[bolding mine] - that is the essence of the discussion. Some are saying 'has been'. Others are saying 'was'.
- Thread starter johne
- Start date
Rule of Law or Rule of the person-which is more important?
Rules, whether by consensus or held personally, imply a standard of right and wrong. As most are aware, it is rare to find two people in agreement so it is apparent that some laws are needed to have a common ground of interpretation.
The need to have some standards or right and wrong is based in our unique charateristic of having a conscience. The author of said mechanism is without a doubt the only one with a crystal clear understanding of the standards that are more or less imprinted on our being - although we have an innate and unquelling desire to try. In the end it would seem the most important goal would be to be true to the original design given that there is a beginning and end to this grand exercise and therefore an accounting to be had.
The need to have some standards or right and wrong is based in our unique charateristic of having a conscience. The author of said mechanism is without a doubt the only one with a crystal clear understanding of the standards that are more or less imprinted on our being - although we have an innate and unquelling desire to try. In the end it would seem the most important goal would be to be true to the original design given that there is a beginning and end to this grand exercise and therefore an accounting to be had.
Chiri, I never meant offense. What I don't understand is why a person should take offense if there was never any intention for it to be offensive to begin with.cobraboy, after reading your post 147 I can understand why you took offence at being told your language was sexist as you clearly did not mean it that way.
But I still don't understand why people still get up in arms about someone saying that "man" to mean the species as a whole is not the best way of expressing things. It is no longer in common usage - the dates on the quotes in post 148, which date back to the time when women were well and truly in the kitchen illustrate this - and nowadays, "people"/"humans"/"humanity" are perfectly acceptable alternatives that are clearer about encompassing both genders. Language is constantly evolving. Words are replaced by others for all sorts of reasons.
I never burned my bra (a myth frequently used to belittle those 1960s feminists who may not have got it all right but today's women owe a lot to them as well as to the suffragists and many others) but have to admit that I have taken part in protests as well as many the things you so eloquently state your admiration for. And, like Chris, I never lost my sense of humour - I even went to Personchester once...[sorry, no groaning smiley]
And since I meant no offense, I don't see any problem with using the collective word "men" as I did before. I'm a Big Picture guy; I don't spend much time parsing text and syllables in a hunt for feigned offense. There is a difference between pointing out alternative uses of a given word, and calling one a sexist. Big difference.
I'll judge folks based on the totality of the content of their character, not by an occasional word they used in innocence that I *might* find some "offense" to. I don't live in a "gotcha" world, hunting for the negative, looking for offense.
Folks just need to chill and take words and comments within their context. The problem with the innerweb, as Rocky points out occasionally, is all that's there is letters on a screen, just one piece of one sense, and leaving the other 4 senses out of the judgement making process.
Folks also just need to relax and have a sense of humor. It's a lonely, angry existance constantly looking for enemies, being suspicious of people and their intentions, and doing battle with them all the time, even on the WWW. If someone wants to live that way online, go for it. Just don't invite me to the party.
I meant no offense, and it's doubtful I will in the future. Believe me, if I want to offend someone, I have an entire verbal, intellectual and physical arsenal to do so.
As a child of the turbulent 60's, and a former Major League hippie freak, I clearly understand the various "movements" within the Western culture of the last 50 years. Been there, done that, have many T-Shirts. But as I go forward in life, I choose to ~treat~ my fellow man with respect and kindness with my actions; I am not hyper-sensitive with whatever the prevailing PC words are that someone, somewhere wants to be offended about. I may stray there from basic human failing, but it's not intentional.
My intentions may be honorable, but my words, without bad intent, may fail. And, honestly, I'll probably use the generic "man" again in it's proper context, and I'll mean no offense by it at that time.
There are many, many threads on DR1 with non-PC content that could be interpreted by some as truly offensive; my use of "man" ain't one of them, unless one is looking to be offended. Besides, one of the endearing qualities of the DR, compared to the cultural cesspool much of the Western World has become, is that one does not have the PC police on every corner.
Perhaps. But's it's implementation has been to intimidate and control free expression and speech.
It's intention may have been a feather duster, but it's become a sledge hammer.
Right on cue (well almost, will prose do??)
It's all semantics now isn't it??
A man is a man (homo sapien) but then there's a woman (female gender of man [kind] - wif man)
Then what is a boy and girl? (pre-adult homo sapien, (sic) man)
A goose is a goose but then there's a gander. A goose and a gander are geese (the species).
A sheep is a sheep but there's the ewe and the ram. A her and a him, now isn't that neat!
A horse is a horse be it stallion or mare! Now to get back on track - which was - where???
If the rule of the law doesn't reflect the sensibilities of the rule of the person, the sensitivities of the person will overturn the rule of the law eventually or bring about it's change.
Witness the suffraget movement which brought the rule of law to reflect the rule of the person.
Or the 'womens lib' movement which brought the rule of the person to protest the double standard in the rule of the law.
Perhaps henceforth all mankind should be referred to as 'the human animal'........all we need is a shortform to make typing it easy!!
:cheeky:
It's all semantics now isn't it??
A man is a man (homo sapien) but then there's a woman (female gender of man [kind] - wif man)
Then what is a boy and girl? (pre-adult homo sapien, (sic) man)
A goose is a goose but then there's a gander. A goose and a gander are geese (the species).
A sheep is a sheep but there's the ewe and the ram. A her and a him, now isn't that neat!
A horse is a horse be it stallion or mare! Now to get back on track - which was - where???
If the rule of the law doesn't reflect the sensibilities of the rule of the person, the sensitivities of the person will overturn the rule of the law eventually or bring about it's change.
Witness the suffraget movement which brought the rule of law to reflect the rule of the person.
Or the 'womens lib' movement which brought the rule of the person to protest the double standard in the rule of the law.
Perhaps henceforth all mankind should be referred to as 'the human animal'........all we need is a shortform to make typing it easy!!
:cheeky:
Oops, I just killed that person. I did not mean to kill him, there was no intention to kill him. What I don't understand is why the cops are taking me to jail?
I'm using this as a rather absurd example. If we take your 'There was no intention' and follow it through the gamut of human experience, it does not hold up.
I'm sorry bob .. that was truly not meant as a snide remark. I'll rephrase .. I simply wanted to say that your response made me believe that you understood exactly what I was saying at the time. I was typing and 'talking' fast and used that as a short sentence instead of a long one.
More general, for those who think we're off topic, I think this is a classic thread. I think one can learn more from this thread about human behavior than you can from many university classes. I think if I was still in the 'business' I could use this thread as a case study.
Now about Power centered in Rule of Law vs Power centered in the Human Being / the Individual / the Person is it not time that we get on with that? Last time the consensus? was that we had to define the issue of the 'Rule of the Person' better?
J
John Evans
Guest
i would use it as a case study of bad moderating myself.....it has nothing to do with the original post and even less to do with the dominican republic
This is but another symptom of Nalsitis, exhibiting an obsessive compulsive need to make polls and do case studies of everything and anything.
J
John Evans
Guest
Chris, killing someone is an action where one person initiates force on another, whether intentional or not.
Words are not actions, whether intentional or not.
If you think "wrong" words should be legally prosecuted by the force of the State, then you are advocating Thought Police.
In other words - can individuals come to a consensus about which words are acceptable and which aren't, or does this have to be imposed by the Thought Police? Or something between the two?
I did it! I got back on topic! slinks off to look for the freaky friday thread
I did it! I got back on topic! slinks off to look for the freaky friday thread
So you didn't "INTEND" it to be offensive!
Double standard here it seems.......what's good for the goose is good for the gander unless of course it is the pot calling the kettle black!
Then the kettle is "sexist" while the pot is a 'feminist women's libber'
Like Mali said.....keep digging!:bunny:
Double standard here it seems.......what's good for the goose is good for the gander unless of course it is the pot calling the kettle black!
Then the kettle is "sexist" while the pot is a 'feminist women's libber'
Like Mali said.....keep digging!
:bunny:But johne, does your 'rule' (request? instruction? order?) for/to MommC have greater importance than MommC's 'rule' for MommC? This is the kernel of the topic of this thread, I believe.
Sure thing John.....send me a PM!
I was going to post this as a reply to Chip in the thread I split off (It adds the Dominican content) but it is just as relevant here.
Were you aware that there is a town here in the DR, where almost 40% of children born are hermaphrodites? (Saw a W5 newsjournal report on it many years ago- sorry don't remember the name of the town)
Those children are raised for their first few year as either a male or a female depending on the most predominate physical attributes. However when they reach adolescence, their parents are 'liberated' enough to let the child chose which gender they prefer to be recognised as. Many a 'girl' has become a'boy' and vice versa.
How can the law (or a doctor for that matter) define if they are male or female when they are neither?
They are both at the same time and it is not an abberation but rather a genuinely genetically predetermined biological fact.
As reasonably intelligent homo sapiens......what do WE call them so as to be politically correct in this day and age where many females are incensed at the usage of the word man to signify all humans?
Should they be 'forbidden' to marry since many narrow minded individuals will consider them to be lesbian or homosexuals? Should they be ostracized from society because they don't fit our 'mold'.
Or what of those individuals who for all intents and purposes are female yet tissue scrapping from inside their mouths reveal they carry a double Y chromosone?
??????
Now read this story by William O Beeman -Professor of Anthropology, Brown's University:
Pacific News Service > News > Laws Can't Define 'Man' or 'Woman,' So How Can They Ban Gay Marriage?
Also John I think your last post should be directed at more than just I in the interest of remaining 'unbiased'!:glasses::bunny:
I was going to post this as a reply to Chip in the thread I split off (It adds the Dominican content) but it is just as relevant here.
Were you aware that there is a town here in the DR, where almost 40% of children born are hermaphrodites? (Saw a W5 newsjournal report on it many years ago- sorry don't remember the name of the town)
Those children are raised for their first few year as either a male or a female depending on the most predominate physical attributes. However when they reach adolescence, their parents are 'liberated' enough to let the child chose which gender they prefer to be recognised as. Many a 'girl' has become a'boy' and vice versa.
How can the law (or a doctor for that matter) define if they are male or female when they are neither?
They are both at the same time and it is not an abberation but rather a genuinely genetically predetermined biological fact.
As reasonably intelligent homo sapiens......what do WE call them so as to be politically correct in this day and age where many females are incensed at the usage of the word man to signify all humans?
Should they be 'forbidden' to marry since many narrow minded individuals will consider them to be lesbian or homosexuals? Should they be ostracized from society because they don't fit our 'mold'.
Or what of those individuals who for all intents and purposes are female yet tissue scrapping from inside their mouths reveal they carry a double Y chromosone?
??????
Now read this story by William O Beeman -Professor of Anthropology, Brown's University:
Pacific News Service > News > Laws Can't Define 'Man' or 'Woman,' So How Can They Ban Gay Marriage?
Also John I think your last post should be directed at more than just I in the interest of remaining 'unbiased'!
:glasses::bunny:
Last edited:
Depends on what number she chooses. Hopefully #10! LOL. OR ELSE we might have to resort to broken knee caps. You see, then she'll have to stop and not have the pleasure of a round of golf with me.Loses everything.
john