Why you are so loathe to admit that there are appropriate ways to behave
I don't question that there are appropriate ways to behave. I've certainly expressed my views on appropriate ways to behave on this thread often enough. I know you've heard them because we have participated in them together (though not as a team, of course <g>).
Interesting choice of the word, admit. That means that you're right and I'm being stubborn or contrary or whatever. Will you not even consider the possibility that my scheme may be suitable and viable? Have you no in interest in even understanding it?
failing which one is blameworthy, or what we commonly call obligations or duties
No, I don't "admit" that. I disagree with it. People are free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process. If you maliciously or carelessly do harm to someone, I will blame you. And, if it's serious enough, the law will probably blame you, too. Failing that, I will consider that you are just doing your thing, which you are entitled to do just as I am entitled to do mine. It is in my interest to do what I can to assure your right to do your own thing whether I like it or not. If I don't like it, I may try to disabuse you of it or gain your cooperation or I may dislike you or even disassociate myself from you. If you refuse to negotiate over use of common areas, I will judge you selfish (and not in the good way). But I won't blame you, not if you are merely pursuing interests that are different from mine. You have no duty to live up to my expectations, IMO. If you want to perceive one, though, feel free. Just don't expect me to reciprocate.
joe was just off-the- wall
Joe may have been off the wall on some of his rejoinders, but I think it reasonable for him to point out your creation of a straw man. It seems that you think that abandoning your notion of duty would produce chaos or libertinism or some such. God gave you a good brain. Do you not have a duty to use it? <g> |
