On 6/11/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The thing is it's not just a matter of principle.
We do this because
if we give in more and more people will do exactly the same thing.
And, as I've said, Daniel Brandt is a fanatic, he won't ever stop,
even if he wins this battle. We have to be utalitarian here, we have
to take the route where we get the least amount of trouble. We do that
by not giving in.
Being utilitarian is notoriously difficult, because how many of the
foreseeable consequences do you factor in? If you want to be
rigorously consequentialist, factor in the serious physical assault
(or worse) of an admin, or an admin's kids.
We have already deleted or blanked pages that the subjects haven't
wanted, so tell me: what is so different about Daniel Brandt that we
absolutely refuse to do it for him, despite the chaos it has caused?
(And if you say it's in part because of the chaos it has caused, that
confirms that we're simply digging our heels in, which is
understandable but irrational.)
Sarah