Topic: The Myth of Compromise - page 3. (Read 4259 times)

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

If you are on land that you believe you own and someone else believes is rightfully theirs, the choices are compromise (go to court) or violence (get a gun).

How so?

Written like a true sociopath.

There are no shades of grey between solving a situation with theft and not solving with theft at all. To go in the middle results in somebody having their value stolen. This is about compromises dealing with values and principles. They simple do not exist.

Whereas refusing to compromise leads to violence and disaster.

That's a sophomoric fallacy. From Wikipedia "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes)."

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

She did not argue that all. She only argued the compromise based on principles and morals leads to disaster.

Its a false choice.  Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous.  Of course that is not true.  I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off.

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

Written like a true sociopath.