Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
 
PerlMonks  

Re^30: What is "aggressive" argument?

by Anonymous Monk
on Nov 14, 2010 at 06:15 UTC ( #871289=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^29: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

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.


Comment on Re^30: What is "aggressive" argument?
Re^31: What is "aggressive" argument?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Nov 14, 2010 at 06:57 UTC
    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".

        you've obviously never heard of a citizens' arrest.

        I've heard of it, as rarely practised as it is. But you are missing the distinction between "citizens' arrest" and "citizens' conviction".

        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".

        Because, as I pointed out up there, there is no such analogy. Speeding, and other matters relating to driving are subject to laws, and are clearly defined.

        "Etiquette" is a nebulous, subjective concept who's definition varies from: culture to culture; country to country; person to person; and even by the mood of the person judging. In some societies, showing the soles of one feet is considered "impolite", or worse. In others, baring ones arms in public is "offensive". Should we be bound by those definitions in our general lives, because someone somewhere decided that was the case?

        In the real world, there are generally physical boundaries we cross between changes of these sets of nebulous rules, and if we care to, we can make ourselves aware of them and choose to respect them. Here on the net, there are myriad sets of rules--"Don't top post". "Don't tail post", "Don't scatter post", "Don't ask to ask"--each imposed (and usually exclusive enforced) by some local oligarchy. Here at PM we are for the most part mercifully free of most of these. Individual disputes are resolved, or left unresolved, by the involved parties.

        What I find worrying is the trend toward third party intervention by a few--in the name of the many, but without mandate--to impose random restrictions upon some subset of the participants.

        If I subscribed to the standards of etiquette being "advised" elsewhere in the this thread, I would not be conducting this conversation with you. As interesting and important as I find it--and apparently you do also--because we are (probably; it's yet to be clearly defined), well beyond the "depth limit". And, because some here--from memory, previously in 3 or 4 mediations--would ban anonymous monks from posting if they had their way.

        I maintain, I am perfectly polite to those that are polite to me.

        And for other to judge individual incidents of "impoliteness"; that term needs to be clearly defined, and applied universally. Otherwise you simply get a recipe for one individual or group to apply their whim to censor other individuals or groups. I rarely swear. I don't call people stupid. I don't make reference to other peoples religious or political affiliations; or judge them according to my own. In short, I attempt to respect the most prevalent general rules of etiquette.

        But I do not consider the use of CAPS for emphasis as "shouting". I consider it a completely illogical to ascribe the written word with "volume". And attempts to do so, nothing more than an ill-conceived attempt by one group to impose their predilections upon another group. Simply a meme that evolved to allow one group to acquire superiority over another; and perpetuated by unthinking adoption.


        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.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://871289]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (3)
As of 2014-09-21 12:18 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (168 votes), past polls