Posted by alexandra_k on November 9, 2010, at 6:12:12
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 4:21:11
> Posters have the power to ask if they don't understand why.
They do. But they don't have the power to compel an answer - even less to compel one that helps them understand.
Why set the drunk driving detector to detect breath spray?
> There are ways to warn others that aren't self-destructive.
Yeah. And people do seem to be doing that.
> I didn't leave that scar. You need to take responsibility for your actions.
Maybe think of the scar as a physical overflowing / expression / concretization of an inner pain (suffering / torment) that resulted from being isolated from ones friends unexpectedly.
> Me being random/arbitrary/unpredictable = posters being powerless.
Yes. We could empirically test whether you are random / arbitrary / unpredictable (e.g., by seeing whether independent judges could reliably distinguish posts you would block from posts you would not). So it is an objective feature of your blocking that I'm talking about here - and not some 'distorted perception arising from pathology'.
> Y sees me as misguided and themselves as a martyr.
Sigh. I'm not sure that is very much better. I prefer:
Z sees you as unpredictable in your blocking behavior and themselves as being in the position where unpredictably being isolated from the community for up to one year and branded 'uncivil' outweighs any good that could come from partaking.
But going with the martyr thing for a while (even though I'm fond of Socrates, myself)...
> submit to the opponent's orders and assaults, submit to arrest by the authorities
(ho ho you'd like that wouldn't you!!!)
> protect officials from insults and assaults even at the risk of the resister's own life.
If we think of 'officials' as 'new posters' and the label of 'uncivil' and a blocking as an 'insult' or 'assault'... Isn't that what a number of posters are doing?
Was Socrates 'uncivil' - do you think?