Censorship by mob rule

[godfry n. glad]

So... If I meet up with a masochist, I should treat them how they want to be treated, even if I'm uncomfortable in the role of a sadist?

Or, conversely, if I should meet a sadist, I should act submissive and obsequious?

Neither of these outlooks is often known to the complete stranger upon first meeting. And, it could remain unknown if those with such outlooks never reveal such information.

I think your Platinum Rule fails due to the inability of individuals to clearly and completely understand what any other individual might desire in terms of how they wish to be treated. We cannot read minds, ergo we cannot decide how it is that others wish to be treated.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

So... If I meet up with a masochist, I should treat them how they want to be treated, even if I'm uncomfortable in the role of a sadist?

Or, conversely, if I should meet a sadist, I should act submissive and obsequious?

Neither of these outlooks is often known to the complete stranger upon first meeting. And, it could remain unknown if those with such outlooks never reveal such information.

I think your Platinum Rule fails due to the inability of individuals to clearly and completely understand what any other individual might desire in terms of how they wish to be treated. We cannot read minds, ergo we cannot decide how it is that others wish to be treated.

It's an aspiration. To the extent possible. As much as we are able. It's not the Concrete Rule, after all.

The point is that if you never even think of or recognize that another person's sensibilities could be different from your own, your ability to empathize is compromised, and your actions might not therefore be as congruent with your principles as you might have wished.

ETA: about the sadist/masochist business ... oh boy. That still doesn't take account of the ranking of one's own principles in applying the Golden/Platinum rule. "Hurting people is bad" for example, could be a principle that could be applied with integrity; even if a masochist wants to be hurt, they usually *want* that b/c of something that's not quite right with themselves. Same (inverse) with a sadist. No, the Golden/Platinum Rule does not require you to kowtow to someone's mental illness or preferences that are otherwise harmful or inconsistent with your cherished moral principles.

#1047

[quiet bear]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I agree with Sock Puppet on this. That is, if you're suggesting that integrity demands treating people with respect and courtesy regardless of how they behave, I disagree. It seems to me that integrity only demands that we treat people as well as they treat others. I'm definitely open to being convinced otherwise, though.

How I read it, and maddog can correct me if I'm wrong, was that the 'exersizing of integrity in the moment of choice' wasn't saying to treat a person respectfully, even if they crap on you, insomuch as making the choice to not respond to the flaming/disrespect/cursing out, etc.


BTW, maddog is the coolest.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by maddog

No, the Golden/Platinum Rule does not require you to kowtow to someone's mental illness or preferences that are otherwise harmful or inconsistent with your cherished moral principles.

#1047

But, maddog, that's a subjective assessment. I personally consider those who are theists to be mildly (and, in most cases, not dangerously) delusional. Their expressed attitudes are inconsistent with my moral principles.

[maddog]

You are right, q bear. One of the choices that is available is to walk away and say nothing.

And thanks for the compliment.

#1048

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by maddog

You are right, q bear. One of the choices that is available is to walk away and say nothing.
#1048

Thereby potentially encouraging the miscreant to continue their behavior.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

But, maddog, that's a subjective assessment. I personally consider those who are theists to be mildly (and, in most cases, not dangerously) delusional. Their expressed attitudes are inconsistent with my moral principles.

Yes, which principles are most important to me and how I rank them, and how well I understand someone else, is all subject to my assessments and determinations, including making mistakes in doing so. Whenever anyone chooses the Golden/Platinum rule or similar principle, its application is not going to be perfect or without some cases of ambiguity or confusion. I can only do my best. But I refuse to accept that the necessity of some amount of subjectivity is a good reason to throw away all efforts to improve my behavior toward others, or to toss out the rule in general. It's no justification for not acting as well as we CAN simply because we're not going to be successful all of the time.

#1049

[maddog]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Thereby potentially encouraging the miscreant to continue their behavior.

Well, you pay your money and you take your choice. Some behaviors are not so harmful that the *miscreant* must of necessity be taken to task. Some *miscreants* are incorrigible, such that any response is unlikely to elicit a good result. It depends on the situation. Like now. I'm getting a lot of "but this" and "but that" objections. At some point, I may choose to stop responding to each one. I don't have control over others' behavior. so I need to decide what actions I'm going to take that will be the most congruent with what I feel are good principles for conducting my life. The point of all of my posts in this thread is that, regardless of what others do and regardless of any feelings I may have, I don't have to do back to somebody what they have done to me (the Cream Pie (harmless version) or Toledo Steel (the ruthless "those who live by the sword die by the sword" version) rule).

#1050

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by maddog

Nevertheless, I thiink my point about the ranking of principles is still in play, and the Golden/Platinum rule still operates. "personal comfort" takes a back seat to "safety and justice." while nobody wants to be subjected to discomfort, IF some measure of that is necessary to achieve a more important purpose, a police officer may, consistent with the Golden/Platinum rule, and with their integrity, handcuff an arrestee.

I believe that people should have to endure the consequences of their behavior. For me, that's a higher principle than the notion that we should treat people as we or they would like to be treated. In most cases if you treat people badly, people are going to treat you badly in response. As a result, people who don't like being treated badly learn not to treat others badly. I think that's as it should be. I just can't accept the idea that people who treat others badly should be rewarded with compassion. Of course they still have rights - and that too is as it should be. But in my opinion nobody has an inalienable right to be treated with kindness and compassion by their peers.

[Angakuk]

It occurs to me that part of the complaint against censorship by mob rule is rooted in an expectation that communication should be easy. It takes effort to express oneself clearly and striving to be understood is just that, striving. The same is true for reading and understanding another. It requires effort, something more than a mere knee jerk reaction. When I see posters complaining that no one is paying attention to what they are saying, or understanding the point they are trying to make, one of my reactions is to think that maybe they ought to try a little harder to express themselves in a manner which will get them a fair hearing. You know, little things, like coherent sentence structure, non-abusive language, logical arguments, etc. I also highly recommed making use of the preview function and reviewing one's post before posting.

Believe me, I know it is possible to do all those things and still be misunderstood. It can be incredibly frustrating to be misunderstood when you are certain that you are making perfect sense. But simply bitching about the unfairness of it all seldom, if ever, accomplishes anything positive. I agree with the point, made by several posters, that the problem is seldom as simple as having expressed a minority opinion. It has a great deal to do with how that opinion is expressed and how one responds to the inevitable criticisms. If you are not getting your point across, try modifying the delivery. More of the same just invites more misunderstanding. Sometimes the best solution is to just walk away from the discussion. If you have stated your case and argued it to the best of your ability, and you still aren't getting anywhere, there comes a time when you reach a point of diminishing returns on your investment of time and effort. Walking away from an unproductive argument is not an admission of defeat.

On the issue of dogpiling, I usually try to avoid joining the "me too" chorus. If six other posters have already lambasted someone, I figure that my joining in is just gilding the lily. Instead, I look for that part of the argument that has gone unaddressed and give my attention to that, whether approbatory or critical. I can't say that I always live up to this principle, but I try.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I believe that people should have to endure the consequences of their behavior.

As do I. And the universe will give it to them, whether I act or not, in most cases.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

For me, that's a higher principle than the notion that we should treat people as we or they would like to be treated.

We disagree about the ranking of principles. The world will give consequences regardless of what we personally do. AND there is no conflict between "giving consequences" (if we're going to set ourselves up as the arbiters of the right consequences attendant on certain behavior -- like livius drusus, I have serious hesitancy about appointing myself as the one to make sure that consequences are imposed on others for what I judge to be their transgressions), on the one hand, and treating others with kindness, compassion and respect, on the other. Even if I decide to do it (for the *principle* ), I can do my best to give someone "consequences" for bad behavior without engaging in bad behavior myself, in the course of the giving of those consequences.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

In most cases if you treat people badly, people are going to treat you badly in response. As a result, people who don't like being treated badly learn not to treat others badly. I think that's as it should be.

In most cases, if you treat people badly, you will hurt them. As a result, people who don't like being treated badly -- i.e., don't themselves like to be hurt by others' bad behavior -- learn to apply the Golden/Platinum rule so that they don't treat others badly. I think that's as it should be.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I just can't accept the idea that people who treat others badly should be rewarded with compassion.

IMO, they are not *rewarded* with compassion. They are simply treated with compassion. Part of compassion consists of helping each other through difficulties, including social struggles caused by misbehavior. This could also mean telling someone frankly, with compassion, what they have done. "Compassion" for me is pretty much on the level of "love." Love is unconditional. I think a lot of problems and hurt in the world have been caused by a similar tit-for-tat, I'll-give-you-some-consequences withholding of love in response to bad behavior. I don't stop loving someone simply because they behave badly. That doesn't mean I like, tolerate, condone or encourage the bad behavior. But I don't "punish" and "reward" with my love. In the same way, I don't withhold compassion from someone simply because they behave badly. sometimes, those people need MORE rather than less compassion.

Frequently, I think, people who treat others badly wouldn't do so if they (1) realized the consequences of their behavior (on themselves and on the others), and (2) had not been damaged themselves in some way. Damaged people deserve compassion. Oblivious people, people with blind spots, deserve compassion. How one *does* compassion depends on the circumstances. *Compassion* is not the same thing as "giving bad behavior a free pass" or "being a doormat."

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Of course they still have rights - and that too is as it should be. But in my opinion nobody has an inalienable right to be treated with kindness and compassion by their peers.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about this. People are entitled to rank principles differently.

#1051

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

There is a question and the problem of interpretation to consider, most especially with this type of communication. People invest their own intentions into other people and other people's meanings and writing, it's a difficult thing to explain. It's like they could say," If I'm stupid enough to be emotionally invested in x or y, therefore if someone else says x or y, it's because they mean to be emotionally abusive, because they are emotionally invested in x or y, because I am."

You are right that interpretation and misinterpretation are often at the heart of many disputes. Most people, most of the time, do have a tendency to read their own intentions and prejudices into the other person's words. I don't think that it is the author's responsibility to prevent this from happening. I doubt whether that is even possible. It is the reader's responsibility to try to understand the author's meaning and intent. That is at the heart of treating an argument charitably. The most an author can do is to make the effort to express themselves as clearly as possible and, whenever possible, clear up unintentional misunderstandings. One can hardly be expected to clear up deliberate misunderstandings, one can only point them out.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by maddog

Well, you pay your money and you take your choice. Some behaviors are not so harmful that the *miscreant* must of necessity be taken to task. Some *miscreants* are incorrigible, such that any response is unlikely to elicit a good result. It depends on the situation. Like now. I'm getting a lot of "but this" and "but that" objections. At some point, I may choose to stop responding to each one. I don't have control over others' behavior. so I need to decide what actions I'm going to take that will be the most congruent with what I feel are good principles for conducting my life. The point of all of my posts in this thread is that, regardless of what others do and regardless of any feelings I may have, I don't have to do back to somebody what they have done to me (the Cream Pie (harmless version) or Toledo Steel (the ruthless "those who live by the sword die by the sword" version) rule).

#1050

You don't have to, nor do I. But I choose to on occasion. Sometimes I think an object lesson is in order. You've seen me demonstrate such behavior, I'm sure. Sometimes I'm wrong, too. But I've yet to really regret much at all. I also believe that asshats do not always pay the consequences of their actions. All too often, in fact, I've seen quite the opposite. I think it behooves those who have the fortitude to stand up and at least say it ain't right to do so. For me, those who just walk away abdicate their responsibility.

I guess we'll have to disagree as well. I'm just not a saint.

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by maddog

As do I. And the universe will give it to them, whether I act or not, in most cases.

So someone's not following the platinum rule gets the job done and metes out justice, then. Is that what you mean by "the universe"?

[wei yau]

Thanks to everyone in this thread, particularly maddog. It's giving me a lot to think about and it's been very interesting.

I find that I side myself (not that we're taking sides) more with maddog than not. Primarily because I see very little to be gained by not following the Golden/Platinum Rule and an awful lot to be lost by following the "Justice is Served" rule.

Following the Golden Rule makes for a pleasant environment for me. It's not that I'm without emotions, but just the act of being nice and courteous fosters a mood in me that's less likely to become angered. It also allows me to walk away, as I have no emotional investment in an arguement.

All that being said, I can understand some of the objections or differences being voiced and that's all something to think about. But, to go back to what livius had said, I find that whenever I do respond "in kind" it's almost always out of anger. To be honest, I never felt I was being principled or justified, I just felt I was pissed.

So, I try not to act out of anger and try not to anger others. It's not about being a saint, it's about what I think works best not only for me on a personal level but what works best for basic communication.

[TomJoe]

I didn't realize my "w00t! 5 posts in a row! Is that some sort of record?" comment was such an immoral comment and an affront to common decency.

[democracy]

Originally Posted by wei yau

Following the Golden Rule makes for a pleasant environment for me.

I again want to say that I find many discussions in these forums to be very timely and informative.

I am not so sure about this Golden Rule that my teachers taught me. I have found through my own observations that the Golden Rule is also a great source of social conflict.

The Golden Rule is stated as: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You.

What if one person likes to be flamed? So they flame others. The "flamer" is actually treating a person the way they want to be treated.

Many people do not like to argue or debate. They only always want to get along. If another person enjoys argument then they may find the "get along" type to be disagreeable. I mean the "nice" person might be offending the one who thrives off of conflicting points of view.

I am fairly sure that the "Golden Rule" has started many wars around the globe. Because what one culture thinks is very acceptable is the contrary to another.

The "Golden Rule should be balanced against another proverb:
One Man's Medicine is Another Man's Poison

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by democracy

I again want to say that I find many discussions in these forums to be very timely and informative.

Then you might want to follow this one a little better, since the points raised in rest of your post have already been completely hashed out on this thread.

[democracy]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

Then you might want to follow this one a little better, since the points raised in rest of your post have already been completely hashed out on this thread.

So there are others here who agree with me?

That's good.

As far as reading the entire thread, I would say that correct usage of form would check that. With proper traditional form we would not have a problem with people not reading the entire discussion.

But I think that we should cover that at another time in another thread. Unless you have come to a conclusion to this topic.

If you can all agree to come to a conclusion we can then turn to an evaluation of the discussion.

If not. Continue. I'll check back in a few weeks and see if the discussion is over.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

So someone's not following the platinum rule gets the job done and metes out justice, then. Is that what you mean by "the universe"?

No.

There is nothing inconsistent between using/exercising/applying the Golden/Platinum rule in one's life and someone having consequences for their behavior. One possibility (I thought I said this before) is the choice about *how* the matter is approached.

Let's say *A* is a member of an online discussion board. *A* is normally a friendly polite person. One day, *A* says to *B* "you're an idiot and a hypocrite." Let's say you are *C*. What do you do? There are innumerable choices.

One choice is to say, "Hey, *A* you're a loudmouth rude hypocrite yourself." One choice is to say to oneself, "wow, what happened to *A*? I think I'll wait to see what happens, what brought that on." It could turn out that *A* was having a bad day, was reacting to something else, will realize and apologize to *B*, will have a personality change, will turn out to have been masking a generally asshat character, or whatever. There are many many possibilities about why *A* did what they did. One choice is to say to *A* privately, "Hey, *A*, are you OK? That seemed out of character for you. Is something going on?" ALL of these are "consequences."

One consequence is tit-for-tat "justice." One consequence is withdrawal of intercourse with people that used to be your friends. One consequence is concerned support. The same behavior has, or can have, all kinds of consequences. Each of these different kinds of consequences can demonstrate that the behavior *A* did is not socially acceptable, to a certain degree.

In my experience, the "tit for tat" "eye for an eye" brand of "justice" leads, as the old joke goes, to everyone being blind. It does nothing to improve overall behavior in the aggregate among people. That kind of "justice" is used to "justify" more of the same behavior for which the consequence was "imposed" in the first place. when threads degenerate into each side feeling "justified" in retaliatory insults, that doesn't improve the overall society, imo.

One variety of "consequence" for jerk-like behavior is that people withdraw. *A* ends up lonely and with no friends. That's definitely a consequence. If *A* burst onto the message board scene with, "Hey you meatballs, you're nothing but a bunch of F... B... A... C... P...'s" what's the proper response? We already know that if even a few "engage" with *A* and "give consequences" in the tit-for-tat style, all that does is stink up the board. If people had enough restraint to simply all not engage in the first place, all you'd end up with is a few first posts and no replies. Am I really "abdicating responsibility" by not telling *A* I think he's being a jerk? I don't think so.

One variety of consequence is being "called on it" -- but in a kind, friendly, compassionate fashion. It's simply not necessary to abandon the principle (if it has been chosen as a principle) of the Golden/Platinum rule in order for behavior to "have consequences."

Notice, too, that "having consequences for behavior" has suddenly been changed into "meting out justice." They are not equivalent concepts, imo. This equivocation of terms betrays that different values are operating. I've had plenty of experience in the world with people whose concerns are driven by "meting out justice." so very very often, it degenerates into bad behavior by all parties. IMO, the Hammurapian idea of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" is not optimum for encouraging more people to behave better. It certainly hasn't worked that way for me. I find that I behave better more often under a different paradigm.

I echo wei yau on this:

I see very little to be gained by not following the Golden/Platinum Rule and an awful lot to be lost by following the "Justice is Served" rule.

Following the Golden Rule makes for a pleasant environment for me. It's not that I'm without emotions, but just the act of being nice and courteous fosters a mood in me that's less likely to become angered. It also allows me to walk away, as I have no emotional investment in an arguement.

... I try not to act out of anger and try not to anger others. It's not about being a saint, it's about what I think works best not only for me on a personal level but what works best for basic communication.

That expresses it nicely.

Originally Posted by godfry

Sometimes I think an object lesson is in order.

My own behavior is not above reproach. And I'd far rather be "reproached" only, initially in private, and with compassion, and by someone I trust and respect, than to be made an object lesson of. I've been humiliated too often to relish doing this to anyone else. (there's the Golden/Platinum rule again, in a slightly different form.) I also don't have enough confidence in my own judgment of righteousness to want to take on giving object lessons. (and there it is again.)

Originally Posted by godfry

You've seen me demonstrate such behavior, I'm sure. Sometimes I'm wrong, too. But I've yet to really regret much at all.

Your emotional climate is much different from mine.

Originally Posted by godfry

I also believe that asshats do not always pay the consequences of their actions. All too often, in fact, I've seen quite the opposite.

Sometimes bad people get away with stuff. I know. One of the facts of life, one of the consequences that the universe hands out is that life isn't always fair. One of the facts of the universe is that there are some things I can't do much about. One of the facts of the universe is that I can't change others. I have no control over them and what they do and what their values are. What I DO have control over, at least to some degree, is myself, my choices, my behaviors.

Originally Posted by godfry

I think it behooves those who have the fortitude to stand up and at least say it ain't right to do so.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In the example above, of *A* a newbie poster entering a discussion board and calling everyone horrible names, it requires no "fortitude" at all for people to jump in and call names back. It requires far greater "fortitude" and exercise of will NOT to give the troll what they want, i.e., attention. Sometimes it requires far greater "fortitude" not simply to play someone's game or give a knee-jerk reflexive response. Reflection, rather than reflex, is the greater good in some cases. It's up to me to decide which are which.

Originally Posted by godfry

For me, those who just walk away abdicate their responsibility.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some issues, some instances of bad behavior simply do not require response. The old adage, If you can't say something nice, then it's better not to say anything at all (aside -- I've always liked the comic variation: "If you can't say something nice .... then come sit right here by me! [pats couch]) has application in some cases. Rather than (a) contribute to ongoing acrimony, which doesn't need my participation, and (b) giving in to an impulse to act unkindly, sometimes walking away is the exercise of, rather than the abdication of, responsibility. My responsibility is to do my best to behave ethically as much as I can. One of my ethical principles is not to be unkind. Sometimes walking away is a greater responsibility than saying something.

Originally Posted by godfry

I guess we'll have to disagree as well. I'm just not a saint.

Well, godfry, neither am I. I now feel very frustrated and dejected. I feel, as Ang suggests, that I have failed in my responsibility to convey and communicate my views clearly. As wei said, it's not about being a saint. I'm definitely not one and don't pretend to be. That has nothing to do with it. Obviously, we just value different things to different degrees. You have a greater tolerance for or comfort level with conflict and "noise" than I do; some of these choices reflect personality as well. I'm simply trying to explain or defend why I've chosen the values I've chosen. I think it's a mistake to say that the Golden/Platinum rule doesn't work, and I think we sometimes fool ourselves into thinking we are justified in doing certain things when, on cooler reflection, it did not improve the overall lives and happiness of ourselves and the people around us.

Anyway, it's all very thought provoking. Thanks, everyone, and esp. Angakuk.

#1052

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by democracy

As far as reading the entire thread, I would say that correct usage of form would check that. With proper traditional form we would not have a problem with people not reading the entire discussion.

But I think that we should cover that at another time in another thread. Unless you have come to a conclusion to this topic.

If you can all agree to come to a conclusion we can then turn to an evaluation of the discussion.

If not. Continue. I'll check back in a few weeks and see if the discussion is over.

[viscousmemories]

Perhaps we do have to agree to disagree, maddog. I don't believe in "karma", so to my view slapping someone for spitting in your face (even metaphorically on both counts) is the only possible way "the universe" can dole out consequences. Your insistance that people should not treat others in kind is, in my opinion, tantamount to suggesting that you believe people should not suffer any social consequences of their behavior. Your suggestion that slapping someone who spits in your face amounts to treating them "badly" just begs the question. There is nothing inherently bad, as far as I know, about treating someone the way they treat others.

[Plant Woman]

I agree with Maddog and Wei on many points, although I don't always exercise constraint, but I am working on it.

We do choose to get entangled in other people's stuff. I have to remind myself that what someone says or does is about them. I can choose to walk away, or jump into the washing machine and be agitated with everyone else. Or be the observer and watch from the outside. Stepping out of the agitation, I believe is better for myself, not being sucked under by the negativity of what others are doing. I've made that a rule in my life, although I still slip back into old habits. I always regret it when it happens, because I can see the difference in how I feel when I step out of the entanglement, or snare myself in it. It definately is a choice.

[wei yau]

Well, I think we should all be a little bit careful in the scope of this discussion. While the tangents regarding behaviors and actions outside of this forum are indeed relevant, I'd like to focus more on the behaviors and actions inside the forum.

Partly because I'm way too stupid to really grasp life and philosophy outside of this forum and partly because by limiting the scope, I think the discussion could be more effective. After all, once we leave the confines of the , there are a great many factors that come into play and they vary all over the spectrum.

As such, the idea of "justice" doesn't really seem to fit here. I mean, what's the reality, if a flamer gets flamed in response, he isn't going to change his ways. He's likely to keep on flamin' Someone who insults others and is insulted in turn, isn't likely to quit.

And someone who feels ostracized and part of the minority (many times for the same type of flaming and insulting behavior), isn't likely to feel differently if they are flamed and insulted in return.

For me, the natural question is whether or not I have any interest in changing their behavior. And if there is an interest, then what's the best way for achieving that change?

As I said above, I don't think retaliation-in-kind achieves that goal. I've got some kind of half-baked idea about prision as rehabilitation or as punishment in my head. I'm not sure if it applies here, but I'm working on it.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Perhaps we do have to agree to disagree, maddog. I don't believe in "karma", so to my view slapping someone for spitting in your face (even metaphorically on both counts) is the only possible way "the universe" can dole out consequences. Your insistance that people should not treat others in kind is, in my opinion, tantamount to suggesting that you believe people should not suffer any social consequences of their behavior. Your suggestion that slapping someone who spits in your face amounts to treating them "badly" just begs the question. There is nothing inherently bad, as far as I know, about treating someone the way they treat others.

It must be my failure, vm, to explain clearly.

I see many many many more choices between slapping someone for spitting on you versus them getting away scot-free. I have a facility (one might say a curse) for seeing ambiguity or nuance where others do not. For example, I never learned to tell analog time very well, because the way they explained it in third grade was too confusing for me. They'd say, "the BIG hand is on the X and the LITTLE hand is on the Y." I couldn't pay attention to that, b/c I was confused from the beginning of the sentence. Which is the "big" hand? is it the TALL hand or the FAT hand? which is the "little" hand? is it the SKINNY hand or the SHORT hand? So I still can't tell analog time very well. But nobody else in class had that problem. They all learned to tell time just fine. They all saw no ambiguity, it was clear for them, so the teachers had no reason to realize or accommodate that their phraseology was problematic for some. I've "thought differently" from most people all my life.

There is a whole continuum of choices between "slap someone" and "do nothing" if they spit on you. Am I the only one who sees that? SOME of the choices along the continuum are congruent with other principles I hold. Slapping them, however, is not. so I'd probably choose something else.

There is nothing inherently bad, as far as I know, about treating someone the way they treat others.

Well, that rather depends, imo. I've already pre-decided, in a way, because of the moral system I've chosen, that as a general rule hitting is bad behavior, lying is bad behavior, and so on. So if *someone else* lies, or steals, or cheats, or hits, or whatever, that behavior is nevertheless off my list of moral behaviors. So their behavior (the way they treat others) is NOT a license for me to treat them the same way. And that's because I have already decided that I know what is "bad" in my moral system. Their bad behavior is not enough to make me give up my morals. It's "inherently bad" from my point of view for anyone to do those behaviors, least of all me. "Someone else's conduct" is not only not a good reason for me to abandon my principles, it doesn't even come close as a reason or justification which could cause me to abandon my principles. that's precisely what robs any of my moral principles of its standing as a "principle," if it's swayed and nullified by something as uncontrollable and idiosyncratic and capricious as "what someone else does." I'm not going to give them such power over me and my character.

Your insistance that people should not treat others in kind is, in my opinion, tantamount to suggesting that you believe people should not suffer any social consequences of their behavior.

I disagree, and I think you are misunderstanding me. I think this is again a difference in perception and perhaps a fallacy. There are a lot more choices in the continuum between the extremes of "reflexively do back the same conduct as you recieve" and "do nothing." It's not just either/or.

#1053