Quote:
|
Originally Posted by abaya
I think with age, one realizes what a royal waste of energy it is to rebel against that which will never change. Call that complacency... I would have, at 20. But there are other things to do in life than be angry at unjust authorities (there are other ways of changing an unjust social structure than attacking the authorities).
|
The assumption is that it will never change, whatever it is. Did you ever actually apply a fairly thorough process to try and determine if things will change or not? Beyond that, can you make any examples in which complacency to unfair authority brought a change of circumstances into fair ones? At first glance and by definition it seems unlikely to be even possible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
What if you disagree with the policy, the enforcement of the policy, or the appointment of the enforcer to the enforcing position? Is it still immature? I don't recall making a reference to arbitrarily resisting authority simply because it exists..
|
Not to nitpick, but since you're arguing with me over your own words, words you say you didn't use but actually did, here they are:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
"Is vehement aversion to arbitrarily dispensed authority a sign of age or personality?"
|
That's your opening post's title, that you wrote... so... yeah, you did say it, and that's why we're arguing about that point.
rainheart:
Your analogy of civil disobedience is a bit of a fallacy because such displays are rarely, if ever, about the automatic gainsay of rules, but rather based on a perceived oppression or rights violation... such problems are typically concerning civil liberties or civil rights, and hardly arbitrary. |
First off, you took JinnKai's use of the word "arbitrary" out of context, there is a difference between arbitrarily dispensed authority and arbitrarily resisting authority.
If you take a look at my posts I have been not been condoning the "automatic gainsay of rules" at all. I have been condoning thoroughly evaluated and justified opposition to authority. It is in fact, you, who has been neglecting (or [hopefully unintendedly] redefining) what I've been trying to communicate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Perhaps not, but neither is the same thing as "vehement aversion to rules", which is both still more strongly worded and the original thread title. Arbitrary didn't show up until around the time of post #30. At this point, this part of the thread is sort of missing the forest for the trees.
|
Then perhaps the problem is really one of miscommunication. So let's take a look at the definition of the word "Vehement":
1.
Showing strong feeling; forceful or intense.
2.
Characterized by forcefulness of expression or intensity of emotion or conviction; fervid: a vehement denial.
3.
Marked by or full of vigor or energy; strong: a vehement storm.
The definition of arbitrary is unlike the definition of vehement.
Arbitrary denotes a sense of whim or impulse- sometimes without reason or principle, whereas vehement denotes a sense of strong conviction.
You may have a strong conviction about a point of view and it may be understandable because you are capable of explaining in depth and with reason why it is a valid point of view to have. Just because you display fervor or passion for what you do, it does not necessarily mean that you haven't thought about it, and it does not necessarily mean that you are acting on impulse.