The Glade 4.0

/shrug

Thanks for saying.

I have a soft spot for kids too, especially babies which are soft and cuddly and make cooing noises and have adorable little socks they wear. However, if we chose to adopt, I would suffer no guilt whatsoever from the fact that I could only adopt one kid. It wouldn't bother me in the least, and I've never heard of anyone who has chosen to adopt having a problem in that regard. I certainly don't see that it would cause disruption or harm to my existing family life. That strikes me as a lot more than just a "soft spot".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Weren't you the one in another thread complaining about making assessments of this kind without the proper qualifications?

I didn't make any assessment, did I? I just said it strikes me a certain way. Don't try for gotchas.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You're engaging in puffery by calling anybody who doesn't adhere to your advocated beliefs as a sack of **** and waste of space. Given that you have never been in the same situation, you're just engaging in machismo boasting, as far as I can tell.



According to YOUR logic, anybody who doesn't put other people's children first is a sack of **** and waste of space. And yes, it's nonsensical. Which is what we've been saying.





You have backed the logic, when asked for clarification by others, that those who don't put other people's children as more important than their own safety or livelihood due to fear are cowards, and thus sacks of **** and wastes of space. It does seem like a leap, which is what we've been saying.



So, you don't agree with the logical extension of your espoused beliefs?

Because that's all I'm doing, extending the logic you've stated based on both the specific situation in the OP as well as the larger moral code you're advocating and have responded to with clarifying statements.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The difference is intent. I could possibly, once in that situation, lose my sack completely and completely coward out. I've acknowledged this several times - had you actually read the thread you would have seen this. The difference is, I'm not cowarding out intentionally, ahead of time.



I see, you have not read my posts, then, and are just trolling with this retarded comparison, as I thought. I have said, repeatedly, that someone that refuses to help a child who is being beaten in front of them because they are worried about being hurt financially is a cowardly piece of ****. You're somehow extrapolating this to refusing to work with gang children or adopting a child, which is retarded, and you have acknowledged that you see the difference in the two scenarios.

Please stop trolling with nonsensical bullshit.



This is a pretty bad stretch, DFK - you can do better than this. See above.



No, you need a serious lesson in logic, if you think it's logical to extrapolate not helping someone being beaten in front of you to be equivalent to not adopting a child. This is retarded.

Nice try though. All you are doing here is trolling, in an attempt to redirect focus from your proposed cowardice to me and my actions or lack thereof. Why? Defensive posturing - I get it, nobody wants to think of themselves as a coward.

There are two significant problems with your approach, though. First, it's retarded, and in no way a logical extension of my argument, and second, it's irrelevant. Even if you were successful in illustrating that I am a coward, that doesn't somehow magically absolve you for turning your back on a child under attack. In other words, the deflection doesn't improve your cause.

No, they're not. Their other interests trump the beatee's welfare.

"Cool, I stopped a kid from getting beat up. Now, I can't feed and house my own kids because I've lost my job as a direct result of that and can't get another one."

Pragmatism /= Cowardice.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Under this thought process, I don't see how anyone could ever be a coward, then. "I broke ranks and fled the battle because if not I may have been shot, and I would not have then been able to provide for my family." "I didn't report Sandusky diddling little boys in the locker room because I was afraid I'd lose my job and not be able to provide for my family." "I let the office bully steal credit for my work because if not it might create tension in the workplace that could get one of us fired, and I wouldn't be able to provide for my family."

It's all just excuses. Rationalization to turn cowardice into a virtue (pragmatism).

If you break ranks and flee, your side is more likely to losr, and then your home is overrun, your wife raped and children beaten. No such risk presents itself inthe school bus beating. His idea that pragmatism is not cowardice in no way eliminates the possibility of cowardice.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hmm. Don't see it. Can you think of an example of cowardice that can't be rationalized in some way by saying it was a pragmatic decision?

You don't see that soldiers deserting in battle would increase the likelyhood of defeat?

Forget it. There is no point in further discussion if you're going to be so absurdly obstinate.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, of course. But an individual soldier need only make the "pragmatic decision" that the consequences to him resulting from an increased likelihood of defeat are less than the consequences associated with a greater risk of being shot.

What kind of risk v. reward calculus do you want here Arathain? The world is not comprised of false dilemmas. The American Soldier faces a world of negative outcomes, of which getting shot in battle is generally the best option. He doesn't have the same pragmatic solutions as this particular Bus Driver, because the Soldier's negative consequences for "cowardice" or "pragmatism" are different in scale, scope, and application.

So, let's put it this way ...

1. The Bus Driver in question would be facing criminal charges if he had acted; he may still be facing criminal charges for not acting. Either conviction costs him his job, but the first set of charges and a conviction would be a given.

2. The Bus Driver likely had an incomplete understanding of policy and procedure from his employer; he made the best decision he felt he could make in the situation. You disagree with it, but he was motivated by factors you cannot and do not know.

You can disagree with his decision; you won't know his rationale or reasoning unless he specifically gives it to you, and even then, he likely doesn't consciously recognize all of this thoughts on the matter. To call the man a coward is to judge him based on an incomplete presentation of the facts and situation. It's also presumptuous to the highest degree. You weren't in his specific situation; you can only compare loosely analogous hypotheses and presume he acted poorly.

P.S. No one's impugned your manhood; with all this machismo bandying about your posts, I'd almost ask if you vacationed in Latin America for the entire summer.

_________________

I don't, as I have said.



As I have said



I have not done so



My reasoning behind my statement that I cannot second-guess his decision.



As I have said and did not presume such.

/golfclap

Way to read, man. Bravo.

I've got a 10 page thread in which primarily you and Diamondeye are bickering back and forth on this subject. I read all your posts; now that you've concisely agreed with me on my observations, can you kindly tell me while you've been arguing against your own position for several pages?

_________________

ok, I lol'd

Nothing doing, man. You're wrong on all counts, and my position has been consistent. If you had 10 pages I would think you would have had a chance to read at least one of my posts. Your assessment is ridiculous, as my position has nothing to do with the bus driver, and everything to do with the actual discussion at hand - "what would you do?" and the subsequent discussion amongst people who answered. I know what the bus driver would do. Since we don't know why, it's irrelevant to my position.

Show where I've called the bus driver a coward. In fact, show how I've deviated from my original statement in any way:



Hell, on page 2 I even clarified:



Show the inconsistency. Show how I'm "arguing against myself".

You have no idea, because you clearly haven't been paying attention.

You're just trolling.

viewtopic.php?p=239947#p239947

I'm almost absolutely certain that the set of anyone includes the Bus Driver, you, or me. It's pretty universal.

viewtopic.php?p=240016#p240016

Here the implication is that by failing to protect the child, the Bus Driver is worthless. You can read your own language; it is, incidentally, contradictory with your original post on the subject: your response to DFK! privileges the performative and obviates the safety component from before.

viewtopic.php?p=240088#p240088
To use your own defense against you, which contradicts itself, because at all points you privilege the performative path, let's really look at this quote.

You're only concerned with the participants physical safety; in fact, you spend a good portion of the thread not considering emotional, financial, spiritual, or legal safety.

Do you honestly want to continue? You're position is inherently contradictory, because it's predicated on some arbitrary standard you didn't pin down; you just felt it. I could actually point it all out post by post, but that'd just cause you reiterate the claim of trolling. I'm not; I'm baffled by the gap between your practical acceptance of the Bus Driver's situation and all the absolute declarative statements you delivered for pages and pages.

Either the Bus Driver was worthless or he wasn't. There's no middle ground on that; if he has societal value, your entire argument defeats itself. If has no societal value, you might be right.

_________________

And yet I've stated repeatedly that I do not know his motivations, and thus cannot judge. Case in point:





IF HE FAILS TO INTERVENE BECAUSE HE FEARS SOME SORT OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP - again, as I've said multiple times, I do not know his motivation.



Actually, with the exception of financial and legal, all of these are covered under my statement here:



In other words, if there's a reason for not intervening that I have not considered, then I'd consider it. I have addressed financial and legal quite clearly.



It's hardly arbitrary, and it's quite specific. You're quite incorrect in all of your statements here, as I have shown.

Please show the contradiction. Further, explain why it's relevant. Lastly, explain why having a standard for an opinion based on how you feel about something is inherently contradictory.

Arathain:

You're simply declaring that your previous statements are no longer valid. Please, do kindly show me where all this clarification and justification were before? It wasn't there. Every time you respond, you validate my point -- you did not pin down your standard. If it was specific, you'd have posted it and ended the thread in your last post. You did not.

As to why it's inherently contradictory? You cannot even remain consistent in your application to this incident. You make all these hard statements about worthless and lacking societal value, but when DFK! or Diamondeye presses you on the pragmatics of the situation, you swing straight for the fences again. You exclude, for no stated or rational reason, legal and financial safety, which in our current state of societal arrangement, actually trump physical safety as a material need for a long and healthy life.

But all of that said, you tell me why providing for the immediate physical safety of someone else's child trumps the long term safety of his family and his children?

Your standard is contradictory because it requires action that WILL bring harm to uninvolved parties, including other children.

_________________

No, I'm not. What statement have I made that I have said is no longer valid?



It's in the thread you obviously didn't read. What statement would you like a link to?



My standard was set in my first post and has not changed. I quoted it for you. Let me do it again:



Seriously, Khross - just wow.



First, I have been perfectly consistent. Bear in mind, I have not said that any justification for not intervening is acceptable, provided it's not a hopeless situation. I have said that I would provide substantial benefit of the doubt for a variety of justifications, and would base my opinion on a case by case basis for these. I have been 100% consistent on the legal and financial bit.



First, I have not said that it trumps anything. I have said that not intervening under stated circumstances makes you a coward. It is your choice whether you want to be a coward, not mine. Now, as to why it makes you a coward - there's a host of reasons. First, life is more important than financial security. There is uncertainty in outcome of intervening, and little certainty in outcome of not intervening - consequences for action or inaction must be balanced against certainty of those actions. Because, as I have stated before, society's job is to protect society's children - we are all part of this. Because you can help your own situation or seek help down the line, but the child cannot help himself in the current situation. Because it's the right thing to do from a religious perspective. Because it's the right thing to do from an honorable perspective. Because it is the right thing to do from a personal perspective (nobody here would turn away without feeling they were possibly doing something wrong). Because any of you would want someone to do the same for your child in similar circumstances. Because the world is a better place when thugs do not feel they can run the place. Because long term difficulty is far more preferable than living in shame.

I'm sure I can come up with others.



Which, had you read the thread, I addressed. But, bear in mind, it is uncertain whether this will bring harm or not - that cannot be known until much later. It is not a certain thing, whilst the beating of the child is. Knowing it's certainty would not change my opinion, but acknowledge that it is not certain.

Now, finally, while you're nitpicking my posts in an attempt to show some sort of inconsistency, you have yet to explain why any such inconsistency, should there be any, would be relevant.

Arathain:

If that is your standard, then you are denigrating the bus driver. He is in the set of anyone. Please, do try to stop contradicting yourself. You say you are not judging the driver, but do so with every post. You say the opinions here are unfathomable, but proceed to pin your further arguments on some semblance of commiseration with the driver as if that ameliorates your blatant disregard for the input or positions of others.

Incidentally, as your justifications and clarifications came only after your posts were challenge, I'd suggest you did not think to include them. You, in point of fact, felt the need to revisit your position in some manner substantively expand your intent. That likewise indicates that you don't have a clear or defined starting point for your position.

So, yes, keep contradicting yourself and arguing with people who by and large agree with you to no end. Because that's exactly what you continue to do.

As to why it's relevant, well ...

You're trying to bully any of us who dare disagree with you.

_________________

Wrong. As I've said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, I cannot second-guess people who feel they can't help due to safety reasons. I don't know his motivations. He's what, a 62-year old man? If he assessed the situation, and determined he was not physically able to help, then that's that. I've said this again and again and again and again. /golfclap

As to my disregard for the input of others - 10 pages of discussion disagrees with you.



They came on page 2, Khross, and did not change my position in any way. There's been 10 pages of discussion, some of which has been retarded, some of which has made me think about my position. While my position has not changed, there's been much discussion as to related and extended circumstances. I posted again (need me to do this again for you?) my original statement. It is clear and has not changed. Did I expect it to be discussed to this detail? Certainly not - as I have said I'm quite astounded with the attitudes and responses here. My view is so incredibly obvious to me, that I expected widespread concurrence. It's quite simple.



I'm not contradicting myself as I have shown. As to arguing? You're the one currently challenging my clear, concise, and consistent opinion. One ponders why you would do so whilst complaining about my "arguing". If you're bored, F off.



Interesting statement. I've considered this and I'm not sure whether I agree or not. I'm certainly appalled and disgusted by a good number of responses here. I stated my opinion and have only continued the discussion as a result of challenges to my position. Should I back away from my opinions or refuse to respond to avoid "bullying"? I have attempted to convey my views without directly calling anyone to the carpet specifically, though by the nature of the discussion it is clear how I feel.

So am I bullying those who disagree? Possibly, but I don't think so. Would a better man have just shut his mouth and walked away? Probably.

How is the bus driver not in the set of "Anyone"? More to the point, let's look at your further attempts to clarify yourself.

Why? How are you valuing life? Is it all life? All human life? All human life above any of numerous possible thresholds? What's the definition of life here? Those are all questions you should be able to casually answer; after all, this is a clearly defined standard you're trying to convey to me.

That said, why is one individual's life more valuable than the bus driver's financial security? What obligations does the bus driver have? Who does he support? Do you know? Is it possible that the risk of financial security has a larger net negative impact? Do you know?

There is an uncertainty in the immediate outcome. One certainty, of intervening, is that the parents of any child accosted or disciplined by the bus driver would sue. The parents would seek charges. The bus driver would lose his job. That outcome is not in question; that is what would happen. So, again, we know the man loses his job; we know that in this economic climate and at his age, the man becomes unemployable for the rest of his life. This is not speculation: these things are certain.

We are? Exactly what role do I play in their continued existence? Despite all this talk of a global economy, it's probably closer to negative than 0.

What if the child molested one of their sisters, instead of just being a garden variety good kid? What if the child had started the fight? What if he was spewing racial profanities before the fight? Why did the fight start? Did you know before follow-up media coverage? Do you think the bus driver knew?
From your religious perspective; there are those who would preach non-violence. There are those who would demand vengeance.
How is it honorable to place yourself in harms way for someone who may or may not be innocent? Whose definition of honor are we using, by the way?

I think there are posts enough to suggest disagreement on this point.

That's rather presumptuous of you; are you certain? It seems a rather safe bet, but there's always the possibility you're wrong.
That's probably true, but all this "because" is really just ... wait, I know ... I'll quote you.

The bus driver is a coward:

For you, that valuation may be true. But really, all you've said is ...

You don't like what this reality says about the society you live in. You don't like the fact that our overly litigious, overly zero-tolerance, knee-jerk regulation society dependent on government and rules and bureaucracy allows process and policy to get in the way of old fashioned common sense.

You're not telling us what society does; you're telling us how you want it to be.

_________________

I'm hardly the primary one bickering with Arathain.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."