“To choose not to choose” is another way of saying “to opt out!”
Is this what were all about now? Do we go to war in Iraq? …. Is a “pre-emptive policy acceptable?
Do we “choose not to choose?”
Do we start other deceptive discussions like …Do we need U.N. agreement first? …. Do we need a “coalition” first? …. Is a policy of “profiling” appropriate for efficient law enforcement? … Is a “racial” component necessary to adequately report an incident or is this “discrimination”?
Do we “choose not to choose?”
Could the reason we “choose not to choose” be that choice makes us identifiable and responsible?
Could making a specific choice keep us from being able to hide? ….. Could “opting out” be safer?
Could “changing the subject” be a way of not having to “make a choice”?
Could loud yelling, noisy demonstrations, not engaging in legitimate and reasonable debate be a way of “not” having to “make a choice”?
Could excuses like “having a headache”, “I haven’t the time for this discussion now”, “I can’t do anything about it so why should I worry about it” be another way of “opting out”?
What do we do to encourage people to “choose not to choose”?
How do we make people feel more secure so they won’t “opt out”?
Is stating the real “facts” enough? …. Is presenting a “logical case” enough? …. Is giving complete information an answer?
NOT TO SOME PEOPLE!!!
If 80% of the general populace is reasonably “logical” what do you have to do with the other 20%?
If you want to stay “politically correct”, you do nothing.
If you want to accomplish something or change something, you have to “enforce”. You must have “enforceable rules”. You, also, must acknowledge the fact that certain people do not react to “normal civilized behavior”. Remember, this applies only to the cases where you want to accomplish something or, at least, change something. This has to do with the conversational environment in “community meetings and school classrooms, etc. Someone has to “remove” the agitating parties. This is NOT a “Free Speech” issue. There’s a time and a place where ALL activities can be exercised. This is NOT the place “when you are trying to accomplish or change something”.
If you want to “let off steam”, exercise your right of free speech, demonstrate for a particular point of view, etc. there is always a “right” place, “another place”.
There is a certain point of view that “allows” the forcible removal of groups that are preventing an orderly meeting or a rational debate to take place. This “removal” concept has to do with locations that include classrooms, private meetings, or any venue where the purpose is to change or accomplish something.
Again, two things …. The first is …. that this is “a certain point of view” and secondly, this is not an exercise in “free speech”!
And again, there is another point of view which “disallows” this idea entirely.
The Author’s thoughts specifically pertain to meetings where something is to be changed or accomplished!!! The Author , personally believes that there doesn’t seem to be “a successful alternative” to the forcible removal of agitators or activists who don’t want to engage in discussion but merely wish to express a certain view.
To have a Master at Arms or a Supervisor simply remove a person or persons from a group that is trying to achieve something seems the only way to achieve order and civility. Further, to state beforehand that this is what you intend to do is NOT something to apologize for … rather, this gives a clear description of “the Rules”.
Of course you could “choose not to choose” and be everybody’s friend. You could change your desire to accomplish or change and make this a place for everybody to have “free speech”. This is always an option!
To be “pro-active”, to “enforce” is NOT “politically correct” but what is your choice if you want to civilly accomplish or change something?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment