you are saying the use of the tool(choosing the type of pole) at the end after all the decisions have already been made... that that use then, is equal to no ability to change ? i am talking about the reasoning and thought process that involves the eventual application of the type of pole you are saying it doesn't matter what type of pole is used because no body will change their minds, yet the pole has not yet been chosen.(is this called fatalism? the thought that all things are pre-determined and unable to be changed?)
no different to MDMA/ecstasy or cocaine it is just that society has normalised the use of various chemicals and assigns them a sense of non status. you see this in obese people who spread information saying that sugar and carbs are not bad for you. bleeding, leeches, burning people at the stake, dunking witches... there are many things that were normalised by society over the centurys. Rule of thumb ... spare the rod spoil the child .... etc etc ... refined processed sugar is not good for you. it tastes nice, gives you a buzz, but your brain and body do not function optimally with it. the difference is the addiction and general poor health of people who say it doesn't make them feel any worse. that is because they are generally un fit and so live in a state of ill health. that state of ill health is normalised by many corporations and social groups. it is an industry that makes billions of dollars, and entire citys are built around. the irony is in the way people apply morals by assigning guilt to things like accidents. someone making an illegal drug, while someone has an accident, is labelled as morally culpable. yet government leaders are not morally culpable for civilian deaths from things like the flint water poisoning, road accidents from poor road design, etc etc etc. the list is endless. people selling sugar filled products to children drug dealers selling drugs to children ...
Equal to what? I drew no parallels. I responded specifically and exclusively to your criticism of this one sign in this one school parking lot. The only thing I projected the situation onto was similar signs in other parking lots. On extrapolation, my assumption - without any research on the topic - is that whoever is in charge of parking lot furbishements - in this case, presumably the district school board; in other situations, the shopping mall, or the city works department; whoever owns the parking lot, or their contractor - decides on the basis of what materials they have on hand, what's in general use, and what serves the requisite function at the lowest cost. In this one specific instance, and in the case of parking lot signage generally, I see very little difference between a T-bar and a round pole as regards danger to users of the lot; the T-bar has the slight advantage of being a little cheaper, having ready-made holes for mounting, and if they're hit by car, they'll bend rather than shear. I thought you were concerned with children getting cut. I don't think that's likely to happen in the situation you presented. No, I didn't say that. I said, in the situation as presented, the type of pole used would make no appreciable difference in risk to the users of the crosswalk. Huh? It has already been installed. Yanking it out and replacing it with a different one would be expensive and unwarranted. Not by me. I don't see that as a factor in parking-lot design.
you are presenting reasoning to sit on the negative thats fine my point is about the thought processes around best practice and how that is manifested in society and how peoples values are attached to it. psycho-social anthropology like a very large kitchen knife sitting on the floor. most people see it as a threat risk yet the fact they see it means it is not really a risk. just like the pole if you can see it then its your own fault. if you cant see it then its just a matter of when it happens not if... = reasoning the "reasoning" is the point of my post
I reasoned that in that place, the likelihood of "it" happening at all is very low, and that the outcome, if "it" did happen, is very unlikely to change appreciably with the profile of the pole. Everyone has to do their own reasoning their own way; we're not required to do it all uniformly.
in theory, that is the core moral doctrine of a liberal free society. in practice, most concepts of process take on collective assumptive reasoning(this is a loosely postulated theory of mine) thus ... moving forward, how does collective reasoning interface with society as a vehicle of modern democratic principal in creating laws and cultural/social boundary's ?
specifically in the example of minority governments making new laws when they are not made by the majority, they are made by special interest tiny minority % of the population, acting like fascist dictators. for example supreme court rulings based on bi-partisan politics for special interest rulings. absolutely no democracy in that at all. yet it is called democracy. how is that morally and socially justified as an acceptable form of power control to model to children to become functioning comparable models as adults inside that society ?
That's the norm. Anything approaching a functional democracy is an anomaly, and always short-lived. Americans are always surprised when they discover this, even though they've only had a process approaching (never quite accomplishing) the democratic model to which it aspires a few times through their history, and they didn't last a decade, (I'm basing this on the basis on the Solon Phenomenon, not researching it for accuracy.) though some of their accomplishments survived or were later revived by a similar-minded government. That progress is then presumed to be the result of a well-functioning political system, and all the obstruction, counter-propaganda, character-assassination and numerous forms of blackguardery by thos who opposed it, expunged from the nationion's collective memory. No packaging regulations. If it were a fruity-like drink, it couldn't labelled "grape juice"; it has to be called "grape drink" or "grape beverage", but they can still put "Made with 100% natural juice" on the label. By pretending that beverage means juice. ("Uh, sure, the process could benefit from some reform, but we still have the world's first and strongest democracy.") Who wants them to be functioning adults? They're consumers. The fewer of their braincells fire in tandem the more crap they'll buy.
From my observation, there's definitely people on here who don't approach ''conversations'' with good intent/faith. It's all about ''the win.'' What do you think you've won, would be my question, though?
There is no winning, unless it's a formal debate and a panel of 'independent journalists' is keeping score. But then, are you sure faith is required in a conversation? Suppose all you have is principles and convictions? Would it be productive to abandon those, just to end up in a draw? "If that works for you, fine; whatever." is a civil ending, but no progress has been made toward a goal you hold dear, nobody's any wiser, no evil has been thwarted; Jesus still doesn't know who his father is and Cruella is still wearing puppy-skin coats.
What's the alternative, "oh, that's nice" "you make a good point" "I hadn't thought of that, so dark is real and light is just an illusion, interesting" "gravity is really a push force and you have a paper coming out soon, thanks for sharing". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Maybe less arrogance, and more willingness to see another person's view? I know, that sounds so crazy. To understand another, to empathize with a point of view that isn't your own, doesn't equal agreement.
It could be "argued" that to lead with an accusation of "arrogance" after just implying "superiority" might be throwing stones at glass houses. Examine thine self first. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I always look at an argument from the other person's perspective. Why else would I have read any of the Bible or looked at arguments commonly brought up by the other side? You, my friend, have a tendency to call someone else a name or label them only to try to make the point that they should be more tolerant. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thin skin does not a warm coat make. We don't get to "tell the world" how to interact with us, that would be true arrogance, would it not? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!