Originally Posted by thunkybunny
Since we're back off-topic, what we have here is a difference not of opinions but rather a difference between relativism and strategy. Protectionism is a strategy of the weak, but it works well for the weak. Weaker relationships need protection while stronger ones do not because they can compete with outsiders. It's an interesting dilemma. How do you know your relationship is strong enough not to depend on protectionism to survive?
Furthermore, is survival enough?
any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.
(going with this definition hope its what you meant)
Strategy:a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result.
(this was all I could find-but I think the POINT holds through it)
any program, policy, or system of laws that seeks to provide protection for property owners, wildlife, the environment, etc.
What I think you are saying...
is that the difference of views here is more a matter of some people thinking in terms of relativism (you and possibly me at this point) and others thinking in terms of strategy (possibly RP/Mono and I didn't read further back so only using you two cause I know you two! cheating i know)...
Actually that makes sense to me-as Mono often talks about things in a very strategic way-which makes more sense in light of his background.
Strategy is a strong tool. BUT it can be weakened if you don't know the "enemy" so to speak. A good strategy depends on personal knowledge of not only YOUR goal, but also your "enemies" goal and their likely strategy.
Where as for me-I see each situation as being completely dependent on the circumstances... funny-I think this has identified one of the KEY issues in communication between Maca and I..... I dont' know how to explain it! Damn! That was mentally enlightening but I lack words.
So basically RP- you are (guessing no offense intended) looking at a potential problem and saying, this behavior will keep that potential from being damaging.
Whereas Thunk (again guessing no offense intended) is looking at it more as a... hmm IF that is a potential problem, what are the possible reasons? How might the problem be avoided by changing little details (versus making more rules)? Who has the power to impact it and in what ways?
He's (she's) painting it in a MUCH broader brush like painting a lighthouse with strict lines versus painting a "fuzzy" soft colored "basic idea of the area" that all blends together (yes I know there is a name for it, but I'm not an artist and don't know it)
Protectionism IS a strategy of/for the weak. It DOES work well for what it's intention is, but it is limiting as well.
Much like raising children, we are VERY protective and "controlling" of their every moment at first. But as they gain strength we let them fall sometimes-because it strengthens and teaches them.. ultimately because we want them to be able to independently survive...
Is survival enough?
I say no. Some would say yes I suppose.
But I guess the FIRST step IS to survive. Is it maslow that has that pyramid of needs?
Anyway-you can't work on the upper aspects of the pyramid without having fulfilled the lower ones right?
So yes-survival IS ABSOLUTELY necessary. But once you have survival well in hand-there is so much further one can go....
so for me-no survival isn't enough-which was how I found this board in the first place! And I am SO happy that I did!!