Re: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?
Posted: 2 Nov 2017, 9:13am
Aggression on the road is never acceptable and I think that's probably a commonly held view here. To imply that through body language or some sort of unwitting behaviour, cyclists may bring aggression to themselves is as flawed as justifying bullying on the basis that the victim was asking for it. It has associated with it a danger of imposing the responsibility on to the injured party. It would seem totally wrong now to say that the clothes someone chose to wear was a way of asking to be sexually assaulted, yet this seemed to be what the perpetrators of these crimes saw as a valid mitigation for their offences. If the enforcers then have a culture reflecting this belief, then justice is going to be a long way off.
Just a few sentences on a pet peeve of mine regarding direct quotes.
Whilst I see that this can be an effective way of debate which I welcome from some standpoints, I also see them as detracting from the original content. The classic taking words "out of context" has been done with my content many times here. I welcome comments about my content and also feel a bit frustrated when snippets of sentences are selected and appear to be used as a way to further an argument which, to my best efforts I have not engaged in. I try to construct my posts in a balanced and reflective manner which befits my morals and philosophy. It can totally destroy the intentions of the content to post sections of sentences and then somehow construct an argument on an idea which I personally either never intended or expanded on later. The result is that content can be manipulated in favour of the quoter, to further their argument or in an attempt to invalidate mine. Direct quoting can have real benefits when applied in the spirit of the original content. My expectation is that the quoting facility would be used with great care by those trusted to regulate the very content they are charged with overseeing. That they would be balanced and reflect the narrative of the original content and not introduce bias or meaning which was never originally intended.
Just a few sentences on a pet peeve of mine regarding direct quotes.
Whilst I see that this can be an effective way of debate which I welcome from some standpoints, I also see them as detracting from the original content. The classic taking words "out of context" has been done with my content many times here. I welcome comments about my content and also feel a bit frustrated when snippets of sentences are selected and appear to be used as a way to further an argument which, to my best efforts I have not engaged in. I try to construct my posts in a balanced and reflective manner which befits my morals and philosophy. It can totally destroy the intentions of the content to post sections of sentences and then somehow construct an argument on an idea which I personally either never intended or expanded on later. The result is that content can be manipulated in favour of the quoter, to further their argument or in an attempt to invalidate mine. Direct quoting can have real benefits when applied in the spirit of the original content. My expectation is that the quoting facility would be used with great care by those trusted to regulate the very content they are charged with overseeing. That they would be balanced and reflect the narrative of the original content and not introduce bias or meaning which was never originally intended.