Stop the madness

using legality as an ethical corollary doesn't really cut it for me. you're invoking "the worst argument in the world" as seen here on hn.

(http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/)

now. there is a difference between those two articles.

just ask yourself: who would i invest in? the guy deceiving to work more, or the guy working to deceive more? no contest.

You're absolutely right. Inferring legality==ethical is a fallacy and distraction. I got a bit of a twinge when writing that bit.

I think the reason I left it in is because lots of lots of people do make that correlation, and I was asking a question about other people's opinions, not mine. It's frankly surprising (sadly) when folks don't equate law and ethics so I was surprised at the contrast here.

It wasn't meant to suggest that I find the two tied together, or that I think you should.

As for your question, I have no idea who I would invest in (assuming I was forced to choose one of them, which would be necessary since I'm pretty sure I'd like not to invest in either). I have no idea what interesting things Shirley might be up to. All I have to go on is one techcrunch article for each of them, with obviously diametrically opposed editorial agendas... which is kind of my point.

Are you really a famous actress? If so, I would like you be a cofounder in my startup.

No. I feel like we both probably dodged a bullet here.

thanks for posting the article. was interesting, though long-winded. for all the rest of you, shut up. you're making the internet worse. go away.

"So who was at fault in this tale? Really, everyone."

The best.