Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I do not believe in "moral equivalence". When people agree to follow rules, and one of them breaks the rule, another of them has the RIGHT to point out the violation. At this point, the two parties are no longer on the same standing. The violator takes the low road, and the pointer-outer takes the moral high road.
Whatever happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty. You are presuming that the prosecutor is correct. There is more to guilt than the obvious violation of a rule.
Americans are essentially a law-abiding peoples, and would sacrifice common sense to ensure that the law is enforced.
Some people disagree with this norm. Or they think that social graces should apply to all situations, regardless of import.
Violating a law or a rule does not mean that damage is being done. Civil disobedience is an important part of democracy. It breaks laws, but does not cause damage.
How about if someone wearing a tee-shirt with a large rooster on it walks down your street breaking car windows with a baseball bat. Would you feel a need to apologize to him, before calling the police? (Or getting together with a couple of neighbors and tackling him?)
Given the complete irrelevance of the rooster, this suggest that if he had worn a business suit and necktie he might be treated differently. :-)
Problems with Wik dragged on because we don't have clear moral ideas, that all subscribe to.
Perhaps so.
The problem with 172 _was_ resolved (without resorting to the Arbitration Committee), because we were all able to discuss it on the mailing list. But Abe maintains the posture of having taken offense, rather than realizing he offended, so the resolution remains incomplete.
If the issue was resolved on the mailing list that should be the end of it...Why should his taking offense be treated as posturing? When major companies settle a law suit out of court, they will readily pay out large sums, but often insist that the settlement agreement include a clause saying that the payment does not imply accepting responsibility for whatever was alleged in the suit. If he honestly believes that he has not offended, why insist that he realize that he has?
Ec