Rule of Law or Rule of the person-which is more important?

[Chris]

Why, Chris, for someone so enlightened, kind, understanding, intellectually centered, politically correct and, compassionate, you sound like you're making veiled threats.

Well, so a few folks say in emails to me anyway.

How could this be?

I don't know how this could be. Other folks may know better than I what I mean, but I don't think so.

This is all very interesting ... there is no law, neither rules covering this. How are we going to behave?

 

[cobraboy]

I don't know how this could be. Other folks may know better than I what I mean, but I don't think so.

This is all very interesting ... there is no law, neither rules covering this. How are we going to behave?

Maybe by not stalking ever word I post with extreme prejudice and uber-sensitivity? :classic:

 

[MommC]

Commom sense........

johne, I'm talking common sense and balanced living.

Too bad so many people don't have any!! Then many of the 'laws' both written and unwritten wouldn't need to be foisted on us by those who 'govern.

Look at the recent uproar in the 'This is incredible' thread.

Is it 'common sense' that seven or eight adult males should rape an adolescent female? No - it isn't!

Is it 'common sense' that the judiciary and police should ignore the 'rule of law' and bungle what should have been a relatively simple investigation? No - it isn't!

However if 'common sense' doesn't rule then rules are necessary to protect people from those lacking common sense!

 

[cobraboy]

It is amazing .. why did you not say so then? Why did you wait so long to say something so simple? Kindly could we continue this discussion now.

I did, many posts ago.

Why not give a little benefit of the doubt before becoming so publicly "offended"? How about a PM asking for a better explanation if it is such a huge issue that actually upsets you*? I see posted here quite often that folks get frustrated innerweb BBS...even here...because words are so easily misconstrued without other visual and audible cues to bring them into full intent.

Like I said, I'm just a simple country boy with an under-developed cerebral cortex. Where I come from, we judge a person's words within the totality of their meaning and context, and not by syllable. And we judge a person more by their actions than words alone.














*The collective, generic, universal "you".

 

[bob saunders]

It is amazing .. why did you not say so then? Why did you wait so long to say something so simple? Kindly could we continue this discussion now.

He did in post #25 , but maybe with a little exasperation". CB said :Quote " Man" was the freakin' generic human sense." end of Quote

I search the net quickly to see if I could find a clear definition of rule of man/mankind and didn't find anything that was a good fit for this discussion, perhaps anarchy.

Chris as a strong believer of strong environmental policies for protection of our earth, and it seems a strong believer in personal responsibility; how could you not believe in a strong rule of law. Environmental laws, safeguards, caps, inspection and enforcement are all part of the rule of law. The rule of law helps to protect us from our own greed and carelessness. Of course it doesn't eliminate all crime, pollution,...etc, but imagine the whole world being left up to individual responsibility.

 

[Chris]

He did in post #25 , but maybe with a little exasperation". CB said :Quote " Man" was the freakin' generic human sense." end of Quote

And I again explained in post 30 why I said what I said and moved on. I did not expect a whole mess of attacks coming my way. Geez, an attack by colored squares! I can deal with direct stuff. Its the sneaky stuff that is not cool. And now our cb is crying foul. Geez, everything I said is out in the open you know.

But anyway, enough already, time to move on. I do mean it you know.

Chris as a strong believer of strong environmental policies for protection of our earth, and it seems a strong believer in personal responsibility; how could you not believe in a strong rule of law.

I'm not quoting the whole thing here ...

Perhaps the 'strong environmental policies', thing is a little too much. I do believe like cb does that governmental control has become completely and overly pervasive in our modern society. In centuries past, where legal systems were not as well developed as now or still in development, and reading the philosophers, it seems as if the design of these issues received much more attention than nowadays. It looks by reading the philosophers, that laws and rules seemed to evolve as the community expressed the need. Nowadays things seem much more imposed and I feel many rules, regulations, policies and laws are almost 'sneaked up on us', instead of growing generically through the needs and requirements of communities, groups or countries. So, in a sense a I am a stronger believer in education and 'collective action' (not in a union sense, but in a community sense), than in the imposition of regulations, policies and laws to 'control' society. I do believe that if the people are educated, not brainwashed, but educated, laws, rules and regulations will reflect that. I do not like things that are imposed and that the 'proletariat' or the 'people' don't have a say in.

To take a small example, the rules here on DR1 evolved through the evolution of the community and examples from other communities in the same evolutionary space, as internet communities are a relatively new thing. So, those that have been on the board for a long time subscribe and support most of the rules because they've seen the need for them through time. (Not all of them, we do have our differences ...)

I don't feel currently I can subscribe to and support a whole mess of rules/laws or regulations that I am perforce subject to, in whichever country. As an example, look at all the messes that we have with air travel these days. It is positively a big pain in the patoot and the reasons for that are not of my doing. It is not my hatred that caused the chaos. More than that, I believe that people are mismanaging planetary governmental stuff to such an extent, that the ordinary people like you and I, are getting into a position of having no say over our own wellbeing and have to accept being shuffled like animals in corridors just simply because we want to travel from here to there. So, we're screwed.

As people, even our ability to truly decide what food to put in our mouths, is controlled by agribusiness who certainly are more interested in their own bottom line, than in my health.

You say that: "The rule of law helps to protect us from our own greed and carelessness." I cannot quite go with that. I think what should be our protection, is our own wits to an extent, our ability to live harmoniously in our lives and our interaction with others and our groups that we live in. There perhaps are some more that I need to mention here, but my mind is mush now.

 

[bob saunders]

You say that: "The rule of law helps to protect us from our own greed and carelessness." I cannot quite go with that. I think what should be our protection, is our own wits to an extent, our ability to live harmoniously in our lives and our interaction with others and our groups that we live in. There perhaps are some more that I need to mention here, but my mind is mush now.

Yes but what protects the half-wits, dimwits, nitwits and those with no wits. Criminals with their animal cunning have to have their wits about them. I am a firm believer in the essence of Rudyard Kipling's " IF "

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!


--Rudyard Kipling

 

[cobraboy]

And I again explained in post 30 why I said what I said and moved on. I did not expect a whole mess of attacks coming my way. Geez, an attack by colored squares! I can deal with direct stuff. Its the sneaky stuff that is not cool. And now our cb is crying foul.

Actually, I'm not crying foul. I'm crying bull****. Seriously large difference.

Well, I've gotten those pesky anonymous "reputation attacks" from folks, too, Chris, and I felt they were unwarranted. Heck, 3 were in MMGW threads by folks who obviously agree with you. At least I left you no doubt who/where it came from; nothing cowardly about that, it was intentional. How did it feel when you saw it?

BTW-"colored squares"? Isn't that a little racist? I mean, in MY country the word "colored" became a hurtful word 50 years ago. Musn't use a word that hurts someone super sensitive.

Wouldn't yellow or red square be more accurate and Politically Correct? I mean, being the sensitive, thoughtful man of the 90's that I am, I took great offense to "colored". It has such a negative connotation, don't you think?

















Blue is my color of sarcasm...:cheeky:

 

[cobraboy]

Great read for those "reasonable men*" who feel hemmed-in by intrusive 800lb. Big Gubmint Gorillas around the world:

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, by Harry Browne (a man I've met and for whom I have a very profound regard and respect, a man I'm proud to call a mentor).















*women/gay/lesbian, androgenous, transgendered/hermaphrodite persons, i.e. the generic, universal "men".

 

[A.Hidalgo]

I know I'm going off topic, but I have contributed a little on this thread so I think I can go a bit off course on something that is affecting us all.

This thread is clear proof that this rating system can be very counter productive. I have pm Robert before asking him to disabled mine. It has potential, but humans being what we are, use the little squares to lash out when we don't like someone instead of conversing like adults.

Now can we get back on track...I asked a question in post #54. I think its very relevant to the op.

 

[BushBaby]

Yes but what protects the half-wits, dimwits, nitwits and those with no wits. Criminals with their animal cunning have to have their wits about them. I am a firm believer in the essence of Rudyard Kipling's " IF "................
................

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!


--Rudyard Kipling

I take it that Rudyard Kipling didn't have any daughters then?? Either that or he TOO was a 'Male Chauvinist Pig'?? Not a mention anywhere in 'IF' about the female of the species!!!:ermm:

We MCP's are obviously fighting back for our rightful place as 'Top Honchos'!! :cheeky:aranoid: ~ Grahame.

 

[bob saunders]

Graham Bush says: take it that Rudyard Kipling didn't have any daughters then?? Either that or he TOO was a 'Male Chauvinist Pig'?? Not a mention anywhere in 'IF' about the female of the species!!!

We MCP's are obviously fighting back for our rightful place as 'Top Honchos'!! ~ Grahame.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well he was a man talking about a man, and yes I am sure he was a male chauvanist, if he was typical for his time. The man was a great writer even though I don't agree with some of the things he wrote.

As my mum would say: what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I am not fighting for my place rightfully or wrongfully. I'm comfortable in my skin, thank you.

 

[Lambada]

So, the truly liberated women did speak out, albeit in one voice................Hope you are clearer about where we've been.

Thank you for the explanation. I obviously got it totally wrong. I thought other women (other than you Chris) had been complaining, as in

And I'm not the only woman on this board who is really unhappy about this language you know. If a moderator starts complaining about usage of words, it does mean that there are a few pm's in the box already.

And my comment referred to the fact that truly liberated women, those who have let go of many notions that we have been conditioned to accept unquestioningly, take responsibility for their own beefs and post them themselves. That is where personal responsibility interfaces with any community set of rules.

Some may also have refrained from commenting out of respect for the rules about hijacking the thread,

Yes, I can see this, but are those imposed, external rules more important than personal responsibility?

and a reluctance to act out a battle that as far as most are concerned was fought and won by our elders and betters a generation ago.

Love it! (particularly coming from a background in the UK Women's Movement in the early '60's). But..................and I say this ruefully, those of us involved in this 40+ years ago did NOT win it. Had we done so, these discussions which to many of us seem arcane, would not still be going on. And if our slightly younger sisters do not continue to don the mantle then it will still be going on when our great great grandchildren are around. We've come a long way but the goal continues to recede.

And to continue more specifically on the theme of this thread, might I be allowed to quote a sister far more gifted than I am (Carolyn Baker) 'A key psychological factor in the individualization of oppression is the notion that in the face of utter powerlessness, blaming oneself provides the last semblance of empowerment'. And I would ask for a structural analysis of the 'rule of the person' rather than an individualised one.

bob saunders, I do believe BushBaby was jesting but he has to take responsibility & say this for himself

 

[BushBaby]

bob saunders, I do believe BushBaby was jesting but he has to take responsibility & say this for himself

I might be somewhat behind the times being a typical MCP (liberated with bar :surprised) but I thought I HAD taken that responsibility when I put that number of smilies into the post!! :ermm: aranoid:

If I am being given Resonsibilities to say things for myself, may I totally rephrase a lot of things I said over supper tonight?? :ermm::cheeky: ~ Grahame.

BOB ....... It was all said in JEST. I was using the 'ROYAL' 'WE' as being MCP's NOT indicating that YOU were one of us (nor one of them!:ermm:!). But then you knew that didn't you? Didn't need a WOMAN to tell you about jokes & jesting!!gre::ermm:

 

[fightfish]

In my humble opinion, this thread has taken on the familar sexist,feminist,mysogynist flavor of so many others. Why must it devolve into these predictable traits? Perhaps the views of some of us pre-empt any other opinions that we might express here...Self-reflection is an attribute.
ake ajoke of oneself and your antagonist will laugh.............

 

[Chirimoya]

Love it! (particularly coming from a background in the UK Women's Movement in the early '60's). But..................and I say this ruefully, those of us involved in this 40+ years ago did NOT win it. Had we done so, these discussions which to many of us seem arcane, would not still be going on. And if our slightly younger sisters do not continue to don the mantle then it will still be going on when our great great grandchildren are around. We've come a long way but the goal continues to recede.

I said the battle, not the war. The use of gender neutral, inclusive language is one area where definite progress was made, and is so universal nowadays that when one reads a text where 'people' are referred to as 'men' one concludes that if it was not written before 1960, the writer is making a point.

 

[bob saunders]

bob saunders, I do believe BushBaby was jesting but he has to take responsibility & say this for himself

Well, unable to see is Graham had a smirk of humour or a look of scorn, or his tonque in cheek while typing I answered with no emotional committment. My addition of the poem by Kipling was entirely about person resposibility, sort of to "your own self be true " and absolutely nothing about man versus woman. If you look back through the posts if Chris would have sent CB a PM stating hat several women were upset at his lack of PC with the use of man in the generic way that he used it. Certainly equality hasn't reached the point where men/women are treated equaity in all manners, and if it ever does, there will be a lot of unset women.

 

[bob saunders]

Excuse my typos in previous post as I was trying to whip it off, the post, prior to work.
Hopefully the message was conveyed correctly.

 

[Chris]

Thank you for the explanation. I obviously got it totally wrong. I thought other women (other than you Chris) had been complaining ..

Yes, that is true, others were complaining. I thought I made it clear that I became aware of a few women's utter disgust with the consistent use of sexist language over some time, as in a discussion. It is only now that I decided to start dealing with it, in this thread, when it came to be too much 'in my face' and also had a definitive impact on the content on this thread. I thought I had explained the sequence of events it with my women and 'one voice' comment, but that may have been a tad esoteric. LOL

So, to summarize, I decided to mention the poster's use of extreme sexist language for three reasons ... because 1) I knew it bothered others and ... 2) it certainly bothered me. The 3rd reason and part of my decision to mention it, was that it indeed formed an ideal practical illustration of the concepts being discussed here in this thread. For those who know it, utilizing an androgogic learning model in an experiential learning cycle.

As it was, my comment elicited a small war and an almost abandonment of the topic of this thread. I expected a few 'snarky and barky' comments at worst but the manner in which the issue was handled, speaks volumes.

Anyway, I have moved on and I would appreciate if everyone else would too. The point has been made, an answer has been given that the sexist language uses 'man' and 'men' in the generic sense, together with some other 'fine' actions. In the spirit of moving on, I'm happy to accept the generic explanation. I hope that the writer now understands for future, that there are a whole mess of us that do not know how to read 'women' when we see 'men' written. Especially not when we are discussion the Rule of Law vs the 'Rule of the Person'.

 

[Chris]

If you look back through the posts if Chris would have sent CB a PM stating hat several women were upset at his lack of PC with the use of man in the generic way that he used it.

Oh yes? Noooooo! Thanks for that vote of confidence but I decline the position to teach anyone non-sexist language by pm. You don't want me in that position on account of I'll do a very bad job! LOL

That is a sweet and nice poem. You may remember, when I mentioned this first, I asked whether the language was perhaps as a result of quoting from some kind of literature.

Can we perhaps get back to the topic of this thread?