Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Anger]

And the Golden Rule applies differently to different people.

I, for one, would prefer if someone tells me that I’m doing things incorrectly. I don’t mind people correcting my mistakes, just as I will correct mistakes that I see. However, there are people out there who will not correct others and see any attempts at correcting them as personal affronts. See how this no longer works? Whose definition of the Golden Rule are we going by?

Different cultures have different ways of treating individuals; they have different standards. They may coincide with your own, or they may not. So, whose culture are we following here? Mine? Yours? Japan’s? America’s? England’s?


It’s narrow-sighted of you to try and apply your logical skills, your reasoning skills, and your version of “the Golden Rule” to other people because we all don’t think the way you do. Just like they don’t think the way I do. Or the way another poster does. The irony of this is, is that you are all for others not “dictating” their opinions on other people when you are trying to “dictate” your mindset and way of thinking onto others.

This rule is unenforceable. You cannot just apply a blanket to people of different backgrounds, upbringings, cultures, and traditions and call it a day.

Morals and morality go so far beyond “play nice, kids”. If you don’t understand that, then I don’t know what to say to you.

The way for determining a "reasonable person" is not based on culture. It's commonly used by lawyers. You're interpreting "reasonable person" incorrectly which is why you believe the rules are too vague, need a cultural distinction, or must be expounded upon.

"The reasonable person belongs to a family of hypothetical figures in law including: the "right-thinking member of society," the "officious bystander," the "reasonable parent," the "reasonable landlord," the "fair-minded and informed observer," the "person having ordinary skill in the art" in patent law, and stretching back to Roman jurists, the figure of the bonus paterfamilias,[1] all used to define legal standards. While there is a loose consensus in black letter law, there is no accepted technical definition. As with legal fiction in general, it is somewhat susceptible to ad hoc manipulation or transformation, and hence the "reasonable person" is an emergent concept of common law.[3] The "reasonable person" is used as a tool to standardize, teach law students, or explain the law to a jury.[2]"