bonj said:This argument's getting a bit silly. Am I right in presuming John's original reply to Elmer on page 10 about taking responsibility for your own actions was meant with sarcasm, which wasn't understood?
John Ponting said:thanks bonj.
Cab said:Ohhh... Sorry, that didn't seem at all obvious to me.
John Ponting said:shall we both agree to start again?
Cab said:Fair do's. Maybe you were just too subtle for me
*offers virtual pint*
You don't appear to condone it when it involves breaking the law, by definition, even if it still is responsible behaviour. Therefore it appears that whether you condone it or not is a function of whether or not it is against the law, not of whether or not it is taking adequate responsibility.Cab said:So... You're telling him what, not to say that kind of thing here because we don't condone people making their own decisions and taking responsibility?
You appear to believe that 'obeying the law' and 'taking responsibility for your actions' are synonymous, that they amount to exactly the same thing. Some other people feel differently. I believe all John was doing was warning / reminding Elmer that the concentration of people who believe the former is higher on this forum than among the general population. Which is true, but make of that what you will.Cab said:When he's just said that he's a speeder, a law breaker, you suggested that he shouldn't say that here not because he's breaking the law but because we don't condone people taking responsibility? You're right, I hope, in that most of us wouldn't condone someone taking personal responsibility to the point where they ignore the law.
bonj said:You appear to believe that 'obeying the law' and 'taking responsibility for your actions' are synonymous, that they amount to exactly the same thing. Some other people feel differently. I believe all John was doing was warning / reminding Elmer that the concentration of people who believe the former is higher on this forum than among the general population. Which is true, but make of that what you will.
Cab said:John and I are pretty much okay with this now I think, misunderstanding, way more my fault for not spotting his sarcasm than anything else.
As for believing that taking respinsibility is the same as obeying the law... No. But it is clear that the law defines the parameters in which we make decisions as to what is or is not responsible behaviour. Don't you agree?
Cab said:Oh give it a rest. I responed fairly and reasonably to what you said, you didn't like it so you called me arrogant as a get out. You could either engage in a real discussion or just get insulting, you chose the latter. And now I'm the antagonistic one?[/QUOTE]
yip.
If you are going to ask people for their thoughts about something at least either pay the courtesy of attempting to take in what's being said, or don't, and accept that it is arrogant behaviour.
As for engaging in a real discussion, actually I did to begin with, made a few points, listened to your points and accepted a few, made a few other points, to the point that you became derisive yourself. Maybe it's the way you post and not your intent. Maybe you accidentally miscomprehend others frequently and don't actually set out to antagonise people, but as has already happened elsewhere IN THIS THREAD you could do with thinking a bit more about how to phrase your points and consider more what others mean before you fly off the handle.
andy_wrx said:I agree : Cab has fallen-out with, insulted or patronised at least you (Tete), me, John Ponting and Elmer in the course of this thread.
Clearly the sort of person it's impossible to have a dialogue with.