[Howlin]

The fact that one party may negate rules does not imply that the other party should have carte blance to do so. On the other hand, I see no moral imperative for unilateral disarmament either.

So we're now embracing situational ethics? Good to know.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Gosh Howlin, this sure brings back memories.

I remember Steve Forbes never passed the Keyes supporters religious purity test.

[supercat]

So we're now embracing situational ethics? Good to know.

Much of society is held together by unwritten rules which people follow in treating others because they hope others will follow the same rules with them in return.

Although some of the rules should be followed regardless of what anyone else does, others should not be followed when dealing with those who flout them.

A game in which one side plays scrupulously by the rules while the other side violates them with reckless abandon is apt to get more out of control than one in which the scrupulous person is willing to take advantage of the other player's "easing" of the rules. After all, in the latter game, the would-be violator has to be aware of the consequences of opening Pandora's box; in the former, he will be able to flout the rules more and more eggregiously until something is done.