|P is for Practical|
Re^33: What is "aggressive" argument?by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Nov 14, 2010 at 09:09 UTC||Need Help??|
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.