The part I wish to share is I find that I have tried always to be a gentleman. — tim wood

+3 virtue points for trying.

My mother long ago defining a gentleman as a man who never hurt anyone by accident ... — tim wood

... and who is proficient at recognizing when it is appropriate (and effectively how) to hurt or help anyone deliberately. 'To gadfly or not to gadfly' – that is our aporia.

[ ... ] Winston Churchill remarked on acknowledging the need to "bash one's opponent on the snout." I am not advocating snout-bashing. But when do the gloves come off? When has civility run its course? How ultimately does right prevail over wrong, reason exhausted, if not by snout-bashing, whether metaphorical or literal?

DON'T GET VACCINATED! :clap: :mask:

@tim wood @180 Proof

Why do I think of this whenever I read either one of you post about "gentlemen."

A little refresher course for all us gents.

...How ultimately does right prevail over wrong...?

It doesn't. If it did, being moral would be mere common sense prudence.

A little refresher course for all us gents. — praxis

Two thoughts. 1) What makes you think I want to be a gentleman? 2) If I were going to be one, I'd rather be one like Larry, Moe, and [Stooge name here] than whomever Tim Woods and 180 Proof are talking about.

1) But you are a gentleman, good Sir.

2) But you are also a stooge (often the butt of your own joke), good Sir.

But you are a gentleman, good Sir. — praxis

I'm brilliant, articulate, modest, amusing, deeply insightful, and, generally, right. But I am not a gentleman.

It is most gentlemenly to be agreeable so I will agree to disagree, thank you very much.

Do Gentlemen quote themselves?

Like @T Clark, I am not a gentleman. I try not to be simply awful and often succeed, but with less success than the putative Gentlemen achieves. Should a man aim to be a gentleman? They were "the lowest rank of the landed gentry", a step above the peasants. Aim higher, perhaps, for class supremacy?

Most of us came from peasant stock--go back a little ways--and most of us also came from the later working class, and/or are still. Not that peasants and workers are by nature slobs. I think of deep slovenliness as a feature of the better-off and way too-well-off classes. They can afford retainers to literally and figuratively clean things up for them.

Winston Churchill remarked on acknowledging the need to "bash one's opponent on the snout." I am not advocating snout-bashing. But when do the gloves come off? — tim wood

I tend to agree with Churchill.

However, if you ask me, I think the gloves should come off when dealing with China who is the real perpetrator.

The anti-vax crowd can be sorted out later should the need arise.

Hmmm. I don't really understand where this is heading but in the words of the now obscure 20th century philosopher Lana Turner, "A gentleman is simply a patient wolf."

Like T Clark, I am not a gentleman. — Bitter Crank

Hey! I am significantly less a gentleman than you are.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

... and who is proficient at recognizing when it is appropriate (and effectively how) to hurt or help anyone deliberately. 'To gadfly or not to gadfly' – that is our aporia. — 180 Proof

In game theory, cooperation for mutual benefit is the most beneficial strategy. All nice guys, all finish mutually beneficially. In a room of wolves, dog eat dog rules apply and the nice guy gets eaten.

"A gentleman is simply a patient wolf." — Tom Storm

Excellence in good quote finding.

:up:

I am an anti-vaccer myself.
I would like to apologize for any un-gentlemanly behavior done by other anti-vaccers on that thread.

It is a deeply sensitive topic, and we are not all emotionally self-aware enough to deal with difference of opinions.

If you willfully participate in the ostracization of people for exercising their inalienable right to bodily autonomy, you were never a gentleman to begin with.

Coupled with the threatening language - sheer frustration because one's will isn't being carried out: you are a powerless dictator, an inept tyrant, and you hardly find yourself out of company on this forum.

The seeds of tyranny live in all of us, but nowhere does it flourish quite like in the minds of arrogant intellectuals.

How ultimately does right prevail over wrong, reason exhausted, if not by snout-bashing, whether metaphorical or literal? — tim wood

As a gentleman of fortune myself, I prefer kicking them in their private parts.

I think what was quoted was brilliant. I am going to start using it to discredit anyone who believes something I don't believe.
It can even be used to argue against those who don't believe in God, as you can see here:
---------------------
"To those continuing to fight against God:

"Your questions and demands for evidence will always outweigh whatever can be given, and will shift once the answer or evidence has been given. It's like whack-a-mole. That's why I encourage others not to get into the weeds, but to always keep in mind the bigger picture. It's not driven by good-faith assessment of the data -- it's picking and choosing data. It's the same tactic that Materialists use: poke as many holes as you can, identify apparent contradictions, mis-quote, tell half-truths, etc. When all else fails, shift to an entirely different question.

"What this all comes down to, ultimately, is the fact that this issue has been politicized. Like the issue of the spiritual change of the social climate, because it's been politicized there are all kinds of laymen, especially online, making claims about the Son, about Supernatural variation, about spiritual scientists, etc. You see them on YouTube, on Facebook, on Twitter. But they're all repeating things they've heard from their sources, and their sources happen to be completely and demonstrably wrong, and their arguments don't hold any water when analyzed in detail.

"The anti-Christs (forgive the label) are doing exactly the same thing. It's a mistake -- simple as that.

"If you're afraid to give God a shot and want to find reasons for not opening your heart to Him, even after centuries and billions of miracles, and after every major religious and spiritual organization in the world recommends prayer, then you'll certainly find reasons.

"If you're already convinced the religious establishment is untrustworthy, and that overwhelming consensus and advice can be ignored, then you'll find reasons for believing that -- and no amount of debate will change your mind, especially on the Internet.

"The question is: why so afraid of God in the first place? And why so distrustful of religion and divine intervention?

"It seems to me it's a selective skepticism.

Buddha was not a gentleman, was he?

If you willfully participate in the ostracization of people for exercising their inalienable right to bodily autonomy, you were never a gentleman to begin with. — Tzeentch

Good point. There seems to be a tendency to grant or deny the right to bodily autonomy in line with our political agendas.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

If you willfully participate in the ostracization of people for exercising their inalienable right to bodily autonomy, you were never a gentleman to begin with. — Tzeentch

I have no problem with you refusing to get vaccinated as long as you have no problem with being restricted in your behavior so that other people won't be infected.

Good point. There seems to be a tendency to grant or deny the right to bodily autonomy in line with our political agendas. — Apollodorus

There is a long history of requiring vaccination before someone can participate in public life. The best example is the requirement that children be vaccinated against childhood diseases before they can attend school. All fifty states in the US have such requirements. These are not controversial or politically divisive requirements.

Bodily autonomy is good. Stand up for your rights but don't whine when your public access is restricted. It's not punishment, it is making sure that you face the consequences of your own behavior.

It's not punishment, it is making sure that you face the consequences of your own behavior. — T Clark

If someone has to 'make sure' of it, it wasn't a consequence was it, prior to the making sure?

The consequences of our actions are usually considered to be those things which result from them without someone having to intervene to make it so.

If someone has to 'make sure' of it, it wasn't a consequence was it, prior to the making sure?

The consequences of our actions are usually considered to be those things which result from them without someone having to intervene to make it so. — Isaac

The consequence I'm talking about is the possible infection of other people, which result from failure to be vaccinated whether or not someone makes sure. Any further discussion in this vein probably belongs on the Corona virus thread. I probably shouldn't have stuck my nose in. How many times have I said that?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

There is a long history of requiring vaccination before someone can participate in public life. — T Clark

True. But those that are vaccinated are supposed to be protected?

And I don't see why China should get away with it when that is where the problem originated.