>Whatever happened to the ability
>of the law to turn a blind eye to minor insults?
They're minor insults when you get to pick and choose the situation.
Notice that when I mentioned the scenario of having my bodyguards pie
someone in the face, your response wasn't, "Sure, that'd be fine."
Instead, you wanted to attach a condition. Notice that when Zeb
mentioned a pie thrower pelting visitors at an AIDS funeral and
throwing symbolic fetus pies at abortion recipients, your response
was silence.
I think that you're fine with pie in the face assaults on some
people, but not on others. That intrinsic unfairness is what sets me
off most about your position on this issue.
>Whatever happened to the ability
>of the law to turn a blind eye to minor insults?
One extremely desirable trait of "the law" is consistency, but your
definition of "minor" and other terms in this discussion are so
arbitrary that it's hard to give you a meaningful answer. The way I
read your question is:
Whatever happened to the ability of the desirably consistent legal
system to turn a blind eye to subjectively arbitrary insults?
Error, does not parse. Legal system goals incompatible with Stross'
expectation.
> Is your society so automated and inflexible that you can't see this?
Yes, Americans are often criticized for being inflexible because we
have rules and ethics and consider them to be important. Heaven
forbid that we strive to have rules that are simple to follow and
even-handedly enforced.
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:40 MDT