised Flash for not taking better care of his stuff, and then took the thieves out for drinks in celebration of their great courage coming forward?
RCRF: There were drinks involved?
Me: I made that part up. I’m thirsty. Consider it a metaphor for offering great praise.
RCRF: Good metaphor.
Me: Thanks.
RCRF: So you’re suggesting Flash’s metaphor isn’t quite right.
Me: I’m suggesting his metaphor ignores the role he himself has played in this little vandalism incident – acting as an apologist for vandalism. I mean, he literally said about the vandal, “He didn’t do anything wrong.” Which is saying it’s okay to vandalize other people’s stuff. That’s pretty fundamental moral confusion.
RCRF: Hard to interpret it another way.
Me: Well, there is another interpretation. But it’s a little unkind.
RCRF: Unkind? How so?
Me: See there is a political angle too all of this. The vandal is a lefty like Flash, and the guy whose stuff was destroyed is a righty.
RCRF: What does that have to do with anything?
Me: It shouldn’t. But it turns out there wasn’t a single lefty, Flash included, who condemned the vandalism. So there is a bit of a pattern here.
RCRF: But surely Flash wouldn’t excuse basic thuggery in the name of politics.
Me: I told you the other interpretation was unkind.
RCRF: So which interpretation do you believe.
Me: I was going with “moral confusion” at first.
RCRF: Only at first?
Me: Well at first I expected to see something pop up somewhere on the left, however mild, condemning the original vandalism. Even if the apology exonerated the vandal in their eyes.
RCRF: And now?
Me: A guy can only wait so long before he has to admit the unkind version fits better with the facts in hand.
Posted by Doug Williams on
Monday December 5, 2005 at 3:40pm
The lesson I learned was that I am soley responsible for my property and I only have myself to blame if I leave it laying around for anyone to take.
Flash
The thieves who took your property are the ones primarily responsible for theft. Not you. You are responsible for little more than lack of caution. Like failing to lock the door through which a burglar enters. You didn't cause a theft to happen. You merely gave a thief an easy opportunity. Apparently because you had a higher opinion of the thief's character than he deserved.
Honestly more surprising to me in all of this than Blogger opening the door for a vandal wasn't Blogger's behavior. It was the person who committed the vandalism, because I had a higher opinion of his character. It never occurred to me to consider him a potential vandal.
The fact that it is not there when I return, speaks none the better of the person who took it.