3 ms·

And this is why we can't have nice things. "The rules," as you so aptly scare-quote, are not there solely to govern the actions of a single human being. They

And this is why we can't have nice things. "The rules," as you so aptly scare-quote, are not there solely to govern the actions of a single human being. They are there so that the system, as a whole, functions. A word exists for this: society. Unless the rule is unjust, you are not the final arbiter of whether or not a rule should be followed. What you find sensible and reasonable may not actually _be_ sensible and reasonable beyond first glance. Yes, this rule appears to be monumentally stupid. However, another person in this very thread has raised a good (though possibly misinformed) point regarding frequency intermod. Sometimes we simply can't test all circumstances and the FAA has made a (potentially dumb) judgement call in favor of overwhelming paranoia for safety instead of letting people fling colored birds at green pigs below 10,000 feet. Being free does not give you license to discard that which you, in your own self, deem insensible when you are existing in a space where anyone but yourself exists. You operate in a world with billions of other humans, each with competing goals and diverging motivations. The least you can do is play by the rules that we, as a group, have decided are the compromise. As a bit of site commentary, I notice your post getting more and more grey as people remove points because they disagree. In this instance, I added a point because, though I disagree, I think that your post is a useful addition to the commentary.

robrenaud 14y ago
I'd personally love it if society had more people like swombat, rather than fewer. Of course, there is a risk when choosing to ignore rules that you are ignoring them because they you are an inconvenience to you but are generally good for society. Government incented/enforced vaccination would be a good example of such a reasonable though possibly annoying rule. I totally concede that point, and hence, individuals need to be especially mindful about their own self serving biases when choosing to disobey rules. But on the other hand, imagine if rules that effected tens of millions of people all had scientific studies about their tradeoffs, their risks, and their efficiency. How much less bullshit would we have to deal with? I think lots of big innovation is done by rule breakers. It's exactly what pg talks about in point 4 about wanting founders who are naughty. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html
- DanBC 14y ago
  > I'd personally love it if society had more people like swombat, rather than fewer. You might feel differently if you lived next to a rule breaker who had no concept of noise nuisance. "The Collector Collector" (Tibor Fischer) is a fun read; relevant here because he describes quite nicely the sense of entitlement that some criminals feel.
  - swombat 14y ago
    > You might feel differently if you lived next to a rule breaker who had no concept of noise nuisance. I'm sure he would. As it happens, I am not typically a noise creator - but you are, today, downvoting my post and then replying to it within a minute of me posting it. I've kindly returned the favour.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      I did not down the post you replied to. I did downvote the your post that first replied to. I up voted the post where you said that you're not rude to airline staff. EDIT: > replying to it within a minute of me posting Timestamps disagree with you.
      - swombat 14y ago
        s/a minute/a few minutes/
swombat 14y ago
> "The rules," as you so aptly scare-quote, are not there solely to govern the actions of a single human being. They are there so that the system, as a whole, functions. A word exists for this: society. That's an interesting equation there. Society = rules? I don't agree with you. Society = agreements. Generally agreements are two-sided. The kind of society where rules are decided by some nebulous organisation that does not respond to argument or criticism and expects everyone to follow them blindly is certainly not a society I wish to partake in. Being free does not give you license to discard that which you, in your own self, deem insensible when you are existing in a space where anyone but yourself exists. You operate in a world with billions of other humans, each with competing goals and diverging motivations. None of my actions are impinging on the freedom of others. Of course, my freedom to move my fist stops where the next person's nose begins - but I have not, in my original post, made any suggestions that I would do something that would hurt someone else. The least you can do is play by the rules that we, as a group, have decided are the compromise. I think a simple invocation of Godwin's law will demonstrate how retarded this point is. HELLO! YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING! YOU HAVE A BRAIN! YOU DO NOT, EVER, HAVE THE EXCUSE OF SAYING "WELL, THAT WAS AGREED BY OTHERS". Either that, or you're not a free human being. Your choice, in either case. As a bit of site commentary, I notice your post getting more and more grey as people remove points because they disagree. In this instance, I added a point because, though I disagree, I think that your post is a useful addition to the commentary. Thank you. That is sensible behaviour that, incidentally, contradicts your point about rule. Clearly the majority of people who voted on this issue also felt that I deserved to be downvoted. Why you decided to go against the obvious rule of the crowd is beyond me, but I am nevertheless grateful!
- techsupporter 14y ago
  > I think a simple invocation of Godwin's law will demonstrate how retarded this point is. HELLO! YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING! YOU HAVE A BRAIN! YOU DO NOT, EVER, HAVE THE EXCUSE OF SAYING "WELL, THAT WAS AGREED BY OTHERS". You left out the quote where I said "[u]nless the rule is unjust." Yes, this does undermine my point somewhat because I'm asking each individual to make a judgement call. I do ask that the level be moved well above "inconvenient to me" towards "bad for society." Mass holocaust? Bad for society, probably shouldn't follow that rule. Turn off your mobile phone because it may reduce the risk of firey death for 170+ people? Good for society, probably should follow that rule. Nothing I posit takes away your capacity to make decisions. If you can't or won't follow the just rules, as given, then don't partake of whatever requires those rules and, should you feel that passionate, campaign to change those rules. Having 85% of the people following the rules and 15% abusing the system by not following them is neither fair nor equitable. It does serve to desensitize adherence to society in the future.

robrenaud 14y ago

I'd personally love it if society had more people like swombat, rather than fewer. Of course, there is a risk when choosing to ignore rules that you are ignoring them because they you are an inconvenience to you but are generally good for society. Government incented/enforced vaccination would be a good example of such a reasonable though possibly annoying rule. I totally concede that point, and hence, individuals need to be especially mindful about their own self serving biases when choosing to disobey rules. But on the other hand, imagine if rules that effected tens of millions of people all had scientific studies about their tradeoffs, their risks, and their efficiency. How much less bullshit would we have to deal with? I think lots of big innovation is done by rule breakers. It's exactly what pg talks about in point 4 about wanting founders who are naughty. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html

DanBC 14y ago
> I'd personally love it if society had more people like swombat, rather than fewer. You might feel differently if you lived next to a rule breaker who had no concept of noise nuisance. "The Collector Collector" (Tibor Fischer) is a fun read; relevant here because he describes quite nicely the sense of entitlement that some criminals feel.
- swombat 14y ago
  > You might feel differently if you lived next to a rule breaker who had no concept of noise nuisance. I'm sure he would. As it happens, I am not typically a noise creator - but you are, today, downvoting my post and then replying to it within a minute of me posting it. I've kindly returned the favour.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    I did not down the post you replied to. I did downvote the your post that first replied to. I up voted the post where you said that you're not rude to airline staff. EDIT: > replying to it within a minute of me posting Timestamps disagree with you.
    - swombat 14y ago
      s/a minute/a few minutes/

swombat 14y ago

> "The rules," as you so aptly scare-quote, are not there solely to govern the actions of a single human being. They are there so that the system, as a whole, functions. A word exists for this: society. That's an interesting equation there. Society = rules? I don't agree with you. Society = agreements. Generally agreements are two-sided. The kind of society where rules are decided by some nebulous organisation that does not respond to argument or criticism and expects everyone to follow them blindly is certainly not a society I wish to partake in. Being free does not give you license to discard that which you, in your own self, deem insensible when you are existing in a space where anyone but yourself exists. You operate in a world with billions of other humans, each with competing goals and diverging motivations. None of my actions are impinging on the freedom of others. Of course, my freedom to move my fist stops where the next person's nose begins - but I have not, in my original post, made any suggestions that I would do something that would hurt someone else. The least you can do is play by the rules that we, as a group, have decided are the compromise. I think a simple invocation of Godwin's law will demonstrate how retarded this point is. HELLO! YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING! YOU HAVE A BRAIN! YOU DO NOT, EVER, HAVE THE EXCUSE OF SAYING "WELL, THAT WAS AGREED BY OTHERS". Either that, or you're not a free human being. Your choice, in either case. As a bit of site commentary, I notice your post getting more and more grey as people remove points because they disagree. In this instance, I added a point because, though I disagree, I think that your post is a useful addition to the commentary. Thank you. That is sensible behaviour that, incidentally, contradicts your point about rule. Clearly the majority of people who voted on this issue also felt that I deserved to be downvoted. Why you decided to go against the obvious rule of the crowd is beyond me, but I am nevertheless grateful!

techsupporter 14y ago
> I think a simple invocation of Godwin's law will demonstrate how retarded this point is. HELLO! YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING! YOU HAVE A BRAIN! YOU DO NOT, EVER, HAVE THE EXCUSE OF SAYING "WELL, THAT WAS AGREED BY OTHERS". You left out the quote where I said "[u]nless the rule is unjust." Yes, this does undermine my point somewhat because I'm asking each individual to make a judgement call. I do ask that the level be moved well above "inconvenient to me" towards "bad for society." Mass holocaust? Bad for society, probably shouldn't follow that rule. Turn off your mobile phone because it may reduce the risk of firey death for 170+ people? Good for society, probably should follow that rule. Nothing I posit takes away your capacity to make decisions. If you can't or won't follow the just rules, as given, then don't partake of whatever requires those rules and, should you feel that passionate, campaign to change those rules. Having 85% of the people following the rules and 15% abusing the system by not following them is neither fair nor equitable. It does serve to desensitize adherence to society in the future.