The Like/Hate Thread

[Rem-13]

if you have to lie to get what you want, you don't deserve it.

he gave zero real-world scenarios, i'm sure more because there are none worth mentioning rather than simple laziness on his part, so i'll have to. let's say that you discover that a disaster is coming decades from now, but you can't prove it so nobody cares. you exaggerate your findings, disregard contrary evidence, and vilify the opposition who point out the gaping holes in your claim. is this for the "greater good"? only if your original findings are accurate, perhaps. but, if you're willing to go to these lengths then how much credit can be put into the original claim that your foreseen disaster is real?

I know what you're talking about, and no I'm not getting into a global warming/cooling/climate change/derpaderp argument, but taking that subtext out:

If your lies save the earth from, say, cracking in half, then yes its justified. You even say so yourself "if your findings are accurate".

Of course you then say 'if you're willing to go to these lengths then how much credit can be put into the original claim that your foreseen disaster is real?' but your are now changing the scenario into a more specific one in which the lies hurt his cause more than help.

We are speaking towards a general concept of whether or not the ends justify the means, through a scenario where the 'ends' are subverting natural disaster and the 'means' are falsified evidence. You can't in the middle of the argument change the 'ends' to failing to subvert the natural disaster.