« Small truths about the minimum wage | Main | Economists as priests? »

November 14, 2010



Is it not simpler than this: even the rational seatstgtw person is forced to act irrationally by their anticipation of future scrutiny by irrational people:

"Ok I know this is a joke and the risk to the airport is no gigdp than it was a moment ago, but were there to be am attack today quite by chance, someone may say that I am the person who ignored a warning and put people at risk."

This is the same process which drives defensive medical practice.

The stoning story is explained thus: "future irrational observers may say I am the person who allowed such a disrespect to islam to go unchallenged.'


Excellent post - you may find this Radio 5 phone-in discussion from last Friday interesting, includes Evan Harris, Padraid Reidy from Index on Censorship, some rather illiberal personages who take things (including threats clearly made in jest, towards the end) and a cameo from me as well


sorry, HTML fail - the discussion is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00vrcwh/5_live_Breakfast_Your_Call_12_11_2010

Phil Ruse

I think Wildscrutineer nails it. It may be nonsense but passing it on is one way to avoid any blame in the (unlikely) event that it needs to be scrutinised at a later date.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad