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

[cobraboy]

cb, the issue remains interesting and I will take part in discussion of the issue and focus of this thread. I will refrain from further foaming at the mouth about your sexist language.

My sexist language???

Are you crazy???

I have NOT used sexist language on this board, nor will I acquiesce to your accusations that I did. THAT I take offense to, Chris.

I took a benign term (read bob saunders post above about the genesis of my usage), and YOU flipped out over it, either out of ignorance of the word in context (maybe English is not your native tongue, I dunno), or for some other specific agenda. It was NOT sexist in my usage, period.

YOU are the one who made the accusation. ALL I did is call bullcrap on your slur of me. THAT was intentional. Seems to me you're the one who needs to, at minimum, plea a mea culpa, that it was not your intent to slur me as you didn't understand the word in it's intended context. I'd be cool with that.

This goes back to the difference between the Rule of Law/Rule of Person. My comment that you went ballistic over was that the Rule of Law exists because "men" (i.e. male/female/gay/lesbian/androgynous/transsexuals) are not "reasonable" and therefore require the Rule of Law to intervene for the purpose of order in society. Sort of like telling your (generic) kids that if they can't resolve their differences playing in the sandbox, you will come and tell them what the rules are.

Men, women, gays, lesbians, andrgynous persons and transsexuals are NOT reasonable; therefore Man's (the generic) Laws exist.

If you had been "reasonable" within the context of my post, this NEVER would have evolved as it has, and you'd never have been in a position to have to save face...

 

[Chris]

I agree that it is interesting. I also think that how this disagreement is handled is germane to picking apart that awkward place where the Rule of Law interfaces with the individual. In other words, since we have a 'real life' example, why not use it as an analytical tool?

Particularly since many of us see the 'personal as political and the political as personal'.

Yes, that is kinda what I was hoping for, that people would start seeing the very real disagreement as food or fodder suitable as a very real example.

Perhaps I can get the ball rolling with the simplest of statements or questions. For example, this disagreement about language .. things like this has been written into laws / regulations lately. So, the Rule of Law is in a sense 'protecting' the sensibilities of a group of people, a segment of humanity, that lobbied and won because they felt they were disenfranchised in times past. Nowadays it becomes a real problem if ones language is discriminatory. There are many many examples of this in the real world.

Is this the correct use of the Rule of Law? or does this usurp the personal responsibilities of people?

Lambada, kindly feel free to restate if my words are cumbersome.

 

[cobraboy]

So why be 'offended' by something that really is not important?:squareeye

Bingo!

PC exists as a means to stifle speech through intimidation.

What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones..."?

 

[MommC]

Thanks also Bob.....

Etymology

Symbol of the planet Venus, also used to indicate the female gender among animals which reproduce sexuallyThe English term "Man" (from Proto-Germanic mannaz "man, person") and words derived therefrom can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their gender or age. This is indeed the oldest usage of "Man" in English. This derives from a Proto-Indo-European root "man-" meaning hand.


NOTE:MAN can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their gender or age.

Now Chris......you REALLY are stretching here aren't you????

I've been called a lot of nasty things in my life, by people that I must admit sometimes I've stooped to their level to respond to, although most of the time I refuse to dignify their obvious derogatory statements by a response.

There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE between the use of the 'generic' word MAN and the use of a word that is defined as being derogatory.

I think now you are just being a b*tch and I mean that not in the sense of being a female dog but in the derogatory sense that is it's alter meaning.

Why don't you just admit that you called CB out needlessly for whatever reasons (non of which you've already given satisfactorily explain your actions)?

Or as I stated in a different thread, is this just an instance of someone with a little power abusing their personal "rule' because they can??

 

[johne]

Perfect example of my OP and the "language debate"ip

I guess it wasn't your last post, huh, Chris.:cheeky:

Hey, it's just one insignificant man's opinion, but to compare the "N-word" to my use of "men" within the context I used it would be hilarious...if it weren't so pathetic.

I hope you're not serious. You really don't compare them on the "offense" scale, do you? Because if you do, you've just succeeded in making the "N-word" much less offensive.

You're REALLY stretching it now...

I have not participated in the back and forths of the "language debate" to date but on the point of the "N" word I have a bit of knowledge and how it relates to the OP.I'd like to share it here.

A very close friend of mine was the defense lawyer in a trial about a year and a half ago. It was a case called "Fat Nick". Fat Nick was a young white man from Howard Beach NY which was the home of John Gotti .Howard Beach has never been known for being "P.C.", to say the least.

Well one night Fat Nick was driving around in his Cadillac Escalade (at 3am) and he came upon 2 black guys that he thought "were about to rob a house in his nabe.) He took out a baseball bat and did quite a number on one of the black men.During the beating Fat Nick said "that's for you Nigger"

Now the word "nigger" is used in a lot of rap songs and the word is used in many ethnic nabes from one black youth to another black youth.Fairly common believe it or not.
The crime would not have been a charge of anything more than assualt and battery until Fat Nick said"nigger" Now, we go to a whole different level under federal laws in the U.S. Racial. You go to jail for a LOT of time.

My friend (the lawyer) thought he would defend by defending the word"nigger" and how it is used in present day language. He research the word. He got a expert witness. Really. The witness gave a day of testimony on the current use of the word.

A jury of his peers wasn't buying it. Fat white boys can't use the "N" word when they are swinging a baseball bat. No way.Not the same as B to B.

Fat Nick was sent away about a year ago and is serving 25 years in a upstate prison in NY. He was around 18-19 years old.

JOHN

 

[cobraboy]

.. things like this has been written into laws / regulations lately.

Specifics, please. Not doubting you, but I'd like to see some examples.

IMO, passing laws about the use of words, not actions, is a slippery slope toward creating the Thought Police.

To me, actions where one man* initiates violence against another require laws, words really don't (except for yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater).















*generic

 

[cobraboy]

I have not participated in the back and forths of the "language debate" to date but on the point of the "N" word I have a bit of knowledge and how it relates to the OP.I'd like to share it here.

A very close friend of mine was the defense lawyer in a trial about a year and a half ago. It was a case called "Fat Nick". Fat Nick was a young white man from Howard Beach NY which was the home of John Gotti .Howard Beach has never been known for being "P.C.", to say the least.

Well one night Fat Nick was driving around in his Cadillac Escalade (at 3am) and he came upon 2 black guys that he thought "were about to rob a house in his nabe.) He took out a baseball bat and did quite a number on one of the black men.During the beating Fat Nick said "that's for you Nigger"

Now the word "nigger" is used in a lot of rap songs and the word is used in many ethnic nabes from one black youth to another black youth.Fairly common believe it or not.
The crime would not have been a charge of anything more than assualt and battery until Fat Nick said"nigger" Now, we go to a whole different level under federal laws in the U.S. Racial. You go to jail for a LOT of time.

My friend (the lawyer) thought he would defend by defending the word"nigger" and how it is used in present day language. He research the word. He got a expert witness. Really. The witness gave a day of testimony on the current use of the word.

A jury of his peers wasn't buying it. Fat white boys can't use the "N" word when they are swinging a baseball bat. No way.Not the same as B to B.

Fat Nick was sent away about a year ago and is serving 25 years in a upstate prison in NY. He was around 18-19 years old.

JOHN

How's the appeal going? Surely, there will be more legal maneuvering to be done...

I just cannot fathom how the "N-word" and "men" can possibly be equal...

 

[MommC]

How many times was this repeated to me as a child....?????

What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones..."?

Too true......

Now using Chris' last example let's discuss the "rule of law/rule of the person"
when it comes to Christmas.

It has become politically incorrect to wish someone Merry Christmas or to display nativity scenes or put Chritmas trees in public places???

Why???

Those who protest do so because Christmas is a religious observance
that does not conform to their religious beliefs.

However, if I am a Christian and wish to wish you a Merry Christmas during the Dec/Jan festivities that is my perogative.
If I am Jewish I will in turn wish you a Happy Hanuka during that season.

Or I may wish you Happy Diwali, or Happy Ramadan and so on, and so forth.

Why should that be a problem???

My response to those who take offence is this......When someone wishes you a happy whatever say thank you and wish them a happy holiday. Don't rush off to take advantage of the specials sales that are part of the festive season (there wouldn't be a sale if it wasn't for the festivities), don't buy the foods that are associated with the holiday, don't attend any social functions that are specific to the holiday.........

Only when one does this can one truthfully 'protest'.

If man(KIND)( FOR THE PC anal retentives)) can not learn tolerance, there is no hope for man(kind).

Goes back to a little common sense (which we all know some people lack!):bunny:

 

[BushBaby]

.... I will refrain from further foaming at the mouth about your sexist language.

Now then Christa - that goes just a wee bit too far. I have stayed out of this debate (other than trying to reduce the temperature a couple of times with some lighthearted banter) but to suggest that cobraboy is using sexist language is OTT. He has EXPLAINED his usage, at one time you accepted that explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
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.
Response by Bob Saunders (following that of CB)
He did in post #25 , but maybe with a little exasperation". CB said :Quote " Man" was the freakin' generic human sense." end of Quote

NOW you acuse him of using it again.:ermm:

Lambada & I have met both of you, we have had both of you in our house. YOU know that CB would NOT be welcome back to our house if he showed ANY form a sexist tendancies - My Boss just wouldn't allow it!!:cheeky: CB IS welcome back to our house, the offer has been out for several weeks & this thread has done NOTHING to change our views on him. M'Thinks for some reason not being disclosed here that he has upset you in another way. THAT is between the two of you & it is unfair to bring other grievances into this thread without informing all of us what he has done so that we can see the reason for your (IMO) excessive vehmence to him now.

Okay, you have boxed each other into a corner & each feels the other is punching way below the belt (or something untoward!!). HOW are you going to get out of this situation? THAT is going to have to be the 'Rule of Person' which in this case is FAR more important than the 'Rule of (DR1) law'!! Close this thread now & someone loses face BIG time. Continue boxing & two people lose, as might others who feel they have to join in.

Carry on - I am going back to my friendly Help A Caddy get Certified thread!! ~ Grahame.

 

[El sabelot?]

He got a expert witness. Really. The witness gave a day of testimony on the current use of the word.

A JOHN

Expert testimony on the usage of the N-word? You got to be joking. That's as absurd as taking a degree in Theology.

 

[Chris]

Now Chris......you REALLY are stretching here aren't you????

I've been called a lot of nasty things in my life, by people that I must admit sometimes I've stooped to their level to respond to, although most of the time I refuse to dignify their obvious derogatory statements by a response.

There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE between the use of the 'generic' word MAN and the use of a word that is defined as being derogatory.

I think now you are just being a b*tch and I mean that not in the sense of being a female dog but in the derogatory sense that is it's alter meaning.

Why don't you just admit that you called CB out needlessly for whatever reasons (non of which you've already given satisfactorily explain your actions)?

Or as I stated in a different thread, is this just an instance of someone with a little power abusing their personal "rule' because they can??

MommC, I have no idea where you are coming from, or why you are saying what you are saying. My feeling is that calling me a b*tch is much preferable to calling me a man. You seem to feel the other way. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Chris]

Now then Christa - that goes just a wee bit too far.

I've moved on a number of posts ago BushBaby. And I addressed this topic originally fairly gently for me. Again .. I truly did not expect the extreme reaction when I talked about the sexist language. There was ample opportunity to set this thing to rights. Yes, I expected a reaction, some spirited to and fro and argument, but not the extreme anger, the baiting, the business type notices on the personal feedback thing or the continual "Oh, Woe is Me! I'm being persecuted" type bleating. But truly, I've moved on. Again, I am not expecting the 'rallying of the troops' and the lively pm activity drumming up support. It is quite astounding. Sorry, I'm not going private with my words on this one but I'll send you a pm with some thoughts that don't belong here.

 

[Lambada]

Lambada, kindly feel free to restate if my words are cumbersome.

Thanks for the offer, Chris, but I can't. If I did I would

usurp the personal responsibilities of people?.

As in I'm responsible for my words, you are for yours, cobraboy is for his, MommC is for hers. If I 'restated' I would be imposing my definitons. That might very well be construed as sexist because of the power issue.

I could rabbit away on this, which for me is an intellectual debate (well as close as we get here :cheeky but I won't because I get the 'feeling' that others are responding out of emotion.

I think now you are just being a b*tch and I mean that not in the sense of being a female dog but in the derogatory sense that is it's alter meaning.

My disappovalometer clicks in when I see one woman calling another a b*tch although I defend the individual's right to choose the language they wish. Are there not other ways to phrase the intention behind the word?

 

[MommC]

Mine does too Lambada (although I am known to be one myself at times)

My disappovalometer clicks in when I see one woman calling another a b*tch although I defend the individual's right to choose the language they wish. Are there not other ways to phrase the intention behind the word?

Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black!

However, when my intelligence is insulted to the extent it has been (see Chris's post on the "quote" N word "unquote" I tend to 'call it like I see it'!:ermm:

Please note also that I wasn't being sexist at all with the term that I politically correctly used. Butch just wouldn't have sufficed:cheeky:

Is that why she is so upset over the "in her opinion" sexist language? Was she inferring that CB was calling all women lesbians by using the 'generic' word man?

 

[Chris]

Specifics, please. Not doubting you, but I'd like to see some examples.

IMO, passing laws about the use of words, not actions, is a slippery slope toward creating the Thought Police.

To me, actions where one man* initiates violence against another require laws, words really don't (except for yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater).

Others added some examples and I think we know the tendency that I was trying to highlight. I'm too lazy now to list examples.

Not so sure if I can go with you fully on the 'Laws for actions', but not 'Laws for words' type distinction. It just feels a little iffy. But then again something feels right. So, if George hits Jacks on the head, then there is a legal recourse, but if George calls Jack a Bitch (hahaha! Oh my heavens I'm rolling around laughing ... ), then there is no legal recourse? What about all the legalities on the books currently all over the world for stuff like defamation?

So, for the DR should they concentrate on Laws for George Hitting Jack on the head, or for Laws where George calls Jack a bitch?

(Both George and Jack and the Bitch are figments of my imagination and are not real people but they are there for illustrative purposes only)

 

[bob saunders]

. For example, this disagreement about language .. things like this has been written into laws / regulations lately. So, the Rule of Law is in a sense 'protecting' the sensibilities of a group of people, a segment of humanity, that lobbied and won because they felt they were disenfranchised in times past. Nowadays it becomes a real problem if ones language is discriminatory. There are many many examples of this in the real world.
Is this the correct use of the Rule of Law? or does this usurp the personal responsibilities of people?
Lambada, kindly feel free to restate if my words are cumbersome.

I total agree with your above statement, but in this case, of the woman/man issue substitute sensitivities for sensibilities and you would be more accurate. My personal responsibility is only to myself, I have many other responsibilities in my job. If I'm misunderstood because of the language I use, if it is important to me, it is my responsibility to myself to correct the situation, but when the person understands full well what I mean, but out of reasons of their own pursues a different agenda then it is THEIR personal responsible to correct the situation, and perhaps admit that they over-reacted or handled a situation. None of us areperfect, I have made many mistakes, continue to make mistakes and make corrects or amends when necessary.

 

[Chris]

but in this case, of the woman/man issue substitute sensitivities for sensibilities and you would be more accurate.

Thanks, I knew there was something wrong in there but I could not put my finger on it. One can speak a language for many years but if it is not your own, you can still mess it up eh! Yes .. sensitivities not sensibilities.

 

[El sabelot?]

But on the lighter side:

I'm avowedly feminist, but I cannot, for the life of me, refer to that telephone company opening on the ground as personhole.

 

[MommC]

So you don't acknowledge that you are a man......

MommC, I have no idea where you are coming from, or why you are saying what you are saying. My feeling is that calling me a b*tch is much preferable to calling me a man. You seem to feel the other way. Different strokes for different folks.

We are all men!!! The species differentiates between masculine and feminine by calling males -men and females -women. Much as a female geese is a goose and the male is a gander.

Women are not a distinct species (although some males think we are).

Neither are men (as in males).

We are both HUMAN! Note the MAN on the end of that word!!

bobsaunders already posted the definition of man ......nothing sexist about it.
It refers to all humans in that we are the species that have hands as opposed to paws, wings,flippers,fins.


It is men like yourself that have perpetuated the myth that the female of the species must be 'protected' either by rule of law or rule of person from the male of the species.

It is only when the female realizes that she is just as much a man as the male of the species that she can overcome the stereotyping of her gender.

I am woman -hear me roar - as any MAN can!!

 

[El sabelot?]

Thanks, I knew there was something wrong in there but I could not put my finger on it. One can speak a language for many years but if it is not your own, you can still mess it up eh! Yes .. sensitivities not sensibilities.

Now we are getting somewhere. I likes.