![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Toph on October 22, 2006, at 13:05:44
From what I can gather, the original US constitution was handwritten on 6 pages. Depending on what font is used the current document plus amendments is some 26 pages. Imagine how many handwriten pages that would be. On the Politics board you might find various arguements about whether our freedoms are either increased or diminished by the proliferation of rules in American law. I wonder if posters' rights, freedoms and protections have been enhanced in this society by the burgeoning regulations.
Posted by fayeroe on October 22, 2006, at 13:51:13
In reply to Do more rules make for a more civil society?, posted by Toph on October 22, 2006, at 13:05:44
> From what I can gather, the original US constitution was handwritten on 6 pages. Depending on what font is used the current document plus amendments is some 26 pages. Imagine how many handwriten pages that would be. On the Politics board you might find various arguements about whether our freedoms are either increased or diminished by the proliferation of rules in American law. I wonder if posters' rights, freedoms and protections have been enhanced in this society by the burgeoning regulations.
interesting question, toph. i'd have to say no.
Posted by notfred on October 22, 2006, at 14:17:44
In reply to Re: Do more rules make for a more civil society?, posted by fayeroe on October 22, 2006, at 13:51:13
> I wonder if posters' rights, freedoms and protections have been enhanced in this society by the burgeoning regulations.
>So the effect of the Federal Food and Drug Act of 1906, the ADA and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was to not give us protections ?
Posted by fayeroe on October 22, 2006, at 17:30:23
In reply to Re: Do more rules make for a more civil society?, posted by notfred on October 22, 2006, at 14:17:44
> > I wonder if posters' rights, freedoms and protections have been enhanced in this society by the burgeoning regulations.
> >
>
> So the effect of the Federal Food and Drug Act of 1906, the ADA and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was to not give us protections ?
i was referring to Toph using the words "poster's rights"....i didn't think he was talking about the FDA, the ADA and OSHA....i may have misunderstood his question though......and of course i believe those acts protect us, at times.
Posted by Toph on October 22, 2006, at 17:42:43
In reply to Re: Do more rules make for a more civil society?, posted by notfred on October 22, 2006, at 14:17:44
I was talking about Babble, fayeroe. And those acts were intended to benefit us, notfred, but then so was the Indian Removal Act of 1830.
Posted by fayeroe on October 22, 2006, at 18:53:10
In reply to Re: Do more rules make for a more civil society?, posted by Toph on October 22, 2006, at 17:42:43
> I was talking about Babble, fayeroe. And those acts were intended to benefit us, notfred, but then so was the Indian Removal Act of 1830.
we're on the same wavelength........Toph...
(how's your handsome boy?) :-) (speaking of the Indian Removal Act, i'm going to send you a message about something very exciting that is coming up for me)
Posted by Jost on October 22, 2006, at 20:00:24
In reply to Do more rules make for a more civil society?, posted by Toph on October 22, 2006, at 13:05:44
Have the regulations per se actually burgeoned so much?
Probably there isn't a correspondence between the burgeoning of rules and fairness and justice. It probably depends on the fairness and justness of those who enforce the rules-- at least as much as the number or complexity of rules
plus common law has always been very complex--
The things is-- it's really a question of whether Bob is fair-- not whether the rules are fair-- or overly numerous-- at least so far. I'm not sure I see unfair rules--
maybe they are, but I dont' see it yet.
I mean is 10 a good number to divide by? ???? I can't even begin to figure out how to address that question. What' s good about it? what's not good?
The rounding up, rounding down point seems useful -- and worth considering-- ie the whole question of the mathematics of the blocking system-- from a philosophical point of view-- dividers, multipliers, rounding errors, etc--
were those issues discussed, explained? Bob presumably thought it through-- but how to legitimate it, point by point, and debate it, point by point-- on a message board--?
& is it unfair, or unprincipled? Maybe it's fairer not to let everyone here get so stirred up about the fairness of things-- because it inflames situations and people get blocked because they saw an opening to protest something-- and got more agitated during that process of protesting--
but then-- well-- we feel shut down-- even though no one gets blocked.
Should blocks be tailored more to individual actions-- and, more significantly, supposed intentions?-- can be "fairer"-- but involves judgments that can also be harmful-- now Bob can say, it's not personal-- but if it's not personal, it's impersonal-- and the blocks seem mechanical and unqualified, the punishment doesn't fit the crime, then
The whole thing is such a hard question to consider. Even for a consequentialist , much less rights-based, morality.
Jost
Posted by Toph on October 22, 2006, at 20:23:26
In reply to Re: Do more rules make for a more civil society?, posted by Jost on October 22, 2006, at 20:00:24
>
> The things is-- it's really a question of whether Bob is fair-- not whether the rules are fair-- or overly numerous-- at least so far. I'm not sure I see unfair rules--
>Good point. It seems to me that it is impossible to know a poster's intent which plays a big role in whether something is civil or not, so he had to rely on rules for fairness. If someone posts something agregiously offensive and gets a warning and another poster writes the word cr@p and gets blocked for a year, well, there's certainly something wrong here. Where I come from as long as I pay my parking tickets it doesn't matter how many I get, they're all $5. Now that's fair.
Posted by Dinah on October 22, 2006, at 21:04:00
In reply to Re: Do more rules make for a more civil society?, posted by Toph on October 22, 2006, at 20:23:26
This is actually the point I've been arguing.
I think there should be different levels of offenses with different consequences. So that swearing, for example, would be capped at one or two weeks even for repeat offenders. While being offensive towards another poster might stay under the same system as now.
In our house, the price for swearing is 25 cents in the curse cup. And it remains that no matter how many times I swear. (My son paid up exactly once and decided *nothing* was worth 25 cents just to say, so I'm the main contributor.) It doesn't double with each infraction. Even if I curse ten times in a day. And believe me, it does add up to a deterrant even at 25 cents.
I guess there might be some controversy over which behaviors fell into which category. But once decided on, it would seem to me that there would be fewer blocks that *appear* on the face of it to be result in absurdly long blocks.
It also occurs to me that instead of trying to create so many rules, it would be better to just have Dr. Bob have the ability to ask someone to stop doing something, without creating an elaborate rule system. But that's me, and I know Dr. Bob prefers things that can be generalized.
I *think* I understand Dr. Bob's position on doubling blocks on "misdemeanor" offenses. I'm just not sure I agree with him. Maybe because I don't particularly see it as defiance while he possibly might?
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 11:17:47
In reply to Re: Do more rules make for a more civil society? » Toph, posted by Dinah on October 22, 2006, at 21:04:00
I *think* I understand Dr. Bob's position on doubling blocks on "misdemeanor" offenses. I'm just not sure I agree with him. Maybe because I don't particularly see it as defiance while he possibly might?
***Even if it was defiance, so what? If its just a little thing, so what? Alot of us, it would seem, sometimes have issues with control at times. Do I hit my kid with a stick cuz he shows defiance? No, I show him love and respect, and talk to him about whats wrong that he needs to be defiant. I offer him love and gentle correction.(SOME of the time anyways....other times I just yell at him...:-(
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 11:32:45
In reply to Re: Do more rules make for a more civil society?, posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 11:17:47
I haven't hit my kid with a stick (or anything else) for anything, and wouldn't.
But I would probably assign two penalties for in your face defiance from him. One for the offense, one for the defiance.
I am always respectful towards him, and the assumption in this house is that he is respectful towards me as well.
Of course, my penalties usually come in the form of a tiresome speech. :)
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 15:59:45
In reply to Re: Do more rules make for a more civil society? » muffled, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2006, at 11:32:45
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.