-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Amyality the Relentless
Active Member
1
DeletedUser15539
I'd rather have Option 1, but it seems that basic human nature keeps on giving us Option 2.
Freshmeboy
Well-Known Member
Option 1 of course, everything being perfect....Hey, I've never seen a passive-aggressive snowman before...either ON a rug or under one.....
Emberguard
Well-Known Member
Option 5: If someone annoys you, give them a hug and wish for their well-being instead of retaliating. Seriously, stop pointing fingers.
This debate over how rules should be followed and kept in check reminds me of this video (from 3:36 - 4:37):
This debate over how rules should be followed and kept in check reminds me of this video (from 3:36 - 4:37):
Last edited:
DeletedUser31882
Eh, Option 1.
I have to second @Graviton 's commentary of leading questions without context... Albeit, I think I see why it has come to this based on the pieces I'm picking up.
So...
I like the sentiment of your and the videos point, but I think it only works when both people are on relative equal footing power wise. Asking a poor person to suck up a financial loss and turn the other cheek doesn't have the same consequences as a rich/well-off person doing the same.
Also, I'd like to think that Option 5 is not mutually exclusive from the other options. We can have law, order & empathy. The problem occurs when law & order are stripped of all empathy. That can be very dangerous and requires some fingers to feel out why the laws no longer hold empathy.
Then again, that's why general sayings are catchy and interesting, but end up being trite or meaningless without context.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
I have to second @Graviton 's commentary of leading questions without context... Albeit, I think I see why it has come to this based on the pieces I'm picking up.
So...
Depending on the power structures, I am uncertain what this gambit could accomplish, unless the survey data will be used in some way to incriminate a guilty party/parties.
If so, That's why I'm option 1.
Normally, I'd be an Option 2, for the same sentiment Graviton presents. I can see how hard enforcement of rules or 'the law' can also lead to bad things, assuming the law enforcement and law making are done by the same party. I digress, context helps define the lines we color in/without.
Drilling more specifically, with my assumptions and my very ignorant view of the situation, I'm thinking this is a lost revolution. Unless there is an avenue to their superior. They are immovable due to coding inertia, but also have the high-ground in any argument due to presumed proximity to superiors. The coding part is why I'm full debbie-downer bleak mode on the affair. The rules of the code allow them to turn pitchforks into feathers and the rabble into the void.
Generally, I prefer the RazorbackPirate approach, which I view as Option 1 with the common sense allowing from some of option 2. I like Hogustus's point, but may disagree with his sentiment. To err is Human, so it bears to reason that errors will be made by the authorities. Yet, when the authorities ego gets in the way of empathizing with those they rule... It makes it hard, if not impossible, to follow through and Forgive. *Insert political commentary here*
Anywho, Good Luck & God Speed and all that rot.
If so, That's why I'm option 1.
Normally, I'd be an Option 2, for the same sentiment Graviton presents. I can see how hard enforcement of rules or 'the law' can also lead to bad things, assuming the law enforcement and law making are done by the same party. I digress, context helps define the lines we color in/without.
Drilling more specifically, with my assumptions and my very ignorant view of the situation, I'm thinking this is a lost revolution. Unless there is an avenue to their superior. They are immovable due to coding inertia, but also have the high-ground in any argument due to presumed proximity to superiors. The coding part is why I'm full debbie-downer bleak mode on the affair. The rules of the code allow them to turn pitchforks into feathers and the rabble into the void.
Generally, I prefer the RazorbackPirate approach, which I view as Option 1 with the common sense allowing from some of option 2. I like Hogustus's point, but may disagree with his sentiment. To err is Human, so it bears to reason that errors will be made by the authorities. Yet, when the authorities ego gets in the way of empathizing with those they rule... It makes it hard, if not impossible, to follow through and Forgive. *Insert political commentary here*
Anywho, Good Luck & God Speed and all that rot.
I like the sentiment of your and the videos point, but I think it only works when both people are on relative equal footing power wise. Asking a poor person to suck up a financial loss and turn the other cheek doesn't have the same consequences as a rich/well-off person doing the same.
Also, I'd like to think that Option 5 is not mutually exclusive from the other options. We can have law, order & empathy. The problem occurs when law & order are stripped of all empathy. That can be very dangerous and requires some fingers to feel out why the laws no longer hold empathy.
Then again, that's why general sayings are catchy and interesting, but end up being trite or meaningless without context.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Emberguard
Well-Known Member
oh yeah totally. Not saying there shouldn't be justice. The problem comes when the first response to every tiny thing is just retaliating in turn. No one benefits from that.