h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've often held the belive that most rules that are legitimit are based upon what people find 'personaly offensive', if a person is ofended by people mentioning spiders and the're afraid of such creatures, then why would this not be a rule? I say majority wins, and if enough people in the comunity find it offensive then it becomes a rule not to. It dosn't mean that a person mentioning such 'offensive' things is bad, just that he's likly to get clobbered with a ban.

P.S, I loved the artical, it has enlighted a number of things for me.

-- DoctorMO --

Hi Dr Mo!

Thanks for you comments - it's good to know that the article's been read!

"Offence" is a tricky concept. There are plenty of things that I find offensive, but that I wouldn't want to (or feel justified in wanting to) be banned. I suppose there's a difference between something that is just offensive and something that is an attack on something or some value that is a part of a person's (or another person's) identity or concept of themselves. But I wouldn't even begin to know how to go about defining it!

I think there's a lot to be said for community rights (as you say) was well as for individual rights. And I think the distinction that you make between a person being bad and them saying something inappropriate is also a good one. Moderation etc should not usually be a personal attack.

Best wishes, and thanks for responding,

Otto

I've often woundered, has a comunity got a combined life of it's own, were by The comunity moves forward only though the actions of inderviduals doing things for the comunity, a bit like all the indervidual cells in a body, working together to make a whole. and yet a person (or at least the brain) dosn't lisen to every single cell and what it's problms are, because the comunity can't handle everyones views at the same time. but what it can do is give a sumery, i.e. my leg hurts, rather than cells 45067 though 47302 are damaged.

-- DoctorMO --