Quote:
Originally Posted by RG5384
While his actions may have been dishonest on some level, it is not of the same caliber as the arguments used to condemn his behavior. I just don't like "slippery slope" arguments, and stating that his character is the same as someone who will break into a rich persons house is just rediculous, as is equating his character to a child molester.
|
Not only where his actions dishonest, he knows they were dishonest, as he said "I probably should have not done what I did", and then justifies it by saying that he is not the only one doing it.
His character was not equated to a child molester, the exact question was "Would you keep an employee that made you a lot of money but molested children in his spare time?" It is an analogy that attempts to clarify the moral issue by escalating the right/wrong issue. Is it ok that E150 screws his customers? At what point is it no longer ok to be a dishonest person - when someone only gets taken financially? What about if someone only gets hurt mentally? Is it only wrong to be dishonest if you hurt someone physically?