by Nomad
Back a few years ago, when Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky was
talking with University
of Louisville medical
students, he was asked if he
had any good advice about an upcoming comprehensive exam. It was an easy chance
to wow the easily-wowed crowd with a sample of Rand 's
wit.
What he said, however, gives us a very clear insight into the
character of the Senator from Kentucky .
He told the
impressionable minds that on exams he never cheated. He didn't condone cheating
he said. Then he added:
But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important."
He went on to describe studying for a pathology test with friends in the library. "We spread the rumor that we knew what was on the test and it was definitely going to be all about the liver," he said. "We tried to trick all of our competing students into over-studying for the liver" and not studying much else."So, that's my advice," he concluded. "Misinformation works."
It's an interesting (and somewhat disturbing) peek into the Paul sense of ethics. Cheating is, in Paul's mind, more disreputable than spreading false information. A unique position to say the least.
A Breakdown of Rand's Rationalization
Most people however, would categorize spreading
misinformation as, no matter how it is rationalized, lying. When you spread
misinformation (as opposed to mere gossip) you are actively aware that the
information is untrue.
So, we can assume that lying, in Rand Paul's eyes, is okay. It is not only acceptable,
it is something to boast about to a
younger generation.
In any case, Paul's distinction between the two is absurd.
To cheat means to spread misinformation about one's abilities or knowledge or
qualities of character. If I cheat on an exam, I am spreading the untrue proof that my knowledge is greater than what it actually is.
And if a cheating husband tells his wife, "Yes, dear,
I cheated on you. But- wait!- I never lied to you!" most women would have the good common
sense to throw whatever is close at hand.