an admonition never to hurt, never to cause pain, and always to act "correctly." — tim wood

The first gentlemanly, expending their treasure of time and energy being more-or-less educators, thoughtful in presentation and argument, reasonable, sometimes even conciliatory. — tim wood

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology

As a gentleman of fortune myself, I prefer kicking them in their private parts. — Olivier5

Thus proving that might makes right.

So what's the answer? 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? — tim wood

If one has to ask such things, one never had any civility to begin with, and always fought bare knuckled anyway.

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

Might makes right, hm? Might makes right.

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

Make that: wannabe intellectuals.

If you feel like you have to "be something" at certain times but not others you're simply not what you're trying to be and are an actor. So act as you deem necessary. The world is a stage some say, and after all the show must go on.

I'll re-interpret this as something along the lines of "when to not be a douche", you have your opinions and others have theirs. Personally I happen to know foul behavior only appeases and attracts foul people into your life and only a fool would be taken back at the realization that what you put out and the people who deem degeneracy to be acceptable end up being degenerates and foul in your own life are your own just desserts, ordered at a premium with the lion's share of your time and mind. Though, I suppose there's exceptions. All warfare is based on deception after all. You can't trim the diseased branches of a larger system from beneath it now can you.

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.

That doesn’t sound like a fair compromise. Only the infected can infect others, and the infected are both vaccinated and unvaccinated. So why would you restrict their behavior but not the others?

Stop being stupid, eh. If you're going to read, try to understand what you're reading. If you're going to remark on posts, try to understand what they're about.

try to understand what they're about. — tim wood

They are about your right to despise others and to kill them for not complying with your ideas about how they should be.

So why would you restrict their behavior but not the others? — NOS4A2

Aren't the unvaccinated about four times more likely to get infected? Whatever the statistics show exactly, it's just math and probabilities.

They are about your right to despise others and to kill them for not complying with your ideas about how they should be. — baker

Now you're being silly, to the point of a kind of madness.

I think he's channeling the attitude and spirit of one Jonathon Swift, author of "A Modest Proposal". Sometimes one needs to see the extreme of their belief to see not just the unseen potential volatility of it, but the potential strength of an opposing one. Which interestingly enough doesn't necessarily change the rationale of either. Key word being necessarily.

Edit: Energy is life. Active vs. inactive. Kinetic vs. potential. One demands attention as it is of the here and now, reality even. Though the other could easily end up being the attention of demand for an entire lifetime.

Aren't the unvaccinated about four times more likely to get infected? Whatever the statistics show exactly, it's just math and probabilities.

Perhaps. But those who are not infectious can never infect others. If we are to deign to enforce segregation we should segregate the infectious from the uninfected. It would be the gentlemanly thing to do.

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

Congratulations, Tzeentch...you have been successfully propagandized. You seem to have subliminally bought into the ("democratic"?) concept that the species of monkey called "homo sapiens" is naturally possessed of "inalienable rights" of any description. Whence flows such an apparent inherency? Does a baboon have rights? A gecko? A snail? Do any of the ants I step on regularly have the right not to be stepped on by myself; am I a felon for so violating said rights?

Truth is, there are no "inalienable rights"; this concept is a fiction, best suited to fanatical French revolutionaries and "activists" of various types (yes, that most prolific of hypocrites, Jefferson, was wrong in his assertions within the Declaration). It is utterly illusory, a fiction imposed upon the mass consciousness by government in order to ensure an orderly society which facilitates commerce, and more importantly protects the State's basis of power: popular support.

As a matter of fact, so-called "rights" in general, do not exist in nature. All of our assumed "rights", human, civil, or otherwise, which are assumed to exist in human societies, are bestowed by fiat from the prevailing power, in the current age, whatever national government has jurisdiction over a particular person. If the prevailing power changes (and this can happen in a multitude of ways), then the "rights" granted people change with it. This means that all assumed "rights" of people are qiute particularly alienable, characterized by great changeability. If tomorrow there occurs a global thermonuclear war, and afterwards I am left alone on the planet with my good buddy "Bubba" (you know the guy...one's hypothetical prison cellmate in the nightmares), I will be sure to have whatever and only those rights that "Bubba" says I have...my previously assumed "rights" will have been alienated from myself. Might makes right, and "rights" flow from temporal power, and as such there is nothing inalienable about them.

In brief: I can accept the fact of "rights", but only as unnatural, artificial, and provisional conceptions. We should not be using the idea of "inalienable rights" in making our deliberations. Not that this materially changes your assertion as alluded to above, @Tzeentch, but one should be careful of introducing erroneous concepts into otherwise valid arguments.

Yeah, right, that would be ideal. We really should have done that right from the start, locked down all the infectious people, allowing all the healthy people to run where they please, and congregate freely. Then the virus would be confined, and soon eradicated as the infectious people either died or became noninfectious. But the disease is insidious, so we have to play the odds.

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

This is a really succinct, really full, really nuanced, and really subtle definition. Basically, I take it to mean that a "gentleman" is a man who is ever thoughtful and aware. I can find no fault with this, particularly as it leaves plenty of leeway for intentionally hurting those who subjectively appear to deserve it. Your mom seems to have "known what time it was".

One can be a gentleman and, out the other side of the mouth, write authoritarian and paternalistic piffle. So long as his strength in manners and dignity override his cowardice in emotion and thought, he can do no harm. Even Marquis de Sade was a gentleman.

Thus proving that might makes right. — baker

Some people have no decency and they don't deserve to be treated decently. They are just assholes.

For those who confuse gentlemen with pacifists:

Some people have no decency and they don't deserve to be treated decently. They are just assholes. — Olivier5

Name one person who has no decency. It's clear everyone is mixed. Some people have sunk more into their greedy selfish side, some have risen higher toward their selfless side.

But if such absolute categories help you to sleep at night...well, I can't argue the importance of sleep!

Name one person who has no decency. — Yohan

Trump?

Trump? — Olivier5

“You know, it really doesn`t matter what (the media) write as long as you`ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”
― Donald Trump

Evil exists. We ignore it at our peril.

Oh come now, how can we or at least expect others to identify with, let alone vote for someone or something they deem 'non relatable'.

It may be a shite show but at least the performers are entertaining enough to detract from the hopeless nature of what is or at least could easily be. Easy counter though, it's a downward and destructive spiral of who can exhibit/inspire the most immoral and unscrupulous behavior in not just themselves but in others while still being able to look at the man in the mirror at the end of the day. Opposing view, which is hard for the non-theist (and even then) to grasp is, we may miss it if/when it's ever gone.

↪Yohan Evil exists. We ignore it at our peril. — Olivier5

The most destructive idea Man ever came up with was that people fall into the categories of good or evil.

Animals are not good or evil. Its easy to recognize, if a dog is disagreeable it probably had disagreeable experiences that made it distrustful or cynical of others.
Or it has rabies. Or its starving and will kill anyone for a meal.
Nature or nurture. What other cause could there be?

If you think humans are any different, its probably because you are holding onto archaic religious concepts of a soul.

If you think humans are any different, its probably because you are holding onto archaic religious concepts of a soul. — Yohan

So you would like to be treated like an animal?

So you would like to be treated like an animal? — Olivier5

Depends. Humans can be far more cruel to humans than animals, since they don't usually label animals as evil when they are maladjusted. I'd rather be treated like a dumb animal than judged as a evil human and treated accordingly.

You know in some cultures people are stoned to death for adultery.
I bet they use the same kinds of arguments used in this thread for when it is justified being un-gentlemanly.

I'd rather be treated like a dumb animal than judged as a evil human and treated accordingly. — Yohan

That's not what he asked. Dumb animals get eaten or if deemed 'dangerous' by humans are put down. 'Evil' humans are either legally liable as criminals or not. Though mob rule and even individual vendettas do offer a plethora of equally undesirable outcomes.

You know in some cultures people are stoned to death for adultery. — Yohan

Heh, yeah there's this one culture called humanity. I've seen much worse happen to people who commit adultery, and not just toward the women either. I suppose it may support your argument but, you don't often see that in the animal kingdom. It's overshadowed by the constant stench of indiscriminate death.

I notice you capitalize 'man', giving some sort of recognizable distinction. Others do this by allocating the belief of a soul. You have much in common with those you wish to differentiate yourself from.

You know in some cultures people are stoned to death for adultery. — Yohan

And what? That's evil?

As I said, ignore evil at your peril.

I notice you capitalize 'man', giving some sort of recognizable distinction. Others do this by allocating the belief of a soul. You have much in common with those you wish to differentiate yourself from. — Outlander

True.

You know in some cultures people are stoned to death for adultery. — Yohan
And what? That's evil?
As I said, ignore evil at your peril. — Olivier5

Keep your primitive notions of good and evil if they help you sleep at night.

Keep your primitive notions of good and evil if they help you sleep at night. — Yohan

"Primitive" in your sentence codes for "evil", right?