Dr Rick

Good one, Helen :notworthy

seebs

Maybe his do? After all, you sent some packets, and he responded with a NAK.

:P

Seriously, you have a very good point. Peers can and do resolve disputes without appeal to authority, unless we are to count reasoning itself as an "authority"... I suppose you could handwave and say that, if I decide to yield a point because it doesn't matter much to me, we have "appealed to authority" in the form of Emotion, but frankly, that strikes me as outright silly.

dk

Like it or not the US grows more formal as people become more egalitarian and egotistical. The excessive litigation we pay for makes the point quite elequently. Some people like it.

dk

Originally posted by dk
dk: Actually you weren�t in disagreement. Any negotiation over a disputed matter between peers that gets resolved, necessarily requires one party to compromise. Short of tossing a fair coin to resolve the dispute the party that compromises has become subordinate. There�s no other plausible option. Peers can�t resolve disputes, 1) they walk away, 2) put up their dukes or 3) escalate the matter to binding arbitration. There�s simply no other plausible alternative, all true peer-peer relationships are non-binding, or there�s a protocol that makes disputes impossible.
HelenM: I read the end of your post and I think you're wrong to think that you can infer from childhood sibling disputes or computer systems to how adult peer relationships work. What you say is impossible is not impossible. I hope that you aren't as inflexible in your own relationships as what you wrote indicates your beliefs are about peer-peer relationships. We don't have to interact like computers where you have to have things exactly right for the computer to do what you want. In human relationships, 99% or 90% or even 60% can be good enough to move forward.
dk: I�m surprised this particular issue generates this kind of controversy.

HelenM: Not necessarily. (Will you see that as tacit agreement too?)
dk: Peers can�t compromise, negation, barter or haggle. Peer relationships require protocols that both parties honor because they value the relationship. End of story, by necessity.
HelenM: Again, that inflexibility. But people are not computers...
dk: Does treating people with respect compute?

HelenM: In my opinion, dominance is not primarily determined by the comparative flexibility of the two people.
dk: Call it what you want, if you want to call a dominant person inflexible, fine.
HelenM: I didn't call a dominant person inflexible! Did you even read what I wrote?!
dk: Yes, in friendship where one person is flexibility and the other is inflexible, the inflexible person has to dominate, or the friendship ends.

HelenM: Well, isn't that a tautology? Directed implies hierarchy so of course directed work forms hierarchical patterns.
dk: bingo,
HelenM: So I said you stated the obvious and you said 'bingo'. So you agree you stated the obvious - that there was no meaningful content to what you said about directed work and hierarchy?
dk: Why argue over what�s obvious.

HelenM: If you were trying to indicate smartness then a good first step would be to read what I write carefully, before responding.
Anyway I suggest you stop assuming that human relationships work the same way as computer systems. Because they don't.
dk: I don�t follow�Treating a peer with respect makes friendship possible in my world.

HelenM

...and that's a good example of why you can't draw conclusions about human relationships from computers. There's nothing analogous to 'respect' in the computer world. If you type the right things it will work; if not it won't. The computer doesn't care about tone of voice and courtesy; it doesn't care whether you swear at it; etc

Helen

dk

So do you accept the premise?
What does industry mean by the term "level an organization" to cut out the middle?

HelenM

What premise?

What does an industry term have to do with this thread?

Helen

dk

I've stated and shown homosexuality lacks the necessary ethical form. The assertion has been challenged. In an egotistical world (ethical system) one's attraction to a sexual object is self evident i.e. self justifying. Yet women are rarely pedophiles or rapists, making pedophilia and rape a function of sexual form not sexual orientation. Freud reconciled the anomoly by saying women had a castrated superego. If there is an ethical form for homosexuality then this conflict needs to be resolved, or essentially homosexuality normalizes rape and pedophilia as self evident. There have been societies that ordered themselves (morality) accepting homosexuality e.g. the Anceint Greeks. In Ancient Greece the loyalty of plebes was bonded to the military ranks with homosexual acts, hazing. Ditto for many street gangs, fraternities, prisons and sport teams. There's a number of new parellels that come to mind in the post modern world. I'm willing to explore any of them, and am confident they all denigrate men, women and children as sexual objects.

yguy

What does the last sentence mean, and how does its conclusion follow from its premise? What is "sexual form"?

I don't understand this at all.

Dr Rick

You really should get some professional help