So as not to hijack Ludwig's Doughnut thread I have moved this discussion here.

I said "Perhaps all of us have done things in our youth that we later regret. When I was a struggling student of the 70s/80s I worked for a business that grossly underpaid us in a time of high unemployment. We got paid cash in hand, no penalty rates and for well less than award wages. We did make enough to live on (just) but this was by working Saturdays and Sundays from about 9am until midnight in the summer (the shop was at the beach).

My friend and I used to work out how much we were owed and take the exact amount calculated as owed in the worth of goods from the business.

Typical youthful impulsiveness and sense of righteousness. We thought we were taking the law into our own hands and exacting our own justice if you like. Neither of us would ever 'steal' as such. Sometimes it is easy to make excuses for bad behaviour but in essence it was stealing."

Davidf responded:

"Dear Pelican,

Your employer stole from you by paying sub-standard wages. You stole from your employer by taking his goods.

Possibly, your employer justified his substandard wages by assuming you would steal from him and that you would still steal even if you got your full entitlement.

You don't sound as though you would have stolen if you had been fairly paid.

Perhaps this calls for another string."

What to others think? Is there any situation where stealing is justified?

Let me add, I don't think my actions were justified in hindsight just the foolish actions of youth to correct an injustice. We thought about reporting the employer but even if we had got back pay (there were no time sheets) we would have lost our jobs.

One situation I would think most would consider stealing as justified is during war. If you can sieze the other side's tank to prevent further casualties it is acceptable as part of wartime activities and hostilities. Theft would be seen as a legitimate tactic in this case but I cannot think of any other.

Dear Pelican,

Is stealing ever justified?

I guess my answer would be it depends
on the circumstances.

History is full of incidents where
people stole out of hunger. Out of desperation, under
dire circumstances, where they had no other alternative
but to steal. In some cases it may be a case of re-claiming
what was "stolen" from them - as in your example.

Until we know the circumstances, we can't really judge.
So, Pelly, I guess all I can say is - it depends on
the circumstances. Of course, the law wears a blindfold
for a reason, and it may see things differently.

Pelican “Your employer stole from you by paying sub-standard wages. You stole from your employer by taking his goods.”

That is no justification any more than is the pursuit of anarchy justifies anything.

“I worked for a business that grossly underpaid us in a time of high unemployment.”

One question, in times of high unemployment what is the prevailing “rate of pay” which you were “underpaid by?

Could your boss have sacked you and replaced you with someone else who he equally “underpaid” ?

If he could do that, surely you are overestimating the prevailing “rate of pay” for the job?

Simply put, what you consider as the poor behavior of your boss in no way justifies or excuses your poor behavior

And as I thought I might get to read from you….

“Let me add, I don't think my actions were justified in hindsight just the foolish actions of youth…”

In the above I think you are absolutely right and what I would have anticipated you would suggest, based on having come to my own conclusions to the quality of your character, as gleaned from your previous posts across a range of topics, :- )

although
“…to correct an injustice”.
Sounds like “self-justification” and out of character for you.

I think the only time that stealing is justified is when someone has first done it to you.

While the purists don't like it - and I don't really like it either - sometimes stealing is just a case of getting even.

An example... Getting those speeding tickets for no more than going along with the flow of traffic and doing a few kms over the limit. As well as many other arbitrary fines that are imposed by authorities and bureaucracies.

If we are ever lucky enough to get even, we tend to cheer.

In a world without absolutes the notion of stealing being wrong is a joke. Secular thinking is full of contradictions and huge double standards. Just like in the times of Judges everyone does what is right in their own eyes. That is why it is okay to murder a baby inside the mothers womb but a criminal offense to kill it when it pops out. That is why it is illegal to kill a shark that eats a man but to sit down legally at a fish and chip shop and enjoy flake. That is why it is legal to emotionally blackmail a man and then a criminal offence for him to retaliate. Secular thinking leads to all sorts of justification for wrong. If it was not so sad it would be quite amusing as people violate their consciences by justifying their bad behaviour.

Pelican,
Stealing is often (self) justified but rarely justifiable (in any moral sense).
Although I would hasten to add understandable in some extreme circumstances as Foxy rightly pointed out.

RobP
Stealing property back is simply false justification (two wrongs never make a right only an escalation.)

I’m glad you don’t live near me. A “few ks over” can make the difference between injury and death. Try comforting a mother who has lost a child because a driver was a few k’s over. I have several times and it never got any easier.
Sure we all do break the laws but to then claim it’s unreasonable is simply being irresponsible. Yes I’ve had the odd speeding fine but never argued if I was in the wrong. By the way most states allow some leeway.

Runner
Stealing isn't just the province of secular individuals in fact the bible in places advocates it… taking land from the rightful owners is stealing to kill to do so is murder and to kill an entire population of men is genocide and take women and children as slaves is obscene regardless of the 'justification'.

Col
Sure stealing from a boss was wrong as is Accepting pay without tax stealing too from the other tax payers.

Obviously you feel that minimum wage laws and paying off the books to avoid payroll tax workers comp etc and hiding income is ok if there are lots of desperate or unemployed people. I'll bet there were lots of other breaches as well. A business person who 'bends' the law on one issue tends to regard the practice like bananas... trival and does so in bunches

examinator

It is good to see you insist on a few absolute values. I wonder where they came from? Amazing how people who reject right and wrong are very
adamant about their opinions. Just goes to show we all like making up the rules especially when we reject the Rule Maker. You illustrate my point well.

Col you said "although, “…to correct an injustice”.
Sounds like “self-justification” and out of character for you."

I was not attempting to justify merely stating what my motivations were at the time. It was an injustice as perceived by me (and friend) at that time if you get my meaning. There is no doubt we were underpaid and the employer's actions were illegal (under award) but by the same token, I made the choice to take on the job and the choice not to report to relevant authorities so have to accept responsibility too. Put simply, two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree with most of the comments made. I would never, and have not, done anything like this since.

Mainly because I believe that we function best when we abide to a standard set of laws. If we all took justice into our own hands it would be chaos. And who decides what is unjust and what isn't - humans can make all sorts of excuses for their behaviour.

And our legal system does accommodate individual circumstances as life is not always so black and white. Killing another person in self-defence for example is different to pre-meditated murder as it should be.

Foxy
You are right of course. In desperation we would have compassion for someone who stole from hunger even if we might not condone the action. Weighing up the choices between possibility of death by hunger with our moral conscience may be a big ask.

runner
Secularism is not at fault here - you do grasp at straws sometimes. Rather a secular legal state, than one where the law might be influenced by extremist religious views where women are stoned for being raped. This is done in the name of religion.

Examinator “Sure stealing from a boss was wrong as is Accepting pay without tax stealing too from the other tax payers.”

The topic was Pelicans ethics…
It was not
the ethics of Pelicans Ex-boss

so maybe you can quote, specifically from my post, which of it you used to deduce you cheap attempt at a character attack with the phrase

“Obviously you feel that minimum wage laws and paying off the books to avoid payroll tax workers comp etc and hiding income is ok”

(Gosh and you spent so long telling us all how you were Mr Perfect and what a bad boy I was…. Well Mr Perfect would not try taking cheap shots without a basis for them and you and I both know, there is nothing in my previous posts to justify what you claim is "“Obviously” what I feel.."

I suggest you back off or I might decide to review some of your past postings, with the intention of revealing what a hypocritical sycophant you really are

“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”

If you wanted to pursue the path of logic regarding the ethical issues of the boss, we could equally question the ethics of this socialist government who believes it is entitled to place the yoke of debt around the neck of our unborn grand children to allow Krudd & Co to bluff their way through the swamp of incompetence in which they are drowning and dragging everyone else into with them,

I find the theft of tax payer funds in pursuit of an ill conceived and ultimately failed “Stimulus Package” (which are really pork barreling voter bribes and union boss payoffs) the most unethical action of all.

Pelican” I was not attempting to justify merely stating what my motivations were at the time.”

I understand.

As I said, it seemed “out of character” from the person I image when I read your posts…

It is why I separated it from the previous part of my quote of your post

No slight was intended in any way…. :- )

And yes “Put simply, two wrongs don't make a right.”

“life is not always so black and white”

I disagree, I do see things as “black” or “white”.

The problem we all have to deal with is

the line which divides the black from the white is not a straight line but it twists and curls around the convoluting priorities and circumstances of our lives and includes things like “mitigation”

Self Defense is not a mitigating circumstance, it is a "defense" in its own right

Thus an, otherwise, unethical act is ethical because of the justification of self defense...

Different process or prevailing circumstances and conditions to your stealing example...

(although, there is no self defense justification for stealing :-) ).

Examinator,

IMO, yours is a very PC answer.

"Stealing property back is simply false justification (two wrongs never make a right only an escalation.)"

No it isn't, provided you did nothing wrong to start with and you were only getting back what was rightfully yours in the first place. It doesn't mean going on a thieving spree, just retrieving in due measure what was taken from you.

"Try comforting a mother who has lost a child because a driver was a few k’s over."

The tear-jerker. No offence intended to people who find themselves in this situation, but this happens in only a small percentage of cases. The only way to really stop this situation is to ban the car. Advocates anywhere?

"Sure we all do break the laws but to then claim it’s unreasonable is simply being irresponsible."

Would you be happy with getting fined EVERY time you broke the speed limit? After all, according to your logic, that would be right wouldn't it? You, like most of us, would be broke ... in the hip pocket. I wonder how long it would be before people ditched their absolute commitment to the law under those circumstances? Anyway, speeding fines are meant to change behaviour not as revenue raisers. If the Government is secretly using them as revenue raisers, then I reckon they definitely deserve to have the money "stolen" back off them. I actually think this attitude is healthy. If the majority had the same attitude as you, society would quickly descend to a master-slave relationship as the powerful quickly realised they had no real opposition.

BTW, when I say a few kms over the limit, I mean on busy throughfares where the cops usually patrol or have speed traps. In my experience, they very rarely set up traps in suburbs where hoons can do damage by speeding in narrow streets etc. I'm 100% against hoons. And I'm also against cops strictly, arbitrarily and over-enthusiastically enforcing a law against people going about their everyday business for what is a minor infringement with little or no danger involved.

Pelican, what an interesting question. I agree with Foxy's point.

Runner, there are no absolutes. Not even when using the bible as a guide. Just look at the commandment: Thou shall not kill.

It looks simple and unequivocal, but I bet you'd be able to quote bible verse and all when it is OK to break this rule.

Good to see ColR is true to form. Hates 'anarchy' and law breaking from certain ranks (employees, most likely dull losers without ambition), but endorses law breaking from other ranks (employers, most likely deserving entrepreneurs with high ethical standards).

Pelican, your story serves to remind us that greed and unethical behaviour is unfortunately the most likely behaviour from human beings. ColR would disagree with me, but then he must have either blinkers on, is a relentless romantic, or simply lives on another planet.

Is stealing ever justified?
1. If you are a golden boy and the money come from tax payers then sure you can steal them. But why to steal them when Bush and other politicians will offer them to you for free for a generous bonus?
2. If you are an employer and the unions are weak then you can steal from your employees. But why to steal from your employees when Howard's industrial Relations law give you the right to do what ever you want on your employees?
3. If you leave your wallet in your car with opened window or unlocked door, then anyone can steal your money as you encourage, provoke the others to steal your money!
4. Do not steal if you do not know how to hide them!
5 If you steal stolen money then you are not a theaf, simple you took them!
6. Do not steal if you do not know how to use them!
DO NOT STEAL SIR IF YOU WANT TO LIVE A QUITE, CALM, SIMPLE AND HAPPY LIFE.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Anansi "but endorses law breaking from other ranks (employers, most likely deserving entrepreneurs with high ethical standards)."

Please quote from my posts and only from my posts (and not Examinators misrepresentation)

Where I "endorse" (your word) the breaking of the law by anyone at any "rank", class or position in life?

I await your response with interest

As for Anarchy.... yes I find those who descend into "anarchy" deserve to be exiled to a small island, maybe off the coast of Tasmania and left their to rot in the effluent of their own existence.

Regarding "greed and unethical behaviour is unfortunately the most likely behaviour from human beings. ColR would disagree with me,"

I would disagree with you.

I understand it though.

You are merely projecting your own absence of ethics onto what you assume is common from other human beings.

regarding "but then he must have either blinkers on, is a relentless romantic, or simply lives on another planet."

I have no blinkers, I am romantic but not rrelentlessly so and I do live, very well, on this planet,

I do not steal from my employer, the Tax office or anyone else and in the past, when I had an insurance claim which was overpaid due to an error by the insurer, I sent back the Cheque and they re-issued one for the correct and lower amount.

Obviously a hypothetical employee and employer relationship between you and I could only exist with you as employee, because there is no way on earth I would work for someone who projects such an appauling lack of ethics as you have done in your post (there are other words I could use but such terminology often leads to being sin-binned by GY and you are not worth the risk of that)

but I would likely leave you to find employment elsewhere because I suspect you would fail even the first and simplest interview question.

I cannot prevent you from making unwarranted judgments to my character
but in the spirit of reciprocation, expect a candid and frank summary of yours in return.

Col Rouge

"I do not steal from my employer, the Tax office or anyone else ..."

An accountant who didn't steal from the tax office. Well, that'd have to be a first.

Col, cut the phony indignation about the 'unwarranted judgements' on your 'character'. Anansi and examinator were both perfectly correct to deduce from your little lecture to Pelican exactly as they have done. Their reading of your text is spot on, as are both their comments.

Attempting to bully them into producing exact quotes is typical power play on your part and is totally unnecessary. We don't need a tedious word-for-word re-enactment in order to follow the debate. You might, but we don't.

Col
No offence taken - really. I understand your position in terms of your ethics as I have a pretty strong moral compass myself and while I may not be as black and white as yourself, I can be at times. As I said it was the folly of youth and I know you get that. :)

Bronwyn
You and I are very much alike - fairly centrist with a left leaning and from the many erudite comments you make on OLO I see we view things from a similar position. I do not condone the actions of the employer at all, but as Col said I was more speaking of ethics from the viewpoint of my behaviour rather than the employer in this situation (following on from the comments by davidf on another topic). Taking the law into my own hands was not the smart thing to do and I only regret not reporting him to IR authorities at the time, because he probably went on to continue exploiting other students. But we live and learn.

Anansi
You said "Pelican, your story serves to remind us that greed and unethical behaviour is unfortunately the most likely behaviour from human beings."

I don't necessarily agree it is the most likely behaviour but I do believe that we need some regulation to ensure that in the event of such behaviour the most powerless and vulnerable are protected. Most of my employers have been ethical and we enjoyed very good employee/employer relationships.

Interesting discussion, pelican.

Having read the comments thus far, I'm not sure that we're all talking about the same thing when we're talking about "stealing". For me, the Macquarie dictionary definition concurs with my understanding of the act that the term describes:

<< steal...

1. to take or take away dishonestly or wrongfully, esp. secretly.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, word,s etc.) without right or acknowledgement.
3. to take, get or win by insidious, surreptitious, or subtle means.
[...]
6. to obtain more than one's share; appropriate entirely to oneself.
[...]
10. to commit or practise theft.
[...]
13. Colloq. something acquired at very little cost or at a cost well below its true value >>

More simply, stealing is taking or getting something belonging to someone else by dishonest or wrongful means. It all turns on who rightfully owns the object(including intangible objects) that is taken, and the means by which it is taken from the owner.

[cont]

[cont]

I take a rather Hobbesian view on stealing - i.e. in the absence of socially derived rules and laws, people are naturally inclined to take what they need or want by right. Every human society has developed laws and customs to constrain that natural tendency, and these are learnt by individual humans through childhood processes of socialization and enculturation. Like most social phenomena, there is wide diversity both between and within societies concerning the values relating to property, and how they are learned and enforced.

I think that whether or not stealing can be justified depends on the particular circumstances, the type of property, and the individual ethical configuration of the person doing the stealing. As others have pointed out, people steal things all the time in our (and every) society - apart from simply taking physical property that someone else owns, they steal ideas, they evade taxes, they strip companies of assets and steal workers' entitlements, they profit from others' misfortune etc etc.

Collectively, States steal land from each other and from Indigenous owners, governments steal wages and children, etc. Indeed, a central plank of early 'libertarian' thought is that all taxation is theft - a sentiment that underlies extreme forms of contemporary libertarianism and undoubtedly 'justifies' to its perpetrators any number of "insidious, surreptitious or subtle" schemes designed to evade paying legally assessable taxes.

Of course stealing is justified - at the moment it is done by the perpetrators of it. Of course, the ethics of such justification is another question entirely.

Col
No cheap shot intended I was emphasising Foxy's point that while stealing is wrong in 'absolute terms' (a concept I have difficulty with). Practically speaking it often depends on the circumstances.
In hind sight I erred in that read you post as being ultra pro the boss … not focusing solely on the issue as you were … my bad …sorry.

Runner.
As I said I acknowledge the intellectual absolutism of stealing but I have difficulties of it in practical terms. My post to you was to point out that Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on morals or compassion. Event in the Bible are morally questionable if taken in absolutism. My mantra has always been “ it depends on **context**”

RobP
This is off topic.
We all should strive for perfection even though we all know that is functionally impossible. My point to you is that if the action potentially dangerous then it is beholden on us to be more assiduous in observing the law.
Would I be happy with being pinged every time I lapsed? No but it *would* be my fault.
“Why me? They’re speeding too” is a shallow argument in that the facts are I/you were breaching the law.
Some years ago I was a witness in case where a man was made a paraplegic and his young son killed. The driver’s defence was “I was keeping up with the flow of traffic”. The police accident squad testified he was doing approximately 5-7ks over the 60 limit and because of the road conditions he was unable to stop.

A few years later my family and I were ‘’T” boned and were lucky to survive by a driver who “was only doing a few ks over”.

As a crisis councillor I dealt with several similar stories. I still see that accident in my mind every time I get into a car. Accidents happen to people maybe even you no just statistics.

CJ,
Good post Some day we should have a debate it’d be interesting.

Examinator,

Acknowledging this is off topic, I would say that keeping up with the traffic is very hard NOT to do in today's world. There are plenty of aggressive and impatient drivers on the road who make life very difficult not to drive along with everyone else.

But, yes, I agree with you that a culture change is needed across the board.

Bronwyn,

'Anansi and examinator were both perfectly correct to deduce from your little lecture to Pelican exactly as they have done. '

You sure? I see it as a pretty big streatch. Col seemed to assert that the rate of pay was incorrectly assumed in pelicans mind and never discussed the legislated minimum wage.

It's a long way from..

'...If he could do that, surely you are overestimating the prevailing “rate of pay” for the job?'

to..

'Obviously you feel that minimum wage laws and paying off the books to avoid payroll tax workers comp etc and hiding income is ok'

I think Col probably didn't read the whole post, and saw the many references to 'substandard wages', 'grossly underpaid' but not one sentence....'We got paid cash in hand, no penalty rates and for well less than award wages.'

So Col has wrongly assumed the wages were only unfair in pelicans mind. Sloppy? Or perhaps he doesn't believe it's wrong to break this law?

The rest have assumed that this means he is promoting a businesses breaking the law in this area (maybe), and added on extra assumptions about payroll tax, workers comp and hiding income, and stealing from the tax office.

Col,

What would Margaret Thatcher have to say about all this?

Gosh CJ when you make one of your longer posts you are positively brilliant. :)

Houllebecq - I can't speak for Maggie or Col but I think Maggie Thatcher might have expected nothing less than ethical adherence by both employer and employee in the laws that she set out for them. And woe betide.

Folks,
It seems that we all understand that theft is wrong in absolute terms but in with some practical lee-way for circumstances.

A PC asside; After all we pretend to be human (:-) for conspiracy theoriest in our midst.) and occasionly sin (for the religiously inclined)and (for the atheists)we screw up.

It has occured to me that the seminal issue we're all struggling with isn't "is stealing justified" but "is it ever **just**".
bound up in that are the conicepts of "what is just" and "what is justice".

Maybe that's a new(follow up) topic for debate hmmm? You're on a roll CJ and Pelecan. I await that with interest.

Bronwyn “An accountant who didn't steal from the tax office. Well, that'd have to be a first.”

I do not prepare tax returns, not even my own. I have a tax accountant/agent who does them for me.

I now expect you to justify your scurrilous assertion that the accountancy profession is riddled with thieves and tax cheats.

You will find some dishonest ones.

I know that because it is the nature of people, as you will find dishonest coppers, lawyers, judges, doctors, even politicians etc.

However, being closely involved with fellow members of the accountancy bodies I am accredited to

I can speak, with some authority, to correct your ignorance.

The vast majority are ethical people who conduct their affairs to a very high standard.

“Col, cut the phony indignation”

Examinator and Anansi both made direct comments of me, not of the opinion I expressed.

Examinator with all his talk of rule changes to curtail the posts of abusive posters comes here
With judgmental slurs

“Obviously you feel that minimum wage laws and paying off the books to avoid payroll tax workers comp etc and hiding income is ok”

An implication which could not be drawn from my post (here or elsewhere)

Similarly, Anansi had her attempt at character assassination in the phrase

“but endorses law breaking from other ranks (employers, most likely deserving entrepreneurs with high ethical standards”

You too were sniveling around with Examinator, like a pack of wild dogs, after anyone who you deemed fell below the “standards”.

You wanted to impose upon thus all YOUR rules.

You complain now when I illustrate and call them on it.

Examinator and Anansis both breached what is supposed to be one of the cardinal rules of debating

“Play the Ball, not the man”

I “bully them” ?

No

I was holding them “accountable” for their posts

but you are ‘bullying’ now

Bronwyn, how is it possible for someone to be as hypocritical as you?

I speculate, if you wear makeup,

it must cost lots and take a long time to apply….

painting and powdering both faces every day.

CJ Morgan

"insidious, surreptitious or subtle" schemes designed to evade paying legally assessable taxes.”

Re

www.tax.law.unimelb.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=988D0DDC-1422-207C-BA698688E98045BD

“TAX AVOIDANCE AND THE HIGH COURT SINCE
SIR GARFIELD BARWICK
By A. J. MYERS

It is also notorious that income taxation law has become more complex since the time Sir Garfield was Chief Justice.

Sir Harry Gibbs has written recently that “the laws relating to income tax are a disgrace”.

He refers to legislation which is “absurdly voluminous”, “which is obscure to the point of being incomprehensible”. He refers to “unacceptably wide discretionary powers, including those given by the anti –avoidance provisions of IVA inserted in an overreaction to some earlier decisions of the High Court”.

Sir Harry also says that many

“practising accountants no longer try to unravel the mysteries of the legislation by reading its provisions. Rather they rely on the various documents and rulings issued by the Australian Taxation Office –

a subordination of the rule of law to the opinions of the Executive.”

I would agree with him that tax evasion is “Stealing”.

However, based on the opinions of Sir Harry Gibbs, I would suggest the line between “Evasion “ and “Avoidance” has been erased where

there is “subordination of the rule of law to the opinions of the Executive.”

The Distinction between evasion and avoidance becomes impossible

and since the onus of our system of justice is the presumption of innocence,

It can reasonably be presumed the innocent pursuit of “Tax Avoidance” is the “sentiment that underlies extreme forms of contemporary libertarianism “ rather than any unproven “Tax Evasion”.

“Tax avoidance is the legal utilization of the tax regime to one's own advantage, in order to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law”

“Tax” is an imposition, by the state upon its citizens.

It is entirely appropriate for every citizens to freely employ whatever means are legally available to minimise that imposition.

The ATO is charged with obeying Tax Laws, not with enacting them.

Or we end up with ATO “Stealing by Statute” from Tax payers, not the other way around.

Houellebecq “I think Col probably didn't read the whole post,”

I did read the whole post but the question Pelican posed was never about how much she got paid.

Pelican was asking us to consider her oan stealing, in response to her pay arrangements.

Therefore “So Col has wrongly assumed the wages were only unfair in pelicans mind. Sloppy? Or perhaps he doesn't believe it's wrong to break this law?”

Is irrelevant.

To put it another way:

I did not bother to answer an unasked question.

As it is, I do not condone either breaking the law or underpaying people at any level and positively cringe when I hear of kids on school sponsored “work experience” being given $5 a day as suggested by the school….

If I were to have a school child attached to my business for work experience, I would pay them something closer to a real wage rate and not $5 for the day for whatever they did.

I note my own daughter when she was doing “work experience” in an accountants office (no one I knew), she was employed by an accountant who, based on the amount she received, held similar values to my own.

Regarding Employers conduct: if you have good staff and want to keep them, be the best employer around.

It is usually the mediocre employers and employees who find it otherwise and end up complaining.

“What would Margaret Thatcher have to say about all this?”

I would speculate, she would say similar to what pelican has already written in her reply to you on that point :- )

Examinator, apology accepted

Just a bit of light relief folks:

Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson went on a camping trip.
After a good meal and a bottle of wine they laid down
for the night, and went to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes
awoke and nudged his faithful friend.

"Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see."

Watson replied, "I see millions and millions of stars."

"What does that tell you?"

Watson pondered for a minute.

"Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of
galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically,
I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that
the time is approximately a quarter past three. Theologically,
I can see that God is all-powerful and that we are small and
insignificant. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a
beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you?"

Holmes was silent for a minute, then spoke.

"It tells me that someone has stolen our tent."

Holmes made a tentative conclusion after canvassing the evidence.

Good one, Foxy - and an oldie. Brilliant response from david f.

Col Rouge - that's a classically fallacious argument. I was specifically referring to people who evade their legitimate taxes, rather than those who legitimately avoid taxes they would otherwise have paid, without (for example) the assistance of a bean counter whose entire profession is dependent upon the existence of financial practices, regulations and laws.

Which, axiomatically, would not exist in the absence of "society".

P.S. Many thanks to pelican and examinator for their kind words. I have no doubt that we can debate these issues at length some time, and I'm sure we can do so politely, civilly and in the absence of malice.

However, I'm not so sure we can do that at OLO :)

Yes CJ, the old sensitivities are hard to avoid on OLO but overall it is not a bad forum. You are right these issues would probably be better discussed around a fire with a few friends and a nice drink (name your poison). Although it is b*y hot here at the moment so maybe not a fire. :)

Great joke foxy - demonstrates how our differences and experiences shape what we ultimately perceive. In essence most people appear to seek the same end it is the manner in which to achieve it that we tend to disagree.

A fabulous witty response from davidf. Great sense of humour there david.

CJ Morgan “that's a classically fallacious argument.”

You claim the observations of the late Sir Harry Gibb, past chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, someone with more authority to speak on and experience of the matter than myself or youself, represent a “classically fallacious argument.” In response to your comment

“'justifies' to its perpetrators any number of "insidious, surreptitious or subtle" schemes designed to evade paying legally assessable taxes.”

What you claim, in hindsight “I was specifically referring to people who evade their legitimate taxes, rather than those who legitimately avoid taxes they would otherwise have paid”

was not particularly clear, from your initial post, but that aside, the point that Sir Harry and I were making is

it should not be up to the ATO to decide, unilaterally or for you to rely on, which tax arrangements are “Evasion” and which are “Avoidance” .

It should be a matter of judicial review through the appeal courts.

And whilst something might be construed, by ATO as prima-facie “Evasion” it should, until proven so be deemed “Avoidance” because the burden of evidence to its illegality has to first be proved.

As to you suggestion “bean counter whose entire profession is dependent upon the existence of financial practices, regulations and laws”

Actually you are wrong there.

The existence and deployment of certain types of accountants might be dependent upon “financial practices, regulations and law” but other types of accountants are employed for their ability to organize interpret and plan the affairs of commerce and government,

Whilst they might be influenced by “financial practices” their employment or the manner in which they provide service is only “incidentally” or nominally influenced by “Regulation” and “Law” , differently to being “dependent” upon them.

Certain prejudices are considered unacceptable. Aborigines, Jews, Muslims and other ethnic minorities are considered out of bounds for derision.

However, Americans, accountants and lawyers are other categories which can be derided freely. Col Rouge has eloquently defended his profession.

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.

I suppose I'll have to spell it out for Col. His argument with me is fallacious because he's attributing something to my position that I didn't say. I said that people who evade their taxes are stealing - nothing at all in my original comment about those who legitimately avoid taxes for which they are not liable. I'm sure that Col, as an ethical accountant, would agree that those who have been found by a court to have evaded taxes for which they are liable, have stolen from the State.

My other point relates to Col's frequent quotation from his awful heroine - to the effect that there's no such thing as "society". I merely pointed out that without society, accountancy wouldn't exist. The entire financial edifice upon which his profession feeds is an artefact of society - no society, no money, no finance, no regulations, no laws, no accountants.

Quite simple, really.

CJ Morgan wrote:

My other point relates to Col's frequent quotation from his awful heroine - to the effect that there's no such thing as "society". I merely pointed out that without society, accountancy wouldn't exist. The entire financial edifice upon which his profession feeds is an artefact of society - no society, no money, no finance, no regulations, no laws, no accountants.

Dear CJ,

I agree that Thatcher was awful. However, when she said there was no such thing as society she was denying human caring and interaction outside of contractual obligations and legal structures. She and you have different definitions of what constitutes society. The financial edifice was worshipped by Thatcher. That was not what she meant by society.

My dictionary defines society as: a body of individuals living as members of a community

Thatcher denied community not all human structures.

IS stealing ever justified?...

Yep. I can sit here and justify murder as well, but that doesn't make it ethical. In today's society there's very little need to steal for survival - which is really the only justifiable reason I could think of right now.

I think if it gets to a point where you're considering stealing stuff for whatever reason then it's probably about time to ask for some help.

Different scenario's would result in justifiable crime; possibly ethical as well if you out some brain juice into it. Stealing from the 'wealthy' who hoard resources in times of desperation could be one. eg: Stealing food from the Nazi's during WW2.

Under the heading of "Theft Problem," I found
this:

"You've heard about people who've been abducted and had
their kidneys removed by black-market organ thieves.

My thighs were stolen from me during the night a few years
ago. I went to sleep and woke up with someone else's thighs.
It was just that quick. The replacements had the texture of
cooked oatmeal. Whose thighs were these and what happened
to mine? I spent the entire summer looking for my thighs.
Finally, hurt and angry, I resigned myself to living my
life in jeans. And then the thieves struck again.

My butt was next. I knew it was the same gang, because they
took pains to match my new rear-end to the thighs they stole
earlier. But my new butt was attached at least three inches
lower than my own had been. I now have to give up my jeans in
favour of long skirts.

Two years ago I realized my arms had been switched. One
morning I was fixing my hair and was horrified to see the flesh
of my upper arm swing to and fro with the motion of my combing
my hair. It was really scary. My body was being replaced one
section at a time.

When my poor neck suddenly disappeared and was replaced with a
turkey neck - that did it. Women of the world, wake up and smell
the coffee! Those 'plastic surgeons,' are using real replacement
body parts - stolen from you and me! The next time someone has
something 'lifted,' look again - was it lifted from you?

This is not a hoax. This is happening to women everywhere every
night. Warn your friends.

Last year I thought some one had stolen my Boobs. I was lying
in bed and I couldn't find my boobs. I jumped out of bed, I was
relieved to see that they had just been hiding in my armpits while
I slept. Now I keep them hidden in my waistband.

The same thieves come into my closet and shrink my clothes.

How do they do it?"

Anansi

'Runner, there are no absolutes.' Are you absolutely sure about that?

david f - firstly, let me say that on the basis of your comments and articles on OLO that I respect both you and your opinions.

However, in this case I disagree with you. I think that you're being far too kind to the odious Thatcher, and her most vocal OLO acolyte.

Her claim that "there is no such thing as society" was an ideologiically driven expression of ignorance. Indeed, if there was no society beyond the world of individuals, the world would have been blessed by her relegation to the ignominy that she deserves in historical terms.

As it stands, she was elevated to power by a society - represented by an electorate - that foolishly went along with her jingoistic bulldust until the facts became apparent. Of course, that was somewhat comparable to the process by which the drones kept on re-electing the execrable Howard.

One thing I've learnt over the years is that good people routinely tell lies in order to aciheve what they regard as greater goals.

My tax accountant is a friend, but over the years I have declined various deductione that he's suggested I might claim.

But that's because I'm more honest than him.

Foxy, Davidf and CJ-great posts. Thanks Bronwyn, for trying.

CJ, why does ColR think he can attribute, as you so politely put it, a position on behalf of other posters, but he snarls rather unpleasantly, direct quotes coming up ColR: 'You too were sniveling around with Examinator, like a pack of wild dogs...', 'I speculate, if you wear makeup, it must cost lots and take a long time to apply….painting and powdering both faces every day.' when others attribute a position of his on basis of his posts?

How does the above apply to 'play the ball and not the man'? I haven't read anybody refer to you as a sniffing dog or making sarcastic comments about your masculine habits.

ColR, Pelican was supplying some youthful rationalization to justify stealing, you didn't address the issue of stealing or justification-no, you focussed on the employer maybe being justified in paying low wages, questioning whether they could have been below award wages. Now why would you rationalize on behalf of the employer and wag your finger at the little employee?

You have no idea of my personal ethics or politcal beliefs. I have never voiced them. You, on the other hand, have an almost religious attachment to a particular political ideology and voice them regularly. To the point that you appear dogmatic. You countenance no deviation, modification or examination of the truth as revealed by Margaret Tatcher.

Dear CJ,

People who I am at almost complete odds with philosophically, politically and esthetically can have great virtues. I avoid my accountant cousin since we live in very different worlds and have few interests in common. He is very religiously observant, and I am a skeptic. He is very nationalistic, and I tend to anarchism. However, he is as honest and trustworthy as anyone I know.

I see him only when I see his sister who I am fond of, and he is there. I make an effort to be friendly. He does not talk about himself, but I was curious about him. He works for a firm in Los Angeles but goes all over the world examining corporate books. His specialty is bankruptcy, and he is sent to examine the books when a firm goes belly up. I knew he had been to the Philippines and asked him about his experiences.

He had examined the books of a corporation and was readying a report. This was when Marcos was president, and Marcos had an interest in the operation. Marcos called him into his office to talk about my cousin's report as somebody had informed him about it. Marcos was unhappy because the report detailed bribery, kickbacks and other wrongdoing. He said, "You really don't understand. That is the way we do things here." My cousin was unwilling to change his report even though Marcos offered him a reward for such action. Marcos finally said, "I'll have somebody visit you who will discuss the matter further." My cousin left the office and called his headquarters n the US. They told him not to go back to his hotel but to go directly to the airport and take the first plane out regardless of its destination. He did that, wound up in Hong Kong and went from there back to LA.

I don't agree on much of anything politically or philosophically with Col Rouge, and I do not care for Attila the Hen. However, I have no reason to think that Col is not as honest as my cousin.

Col

“I now expect you to justify your scurrilous assertion that the accountancy profession is riddled with thieves and tax cheats.”

Down off your high horse, Col. I’m not accusing you or any other individual accountant of being a thief. My comment was a loose turn of phrase and not meant to be taken literally. The accountancy profession is nonetheless built around the principle of tax minimisation, and as discussed earlier this involves both avoidance and evasion. You can quibble over the differences between the two as long as you like, the end result is the same. The tax take is less and the ability of government to redistribute wealth and create a fairer society is weakened.

"Examinator and Anansis both breached what is supposed to be one of the cardinal rules of debating 'Play the Ball, not the man'"

They were both playing the ball and playing it well and have nothing to apologise for. Yes, they paraphrased you, and yes, they used their prior knowledge of your posting history as much as they did the words on the page, but they didn't unduly misrepresent you or make personal slurs. They were well within the confines of reasonable hardball debate and considering what you've dished up to others over the years your sanctimonious protestations are laughable really.

I would imagine that most people reading Pelican's first post would have sympathy with the fact that she was underpaid and their comments, like david f's, would reflect that. But no, not you. Straight away you jump in and superciliously point out to Pelican how mistaken she was to ever believe her labour was worth more than the lowly rate at which she'd been paid. The implication was she was lucky to have a job and that no matter how badly she was treated she should never have considered getting back at her employer the way she did. Her suffering was acceptable, but not his. It was classic pro employer and screw the worker. It wasn’t explicit, but the drift was there and none of us missed it.

Col (cont)

“Bronwyn, how is it possible for someone to be as hypocritical as you? I speculate, if you wear makeup, it must cost lots and take a long time to apply….painting and powdering both faces every day.”

Ah, Col, I must remember that next time hubby’s tapping his feet, ready to go and I’m still at the mirror. I’ll tell him it’s the two faces. :)

Pelican

"Is there any situation where stealing is justified?"

Having just watched 'Slumdog Millionaire', I would suggest that an orphan child living in the slums of India has absolutely no choice but to steal. Fabulous movie too BTW. Thoroughly recommend it.

Davidf Davidf I do appreciate your well expressed sensitivity to a point I was making. And your subsequent repulses to some scurrilous comments

And I do have a (strictly rhetorical) question from your post and in what you observed

Re “prejudices are considered unacceptable. Aborigines, Jews, Muslims and other ethnic minorities are considered out of bounds for derision.

However, Americans, accountants and lawyers are other categories which can be derided freely.”

How acceptable or unacceptable is it to denigrate the professional efforts of a

Jewish Accountant,
Aboriginal Lawyer or
American Muslim ?

Doubtless, those better skilled than you or I, in the judgment of others, will be quick to find the answer,

For myself, from the question I raise, it is immediately clear that

anyone who considers themselves sufficiently skilled at “judging” has, by default, got the answer wrong.

Anansi “you focussed on the employer maybe being justified in paying low wages,”

That might be your misinterpetation of what I wrote, I cannot account for your language skills.

That aside, it does now justify your cheap shot.

And the point with the entire thread was the topic was not the amount Pelican was paid but

Pelicans action of stealing..

But you make your cheap shots… lets face it … they give you more presence here than if you try with just the strength of your personality.

“You have no idea of my personal ethics or politcal beliefs.”

Nor do I give a rats.

“To the point that you appear dogmatic. You countenance no deviation, modification or examination of the truth as revealed by Margaret Tatcher.”

Golly gosh.. to hear you, one might be mistaken for thinking this was an “opinion forum”

Bronwyn.. your capacity to caste aside responsibility for your judgmental postings is awe inspiring

But I have spent more than enough words on you and your hypocrisy.

To use more would be to

cast pearls before swine…

and dickie could have provided the images until it was deleted by our host,

the real authority, who does make and enforce the rules of the forum.

"There once was a poster named Col,
His own virtues he'd love to extol.
With his razor sharp flair,
Forum posters beware,
'Cause polite conversation,
This poster won't wear!"

You gotta love this guy!

Two can play at that game

There was a little gang who, alone
Believed authority was theirs to own
But even the lovely Foxy
Adopted rules so poxy
Other posters found reason to moan

as you said.....

You gotta love this guy!

Care to go another round?

Col

"But I have spent more than enough words on you and your hypocrisy."

Yes, you have, Col, and every time you lecture me or anyone else about double standards, your own hypocrisy shines through ever more clearly.

"To use more would be to cast pearls before swine…"

Just as well I don't pounce on literal interpretations in the way you do when it suits you to have a go, or I too would be puffing myself up with self-righteous indignation at being called a pig. Fortuantely, I have a little more sense than that.

As for the pearls, well Col, we all know you value your own words highly, but pearls of wisdom? I don't think so. More like stones if you ask me. They might make a slight ripple when they hit the water, but they soon sink without a trace.

Foxy

"You gotta love this guy!"

As always, Foxy, you're far too kind! :)

Foxy, Bronwyn, CJ, Davidf,
It appears that I am missing two or three screens of this topic can any of you bring me up to speed on how economics and Baroness has anything to do with the question of the efficacy of stealing.

Col is a dedicated accountant and as such it is understandable that he want’s to have all topics ultimately related to financial/economics clearly his perceived area of expertise. I see no real reason to doubt that but the relevance alludes me.

Out side of a few ideologically bent individuals she has/will sink into the background noise to be rightfully forgotten “as just another right extremist” that had their day in the sun at the expense of others then were deposed for the good of the country.

Seriously, I know of no Philosophy, Economics, and Sociology or Ethics course in any university that teaches/advocates her practices/ ideology etc.
One might as well quote Sir Harry Gibb, William Hughes, Lionel Murphy or Andrew Fisher for all the relevance they offer to the topic.

Societies were there before current failed economics ideologies (We are in a financial crisis which was the making of that system) and will be around after.
Oh yes ethical topics like the one we were discussing will still have resonance.

I note with some mild interest that having accepted an apology I am now being vilified and used as example of what? So much for accepting an apology. Apparently it means nothing.
At the time I thought I may have been unfair to Col because of up until then he appeared to be toning his act down and answering him on past actions may discourage his attempt to be reasonable. But no he simply moves his target. Bronwyn is right too much effort is wasted on someone so bitter that all his fun comes in abusive conflict

Come on guys, give the man a chance.
He took my teasing, and my ditty, rather well I thought.
It shows that he does have a sense of humour.
He came right back at me with what I thought was a
rather clever retort. So I've got to give credit,
where credit's due.

As for Maggie Thatcher - leave her alone.
That's Col's passion - and the Lady is beyond
reproach in his eyes. Each of us has our own passions,
that we'd be upset if anything derogatory was said.

Col,

No I don't want to go another round with you.
There's no need. You've matched me pretty well!
It was well played!

Just reading through these posts and the way people justify themselves is pitiful to to say the least. Scriptures assessment of all being corrupt is highlighted even in the 'nice' posters. The sad part is that many don't believe they are corrupt. And to think we are all commenting on a moral issue. Maybe we need to distinguish between being mostly honest (which I am sure most are) and corruptible which we all are. Thank God for the only incorruptible One.

Dear runner,

You must have a sense of humour - surely?

I'm sure God does. He created us didn't he?

Anyway, as Oscar Wilde said,

"I can resist everything, but temptation!"

And, temptation was given to us for a reason,
as was our conscience.
I think it's called choice.

Foxy I appreciate not going another round either and I also appreciate your comments on my behalf.

And yes accountants do have a sense of humour,

We also make the best lovers

- We have to have something to think about all day when we are at work (wink)

To Examinator “he (me) want’s to have all topics ultimately related to financial/economics”

Not at all, I did not push this thread into that arena.

My posts were confined to the matter of Pelicans ethical issues in dealing with stealing,

It was others who pushed in the direction of finance/economics and I merely responded to their “pushes” in the manner,

“when push comes to shove, I shove back.”

Especially when someone tries to award themselves a free kick at my expense or more importantly the expense of my chosen profession and then I feel entitled to shove and when I shove it is always without regard to any “proportional response”.

Foxy “I'm sure God does.” (have a sense of humour)

You bet. I refer you to the Hole Bible

Genesis 1:27 (King James version of course… none of that republican modernist stuff)

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

And he has been laughing ever since.

But from that, I am not sure what he used for the female…. One is tempted to postulate, his mother…and then we are back to chickens and eggs.

I am sure the feminists would suggest the male was merely an early prototype, upgraded by the model fashioned from Adams rib.

But I will resist going to places where I should not venture on a “venerable” thread, such as this, devoted solely to the serious matters in hand.

Bronwyn, a friend recommended the same movie. I am planning to see it soon. I would imagine stealing in this situation is more than justified and any discussions of ethics (by the well-fed middle classes) grossly overrated and irrelevant from that perspective.

Good poitns by CJ and Stg
ie. that the concept really lies within 'ethics' rather than justification. We can all justify actions in our own mind, but are the actions ethical. Ethics is a complex topic and (as per Wikipedia) is more than just the analyzing of right and wrong.

Thanks all for your comments.

Dear Col,

Accountants make the best lovers?

That I hadn't heard.

Although I have heard that:

Librarians are novel lovers...

As for "the male being merely a prototype..."
Well, you're close...

As in all creative activity you start with the draft first before
creating the masterpiece. So God started with man before creating
woman... :)

Foxy "So God started with man before creating
woman... "

Yep we obviously source the same joke book....

could be, despite the odd issue, here and there,

we do actually read off the same page sometimes :-)

Dear Col,

I think that many of us have more in common
then we realize, wouldn't it be great if we
could concentrate on what unites us then
on what divides us? Sometimes we get bogged
down on such trivial things. But I guess,
that's human nature. And as Houellebecq said,
it adds "spice."

However, I'm still learning the art of posting
on this Forum - what to do, what not to do, how
to put my point across without causing offense or
demeaning anyone. It's not always easy, as you know,
especially with highly emotive issues that one feels
strongly about. But hopefully I'll continue to learn
and grow.

Anyway, Thanks for your kind words.

Dear Pelican,

Back to the topic of this thread.

"Is stealing ever justified?"

I've been thinking about the issue a bit more,
and I've come to the conclusion - yes, it is
when it saves lives.

While I'm sure that accountants make the best lovers (at least, of themselves), one reason that they have such an unfortunate reputation for dishonesty may well be because of the regular stories we hear like this:

<< THE former president of the National Institute of Accountants, Lynette Liles, a two-time bankrupt, appeared in a Sydney court yesterday over a $5.2 million money laundering and tax evasion scheme. >>

http://www.smh.com.au/national/former-accountants-chief-in-court-on-tax-charges-20090210-83il.html

"former president of the National Institute of Accountants, "

Stealing and lying are equal opportunity sins.

the point to consider is the lady was the "Former" and every professional body can count among its former associates and former office bearers any number of people who have fallen below ethical requirements.

The point to make is, the "fallen" are a matter for public scrutiny and public record, where as, for instance, the process among the priesthood for those who dealt unethically with people was for the organisation to close ranks and cover up.

The public recording of Lynette Liles shortcomings in no way casts a negative light upon the organisation she was formerly president of, quite the opposite....

If she had been among the clerigy, she would likely not be in court and thus her corruption would remain undisclosed.

Every organisation is susceptible to the villany of unscrupulous individuals.

The test of the organisation is in how directly and promptly that organisation deals with that villany.

And the organisations I am associated with handle issues of individual villany promptly, thoroughly and fearlessly, as they should (and just fyi "National Institute of Accountants" is not one of them).

Dear Col,

A certain percentage of Muslims are terrorists.
A certain percentage of priests have committed
sexual abuse.
A certain percentage of police are corrupt.
A certain percentage of business executives are
tax evaders.
A certain percentage of men beat their wifes.

Et cetera, et cetera...

We who live in a civilized society realize that poor
behaviour of a few does not condemn, nor even
accurately reflect the character of the many.

CJ

"While I'm sure that accountants make the best lovers (at least, of themselves)..."

LOL!

Col

The only 'fallen' accountants held up for public scrutiny as you say are the ones caught out.

And their appearance on the public record is much more likely down to the efforts of their victims and of investigative journalists, than it is to the in-house putting-up of the hand that you're claiming.

Who are the best lovers - according to their professions?
Sorry Pelly, we're off track again on your thread ...
But I can't resist... this is the last,
and then I'm out of here.

Accountants - Go by the book.
(although they'd know the score).

Architects - Are known for their 'erections.'
(my apologies - bad taste, I know).

Counselors - Good listeners - caring.
(Great potential).

Doctors - Some lack good 'bedside'
manners. But their technique should be allright.

Lawyers - Probably too judgemental.

Sportsmen - Hmmm, - probably have the stamina,
but maybe too physical.

I guess, the counselors - get my vote. :)

Happy Valentine's Day to One and All!

Foxy

You're obviously getting a bit distracted, what with Valentine's Day coming up and all. We do understand.

Being such a nice person, not to mention an irrepressible flirt, you're bound to receive lots of red flowers and chocolates. The accolades from all your admirers on OLO will no doubt soon be rolling in! Even a certain accountant, who openly professes his adoration for another woman, will I imagine soon be doing his level best to make you blush - yet again! (BTW, I wonder if he tries that on with his beloved Maggie too!) :)

And being a total grump myself of course, I'm thoroughly envious!

So, yes, we know your anticipation levels are at fever pitch, Foxy, but please do try and keep your mind focused on sensible debate, if you can! :)

BTW, I'm curious, did you find the above list? You're always ferreting out these little gems on the net. Or did you create this one yourself? - which again is quite possible, going by some of the fine poetical efforts we've seen from you in the past.

Dear Bronwyn,

Thanks for all your compliments - but my real life
is not all that glamourous. And as for 'Valentine's
Day,' the only people I'll be buying things for are
my two mums (my mum, and my mother-in-law). One has
dementia, the other alzheimers. But, it's just a
gesture to bring smiles to their faces.

The list of "lovers by professions," I made up.
It was my attempt at humour - but
I got a bit carried away, so my apologies.

Anyway, an uber-gorgeous female like yourself has no
reason to be envious of anyone. I seem to recall quite
a few flirtations of your own, 'Mistress Bronwyn.' :)
And, you're a far more talented poster then I'll ever be.

I'm the one who's envious of you.

Bronwyn "And their appearance on the public record is much more likely down to the efforts of their victims and of investigative journalists, than it is to the in-house putting-up of the hand that you're claiming."

Well maybe it is that I am involved in the profession and talk from the basis of knowledge rather than ignorance

OR equally likely

I project my values and standards onto the process and you, likewise project your values and standards into the process

Either explanation works for me... and says something about you too