Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4663)	2/20/2003 3:07:23 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Seems to me that it's un-neighborly and arrogant to dismiss the POV of the rest of the neighbors and go a-smashing anyway. If the interested party is just you, then go ahead and take whatever action you see fit. When the neighbors are also interested parties, then you have a social obligation to work with them to find a consensus. We have to assume, of course, that there's no police or court we can appeal to, no nuisance ordinance or anything. Because that's obviously the way to go. And we also have to assume there's no police or court who will punish me if I do go and smash the radio. I'm legally free to go do it if I want to and physicall can and am willing to accept that he may come and try to smash my head or burn down my house in return. So, putting all that into your hypothetical, I'm not sure I agree. If the blaster is waking me up, and he doesn't agree to stop when I call him and ask him politely to, I may be willing to give the neighbors a bit of time to reach an agreed settlement. But if he keeps on waking me up night after night after night and he isn't responding positively to the neighbors' diplomatic efforts, there is a point at which I'm entitled, I think, to say "enough talk. Next time it happens, the radio gets smashed." That's not dismissing their POV, it's saying I have a right to decide how long I will let them try to solve it their way. I don't have to keep going on for ten years listening to the radio because the neighbors still want to resolve it by talking. Also, I would point out that on the world state, there are always a range of opinions. So it's probably impossible to act at all without, under your definition, dismissing somebody's POV. Just a matter of whose.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4663)	2/21/2003 3:00:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

This is not a lot different from my reluctance to just storm in and take over my father's health care when I know it's important to his quality of life to feel independent and competent. It would be arrogant and disrespectful to dismiss that. I need to work with him to find some role I can play in the quality of his medical care that he's comfortable with. And if he'd rather suffer lesser quality care than have me intervene, that's his prerogative as long as he's competent, which he still is, IMO. Taking over your fathers health care against his wishes is infringing on his autonomy. Invading Iraq is not an infringement on Saudi, or Turkey or Egypt or France or Germany. It is of course infringing on Iraq but your argument was not based on what Iraq or Saddam think but rather how invading against the wishes of 3rd parties would be dismissive of their opinions and acting disrespectfully towards them. Say there's someone on the block, a mean-spirited fellow, who comes and goes at odd hours of the night with his car radio blasting waking all the neighbors, particularly the little old lady next door who suffers from migraines. You want to smash him or his radio or both. But the lady and the rest of the neighbors disagree with that approach. Say they think it would just make things worse or they think it's immoral to damage him or his radio. Seems to me that it's un-neighborly and arrogant to dismiss the POV of the rest of the neighbors and go a-smashing anyway. That is a better analogy. Esp. if you add their being no police that you could go to rather then smashing the radio yourself. I think we should pay attention to our neighbors opinions in a situation likes this but I don't think that going along with the neighbors opinions is required. And I'm not talking about a legal requirement but rather just required to be neighborly and respectful of others rights and viewpoints. If the neighborhood does have a way to communally address the situation and if you think it is normally reasonable and effective then it does makes sense to try to try and work with your neighbors. Even if there is no formal mechanism or forum it would be neighborly and respectful to consult with them (unless you think they would warn the guy with the radio). But if in the end no consensus can be reached then you have to go ahead and make and live with your own decision. I don't think subjecting yourself to very loud music every night for 12 years is a required in order to avoid being unneighborly. In any case I'm pretty sure that there either will be a second resolution or there will be a veto. So you aren't even talking about the majority of the security council lining up against the idea just one or three countries with veto powers. Going back to the loud radio in the neighborhood its as if one or two neighbors vetoed the idea of doing anything about it even if there was decent support for the idea. Tim