From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Date: Sun Dec 08 1996 - 14:46:43 MST
Paul:
In addition, in my view a
>person who has high self esteemm, ie. is proud of all his/her thoughts and
>actions should have no need for any privacy and, in fact, should be
completely
>happy to have these things all open to the public.
Bravo... I think that is the correct stance, if you have
nothing to hide, in fact much to be proud of, privacy isnt exactly a bargain.
It could be, so to speak, harmful!
Show you're above board, get the full benefits of who you
are and all you have done!
>Wade comments:
>>I think there may be a confusion on exactly what level we
are discussing "privacy" on. I understand what you're saying,
that people who are intensely private are missing out on a lot,
I dont think he meant that! I think he meant openness
and availablitiy of information on demand.
FOR EXAMPLE, for certain business a credit check, a
PLUS not a minus, if you have nothing to hide, you dont
need to have "privacy". I think Kenitta made a good point
that people *need* the privacy of "person".
That's basic human dignity, no one staring at you while
you dress, no hidden videocams in the shower, different subject.
In other words Greta Garbo's " I vant to be alone" should
be respected.
Paul again:
>My basic point here is to question the rationality of anyone valuing
privacy.
J de Lyser:
>IMO, privacy serves the individuality of people. Your idea is very noble,
>but the reality is that your 'altruism' may not be the same as someone elses
altruism.
I see no reason to accuse him of altruism here, he is
saying he values rationality. I thinks honesty, self
esteem and character are often confused with " altruism",
becuase these virtues are actually "helpful" in the real sense of the word.
Unlike Altruism, they do not depend on anyone else to self sustain.
And altruism often tries to be helpful, yet fails miserably.
I see your basic point - So, if one is "rational" , above boards , and needs
less privacy because of it, and that ius abused by a party, then privacy or
*protection* from an irrational influence may be in order.
***Protection from invasive scrutiny or unhealthy interference should be the
order of the day*** This is being confused with privacy IMHO.
But in general I am in agreement with Paul, privacy isnt my thing, I am
*same* public as private, no little secrets.
Some of us are proud of hard work and self....
- Public Muse
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:52 MST