quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: Eventually you move into the territory of never actually saying anything meaningful; everything becomes mealy-mouthed as everyone is too afraid to name anything for what it really is. That's the true harm of political correctness.
Would changing AD to CE to placate those who insist on being offended by AD push us to that point? By itself, no. Of course not. But it's another step along the way.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think it is kind to give people the idea that they have right to expect others to change for them whenever they get offended by something. ... Yet the "I have a right to be offended" attitude fosters almost exclusively anger and unhappiness.
I don't see people who petition for BCE/CE (in formal public joint usage) as people who "insist on being offended," or who are fixated on having "a right to be offended." Sure, there may be some, but the vast majority of people I see who assert the rightness of this change look like me, and kmboots, and dkw, and so forth.
We aren't foaming at the mouth. We aren't slavishly wedded to being offended. We just, you know, think it's a good idea that makes good sense.
I am starting to suspect that vigorous resistance to the change may be driven in good part by fear of a horde of people who aren't actually there.
posted
Why would it be a good idea, except to avoid offending people? I don't really see any other benefit to changing the tradition.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know as a social conservative, and a fairly religiously orthodox Mormon, who believes in the miracle of Jesus' death and resurrection, and who ALSO believes in the eventual recognition by all people that He is who He said He is...
I'm just not all that concerned about changing AD to CE.
Meh. It's a non-issue in the big scheme of things.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people I know, religious or otherwise, wouldn't be offended if someone used CE.....confused, perhaps, but not offended.
I find the claim that CE is anti-Christian absurd, although if people tried to force someone to give up AD in common usage then perhaps there would be some merit in the argument.
As far as the rest of it......
I like reading Squick's post most of the time, even though we don't always agree. I like kat because she makes me laugh, and she has a novel way at looking at things that we don't always see represented otherwise.
But I don't understand why you both don't see the others point here. Perhaps I am missing too much of the back story, but after reading this thread for the first time in a week....last time I checked it was only 2 pages long, I think...I got what the arguments were.
Part of it seems to be that we were discussing apples and oranges. Some of us were talking about private discussions, and some of us were discussing research papers and public discourse.
I think that forcing anyone to use one or the other is not a good thing. For every person who sees CE as an attack on their faith there is another who sees the use of it as defending their right to not be Christian.
They can BOTH be right. Ridiculous, but but correct.....because we are talking about beliefs and faith, not just proper language usage.
If conservative Christians open the can of worms on this one...and they did....then they are the ones placing/dictating religious value inherent in the usage. If others disagree with their definition....that to use AD is more "godly".... then they have no one to blame for the backlash against the BC/AD usage, because they are the ones making it more than a convenient historical reference point.
But on the flip side.......forcing someone who does believe that to use CE in normal conversation is not good either. They may feel that they are caving in to anti-religious sentiment, and being forced to deny their own religious views.
Perhaps a good compromise, at least in a paper or things like that, should be for the person writing it to use whichever convention their beliefs dictates....but have then also write the other convention in a footnote, or noted in some other way.
That way their religious views are protected, and there is less of a chance of being misunderstood.
If that was acceptable then no one would be able to claim that either was an attack on their views.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Why would it be a good idea, except to avoid offending people? I don't really see any other benefit to changing the tradition.
Hmmm. So you see it purely as a matter of being "offended."
How would you define that term? What does it mean to you? (It may connote or denote something different to you than I understand it to do.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Offended is when one is bothered, upset, or angry about something someone else did. It may or may not correspond to some actual wrong committed.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Offended is when one is bothered, upset, or angry about something someone else did. It may or may not correspond to some actual wrong committed.
So the term has a connotation of being emotionally distressed? (It does to me, just checking to see if it does to you.)
I'd contrast "being offended" with, say, "thinking X needs to be changed." The former seems to carry a connotation of being emotionally charged ("bothered, upset, or angry"), while the latter could be describing a state that is emotionally neutral.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, I was wondering if you ever got around to looking over the thread to see where I was behaving poorly.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. That is probably where the disagreement arises. I (and others, I take it) can assess some things as being better done another way without necessarily being emotionally distressed about it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't, Squick. I've thought about the fact that I need to do so a fair amount, but I haven't actually dug in and done it. Honestly it isn't something I'm particularly looking forward to doing, but since I said I would I will.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it helps, if you can show to me that I was behaving poorly and fighting dirty, something I'm pretty darn sure I wasn't doing, it will have a great deal more effect on my future behavior than either making a joke or accusing me of it without backing it up.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, what did you think of the example I did provide, in which you were mistakenly thinking that a post made by kmboots had been made by kat, and responded somewhat snidely? As I said in my post identifying where the posts in question were (4th page, 2nd and 3rd posts on the page), your post wasn't horribly rude, but I'm reasonably certain that you wouldn't have taken that tone with anyone other than kat (or with many people other than kat, anyway).
For the record, my joke wasn't intended to change your future behavior or kat's, either one. It was intended to diffuse an immediate situation, in which I perceived that two people I held in positive regard were, yet again, at each other's throats.
As for the "accusing me...without backing it up" bit, I'll get to it. I'm not looking forward to wading through that exchange a second time, but I'll do so.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:your post wasn't horribly rude, but I'm reasonably certain that you wouldn't have taken that tone with anyone other than kat
1) You yourself admitted that I wasn't particularly rude. And it wasn't nasty. I don't see how that was me "fighting dirty" as you accused me of.
2) I thought I already addressed this particular post but I can't find it. You are wrong about my tone. I think you may be reading it as more hostile than it is because you expect me to be.
I'm kind of puzzled by the sake thing. I've gotten from a couple of people in regards to this. I'm not talking about sakeriver. This has been going on for longer than sake's been around, I think. It's more people I'd term jatraqueros.
Also, you may be missing my point. I don't particularly want to join sakeriver. I'm also not looking to get people to like me or be popular. I just wish that I could be treated fairly, to not have people think that attacking me with baseless accusations and lies is okay, even if I'm not popular. I've long since given up hope that the jatraguero cliqe will actually acknowledge or try ameilorate the poor behavior of some of the people in it. I certainly don't want people excusing my bad behavior like a kat or a Leto. It's just when people accuse me of bad behavior, I'd like for them to at least try to show me where I behaved poorly and to possibly respect my chance to defend myself.
edit: For what it's worth, the last 3 times that Rakeesh or Scott did this, they just insulted me made accusations and then responded to my request for where I did these things with more insults and then left, so I do appreciate that you are doing more than that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, you may be missing my point. I don't particularly want to join sakeriver. I'm also not looking to get people to like me or be popular. I just wish that I could be treated fairly, to not have people think that attacking me with baseless accusations and lies is okay, even if I'm not popular. I've long since given up hope that the jatraguero cliqe will actually acknowledge or try ameilorate the poor behavior of some of the people in it.
Your point is based on a faulty view of what happens, Squick. I've pointed out numerous times your repeated assertions that I've said something I haven't said. In a very old thread that recently got linked, you called someone childish. You did it again today - in fact, I think you were nasty to Kat today. You disagree, and I'm not going to debate you about it, but the point is that your actions are not perceived as you think they should be.
Beyond that, your continual assertion that people's opinions and posts about how people behave is motivated by cliquishness is damn petty and insulting. It's also extremely untrue. Whatever the merits of others' opinions of your behavior here, THIS particular behavior is uncalled for.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the problem with calling someone's behavior childish when their behavior is childish?
Dag, The attacks, lies, and unfounded accusations I get come from the same group of people who are in a clique with kat. I see cliquey behavior from them outside of this parituclar case (heck, the word jatraquero was all about the clique). These people have, in past, defended people (Leto springs to mind) because they liked them. kat has behaved poorly over the course of years here without them taking any part besides attacking the people who she fights with. From my perspective, their behavior isn't motivated by fairness or a desire for what is good for Hatrack. So, you know, I don't think I'm going to replace my judgment with yours just yet.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've long since given up hope that the jatraguero cliqe will actually acknowledge or try ameilorate the poor behavior of some of the people in it.
Squicky, as far as I can tell, you're in the Jatraquero clique. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Beyond that, your continual assertion that people's opinions and posts about how people behave is motivated by cliquishness is damn petty and insulting. It's also extremely untrue. Whatever the merits of others' opinions of your behavior here, THIS particular behavior is uncalled for.
Not that I want to get in the middle of this, but for the sake of honesty, I have to agree that the Sake River contingent is a definite clique. People from Sake tend to band together and stick up for each other. They tend to try and see things from each others' viewpoint and, thus, if one sees someone as bad or good, there is a tendency for everyone to treat that person that way, too. This is all a natural outgrowth of being friends. Nothing strange or abnormal about it.
I don't know whether Squicky has been unfairly treated. Can't speak to that. But whether or not there are cliques on Hatrack? Yeah. Most definitely.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
From your perspective. From mine it very clearly was.
I'll ask again, is it wrong to call someone's behavior childish when their behavior is childish?
Sometimes. But I don't need to evaluate that question this time, because it wasn't childish. Therefore your statement was nasty. If your going to throw around insults like that, they're going to be judged. And if the nastiness depends in part on the truthfulness of the underlying claim, those who disagree with your evaluation will consider you to be nasty.
My perspective is the one I am using to evaluate both questions here. You have asserted a motivation - cliquishness - for treating you unfairly and not respecting your "chance to defend" yourself. This accusation doesn't rely on your perspective, because it's not your motives being questioned. It relies on the perspective of those responding to you.
quote:The attacks, lies, and unfounded accusations I get come from the same group of people who are in a clique with kat. I see cliquey behavior from them outside of this parituclar case (heck, the word jatraquero was all about the clique). These people have, in past, defended people (Leto springs to mind) because they liked them. kat has behaved poorly over the course of years here without them taking any part besides attacking the people who she fights with. From my perspective, their behavior isn't motivated by fairness or a desire for what is good for Hatrack. So, you know, I don't think I'm going to replace my judgment with yours just yet.
Then you will be telling falsehoods about others. You won't be lying, assuming you believe this, but it doesn't make such statements truthful.
Further, I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this "clique" that leaps to both Leto and Kat's defense.
quote: don't know whether Squicky has been unfairly treated. Can't speak to that. But whether or not there are cliques on Hatrack? Yeah. Most definitely.
It is true that there are cliques - many of them. Sake probably loosely defines one.
But the question is not "are their cliques?" but "is the reason Squicky is unfairly treated the existence of such a clique?"
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'll ask again, is it wrong to call someone's behavior childish when their behavior is childish?
In my opinion the important question in this context is not whether it is wrong but whether it is productive.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Productive-wise, I think it was pretty much neutral. I'd just spent a thread providing detailed responses and asking for explanation when I was told that these things were wrong, to be responded with "Nu-huh." over and over. It wasn't productive and it wasn't unproductive. It was, however, fair.
posted
Tom, You kind of missed the part where I repeatedly said "Could you explain?" to be met with "nu-huh", which, to me, was sort of important.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the question is not "are their cliques?" but "is the reason Squicky is unfairly treated the existence of such a clique?"
Dagonee,
I guess what I was trying to say with my last post is that it's entirely possible, but I haven't been paying attention to the whole Kat/Squicky thing that much to say for sure.
For what it's worth, calling someone rude, childish, whatever, seems to be, like,the national pasttime of many people on Hatrack. Sometimes you just have to say, you think I'm rude? Sorry, but I don't see it that way, and motor on. Arguing with someone over something like that has no winners, and I think the best course of action is just to agree to disagree and try not to get on the other person's tits in the future.
So, there you go. Problem solved, let's call it a day.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, I was not being childish. I was engaging you on a limited basis, which is my choice. I can understand that that would be frustrating, but I believed that I would not be treated with respect, so I decided to not extend myself. There's nothing remotely childish about that.
If you wish to have my trust enough to get me to engage you in a conversation, you will have to make me believe that you respect me.
You are wrong, both in your assessment and in your reaction to it.
quote:Ah. That is probably where the disagreement arises. I (and others, I take it) can assess some things as being better done another way without necessarily being emotionally distressed about it.
No, that doesn't explain the disagreement. The question still remains: What good reason is there to "assess" that it is better to write CE than AD?
The only such reason I can think of is to avoid offending people - but that is only a valid reason if you think it is a good idea to eliminate traditions that offend people even when there is no good reason for their offense. I'd say it is harmful to appease people who get offended by things for no good reason. Thus that is NOT a good reason to change AD to CE.
And if that is not the reason, what is the reason? If there is no reason to write CE instead of AD, I think you'll agree that we should assess that it is better to retain the tradition (since tradition inherently has some degree of value, just for the sake of being tradition) rather than change for no good reason whatsoever. This is especially true if the change will actually do harm, by encouraging people to continue to get offended by things for no good reason and expect society to appease them accordingly.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The question still remains: What good reason is there to "assess" that it is better to write CE than AD?
*stares
Tresopax, have you not heard of objective principles? Such as fairness, regardless of whether people are upset or not? I mean, I understand that [someone] might live [his or her] life guided by emotion without respect to reason, but surely you understand that not all decisions for other people are ones based solely on emotion, yes?
quote:If there is no reason to write CE instead of AD, I think you'll agree that we should assess that it is better to retain the tradition (since tradition inherently has some degree of value, just for the sake of being tradition) rather than change for no good reason whatsoever.
Well, no. Not necessarily. I'd say it is harmful to appease people who get offended by any and every change, clinging to tradition without stopping to assess whether there are good reasons to change it. Sometimes tradition is good, but clinging to tradition unreservedly and without examination is a harmful habit, and one it is good to get periodically shaken out of. This is why, for example, people speak of "being in a rut" in a way that is not bragging.
By the way, that is an argument specific to your assertion that "tradition"="always good," not as an argument for any particular change, such as civil unions. But I would place civil unions under your caveat of "for good reason," anyway [and I think a lot of things would fit there, without emotion as a driving force -- the emphasis being on "reason"].
quote:This is especially true if the change will actually do harm, by encouraging people to continue to get offended by things for no good reason and expect society to appease them accordingly.
You seem to live in a world of overwhelming emotion, populated by persons with unstable emotions who are emboldened in their emotionality by others who don't effectively smash them down with their emotions. Dude, that just isn't the world I live in. Where I live, sometimes people* just want something changed for objective reasons of fairness, and when it's changed, they just go on with their lives.
---
*in case this isn't clear, this is in reference to the people I listed in an earlier post as not being "offended," but nonetheless still seeking change in this matter
quote:Ah. That is probably where the disagreement arises. I (and others, I take it) can assess some things as being better done another way without necessarily being emotionally distressed about it.
No, that doesn't explain the disagreement. The question still remains: What good reason is there to "assess" that it is better to write CE than AD?
The only such reason I can think of is to avoid offending people - but that is only a valid reason if you think it is a good idea to eliminate traditions that offend people even when there is no good reason for their offense. I'd say it is harmful to appease people who get offended by things for no good reason. Thus that is NOT a good reason to change AD to CE.
And if that is not the reason, what is the reason? If there is no reason to write CE instead of AD, I think you'll agree that we should assess that it is better to retain the tradition (since tradition inherently has some degree of value, just for the sake of being tradition) rather than change for no good reason whatsoever. This is especially true if the change will actually do harm, by encouraging people to continue to get offended by things for no good reason and expect society to appease them accordingly.
Tres, don't you think that a paper produced by a team of people from a variety of religions should use a 'non-religious' signifier for dates throughout the paper for the sake of both fairness, consistency, and understandability?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax, have you not heard of objective principles? Such as fairness, regardless of whether people are upset or not? I mean, I understand that [someone] might live [his or her] life guided by emotion without respect to reason, but surely you understand that not all decisions for other people are ones based solely on emotion, yes?
What, specifically, is unfair about using A.D.?
I would say that it would be unfair only if one group receives some benefit from it when some equally deserving group lacks that benefit. But what benefit does any particular group receive from A.D. being the generally accepted term instead of C.E.? Are you suggesting that Christians get some special honor out of A.D. being used? If so, I think you may be exaggerating the importance of the term to the point of absurdity. I'd bet most people don't even know what it means. If there is any benefit at all that Christians receive from the term, I don't see how anyone could reasonably say that benefit is significant in any meaningful sense.
quote:Tres, don't you think that a paper produced by a team of people from a variety of religions should use a 'non-religious' signifier for dates throughout the paper for the sake of both fairness, consistency, and understandability?
Fairness - See Above. No group receieves any significant unfair benefit from it. Thus it isn't unfair.
Consistency - Using A.D. is more consistent that using C.E., because that is the term that was used in the past.
Understandability - I think everyone understands what A.D. signifies. It stands for the Year One and onward. In fact, I suspect many people do not understand C.E. when they see it because it is not taught as much in schools. I know I learned A.D. first and was likely confused by C.E. the first time I saw it.
So, the first of these three reasons does not support either, because the two terms are equally fair. And the second two actually support the use of A.D. Therefore I still see no good reason to rationally assess that C.E. is a better term. So, as far as fairness, consistency, and undestandability go, I think it is better to use A.D. in a paper.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you suggesting that Christians get some special honor out of A.D. being used? If so, I think you may be exaggerating the importance of the term to the point of absurdity.
That is precisely what I'm suggesting, yes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On what basis are you claiming an ability to determine what is or is not important to people?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, on what basis are you claiming an ability to determine what is or is not important to people?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying, for myself, that it is important TO ME.
I also know for a fact that it's important enough to a number of other people on this board that they refuse to use A.D. even in informal contexts. Clearly, the use of the term can and does have "importance" to individuals; the fact that Conservapedia makes its use one of their mandated pillars strongly supports this conclusion, as well.
I think "A.D." is indeed a special honor accorded Christians. If some Christians are not mindful of the honor being done to them, perhaps due to its relatively insignificance compared to the other, more substantial honors regularly accorded Christianity in this society, that does not change the fact of the honor in the first place.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: What, specifically, is unfair about using A.D.?
I didn't say using "AD" was unfair. You are confusing the general with the particular.
Once we get that cleared up between us, I'll be happy to carry on. But until we get this sort of issue cleared up, this will look decidedly like a discussion not in good faith.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying it isn't important to some people. I'm saying that rationally it should not be. I understand that many people are emotionally offended by it, but CT indicated that she believes she has some rational reason to consider it important - independent from emotion.
As for why it should not be rationally considered important... just compare it to all the other similarly common terms that derive from one particular group. Many of these have been mentioned already, including the days of the week. What about St. Valentine's Day? Or St. Patrick's Day - for that matter, do the Irish get an unfair benefit from St. Patrick's Day? What about the names of various places around the country? Maryland is named after British Royalty and seems to imply that it is in fact Mary's land - is this giving an unfair honor to Americans of British descent? The list of terms like this could go on forever. What rational explanation is there for why all of these terms do not give unfair honors to the groups they originated with, while A.D. does?
Is it that A.D. is more important than all these other terms? If that is the case then consider the fact that Common Era is an English expression, and thus gives an unfair honor to the English speaking, over all other languages in this country. (English is not our official language after all.) Wouldn't a latin expression be more fair, since nobody speaks latin as their native tongue anymore?
Unless there is a reason why A.D. for Christians is different from all these other cases, I think you cannot say there is some special honor that Christians get from having the term which other groups do not get from all those other terms. And thus there is not a rational justification for saying Christians get a significant honor from it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't say using "AD" was unfair. You are confusing the general with the particular.
Let's talk about the particular then, because I agree that there are objective principles such as "fairness", but I don't see how any valid objective principles would suggest A.D. is an inferior term to B.C.
If you don't believe A.D. is unfair, what do you think is rationally wrong with it?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we both clear on the distinction above between the general and particular?
It's an interesting conversation, but it is happening at multiple levels, and I'm not willing to muddy them together. To much work for me to keep pulling them apart, with too little to gain.
---
Edited to add:
We both posted at nearly the same time. But first, I want to be sure you understand why your restatement of what I said was incorrect. And to finish that conversation before we meander around through the details of another conversation.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If you don't believe A.D. is unfair ...
I also didn't say this. You are confusing a double negation with an assertion.
I find you very confusing to talk with. There are basic unjustified assumptions that get jumbled in with a lot of tangents and asides -- but the substantive core just doesn't make sense. The center doesn't hold.
I'm not sure if that is because I don't know how to read you, or if you do this on purpose, or if it is accidental on your part, or if I am seeing things which are not there. [It doesn't matter, really, other than to try to address it so that we can have a conversation which works for both of us. I'd like to do that. But I'm not going to engage in just talking in circles to hear the sound of my own voice, rather than to make substantive steps in communicating ideas. Currently this feels like the former to me, and that isn't what I want out of conversations I put my time into.]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so you didn't say you believe A.D. is unfair, but you also didn't say you don't believe A.D. is unfair. In other words, you haven't said either way. What do you actually believe then? Is it fair or not fair?
Tell me and then we can go from there....
For reference, I believe it is objectively fair.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Okay, so you didn't say you believe A.D. is unfair, but you also didn't say you don't believe A.D. is unfair. In other words, you haven't said either way. What do you actually believe then? Is it fair or not fair?
Tell me and then we can go from there....
For reference, I believe it is objectively fair.
Tresopax, I am trying to finish our initial conversation first. You had implied there was no reason to make such a change except because someone is "offended."*** I was answering that issue. That was the initial stepping-off point of our discussion.
I don't want to bunny-hop around talking at great length about all and sundry without making sense. I don't find it productive. If that is what you want, or if that is all you are able to do, then we shouldn't continue with this. Our expectations would be too divergent.
However, if you are willing to take one point at a time and discuss it substantively, I am more than delighted to do so. We would, I assure you, get to the question of "fairness" with respect to CE in due time.
--- ***specifically, "Why would it be a good idea, except to avoid offending people? I don't really see any other benefit to changing the tradition."
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I said there is no reason to make such a change except because someone is offended, I was refering to the particular case of A.D.
Speaking generally, I think it makes rational sense to use one term instead of another if the benefits of that change outweigh the costs. Benefits could include things such as avoiding offending people, serving some objective principle like fairness, facilitating easy understanding, etc. The list of possible benefits could be very long. Similarly, the list of costs could be very long. It could include things such as the degree to which the change would cause confusion, the degree to which it is inconsistent, the inherent cost of changing tradition (since all other things equal, I think we'd rather keep traditions), and the degree to which a change would conflict with other objective principles.
To judge which term to use, I would try to take into account the benefits that I can think of and then compare those to the costs I can think of. And unless one side had all benefits and no costs, or vice versa, the decision would depend on how I weighted the costs and benefits in my judgement.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: When I said there is no reason to make such a change except because someone is offended, I was refering to the particular case of A.D.
Ah, okay. I was misreading you, then. I should go back and reread with this in mind.
quote:(since all other things equal, I think we'd rather keep traditions)
Many, such as my husband and I, would not commit to that. Might be better to phrase that as "I'd" rather than "we'd," or perhaps just to clarify the "we" as referring to a specific group you had in mind.
I'll get back to this after work. Thanks. That helps a good deal. (Also, my apologies for misreading you.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
