You have issues with generalised celebration?
… I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not. Apologies if it isn’t! Anyway, post 7.
It wasn’t sarcasm, I was confused, but went and re-read your post. thanks for the answer.
On the 4th, to celebrate the freedoms the nation has bestowed upon us all, I think it is extremely appropriate.
But your second example, I agree is less appropriate.
If I understand correctly, the distinction you see is that America enshrined the freedom of speech in the First Amendment and has been one of the world’s leading champions for the idea of the right to express oneself, so it’s “extremely appropriate” to use that right to point out America’s flaws on the 4th of July? Whereas MLK didn’t particularly distinguished himself as a champion of free speech, so it would be “less appropriate” to point out his flaws on his holiday?
Alright, you convinced me. It’s appropriate for both.
I was actually hoping to convince you that it wasn’t really appropriate for either, but that works too, I guess. Obviously you can do what you like.
One more shot here.
Shodan’s analogy was flawed, in that he took a public celebration, and condensed it down into just a celebration between two people, and that analogy fails on several points, not least of all that he gets offended if his hypothetical wife is ipugned, but mostly because he is condensing down the actions and attitude and opinions of hundreds of millions of people into the actions of just two, and there are some reasons that that fails when stretched to that extent.
So, a much better analogy would be the workplace.
It is founder’s day, the anniversary of your company’s opening, and they are throwing a picnic and festival for the occasion.
Now, on this occasion, do you feel that it is never appropriate to complain about work conditions?
It’s probably not prudent.
In what way does your anecdote about the police officer not constitute condensing the actions of hundreds of millions of people?
Regards,
Shodan
What you’re missing is that it wasn’t about just the one police officer, but the entire legal system that allowed him to get off with just a slap on the wrist.
Some in the thread are focusing just on the officer in that example, but the example was actually about the entire system that allowed that result to happen. Not just the original action.
Yes, the anecdote is condensing the whole legal system under which we all live - hundreds of millions of people. So I am not missing anything, and the analogy fails for the reasons k9befriender says.
Regards,
Shodan
No, you’re still not getting it, that’s not what I was saying. You are only focusing on the cop as an individual, and the point was about the entire legal system that allowed that to happen. Your example is in fact about an interaction between just two people. It is not the same and can’t be dismissed the same way yours can.
But no worries, I was just pointing that out, you don’t have to acknowledge it, but the fact remains whether you admit it or not.
Prudent is a different word than appropriate. If I am taking your meaning correctly, then that means that you feel that it would be acceptable for there to be sanction by the employers toward any employee who made any complaint on “founder’s day”.
So, if a manger is sexually harassing the receptionist in the BBQ line, that is fine, as it would not be prudent to complain about such a thing because it is “founder’s day”?
Smaller complaints, like saying to a co-worker, “Man, I hate the new QCR#456 procedure that we have to follow to do task #GT675”, you also feel are imprudent?
Even trivial observations like, “I wish they would get the employee lot repaved, it is dangerous to walk across in the dark.” should be censored?
If your statement is that yes, on the day of your company’s founding, that you should not speak in any way ill or critical of your employer, then I can understand your absolutism when it comes to the patriotic equivalent, but I don’t know what your standard is going to be, nor should it be, held by everyone.
In the way that it was used as a specific example relating to your hypothetical that had already condensed the actions down to just you two? I was asked, specifically, what sorts of things that the United States do that are similar in egregiousness to an analogy of a person beating up a homeless person.
And you and HD keep thinking that the complaint is about a criminal. It is not, it is a complaint about the justice system in general. Yes, I am aware that bad things happen every day, and bad people are perpetuating it. This is not a sign of a poorly functional society, however, as every society ever has had crime, even violent and anti-social crime.
What is a sign of a poorly functioning society, however, is when those who are charged to protect society abuse their power and their charges, and then society does not condemn those actions in the strongest terms. If your problem was that I used a homeless person as an example when talking about your hypothetical wife, and raping a woman when talking about the real life cop, maybe cops beating up a homeless person and getting away with that with no penalty or punishment will be easier to follow?
You also think that I am complaining about this, and that I would complain about this on the fourth of July. I am not. I am not even complaining about cop’s actions in this thread (there is a whole other thread for that purpose), I am observing the fact that there are those who, when you make a giant public celebration about how awesome the United States is, that there are going to be those who have experiences that do not lead them to the same conclusion. That there are going to be those who, when you say, “The United States is awesome!!!”, are going to reply that they do not find it to be so great.
You are the ones insisting that their opinion should not be considered, that their opinion should be censored and they should be told that it is inappropriate to have a voice on the day that we declared our independence from a country because it kept telling us what to do and to shut up about our complaints.
I’m not focusing on it; k9befriender is. He is saying that this one cop means that the whole legal system disqualifies America from ever being the subject of praise only. How is that not condensing? It’s a variant of “the plural of anecdote is not data”, and this isn’t even plural.
Either this one example indicts the whole of America, or it is no more relevant or irrelevant than any other individual example to the whole of America.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, nevermind, we are apparently reading two different threads here. So carry on with whatever your point is. As I said, no worries, I was just trying to clarify to help the discussion along, but it seems that is a fruitless exercise.