Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks vroom
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Re^29: What is "aggressive" argument?

by Anonymous Monk
on Nov 14, 2010 at 04:37 UTC ( #871276=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^28: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

And yet the point of that comparison was to make clear that the use of phrases like "flights of fancy" is circumlocution to ascribe either personally-malicious or maliciously-apathetic whim to judgements that depend entirely on the situation ("this has gone on too long") or to arguments based on premises with which the author disagrees.


Comment on Re^29: What is "aggressive" argument?
Re^30: What is "aggressive" argument?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Nov 14, 2010 at 05:04 UTC

    The M25 not withstanding, speed limits are a fixed point on a continuously variable scale. They do not vary with weather conditions. If you drive at 70 miles per hour in driving rain, black ice, snow or fog, you cannot be prosecuted for "speeding". Undue care, or dangerous driving are possibilities, but not speeding. There is no analogy there.

    or to arguments based on premises with which the author disagrees.

    Turn that around. I am being told to stop pursuing discussion that I find interesting, relevant or important because one (or some small number) of others don't share my opinion. One persons opinion is to be overidden in favour on one (or a few) other opinion. (And even those few cannot find agreement.)

    By that "standard", about (guess) 30% of the threads here should never go beyond 2 levels deep, because I'm not interested in CGI. And that would be a nonsense. Despite that not so many years ago, in some other Perl forums, "conventional wisdom" had it that questions and discussion relating to CGI were "not interesting" to serious Perlers, and so were fair game to ridicule and censure.

    Take this right back to the top of the thread and we're right back to the same question. What is "aggressive argument"? But more importantly, who gets to decide.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
Re^30: What is "aggressive" argument?
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 14, 2010 at 06:15 UTC
    speed limits are a fixed point on a continuously variable scale. They do not vary with weather conditions.
    When the conditions are inclement to driving at certain speeds under the limit (fog, torrential rain, flooding, ice on the road, twenty tonnes of spilled fudge topping, mass migration of camels), the traffic constabulary has the legal authority to infract you for "reckless driving".

    Posted limits offer guidance in best conditions, not instruction under any condition. Conditions can and do demand that the vehicle operator use their faculties to determine a safe-for-driving pattern of behavior; the body of laws which include, but is not limited to, speed limits does the same.

    This exchange began with the phrase "safe driving speeds". I do not appreciate the substitution of a reference to a body of laws, which must deal with changing situations, with a proper subset, which only applies to certain situations, in order to contradict the analogy which this exchange also epitomises.

      the traffic constabulary has the legal authority to infract you for "reckless driving".

      Yes. They do. But you don't.

      And even their power is subject to checks and balances in the form of peer review and counter arguement (defense). In essence, they have to demonstrate that you actually committed the offence for which they charge you. Simply driving faster than they consider safe in a given set of circumstances, is not sufficient to cause you to be adjudged to have committed "reckless driving".

      On the subject of this thread, there is no requirement for proof; no peer review. Just "I don't like what you are doing, so stop." In short: "You must apply my standards to your writing.", despite that the "my"s in that don't even apply those same standards to their own writing, much less that of those they seek to defend.


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
        Beside the obvious fact that the law in a democracy is a function of your voting peers, you've obviously never heard of a citizens' arrest. That's a common and dangerous blind spot (nowadays, mainly dangerous to potential victims of crime, not to potential victims of mis-arrest; in a similar way as CPR).

        By the way, you're misapplying the analogy of safe driving again by aligning "laws" with "etiquette" instead of "relationship between laws and actions" with "relationship with etiquette and actions".

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://871276]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (10)
As of 2014-04-16 06:29 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (416 votes), past polls