Careless talk, and consequences thereof...

PJ did a nice job noodling his relativist butt thru my mine field, but perhaps I'll catch lesser prey (although my recently reinstituted ignore list might mean I won't see it) later on if they're not paying attention.

If it makes you feel better you would of caught me, but I'm easy prey. Debate was never one of my strong suits. I typically avoid discussing both religion and politics with anyone because they end up just pissing me off.

Still if you're curious, I would of said he would have had a good lawsuit on his hands since he wasn't there on behalf of the business. I overlooked the badge. Maybe I'm wrong, but it still seems like two different situations. On the one hand you have a guy making sexist remarks to a journalist during an interview and on the other hand you just have a guy at a rally who isn't on the clock or there for the business.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
What if the Audi guy wasn't "wearing a badge" when he gave his interview? He's just a guy doing a "man on the street" interview. I have no doubts there would still be calls for his dismissal once the media identified him and started the campaign of outrage. Yet, JJB gets off clean.

Are we ready to say the rules should be different for people in positions of power?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
Are we ready to say the rules should be different for people in positions of power?

If you find this problematic, ponder for awhile on what the word "power" actually means.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
What if the Audi guy wasn't "wearing a badge" when he gave his interview? He's just a guy doing a "man on the street" interview. I have no doubts there would still be calls for his dismissal once the media identified him and started the campaign of outrage. Yet, JJB gets off clean.

There might be, but the campaigns would certainly be less powerful. Even now, there's a backlash against his resignation.

Are we ready to say the rules should be different for people in positions of power?

Of course. With power comes responsibility. With responsibility, comes oversight. Hell, I even outlined a philosophy of power of sorts a while back, which specifically posits that one of the functions of society is to enable the powerless to defend themselves against the powerful -- and not vice versa.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Weren't you one of the horde crying about Dubya getting away with war crimes simply because he was President? Which way do you want it, JemyM, blind justice or not?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
First, you said nothing about "maintaining order in class room". You said punishing a 7 year old for using a word. These are two completely separate issues. A single word doesn't disrupt order, unless order somehow is dependent on a single word not being said, but I would like you to give me any valid argument for why a single word by a 7 year old disrupts order.
Using the word in class. I figured maintaining order is implied. Have you ever been around seven year olds, Jemy? Cursing in a class room is pretty disruptive, having seen and used such words in class myself. I think using the n-word, the c-word, etc would definitely cause some reactions amongst fellow students and are not appropriate for a classroom setting. Would you use those words in your classes today, Jemy?

Second, a 7 year old is a 7 year old. 7 year olds do things all the time that doesn't work in a career. You do not even begin to develop abstract thinking until you are around 12 years old.
Sure. But using that word *in a classroom setting* is inappropriate, just as using that word in a business setting will usually be inappropriate. The kid can't think abstractly, thus why the basic "this word is wrong, don't use it" is a good rule to use, as the kid probably won't get why using it in school/work is not appropriate, whereas if he's talking to his friends it doesn't matter.

Third, you used the word "punish". I can guess of two reasons why you believe this is a valid procedure;
Yes. Punish, warn, admonish, if the behavior continues, detention. Not beat the kid with a baseball bat, Jemy.
1. You do not really have a clue why saying this word is wrong, or any idea on how to explain it to a child.
Saying the word in and of itself is not wrong. Using that word in that sort of environment is not appropriate. If I am in class, at work, or at a funeral, saying the f-word, the c-word, calling someone a bitch, etc, is not appropriate behavior for that situation. Amongst friends, a bar, etc, it's acceptable. It is not appropriate professional behavior in most circumstances, however.
2. You were yourself punished for doing this, and now you believe that's the best way to deal with a child.
It's acceptable after repeated behavior or if the kid generally doesn't care about the reasons you gave him.

What it all boils down to is that you are ready to harm a 7-year old because a 7-year old lacks the abstract thinking capacity to understand the consequences of their actions.
Detention or writing a page or two on why saying that word is inappropriate harms a child? Bullshit, Jemy. Bullshit.

Instead of you, as an adult, teach them why their actions are wrong, you are just going to harm them instead. What that tells me, is that you as an adult never yourself fully developed your morality into a solid foundation that can be taught to others. You lack valid arguments that would make sense to a 7-year old, so you go caveman instead, training a child like you would train a dog.

And it seems to me you just want to moralize and be a little prick instead of understanding what I am saying. Is this classroom appropriate behavior, Jemy?
"Student: You're a f'ing c'nt."
Yes, or no? If the student *knows* this is not considered acceptable behavior for a class room, what do you do? Allow the kid to keep saying it? I had more than a few classes on psychology and educational theory at the undergrad level too, Jemy, and your argument sounds EXACTLY like the one they tried to push that said if a Kid fails his classes he should not be forced to repeat that grade level because it "harms" him to do so.
It seems to me, that the child really isn't the problem in this picture.
And it seems to me you're just being a little prick and did not actually ask me for your arguments before you say I have no moral foundation. If you want to insult me, that's your choice, but since you're not presenting any arguments on your side other than saying that I have no moral foundation or that I "can't explain" to the child why it is "wrong", I'm going to give you the finger and tell you to piss off.

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.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,299
Location
VA
With power comes responsibility. With responsibility, comes oversight.
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?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
Why am I thinking of the show House when you said that :)

Depends on what was said.

Let's say the boss called the underling a lazy pig. What if that happened to be true? One of two things, he is just trying to be an ass in which case the underling better get used to it. People aren't nice all the damn time and if he thinks the job is worth keeping, then he keeps his mouth shut.

The other is that is how this particular person teaches even if it wasn't his job to teach this person of lower power, doesn't mean he can't. Same conclusion. If the underling feels that the job is worth it then he keeps his mouth shut.

No publicity in this case, no harm to the company.

Just the doe eyed guy weighing in on this subject ;)
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
Yes. Punish, warn, admonish, if the behavior continues, detention. Not beat the kid with a baseball bat, Jemy.
You're getting soft in your old age, Rith. I remember a post the infamous Roqua did long ago. It had a picture of a t-shirt with the attached picture and the text,
"If your kid doesn't look like this when you come home, you have failed as a parent."

(Joke, people, don't get all wound up)
 

Attachments

  • Untabused.png
    Untabused.png
    32 KB · Views: 27
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
Why am I thinking of the show House when you said that :)

Depends on what was said.

Let's say the boss called the underling a lazy pig. What if that happened to be true? One of two things, he is just trying to be an ass in which case the underling better get used to it. People aren't nice all the damn time and if he thinks the job is worth keeping, then he keeps his mouth shut.

The other is that is how this particular person teaches even if it wasn't his job to teach this person of lower power, doesn't mean he can't. Same conclusion. If the underling feels that the job is worth it then he keeps his mouth shut.

No publicity in this case, no harm to the company.

Just the doe eyed guy weighing in on this subject ;)
Patience, my rodent friend. I would like a few more victims before I pull back the curtain. I'll get back to you in a while. ;)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
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?

That's too abstract. Phrased like that, I'd be inclined to say "no" -- but I can think of specific instances where the answer would be "yes." For example, if the President of the United States opined that torturing captured enemy combatants is perfectly A-OK in his book, then yeah, he should spend time in the stockade. Whereas if you said a damn-fool thing like that, I think you'd just deserve public ridicule.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Weren't you one of the horde crying about Dubya getting away with war crimes simply because he was President? Which way do you want it, JemyM, blind justice or not?

With infinite amount of resources, one can deal with both a lesser and a greater problem at the same time. It's nature, however, that we do not have infinite resources. The only deal then, is to pick our priorities.

If one follow the idea that one should reduce something with the potential to cause harm, but due to limited resources must decide between either deal with a powerful person, or a "man on the street", one would probably pick the powerful one, simply because he have more power to do harm.

However, one can of course make the argument, that breaking principles is in itself a cause for harm in the long run. Then one should make sure that the "man on the street" is dealt with as well. But if you are going to make a public example and show that you are true to your principles, you would probably still make a better statement if you take down the powerful one first. That might even give the "man on the street" reason to reconsider his/her actions.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Would you use those words in your classes today, Jemy?

When I was young, my mother stated that I would get less respect if I continued to use bad language. That made sense to me back then. As an adult I understand that I get more out of social interactions if I try to use a sophisticated language than I would if I used a limited one.

That said, I can deal with a child using words for genitalia, sex etc, but not labels that specifically attack a specific victim, such as a race, gender, physical traits etc. I find that to be a greater issue that needs to be dealt with swiftly. You do not want to breed abuse, racism, sexism or other kinds of discrimination in your school.

Sure. But using that word *in a classroom setting* is inappropriate, just as using that word in a business setting will usually be inappropriate. The kid can't think abstractly, thus why the basic "this word is wrong, don't use it" is a good rule to use, as the kid probably won't get why using it in school/work is not appropriate, whereas if he's talking to his friends it doesn't matter.

Well, I agree on that. KISS (keep-it-simple-stupid) might be a good principle when dealing with kids.

Yes. Punish, warn, admonish, if the behavior continues, detention. Not beat the kid with a baseball bat, Jemy.

I cannot be sure what people mean when they say "punish" anymore. I have encountered too many who believe beating up their kids is a good idea.

It's acceptable after repeated behavior or if the kid generally doesn't care about the reasons you gave him.

That might be true.

Yes, or no? If the student *knows* this is not considered acceptable behavior for a class room, what do you do?

I would ask my cohabit. Seriously, I am a bit tired atm, but I think I should ask her about that question tomorrow as I am interested in what she have to say. She have 4 year education on child pedagogy.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
You're getting soft in your old age, Rith. I remember a post the infamous Roqua did long ago. It had a picture of a t-shirt with the attached picture and the text,
"If your kid doesn't look like this when you come home, you have failed as a parent."

(Joke, people, don't get all wound up)

::chuckles:: Yeah. I'm not a fan of any sort of corporal punishment. My school spanked us with a paddle (hard, too) and, well, most of you have some inkling of my home life. It accomplishes nothing, really - I just got to the point where I wasn't afraid of any punishment for my actions. I could barely sit for days on end sometimes, so what's detention or losing video game/tv privileges mean to me? Absolutely nothing. All you do is build the kid's resistance up so high that it makes it all but impossible to impart good behavior or lessons upon 'em.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,299
Location
VA
I got beaten as punishment when I was a kid exactly once. I still remember the beating, especially the fear associated with it. However, I have no recollection whatsoever about what I got beaten for. IOW, I have a hunch the beating may not have had the desired educational effect. (Anyway, the results are before you...)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Yeah. I don't think my experiences with that sort of thing did anything other than give me a stubborn streak a mile wide.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,299
Location
VA
That's too abstract. Phrased like that, I'd be inclined to say "no" — but I can think of specific instances where the answer would be "yes." For example, if the President of the United States opined that torturing captured enemy combatants is perfectly A-OK in his book, then yeah, he should spend time in the stockade. Whereas if you said a damn-fool thing like that, I think you'd just deserve public ridicule.
The artful dodge, so let us take away some of the abstract. Let's say a prominent government official called a local cop "stupid" over an issue where the official had minimal knowledge of the situation. How would a noodle relativist incorporate that action into a creed of protecting the powerless from the predations of the powerful?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
The artful dodge, so let us take away some of the abstract. Let's say a prominent government official called a local cop "stupid" over an issue where the official had minimal knowledge of the situation. How would a noodle relativist incorporate that action into a creed of protecting the powerless from the predations of the powerful?

I would expect a public apology at the very least. If the cop was concretely harmed — e.g. got fired, reassigned to office duty, pay docked, whatever — legal consequences should follow.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
The artful dodge, so let us take away some of the abstract. Let's say a prominent government official called a local cop "stupid" over an issue where the official had minimal knowledge of the situation. How would a noodle relativist incorporate that action into a creed of protecting the powerless from the predations of the powerful?

Probably by analysing the specific situation and examining, whether that "minimal information" might have given the official some understandable reason, e. g. to assume that the the local cop might have harrassed a person with less power than him.

But since luckily such situations never occur, we don't need to worry about such questions.

But seriously:
If somebody defines a hypothetic abstract situation the answer may be: you can't give a judgement without further information about the situtuation.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
1,794
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?

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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
Back
Top Bottom