Rather Polite of Him, Wouldn't You Say?
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 20 Nov 2006 13:44 On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:37:30 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >Now that's a curious point... so, if the Japanese are a society which is >not well-armed and is polite. What's an example, then, of a society which >is armed and nearly so polite? It is interesting to observe polite societies which are also cruel (read Dickens). We love to have erudite, polite villains in our fiction. And some societies have in-your-face insulting - combined with love and caring. A lot of politeness is just habit. On the other hand, I can see how a violent society might be a considerate society. We have a lot of clueless behavior which might be bread out if there were immediate adverse consequences. A road rage incident might slow down people cutting in front of a line of cars at a freeway exit - for a couple of weeks. But how many people are ready to use their weapons against someone who is impolite? Are people in a more heavily armed state in the U.S. more likely to shoot an impolite person than people in states with tighter gun controls?
From: on 20 Nov 2006 14:02 In article <ict3m21nmpgl0qimpr6l7n4lvhjpgm7dmq(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:37:30 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>Now that's a curious point... so, if the Japanese are a society which is >>not well-armed and is polite. What's an example, then, of a society which >>is armed and nearly so polite? [snip] >But how many people are ready to use their weapons against someone who >is impolite? Are people in a more heavily armed state in the U.S. >more likely to shoot an impolite person than people in states with >tighter gun controls? I'm not sure... and I tried, earlier, to move the discussion away from murder and towards politesse. It becomes even more complex when one attempts a measure of 'being polite'... it might be that an act of good manners, in one place and time, is an insult or an admission of weakness in others. ('He let me go through the door first because he realises that I am superior to him.') How a 'good person' treats others - and how treating others causes one to be seen as a 'good person' - is, to my mind, a wee bit more involved than a simple 'You do (x) because if you don't you may precipitate an incident involving weapons'. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 20 Nov 2006 16:01 On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:02:21 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >('He let me go through the door first because he realises that I am >superior to him.') > >How a 'good person' treats others - and how treating others causes one to >be seen as a 'good person' - is, to my mind, a wee bit more involved than >a simple 'You do (x) because if you don't you may precipitate an incident >involving weapons'. People who use particular phrases that they were taught to use as a child come across as polite - but when those words are only words, said out of habit - I'm not going to assume that they are any more considerate than someone whose parents taught him different. I look for consideration in actions - and in appearing to be attentive. But lots of people demand the rote "polite" over anything real.
From: Alistair on 20 Nov 2006 16:05 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <1164045771.648687.236880(a)j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > >> In article <12m128anscmdo31(a)news.supernews.com>, > >> HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Quite the sociologist, I've heard... do tell, where and when did he do his > >> field studies? Was there a particular methodolgy applied... or did he > >> just sit in a house-trailer and write Tall Tales? When an opinion is > >> bolstered by 'something I read in a novel' it might do well to give it as > >> much weight as an opinion bolstered by 'something I saw in a movie'. > > > >Doc, you should know better than to use the term METHODOLOGY (the study > >of methods) when you obviously mean METHOD. > > Mr Maclean, I intended to inquire into the body of methods, rules and > postulates employed by the sociologist in question; that is, by at least > one definition (http://m-w.com/dictionary/methodology) a methodology. > > DD So a methodology may be the application of a body of methods or a singular method. That screws Prince2.
From: Alistair on 20 Nov 2006 16:08
docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <1164045562.179587.56900(a)h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > > [snip - I apologise to myself for the midsentence interruption] > > >> ... 'Cowards die a thousand deaths, the valiant taste of death > >> but once'.) > > > >But in living longer, one would expect that the average number of a > >cowards' offspring is greater than that of the average valiant man. > > Perhaps so, perhaps no... in addition to living longer there's a little > matter of attracting mates... and then the process of mating... and then > the viability of the offspring generated by such mating... it can be seen > as moderately intricate, once one thinks along those lines... of course, > the problem with that might be, for some, instead of relying on the dicta > of fiction-authors they, themselves, might have to do something called > 'thinking'... I think. > > DD Methinks that the law of large numbers is on my side. Also, remember that it is written thus: the meek shall inherit the earth. |