Victims!
- Thread starter Hopper
- Start date
Hopper
Banned
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Going for another 16 in 23, I see? Or is it 15 of 20? Because of course, getting linked to the beginning of the chain is the most important thing in the world, right?
This thread is a classic example of how those with a "victimized" mentality view themselves among the masses. They throw tantrums, they pound the proverbial table, they practice leaps in logic, they try everything that will take the focus from the real issue at hand and shine it on what it's really all about. Themselves. A classic case study if I've ever seen one.
I know Hoppy sees himself as a vessel of common sense and righteousness as he battles the likes of SirKick who, in Hoppy's eyes, is the evil gestapo. It only took me one page of the previous thread to realize that Hoppy is a pretty dumb guy considering his arguments were mainly based on half truths, conjecture and dim witted logic.
Hoppy, do us all a favor and kindly, GTFO.
I know Hoppy sees himself as a vessel of common sense and righteousness as he battles the likes of SirKick who, in Hoppy's eyes, is the evil gestapo. It only took me one page of the previous thread to realize that Hoppy is a pretty dumb guy considering his arguments were mainly based on half truths, conjecture and dim witted logic.
Hoppy, do us all a favor and kindly, GTFO.
Last edited:
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Compelling and rich.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Dude, you made it about him again. You know he likes it.
Hopper
Banned
I'm startin to think this might not work. Before long, I'm afraid NOBODY would be happy and EVERYBODY would be complaining, ya know? The boys would say they don't wanna play hopscotch or be around stupid girls. The girls would be probably be complainin that the boys aint being nice. They would making fun of the girls, who would also complain that, worse yet, now and again one of the boys would say something in pig latin EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD BEEN TOLD NOT TO! That would "irritate" the girls beyond belief. They would go from merely being irritated to being righteously indignant and completely infuriated.
So, how about this: Let's just keep in the way it is.
Boys, you can go off in the corner and talk pig latin if you want, just don't be too loud with it and DON'T irritate the girls with it. Girls, you just play your hopscotch and leave the boys be. Don't go out of you way to hear pig latin if you don't like it.
Everyone just do what you want, and stop complaining about what someone else is doing, unless they are trying to force something on you. If you boys want to play hopscotch with the girls, you can, but be polite. If you girls want to hang out with the boys, you can, but don't complain about their talking pig latin.
Mebbe that would work, ya think? Let me study on it my own damn self for a spell.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
I haven't read any of the "scenarios," but I will ask this, are you looking for a specific example that is not applicable elsewhere? You seem to dismiss any general explanation of things with a case-by-case, absolutely certainty solution.
And you want replies to an unrelated scenario?
And you want replies to an unrelated scenario?
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
You whine about ALL solutions anyway, so what's the point?
Hopper,
I know you are not looking for further discussions with the moderation staff (please take this as an observation - not an argument), but I just want to point out (or rather, reiterate Loki's point) that your analogous scenarios are not exactly germane to the situation. Two problems exist, as I see it:
1. The analogies are set in relationships that require interaction. Young siblings and school children have to be around each other. Interaction is unavoidable.
2. Using children as an example ignores the necessary differences between child interaction and adult interaction.
That's all I wanted to say.
I know you are not looking for further discussions with the moderation staff (please take this as an observation - not an argument), but I just want to point out (or rather, reiterate Loki's point) that your analogous scenarios are not exactly germane to the situation. Two problems exist, as I see it:
1. The analogies are set in relationships that require interaction. Young siblings and school children have to be around each other. Interaction is unavoidable.
2. Using children as an example ignores the necessary differences between child interaction and adult interaction.
That's all I wanted to say.
Since when did Dragon take over Bronco's account? I don't know who told you guys, but chicks really don't dig guys who use big words and complex sentences while trying to act smarter than they really are -- they dig fat guys with giant packages. (trust me)
Hopper, would you mind providing a little more detail here? Are you the victim? Is the complainer the victim? Are both of you victims? What was the complaint?
The way I see it you intend to stay right on the hairy edge of the board rules. I suppose that if that edge isn't defined well enough it makes it hard to ride as close to it as you seem to want to. So your complaint is that the rules are not infinitely well defined and not infinitely well enforced? The easy solution, the solution I've chosen, is to ride well inside the lines. Seems to work well, I highly recommend it.
Maybe I'm missing the point here, again.
If you just want to discuss the analogy, well, you cannot force other people to appease your desires. The girls wishing to understand a conversation they were not invited into is completely irrelevant. If they wish to be able to eavesdrop on other people's conversation they are going to need to take it upon themselves to learn the language that conversation is being conducted in. The boys have no responsibility to the girls in this situation, whatsoever. The teacher should tell the girls to mind their own biz and leave the boys alone.
If this were happening somewhere besides a playground, like in a group learning session, the boys would need to speak in the common language in order to achieve the objectives of the group. In that case they would have an obligation as participants in the group.
If the boys and girls were to all log onto an internet forum after they went home from school you could throw all the rest of it out the window, as the rules and guidelines of that internet forum would dictate the type of communications that were allowed or not. As you mentioned before, it doesn't need to be fair, it doesn't need to be reasonable, it doesn't even need to follow any rhyme or reason at all. If 99% of the people participating were able to understand and follow the rules I wouldn't worry too much about one person who seems to always find issues with the rules and/or enforcement. If I was running or moderating such a forum I might be inclined to ban the small percentage of people who seem unable or unwilling to follow the rules. Seems pretty simple to me.
The way I see it you intend to stay right on the hairy edge of the board rules. I suppose that if that edge isn't defined well enough it makes it hard to ride as close to it as you seem to want to. So your complaint is that the rules are not infinitely well defined and not infinitely well enforced? The easy solution, the solution I've chosen, is to ride well inside the lines. Seems to work well, I highly recommend it.
Maybe I'm missing the point here, again.
If you just want to discuss the analogy, well, you cannot force other people to appease your desires. The girls wishing to understand a conversation they were not invited into is completely irrelevant. If they wish to be able to eavesdrop on other people's conversation they are going to need to take it upon themselves to learn the language that conversation is being conducted in. The boys have no responsibility to the girls in this situation, whatsoever. The teacher should tell the girls to mind their own biz and leave the boys alone.
If this were happening somewhere besides a playground, like in a group learning session, the boys would need to speak in the common language in order to achieve the objectives of the group. In that case they would have an obligation as participants in the group.
If the boys and girls were to all log onto an internet forum after they went home from school you could throw all the rest of it out the window, as the rules and guidelines of that internet forum would dictate the type of communications that were allowed or not. As you mentioned before, it doesn't need to be fair, it doesn't need to be reasonable, it doesn't even need to follow any rhyme or reason at all. If 99% of the people participating were able to understand and follow the rules I wouldn't worry too much about one person who seems to always find issues with the rules and/or enforcement. If I was running or moderating such a forum I might be inclined to ban the small percentage of people who seem unable or unwilling to follow the rules. Seems pretty simple to me.
Hopper
Banned
Well, Game, I started with a simple situation, this one here:
"Now assume that C comes running to you and INSISTS that you make A and B stop talking to each other. When you ask why, she says it's unfair and impolite for them to talk to each other in her presence when she can't be included in the conversation. She says she cannot meaningfully understand, or participate in, their conversation because she can only hear half of it."
Here C is the victim. She has a complaint, and needs help. I am using the term "victim" as a person going to the authorities to seek help, as a "rape victim" might go to the police.
So far, I've got two suggestions about this, that I recall. Marcus said tell her to grow up.
Loki said it depends, but didn't really give an answer, because, I guess, he thinks it depends.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
So, Loki kinda expanded the thing, and you gave an answer to his question--his question as I kinda restructured it, anyway. You said:
Hopper
Banned
No problem, Bronc. Just to make it clear, when I said the thread wasn't "intended to elicit" responses from mods, I certainly didn't mean I was trying to exclude them from commenting, either. I just meant that I wasn't trying to "re-litigate" (as Kicky put it) the issuance of any infractions I might have received in an attempt to get them rescinded.
Analogies are never perfect, and no one analogy can include all possible scenarios. I brought up an initial hypothetical that involved 3 children. Do you have a suggestion for that? If so, would your suggestion be different if it was 3 adults who were all confined to a mental hospital, and the victim was seeking help from Nurse Rachet?
I'm assuming here that these 3 are not REQUIRED to interact, but are doing so voluntarily, see?
Last edited:
Again, it is not any person's obligation to appease another person's desires. Person C is the one who wishes not to hear person A. Whatever burdens or disadvantages that come along with the efforts involved in not hearing person A are person C's problem. Person A has no responsibility to protect person C from reasonable conversation. However, I would feel differently if person A were to walk up to person C and shout in their ear. I would feel even more differently if person C requested person A to stop, followed by person B making the same request and person A continued doing it. At that point I would feel that person A was in the wrong.
Hopper
Banned
Game, I think I understand, and probably agree with, most of what you said, but this part kinda puzzles me. In part because I'm not sure just what you mean by the word "wrong." Let me change the example, and you can tell me if this illustrates the point you are trying to make.
On the way to the park, BOTH B and C get mad at A. They tell him never to say another word in their presence. Let's say that, because his feelings are hurt, because he is trying to appease his siblings, or for any other reason, he decides to say nothing for a while, OK?
Then, about 15 minutes later, he asks B and C if they want an ice cream cone.
You're the parent. B and C come to you and ask you to order A not to talk to them ever again. They say they have informed him that they don't ever want to hear another word from his sorry mouth but that he has obnoxiously ignored their commands.
What do you do?
As I read your post, A's offense here would be even worse than shouting in C's ear.
Last edited:
I would tell B and C to deal with it however they have to, so long as it doesn't involve the use of force against A. Person A not speaking by choice doesn't matter. Person A never had to stop talking in the first place, so whenever person A decides to speak he/she can do so.
That is very different than aggressively shouting at a person, trying to force them to listen to you.
The basic principle here is the use and/or initiation of force. B and C cannot force A to be silent. A, however cannot force B and C to listen. If A is disrupting a conversation B and C are trying to have I would, as the parent, tell A to stop.