Careless talk, and consequences thereof...

dteowner said:

So you're saying two wrongs make a right (and, for the purposes of this line of questioning, I'm not going to dispute your errant determination that the original situation was a "wrong") for the top of the food chain, but it's still a wrong for the poor bastard in the middle? Pretty inconsistent application of justice, there. Is that how we want it?

Click to expand...

I don't know if that was directed to my post, but since I didn't draw a final conclusion for the situation, I don't see what your are reasoning about.

I believe that there is a good reason for the fact that courts tend to ask for detailed evidence about a case before making a judgement.

With your example you are asking people to draw conclusions from insufficient knowledge - in the end the same thing you accuse your hypothetical offical of.

Edit: If you want people to tell their decisions in hypothetical situations, the description should contain no unspecified pieceof information.

If, for example instaed of stating that the official had "little information" you had said: "The official acted without any foundation", I would have given an answer similarto that of PJ. However, with that clear formulation the hypothetical situation would not fit to the real situation you had in mind (at least there would be different opinions about that).

Rithrandil said:

So you know what? Welcome to the ignore list. Have a nice life, dude. I have better things to waste my time on than you.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you actually put Jemy on your ignore list but if you did you might want to read his subsequent posts, it seems to me you're pretty much in agreement.

dteowner said:

So then, let's say a person of power publicly weighed in on a subject where he had minimal knowledge, to the direct detriment of someone with significantly less power. Should that guy get time in the stockade?

Click to expand...

If the president in question admitted he had imperfect information, disclosed that he was a friend of the professor in question and admitted he was probably biased I don't see the problem.
Isn't this pretty much the gist of this discussion, that the government shoudn't punish you for your opinions but if you choose to express them you have to take the consequences? You can't say that he hasn't had to live with the consequences of his statement. While I don't see what the fuss is about he certainly took a big hit in his aproval-rating for that statement and for a politician I can't imagine any more severe consequence.

dteowner said:

So you're saying two wrongs make a right (and, for the purposes of this line of questioning, I'm not going to dispute your errant determination that the original situation was a "wrong") for the top of the food chain, but it's still a wrong for the poor bastard in the middle? Pretty inconsistent application of justice, there. Is that how we want it?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't follow you here (if it's directed at me). Could you rephrase it?

It should also be noted that our hypothetical government official *never* did apologize for his actions publicly, but merely "adjusted his terminology" or some such political doublespeak.

Click to expand...

No? From where I'm at, that plus the shared beer thing counts as an apology. Perhaps we have somewhat different definitions, though, and I agree that it would have been better if he had actually used the words "I apologize," rather than "expressing his regret" at a variety of things.

Rithrandil;1060969088" said:

Student: You're a f'ing c'nt."
If the student *knows* this is not considered acceptable behavior for a class room, what do you do?

Click to expand...

Well, in case you remove me from the ignorelist, here's my cohabits reply;

There are several paths to deal with this problem, depending on the age of the student and the teachers decision.

If the teacher have the energy to do so, investigating the source for the behavior is one path to take. This includes investigating the parents, taking in a child psychologist etc.

But of course, if the student pushes you too far, the next option is to remove the student from the classroom and eventually try to get the student expelled from school.

Prime Junta said:

Sorry, I can't follow you here (if it's directed at me). Could you rephrase it?

Click to expand...

That was actually for BK.

Prime Junta said:

No? From where I'm at, that plus the shared beer thing counts as an apology. Perhaps we have somewhat different definitions, though, and I agree that it would have been better if he had actually used the words "I apologize," rather than "expressing his regret" at a variety of things.

Click to expand...

I would consider this a similar parsing to what you did with the Audi guy's semi-apology, except in Barack's case you want to accept it as a genuine conclusion while in the other you have no such motivations.

JemyM said:

But of course, if the student pushes you too far, the next option is to remove the student from the classroom and eventually try to get the student expelled from school.

Click to expand...

This is what Rith is calling punishment, based on the way the US education system currently (barely) operates. Perhaps it's just a language issue, but you gave Rith a pretty good slap for saying the same thing you just did.

dteowner said:

That was actually for BK.

I would consider this a similar parsing to what you did with the Audi guy's semi-apology, except in Barack's case you want to accept it as a genuine conclusion while in the other you have no such motivations.

Click to expand...

If you'll care to look back at what I said about the Audi guy's apology, I think you'll find that I considered that quite genuine as well. Mags was the one who didn't feel so good about it.

I stand corrected. I remembered you parsing his "just" and "mostly", but I incorrectly recalled your conclusions from it.

Yep, I'm the parsing hypocrite that thinks Barack made amends and the Audi guy dug his burial pit deeper with their respective actions.