21–30 of 120 posts
Expecting everyone within a group to be reasonable is not reasonable.
"Expecting" everyone within a group to be reasonable is another way of saying: if you are consistently unreasonable, you won't be considered part of the group.
There WILL be disagreements and conflict because so many things are not objective and there is no rational right answer. Guns, abortion, gender, rights everything has a gambit of perfectly reasonable and acceptable positions along its spectrum. Many of which are contrarian by nature.
We solve this dilemma in one of two ways. Blood and fire until 'they' are gone or learning to live together despite having differing moral structures.
Expecting everyone within a group to be reasonable is not reasonable.
I can't tell if this is satire.
I can't tell if this is satire.
"The Reasonable Person Principle is part of the unwritten culture of CMU computer science" Hmmmm.
We are not debuggers and are expected to look beyond words and grasp intent.
I can't tell if this is satire.
the fact that you can't is itself an indicator as to what has happened in American culture, in general.
How is 'reasonable' different from 'rational'? And don't both these terms beg the question of ultimate ends and/or values?
Rationality is optimization. Reasonableness is aesthetics.
A very clear and cogent overview of a structure. Simple to cite. Pragmatic and practical - I think it's quite a positive to have for an organization. > Not all people share the same model of reasonableness, so disagreements inevitably occur. Under the reasonable person principle, the first thing to do is work it out privately (perhaps in person, since e-mail is known to amplify feelings). Indeed, many people would fi…
I can't tell if this is satire.
the fact that you can't is itself an indicator as to what has happened in American culture, in general.