>But Peter, you still haven't told us where these rules come from. If you make them up, then they will make sense to you and not to somebody else. If someone else makes them up, then you may hate them. You keep talking about 'sensible' and 'good' rules. Your 'sensible' and 'good' may be somebody else's 'nonsens' and 'bad'.
>
>The greatest problem with this sort of argument is that when one talks of sensible, good rules, one is always talking about rules of which he/she would approve, and excluding rules of which he/she would not approve.
>
>So, I still come back to where these rules come from. Who gets to make them up? If it's me, then ok, I'll go along with the concept. Otherwise, I'm probably going to be opposed.
Neither my rules nor yours. How about the laws and acts that are already there? Or are they not okay? Don't you trust the laws of your own country? (The U.S. laws and acts are not wellknown to me.)
Groet,
Peter de Valença
Constructive frustration is the breeding ground of genius.
If there’s no willingness to moderate for the sake of good debate, then I have no willingness to debate at all.
Let's develop superb standards that will end the holy wars.
"There are three types of people: Alphas and Betas", said the beta decisively.
If you find this message rude or offensive or stupid, please take a step away from the keyboard and try to think calmly about an eventual a possible alternative explanation of my message.
