3 ms·

I can't just do that, she is an autonomous person, and quite willful also. Despite her age, she is not only as lucid as it gets - she still works (although from

by suslik 2mo ago

I can't just do that, she is an autonomous person, and quite willful also. Despite her age, she is not only as lucid as it gets - she still works (although from home) as an applied mathematician!

Telaneo 2mo ago
> I can't just do that You can in fact just do that. Whether or not you should is another question.
- jraph 2mo ago
  In context, "I can't just do that" means "I shouldn't do that".
  - Telaneo 2mo ago
    In context, me saying 'You can just do that' means 'You should do that' (barring there being good reason, which I haven't seen so far). I hate that phrasing. It was weaponised by teachers in my youth. It's still used by some people to close doors and remove options without good reason. I'll make fun of it whenever I can.
    - jraph 2mo ago
      Ah, I see! I was a bit annoyed by you seemingly pointlessly correcting the parent, but now I understand your PoV. > In context, me saying 'You can just do that' means 'You should do that' That's not very consistent. You wrote that whether they should was another question. > (barring there being good reason, which I haven't seen so far) I disagree with you. Someone being autonomous is a good reason for not wanting to take a decision for them against their will. It follows that: > It's still used by some people to close doors and remove options without good reason This didn't happen here. No doors were closed without a good reason, because there is one.
      - Telaneo 2mo ago
        > I disagree with you. Someone being autonomous is a good reason for not wanting to take a decision for them against their will. Tell that to society at large. No man is an island. It's a sensible default and should be enabled as such. They wouldn't know the difference if it already were. If they can articulate a specific and valid reason as to why they don't want it that way, then fair. It should be an option open to change. It simply being 'impolite' is somewhere between 'open to interpretation in specific cases' and 'wrong'. Many aspects of what is normally called politeness are constructs that have no or limited use in the current world. This is one of them. My conclusion is thus that their reason is invalid. I'm making some assumptions. If any are counter to the reality of the situation, then there might be good reasons not to change it. Edit to your edit: > That's not very consistent. You wrote that whether they should was another question. Emphasis is a common literary tool. > This didn't happen here. No doors were closed without a good reason, because there is one. I disagree on the reason given being good.
        jraph 2mo ago
        > I disagree on the reason given being good. Okay, that's what you probably implied in your first reply, and I think that's what's actually interesting to discuss. I don't think not acting against someone's will is a question of mere politeness. In social care, it's often considered mistreatment to do so. For instance if it is not considered that an adult who's not otherwise autonomous can't express consent and doesn't want to take their pills, social workers normally shouldn't (and legally can't) force them to take them, even if it's good for them. At least where I live. Not all act against someone's will is mistreatment, but it definitely goes beyond politeness.
        Telaneo 2mo ago
        > I don't think (not) acting against someone's will is a question of mere politeness. In social care, it's often considered mistreatment. The reason given by the person in question was politeness. I'm not talking about whether or it's polite to change this setting. > For instance if it is considered that an adult who's not autonomous can express consent and doesn't want to take their pills, social workers normally shouldn't (and legally can't) force them to take them, even if it's good for them. That's because 'I want to die' is a valid reason. Or at least it should be. I doubt that social workers actually come to their conclusions from that framework. They probably do it like you said; simply acting against autonomy is itself bad within their framework, but this is inconsistent with society's behaviour at large. Similarly, if GP's grandmother's reason was 'I want to receive random spam calls and calls from telemarketers' or 'I have friends overseas who might not be able to reach me', then I'd have nothing to say. Those are valid reasons. On the other hand, perceived potential impoliteness, which actually isn't, is not.

by suslik 2mo ago

I can't just do that, she is an autonomous person, and quite willful also. Despite her age, she is not only as lucid as it gets - she still works (although from home) as an applied mathematician!

Telaneo 2mo ago

> I can't just do that You can in fact just do that. Whether or not you should is another question.

jraph 2mo ago
In context, "I can't just do that" means "I shouldn't do that".
- Telaneo 2mo ago
  In context, me saying 'You can just do that' means 'You should do that' (barring there being good reason, which I haven't seen so far). I hate that phrasing. It was weaponised by teachers in my youth. It's still used by some people to close doors and remove options without good reason. I'll make fun of it whenever I can.
  - jraph 2mo ago
    Ah, I see! I was a bit annoyed by you seemingly pointlessly correcting the parent, but now I understand your PoV. > In context, me saying 'You can just do that' means 'You should do that' That's not very consistent. You wrote that whether they should was another question. > (barring there being good reason, which I haven't seen so far) I disagree with you. Someone being autonomous is a good reason for not wanting to take a decision for them against their will. It follows that: > It's still used by some people to close doors and remove options without good reason This didn't happen here. No doors were closed without a good reason, because there is one.
    - Telaneo 2mo ago
      > I disagree with you. Someone being autonomous is a good reason for not wanting to take a decision for them against their will. Tell that to society at large. No man is an island. It's a sensible default and should be enabled as such. They wouldn't know the difference if it already were. If they can articulate a specific and valid reason as to why they don't want it that way, then fair. It should be an option open to change. It simply being 'impolite' is somewhere between 'open to interpretation in specific cases' and 'wrong'. Many aspects of what is normally called politeness are constructs that have no or limited use in the current world. This is one of them. My conclusion is thus that their reason is invalid. I'm making some assumptions. If any are counter to the reality of the situation, then there might be good reasons not to change it. Edit to your edit: > That's not very consistent. You wrote that whether they should was another question. Emphasis is a common literary tool. > This didn't happen here. No doors were closed without a good reason, because there is one. I disagree on the reason given being good.
      - jraph 2mo ago
        > I disagree on the reason given being good. Okay, that's what you probably implied in your first reply, and I think that's what's actually interesting to discuss. I don't think not acting against someone's will is a question of mere politeness. In social care, it's often considered mistreatment to do so. For instance if it is not considered that an adult who's not otherwise autonomous can't express consent and doesn't want to take their pills, social workers normally shouldn't (and legally can't) force them to take them, even if it's good for them. At least where I live. Not all act against someone's will is mistreatment, but it definitely goes beyond politeness.
        Telaneo 2mo ago
        > I don't think (not) acting against someone's will is a question of mere politeness. In social care, it's often considered mistreatment. The reason given by the person in question was politeness. I'm not talking about whether or it's polite to change this setting. > For instance if it is considered that an adult who's not autonomous can express consent and doesn't want to take their pills, social workers normally shouldn't (and legally can't) force them to take them, even if it's good for them. That's because 'I want to die' is a valid reason. Or at least it should be. I doubt that social workers actually come to their conclusions from that framework. They probably do it like you said; simply acting against autonomy is itself bad within their framework, but this is inconsistent with society's behaviour at large. Similarly, if GP's grandmother's reason was 'I want to receive random spam calls and calls from telemarketers' or 'I have friends overseas who might not be able to reach me', then I'd have nothing to say. Those are valid reasons. On the other hand, perceived potential impoliteness, which actually isn't, is not.