Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 17, 2017 Author Share Posted April 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: It absolutely is if one person has power and another does not. You may not like it, but that's how it goes in these types of situations. Tywin, If a police officer without a warrant asks to come into my house and I tell him "No" am I "escalating" the situation? If a police officer, without a warrant, asks to search my car and I say "no" am I escalating that situation? My questions are trying to determine if you believe refusing voluntary assent is somehow an "escalation" of a situation wherein consent is not required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 17, 2017 Author Share Posted April 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Not really. Almost every expert I've listen to has said that United had the right (let's pause for a second and laugh about rights) to request Dao be removed from the plane. And again, it was the airport's security that acted out of line, not United. I've got a legal question for you Ser Scot. If it was an airport staffer and not a United employee that original requested for security, would that absolve United of any liability? No clue. It would certainly create a question regarding proximate causation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Tywin, If a police officer without a warrant asks to come into my house and I tell him "No" am I "escalating" the situation? If a police officer, without a warrant, asks to search my car and I say "no" am I escalating that situation? My questions are trying to determine if you believe refusing voluntary assent is somehow an "escalation" of a situation wherein consent is not required. No, but this isn't a good analogy. Ask these questions again assuming that the officer has a legally obtained warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: It absolutely is if one person has power and another does not. You may not like it, but that's how it goes in these types of situations. It really, really doesn't. You'd have to search pretty hard to find a better definition of "abuse of power". Such thinking is ONLY acceptable if you happen to live in a police state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 17, 2017 Author Share Posted April 17, 2017 6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: No, but this isn't a good analogy. Ask these questions again assuming that the officer has a legally obtained warrant. Why? You are presuming that your position that the removal of Dr. Dao was legally proper is legally correct. That has not been established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: It absolutely is if one person has power and another does not. You may not like it, but that's how it goes in these types of situations. It absolutely is not. It's not an 'escalation' to say 'no' to anyone, in any circumstances. It's particularly dangerous to say that the possession of power and authority in and of itself justifies a forceful response to peaceful non-compliance. This is not an 'is' discussion, by the way, and never has been. It's an 'ought'. We're discussing justification here, and hence blame. It seems like you blame the victim in this case, and it's leading you to defend abuse of power generally. 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: No, but this isn't a good analogy. Ask these questions again assuming that the officer has a legally obtained warrant. The answers don't change. He may have the right to search, but it is still not an 'escalation' to object to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Why? You are presuming that your position that the removal of Dr. Dao was legally proper is legally correct. That has not been established. Again most experts say that it is, and it's been an accepted practice for ages. Though I suspect that's likely to change 6 minutes ago, Which Tyler said: It really, really doesn't. You'd have to search pretty hard to find a better definition of "abuse of power". Such thinking is ONLY acceptable if you happen to live in a police state. Such hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 Hyperbole? Pretty much dictionary definition thanks. Status quo ≠ escalation, by definition. Having power over someone does not make you right by default, and does mean that non-compliance = escalation. Thinking it does IS an abuse of power. Thinking that an abuse of power is both legally and ethically right is a pretty good definition for living in a police state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 United already has changed their policy. I don't care if Dao is a piece of shit every other moment of his life. He accomplished something that day as far as I'm concerned. Since they've changed the policy, the legality or "united's right to do it" are only going to matter for the lawsuit and/or settlement. If the law declares United did nothing wrong it's not really going to be a win for United, they've already lost this battle big time. No matter how much of a right they had to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 26 minutes ago, mormont said: It absolutely is not. It's not an 'escalation' to say 'no' to anyone, in any circumstances. It's particularly dangerous to say that the possession of power and authority in and of itself justifies a forceful response to peaceful non-compliance. This is not an 'is' discussion, by the way, and never has been. It's an 'ought'. We're discussing justification here, and hence blame. It seems like you blame the victim in this case, and it's leading you to defend abuse of power generally. Good luck to that mentality. As a mod, if you tell someone to stop doing something, for example calling people "illegals" in the U.S. politics thread, and they respond by saying "no, f off," they've escalated the situation. They've forced you to intensify the situation, which is, ya know, the text book definition of escalation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Which Tyler said: Having power over someone does not make you right by default, and does mean that non-compliance = escalation. Thinking it does IS an abuse of power. Thinking that an abuse of power is both legally and ethically right is a pretty good definition for living in a police state. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I never said that it makes you right by default, just that the person without power is escalating the situation by defying the orders given to them by someone with power, and in many cases they're right to do so. I just don't think this is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 why don't they make the whole plane out of terms and conditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I never said that it makes you right by default, just that the person without power is escalating the situation by defying the orders given to them by someone with power, and in many cases they're right to do so. I just don't think this is one of them. So... you do consider peaceful non-compliance to be escalation, as opposed to maintainable of the status quo. So if I'm sitting in my seat, and choose to remain sitting in my seat, I'd be the one escalating things. The escalation came from United by chaning a request into an order, and further escalated by calling security; then escalated again by turning it from peaceful into violent. Refusing an order is not escalation; turning a request into an order is; as is turning peace into violence. Expecting your order to be obeyed because you're in a position of power, is an abuse of power. Expecting it to be obeyed because you're in a position of power AND entitled to give the order (contestable in this case) is not an abuse of power. Refusing that order is still not escalation though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 4 hours ago, r'hllor's reformed lobster said: why don't they make the whole plane out of terms and conditions? Same reason they don't make the whole thing out of the black box I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Which Tyler said: So... you do consider peaceful non-compliance to be escalation, as opposed to maintainable of the status quo. So if I'm sitting in my seat, and choose to remain sitting in my seat, I'd be the one escalating things. The escalation came from United by chaning a request into an order, and further escalated by calling security; then escalated again by turning it from peaceful into violent. Refusing an order is not escalation; turning a request into an order is; as is turning peace into violence. All of it is escalating the situation. Obviously United and the airport's security did the lion's share of it, but that does not absolve Dr. Dao of any escalation. 1 hour ago, Which Tyler said: Expecting your order to be obeyed because you're in a position of power, is an abuse of power. Expecting it to be obeyed because you're in a position of power AND entitled to give the order (contestable in this case) is not an abuse of power. Refusing that order is still not escalation though. What? Expecting your order to be obeyed is not an abuse of power in and of itself, and you can be entitled to give the order and still be abusing your power. I don't think it's contestable in this case as far as security goes. There's some room to debate if United can bump passengers because of their own mistake, but there isn't for if security has the power to order someone off of the plane. And let's be clear, if a person in a position of authority gives someone under said authority a command and they refuse, they are escalating the situation. They may be completely justified in their refusal, but it's still an escalation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 45 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: All of it is escalating the situation. Obviously United and the airport's security did the lion's share of it, but that does not absolve Dr. Dao of any escalation. What? Expecting your order to be obeyed is not an abuse of power in and of itself, and you can be entitled to give the order and still be abusing your power. I don't think it's contestable in this case as far as security goes. There's some room to debate if United can bump passengers because of their own mistake, but there isn't for if security has the power to order someone off of the plane. And let's be clear, if a person in a position of authority gives someone under said authority a command and they refuse, they are escalating the situation. They may be completely justified in their refusal, but it's still an escalation. So if a cop orders me to allow a cavity search during a roadside sobriety test, and I refuse, I'm escalating the situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: So if a cop orders me to allow a cavity search during a roadside sobriety test, and I refuse, I'm escalating the situation? Certainly. Particularly if you forcibly resist. I would suggest that you'd be perfectly correct in escalating the situation under those circumstances, but it's an escalation none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 14 hours ago, larrytheimp said: So if a cop orders me to allow a cavity search during a roadside sobriety test, and I refuse, I'm escalating the situation? Duh? I'm genuinely stunned that many of you guys are not comprehending this basic concept......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 18, 2017 Author Share Posted April 18, 2017 10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Duh? I'm genuinely stunned that many of you guys are not comprehending this basic concept......... Tywin, So, if I refuse to allow a cop to stick his finger up my ass on the side of the road it is my refusal... not his order... that escalates the situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Tywin, So, if I refuse to allow a cop to stick his finger up my ass on the side of the road it is my refusal... not his order... that escalates the situation? Yes. And you'd be right to do so. Why do we always have to fight over what the definition of "is" is? ETA: es·ca·la·tion ˌeskəˈlāSH(ə)n/ noun a rapid increase; a rise. "cost escalations" synonyms: increase, rise, hike, growth, leap, upsurge, upturn, climb More an increase in the intensity or seriousness of something; an intensification. "an escalation of violence" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.