Posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2009, at 16:00:30
In reply to Subject line change » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 6, 2009, at 11:17:10
> Dr. Bob asking that we be respectful of each other and at least minimally respectful of him.
That isn't the issue here. There are a SMALL minority of posters who think that it is okay for someone to post disrespectfully. THE MAJORITY of posters seem to be saying that Dr Bob is too ARBITRARY with respect to whether someone gets blocked or not (despite his protests it does seem to come down to who posted that post) AND that Dr Bob is too DRACONIAN with the penalties for what he perceives as infractions. While some degree of arbitrariness is inevitable the issue of arbitrariness is compounded by the length of the blocks.
> I'm not sure I'd want to be somewhere where that wasn't expected. Isn't it what everyone deserves, everywhere?Only a SMALL MINORITY would disagree with this. THAT ISN'T THE ISSUE
> For myself, the rules seem closer to "Don't ask someone to sit on the back of the bus because they have a different color skin. Respect that person, and treat them as you would wish to be treated yourself. If you do ask someone to sit at the back of the bus, you will be asked to leave this bus. You are welcome to return when you agree to ride in accordance with bus rules."
For others, the rules seem closer to Socrates living in a community where there were laws against 'corrupting the young'. Who thinks it is okay to corrupt the young? A small minority. The issue IS NOT whether corrupting the young is okay or not, however. The courts ruled that Socrates was guilty of corrupting the young. To say that Socrates hadn't done anything wrong isn't to say that you think it is okay to corrupt the young. Similarly, to say that a poster shouldn't be blocked for something they said is not to say that you think it is okay to be disrespectful or uncivil. Here the issue is in how you interpret 'civil' or 'respectful' or 'corrupting the young' so a judgement applies to a particular case, not the issue of whether it is okay to be 'uncivil' or 'disrespectful' or 'corrupt the young'. Can you hear the difference?
Socrates punishment (for a 'crime' most people didn't think he committed - much as most people don't think posting 'sh*t' or 'f*rt' without an asterisk is to commit the 'crime' of incivility or disrespect) was to drink Hemlock. His friends argued that he was justified in fleeing to escape the 'consequences of his actions' or his 'punishment' because the punishment was too harsh. The state thought that he would flee - perhaps Bob has a similar ideology. Socrates chose not to flee his punishment, however.
Would a friend of Socrates show friendship by trying to persuade Socrates that it was wrong to corrupt the young? No. Of course not, Socrates would agree that it is wrong to corrupt the young. That isn't the issue. Would a friend of Socrates show friendship by trying to persuade Socrates that his process of questioning was in fact corrupting the young such that Socrates could change his behavior and stop philosophizing (which I'm sure we agree was something that he had control over)? That seems to be what Bob thinks a friend would do.
I disagree. Vehemently.
> What is so bad about Dr. Bob wanting people to be treated respectfully on this board, and asking people, if they choose to post on this board, to please post respectfully.
Do you understand now how that misses the point?
poster:alexandra_k
thread:888433
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/894493.html