On 3/2/2018 1:16 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
Ask yourself if you're arguing on the pro-intimidation side, please?
*sigh*
In propaganda this is called a false alternative fallacy. Basically,
you're implying if you're not for "anti-intimidation" on this specific
issue you're a bad person. The problem is that there are more axes to
this discussion than just the individual perception of intimidation:
Ask yourself if you're arguing on the anti-openness side, please?
Ask yourself if you're arguing on the anti-"freedom of the press" side,
please?
Ask yourself if you're arguing on the pro-"everything should be
regulated to within an inch of its life" side, please?
(And no, I'm not imputing any of these to Joe...)
And more nuances: A friend of mine who is somewhat tall was once
approached by HR for "using his great height to peer over cubicle wall
and to intimidate people by standing in their presence" - I kid you
not. (And no, this was not Ole).
The point is that any given person can't know what behavior any given
other person would find "intimidating" and attempts to legislate a
limited class of behaviors out of existence on the argument that they
"might be intimidating to some set of people" seems to me to be reaching
too far.
Later, Mike
