Re: OT - Yet another bloody national 2-minute silence!

Norman Wells goes:

In article <824cb2tk3aj4d3c6ovgaierujfkkrcvkg3@xxxxxxx>, Alan Hope
<not.alan.hope@xxxxxxxx> writes
Norman Wells goes:
In article <ii1bb2piltg7fabs12dgj3f1tetfuhda4k@xxxxxxx>, Alan Hope
<not.alan.hope@xxxxxxxx> writes
Norman Wells goes:
In article <f3s9b2lufa58v9mvnamlk3f6rdvthnqinq@xxxxxxx>, Alan Hope
<not.alan.hope@xxxxxxxx> writes

You could even
be silent while not taking part in the silence.

How on earth can you be silent while not taking part in the silence?

Don't be ridiculous. You take part in the silence in your head -- or
not as the case may be. The measure is not the amount of noise you're
making.

That raises two questions:

1. Why is it called a silence?
2. Why do those who observe it think it necessary to remain silent?

The act of reflection requires you to be silent. However your silence
does not necessarily imply you're taking part in an act of reflection.

If you can't take part in a silence without actually being silent then,
contrary to what you say, the measure _is_ to some extent the amount of
noise you're making.

You fail to understand elementary logic. Socrates is a man, but not
all men are Socrates.

I accept that I probably wouldn't be taking part in an act of reflection
if I were making a noise, but not making a noise during an organised
silence does, I'm afraid, imply that I'm taking part in it. How could I
imply it better?

Why do you need to? You're supposed to be just getting on with your
business. Why do you have to make an announcement to the world? Just
get on with your business, whatever it is.

You've made enough of a song and dance in here to last for all
silences from now until the end of the War on Terror, so I doubt you
need to press home the point of your opposition any further.

Oh, sorry, I just looked at the words and thought silence meant silence.
But I was obviously wrong.

Obviously.

Er, what's silence then?

No answer I see.

You can be silent without taking part in that silence. What's so
difficult to understand? When the minister says Let us pray and you
shut your eyes, does that mean you're praying?

Except, I suppose, your substitution of 'act of
reflection' for the word 'silence'. But they're not the same. That's
why we have different words for them. If the organisers of these events
called them 2 Minute Acts of Reflection, and that meant everyone carried
on as normal, I wouldn't object. But they don't. They call them
silences, and that's what they expect.

You're being incredibly dense about this.

Of course, people may not be too happy at you for doing so, but what's
their opinion compared to your principles?

Indeed. I should at least go about what I would have been going about
anyway.

Right. Then do that.

OK. Thanks for that enlightening original thought.

It doesn't seem to have occured to you. Instead, you want everyone
else to bow to your desires.

No. They can do whatever they like. Just as long as it doesn't
interfere with me.

Well there's no way a group of people being silent interferes with you
in any way, so shut up.

Unlike the organisers of these things, however, who apparently
think nothing of inconveniencing and annoying me, I don't want to spoil
the fun others are obviously getting from an organised silence by doing
anything out of the ordinary or deliberately offensive.

How are they inconveniencing you?

People standing around obstructing the pavement, not serving you in
shops, not answering phone calls, expecting me to be silent, all that
sort of thing.

Oh *** off. You're making a complete arse of yourself with this
nonsense. Obstructing the pavement indeed.

And the rest? Do they not occur? Are they not inconveniences?

They occur all the time. Especially in British shops. What difference
does it make what the reason is? Do you think the world turns round
you? Fucksake pal, grow up.

In other words, you'll stand there sulking for two minutes pretending
to take part instead of standing by your views.

It's one way, isn't it? And by far the least confrontational.

It's also not consideration, as you're only thinking of yourself and
these death threats you might get. It's not consideration, it's
cowardice.

Not disturbing others when they're doing what they want to do is
consideration, and that's what I'd be showing, even if it's cowardice
too. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Yes they are. One is motivated by a concern for others, and the other
by a concern for yourself. In any case, there's no doubt which side a
desire to stop them having a silence falls down on: that's 100%
selfish.

That's
why so many do it. Give them a real choice, though, and very few will
take part.

A real choice like what, not having any such silence in the first
place?

Anyway you're contradicting yourself. If most people are not in favour
of taking part, who's going to be giving you the grief you're afraid
of?

Those who _are_ in favour of taking part. And if everyone's silent, how
do you tell who's in favour and who's not? That's why a better way
would be to have a communal wail, where it wouldn't spoil the fun of
anyone wanting to do it if someone else didn't participate. At least
then you could evaluate the risk.

There is no risk. Don't be such a big baby.

It's like standing for the national anthem. Everyone does it in public,
but no-one does it in private.

Who does it in public? Not me.

Then I admire you. Either that or you never go anywhere where it's
played.

I once had the honour of not standing to two different national
anthems, when the Belgian National Orchestra played with an American
soloist.

I have to say, though, that whenever I go to a public
performance or an international sports event standing is universal.

I assure you it isn't.

Obviously, your paths and mine have never crossed.

I wouldn't know, as you'd have been standing up at the time like all
the other sheep.

I was just postulating an alternative position that others through
history have found themselves in. If they did not compromise their
principles, they could easily have been imprisoned or killed.

Well that's how the genocides of the past have happened. All that's
required for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and do
nothing -- Edmund Burke.

I was
trying to establish just how far _you_ would be prepared to go for the
sake of your principles. So,...

What if you had found yourself, say, in Iraq or North Korea when the
President passed. Would you have risked being the only one in the crowd
not cheering and waving a flag?

Apples and oranges. In that situation, if you can't avoid the crowd,
then you really have no choice.

Exactly, so in some circumstances you would stand by and do nothing,
which is all that's required for evil to flourish.

I have no idea how I'd react to real tyrrany. Some of us do, though.
You, for instance, would evidently be a good little drone.

Where are your principles? Hidden behind a nearby bush so you can pick
them up later?

We're talking about two frankly incomparable situations.

Now that we've established that you'd pragmatically abandon your
principles when threatened, it becomes merely a matter of balancing how
much threat against how much principle. Fundamentally then, you're just
like me. You just draw the line, perhaps, in a different place.

At the line of a real threat, rather than an invented one.


--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com



.

Loading