Jean de Rochefort wrote:
Regarding 1) Whenever a situation develops, you've got the choice between escalation and de-escalation--nothing else. If you're a party to the escalation, it's your choice--he made that choice by saying something.
Now, I'm not saying she was right. But he was definitely wrong(this is personal opinion formed out of the belief that the property owner has the right to run the business how he likes without my interference). Again, it's the business owners business. If you don't like people cutting the line, go somewhere else. If every business allows people to cut the line and you don't like it, start your own pizza shop where you'll take care of people who cut the line.
Isn't that a very indirect approach to solving the porblem?
I have trouble believing that the right thing to do in cases as these is standing up for what you believe as your right (being served in the order as you arrived at the pizza parlor) by never buying a pizza there ever again.
And if you say that some women ask to be raped (see further as well), aren't line cutters asking to be set straight? Or do you think that although the line cutter is asking for it, it's not the best thing to give her what she is asking for?
For those who disagree with me, it appears to me, that you have the belief that you have the right to direct the order of someone else's business.
My thought on that is that you subscribe to the same ideology as the line cutter. You have a belief about how things should be run and then you implement them.
You are right about this, great argument.
However, your argument rests on the assumption of consistency. And I for one do not claim to be consistent in words or actions, although most of the time I am. The problem is that consistency assumes a perspective from the outside in which two things, actions, etc. are stripped from their particulars untill they can be compared. That outside perspective is a world in which human life is impossible, we cannot leave our present conidition to ponder about things. My point is that such an outside perspective (needed for your consistency-argument) is irrelevant for actual human life.
So a line cutter cannot be compared to someone saying he/she shouldn't in the way you did. Someone cut the line and someone responded and yes, both are implementing their believes on what should and what shouldn't. But in different contexts: one was breaking a social convention ('first come, first serve') and the other was defending it. And that makes a big difference. (There are other differences, but this is in my opinion the most important one.)
Dan H., I do believe that a woman acting in a certain way is asking for it--in the same way that if I were tap dancing in front of a rattle snake, I'm asking to get bit. It's nature. You can't change that.
We change nature all the time by a means called culture. On the other hand, human culture is a key aspect of being human, so human culture is a form of nature as well.
Nevertheless, I can read your point in two ways:
1) you're being realistic about human nature. Unfortunately, in the right context our higher brain functions have no influence on us whatsoever.
2) you're using the natural = good argument, which is quite flawed. Laying your eggs in a living creature so they can hatch and eat the animal from inside out is natural, but not a good example of what we call the moral good.
I'm guessing you subscribe to 1, but I'm not entirely sure.