A Question of Ettiquette

[bhsup]

Well, it was better than saying that I would redirect my trajectory and just pee on anyone that barged in on me. I was actually trying to be relatively polite.

 

[wilycoyote]

1) If the etiquette isn't different for a child, then the example is not an entirely valid analogy, which I know isn't exactly what you were trying to make anyway. The example is a specific situation under specific circumstances.

2) It is about personal responsibility. Either you can lock the door, a 100% reliable (under the circumstances listed) primary preventative action that involves you taking responsibility for yoursef, or you can expect others to knock on the door, a secondary failsafe action that involves expecting others to be responsible for you. What could be a more appropriate barometer for measuring the correctness of an etiquette question than first determining whether each individual takes responsibility for what they can be reasonably expected to take responsibility for? To imagine that knocking is the primary prevention method and locking the secondary is backwards by any standard.

3) Etiquette isn't, strictly speaking, universal or inherent, but the principles of etiquette are derived from intuition, experience, potential consequences etc. Certain principles of etiquette have been honed to the point that they are fairly well and universally accepted, whether written or not. The best we can do is arrive at principles that are intuitively correct. In that respect, they can become more like facts in that they can be objectively superior or inferior under close examination. I can agree to disagree, but I can't abide a bad idea continuing to masquerade as a good one.

I am pretty certain I can't contribute anything new to this thread at this point. I apologize if there's any perception that I am overplaying my hand on this one. I would like to think that I am very polite to people in general, but I simply don't have it in me to be polite to bad ideas, and the idea that the universe is more responsible for your privacy than you are for your own is a sensationally bad idea, and I don't think that is a statement that needs to be qualified as merely an opinion.

Edit: I suppose there is a dynamic of perceived victimhood re: person A. There is, thus, an element of pity that exists for the person whose privacy was violated. I submit that this is an overemphasized dynamic that adds to the confusion of answering this question in a morally "correct" way. I guess people think that the situation sucks more for person A than person B and therefore are more inclined to blame B. That is about the only way I can account for the B votes. The victimhood principle has to be secondary to the personal responsibility angle because person A is a victim of their own failure every bit as much (if not moreso) than the imagined failure of person B.

2) I still don't agree. A ridiculous example that illustrates my point: Let's say I live in a city with a lot of gang crime. I go outside and get shot and die. Did I commit the crime by not taking more precautions (wear body armor, not go outside my house, avoid especially dangerous parts of town) or was it the fault of the person that killed me? I should have taken precautions, as my safety is ultimately my responsibility, but the crime is that of the person that shot me. Likewise, Person A should lock the door, but the person that directly caused the incident is ultimately at fault here, Person B.

For this reason, the responsibility point isn't persuasive for me. I think that locking the door can sometimes be very inconvenient. Have you ever gotten to the toilet at the moment you needed it? In those cases, it might be much more preferable for Person A to not lock the door. Therefore, as I see it, Person B should ALWAYS knock. There will never be a situation where it is much more preferable for Person B not to knock (unless they really need to go too, in which case both people being in the bathroom at the same time is the least of everyone's concern).

3) Bathroom door etiquette hasn't reached the level of your mythical near universal status. Looking at the poll results tells us that. Also, intuition is also culturally derived so I really don't think you have a firm foundation for your argument. Honestly, seeing someone using the bathroom as a bad thing isn't even universal. I'm sure there are people out there that just don't care. If you think it can be called a fact that Person A is at fault here, then we really have no common ground to continue this discussion.

 

[wilycoyote]

To me this post is a complete and utter facepalm. To post something like this is to show the world you are a ru... ah screw it, I'm not getting sucked into what has regressed into an absolutely childish thread. I guess some people will just never get it.

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are being childish. To suggest this could be considered childish.

 

[cbmgreatone]

2) I still don't agree. A ridiculous example that illustrates my point: Let's say I live in a city with a lot of gang crime. I go outside and get shot and die. Did I commit the crime by not taking more precautions (wear body armor, not go outside my house, avoid especially dangerous parts of town) or was it the fault of the person that killed me? I should have taken precautions, as my safety is ultimately my responsibility, but the crime is that of the person that shot me. Likewise, Person A should lock the door, but the person that directly caused the incident is ultimately at fault here, Person B.

This post is worth responding to. We have assumed throughout this thread (or should have) that person B did not intentionally walk in on person A. To compare the bathroom incident to a purposeful shooting, or the illegal use of a deadly firearm is an absurd and totally irrelevant example. If you intentionally walk in on someone in the bathroom, you are completely and utterly at fault whether they locked the door or not.

You could have painted this example: A person works at a shooting range and decides to walk into the target area while customers are firing live rounds. A customer accidentally shoots and kills them. Would a court of law find the customer liable for the employee's death, provided it could be demonstrated that the shooting was totally accidental and that the employee was not supposed to have been in the target area? Of course not. It was the employee's responsibility not to put himself in the line of fire while live rounds were being used in an active shooting range. The employee is the "victim," and will earn more empathy than the shooter because he paid a steeper price (not that the shooter's price in this case, a lifetime of guilt, is trivial), but ultimately the employee was a "victim" of his own stupidity first, and of the default behavior of a completely unwitting shooter second.

No one has adequately demonstrated, or even attempted to demonstrate, why person A's privacy is more the responsibility of person B than person A, just as in the above example the employee's safety was more his own responsibility than the customer's (shooter's). If you can't demonstrate this, you have no argument. It isn't a matter of agreement. A compelling case must address the personal responsibility argument in a way that does not fail, ie: your example. I'm not saying that to be condescending, I'm saying it because the matter of intent is an absolutely indispensable component to this debate.

Perhaps it is childish to declare this matter an absolute one way or another, but I am at least willing to sit here and back my argument with sound reasoning, not declare by fiat that I am right while posting 20ish word intellectually indefensible responses (not picking on you here, because you actually have given an honest effort) that fail to address the heart of the matter.

I am illuminating the aspects of this argument that my opponents don't understand. I appreciate that you have tried to illuminate the aspect of my argument that you didn't feel I understood and I hope that my revised analogy has been thought-provoking, as well as the thread at large.

 

[wilycoyote]

This post is worth responding to. We have assumed throughout this thread (or should have) that person B did not intentionally walk in on person A. To compare the bathroom incident to a purposeful shooting, or the illegal use of a deadly firearm is an absurd and totally irrelevant example. If you intentionally walk in on someone in the bathroom, you are completely and utterly at fault whether they locked the door or not.

You could have painted this example: A person works at a shooting range and decides to walk into the target area while customers are firing live rounds. A customer accidentally shoots and kills them. Would a court of law find the customer liable for the employee's death, provided it could be demonstrated that the shooting was totally accidental and that the employee was not supposed to have been in the target area? Of course not. It was the employee's responsibility not to put himself in the line of fire while live rounds were being used in an active shooting range. The employee is the "victim," and will earn more empathy than the shooter because he paid a steeper price (not that the shooter's price in this case, a lifetime of guilt, is trivial), but ultimately the employee was a "victim" of his own stupidity first, and of the default behavior of a completely unwitting shooter second.

No one has adequately demonstrated, or even attempted to demonstrate, why person A's privacy is more the responsibility of person B than person A, just as in the above example the employee's safety was more his own responsibility than the customer's (shooter's). If you can't demonstrate this, you have no argument. It isn't a matter of agreement. A compelling case must address the personal responsibility argument in way that does not fail, ie: your example.

Perhaps it is childish to declare this matter an absolute one way or another, but I am at least willing to sit here and back my argument with sound reasoning, not declare by fiat that I am right while posting 20ish word intellectually indefensible responses (not picking on you here, because you actually have given an honest effort) that fail to address the heart of the matter.

I am illuminating the aspects of this argument that my opponents don't understand. I appreciate that you have tried to illuminate the aspect of my argument that you didn't feel I understood and I hope that my revised analogy has been thought-provoking, as well as the thread at large.

That is too long of a post to read, but I never stated the shooting was intentional. Let's just say that I was killed by a stray bullet. Also, calling a "ridiculous" example an "absurd" example is a great point. I hadn't thought of that! Regardless, our points are made.

 

[cbmgreatone]

That is too long of a post to read, but I never stated the shooting was intentional. Let's just say that I was killed by a stray bullet. Also, calling a "ridiculous" example an "absurd" example is a great point. I hadn't thought of that! Regardless, our points are made.

Even if it was a stray bullet, it is the illegal operation of a firearm in an area that could easily result in a civilian casualty. Sure, don't read the post and then claim I'm unjustified in saying your example is absurd. If you don't read it (it would take a 12 year old 90 seconds), then you lose this argument by default, as if you haven't already. No disrespect intended.

And lo and behold, I've gotten well and truly sucked back into this thread. I hate myself sometimes, lol. I hope that the next time I chime in that it isn't to respond to another tired rehashed argument that misses an essential point (which I didn't think your last argument was by the way). I will respond if someone comes up with anything new.

 

[wilycoyote]

Even if it was a stray bullet, it is the illegal operation of a firearm in an area that could easily result in a civilian casualty. Sure, don't read the post and then claim I'm unjustified in saying your example is absurd. If you don't read it (it would take a 12 year old 90 seconds), then you lose this argument by default, as if you haven't already. No disrespect intended.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your premise here is that I am not reading it because it is difficult and/or time consuming. I am not reading it because we clearly don't agree and won't. I respect your point, as I tried to state earlier (the whole there is no right answer part of my earlier post). I just see this going nowhere.

If I lost the argument, then I lost the argument and life goes on.

Also, I called my example "ridiculous". That is why I focused on your comment that it was "absurd." We agreed!

 

[cbmgreatone]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your premise here is that I am not reading it because it is difficult and/or time consuming. I am not reading it because we clearly don't agree and won't. I respect your point, as I tried to state earlier (the whole there is no right answer part of my earlier post). I just see this going nowhere.

If I lost the argument, then I lost the argument and life goes on.

Also, I called my example "ridiculous". That is why I focused on your comment that it was "absurd." We agreed!

Right you are. I would submit that I meant something different by "absurd" (inapplicable) than you did by "ridiculous" (extreme), but I digress. I have a weakness for legalistic conversations about trivial subjects so I can go all night, lol. They are, after all, a huge part of coming to a consensus on questions of etiquette IMHO.

 

[Commodore]

Only on CFC OT can a discussion about bathroom ettiquette turn into an arguement about hypothetical stray bullets and illegal operation of firearms.

 

[Hygro]

Most houses in London are over 100 years old and our locks work just fine.

Locks are pretty cheap dudes. £1.75 ($2.50 or so?) for a bolt that even I can put in.

Don't try to justify your lazy barbarism with outright hypocrisy

 

[Mise]

A lot of old houses have an old style lock that no one has taken care of in decades and they often don't work anymore.

So replace the lock... Costs $2.50 + some screws.

Don't try to justify your lazy barbarism with outright hypocrisy

You're the ones who are too lazy to lock a door! You're the ones who are too lazy to replace broken locks with working locks!

Greatest nation in the world my ass. I would say "USA #2", but apparently you can't even do a number 2 in the USA safely, because your locks are too old. Too old! HA! How rich coming from a nation that's barely been around for 300 years! Locks have been around for thousands of years, you're telling me you can't afford one?? The most technologically advanced nation on Earth... Pff! We have houses older than your entire country, but you know what we do? WE CHANGE THE LOCKS. Obama said that his bailout of GM was a "bet on American ingenuity" -- looks like he's backing the wrong horse. This is just one more step on a long road to national decline. Another nail in the coffin. China is coming up your arse, and let me tell you something. They're not going to knock.

 

[Disgustipated]

I can't believe half the people here think it's fine to just barge into a bathroom when the door is closed.

more than that now. If the door is closed, it should be a pretty good clue that the bathroom is occupied. Although I admit, I normally leave the door open when not in use (helps air it out so it doesn't get too humid).

 

[Hygro]

So replace the lock... Costs $2.50 + some screws.

You're the ones who are too lazy to lock a door! You're the ones who are too lazy to replace broken locks with working locks!

Greatest nation in the world my ass. I would say "USA #2", but apparently you can't even do a number 2 in the USA safely, because your locks are too old. Too old! HA! How rich coming from a nation that's barely been around for 300 years! Locks have been around for thousands of years, you're telling me you can't afford one?? The most technologically advanced nation on Earth... Pff! We have houses older than your entire country, but you know what we do? WE CHANGE THE LOCKS. Obama said that his bailout of GM was a "bet on American ingenuity" -- looks like he's backing the wrong horse. This is just one more step on a long road to national decline. Another nail in the coffin. China is coming up your arse, and let me tell you something. They're not going to knock.

Don't be jealous because I got to walk around in a T-shirt and flip flops in January. And yeah, I never said *I* wasn't lazy (though I'm not). I'm saying YOU'RE lazy for telling others to fix locks when you won't even knock.

 

[Disgustipated]

And even if it is locked, it's still polite to lightly knock (not bang the hell out of the door). It's annoying having someone loudly rattle the door handle back and forth, or worse, assume it's unlocked and run into the door.

 

[Mise]

This thread has convinced me that the collapse of your civilisation is inevitable. Lack of proper bathroom locks will be your downfall.

 

[Disgustipated]

ah yes, that will be how the Chinese get us. They will take us over when we are all on the toilet in our unlocked bathrooms. They can barge right in and kill us when we are vulnerable. If only we had locks...

 

[cbmgreatone]

Another nail in the coffin. China is coming up your arse, and let me tell you something. They're not going to knock.

LMAO!!!

 

[Hygro]

This thread has convinced me that the collapse of your civilisation is inevitable. Lack of proper bathroom locks will be your downfall.

Part of the advantage of knocking is that you can have greater uniformity of rules when dealing with little kids, who you generally don't want locking doors because they have a bad habit of not knowing how to unlock things. So you have them not lock the door and learn to deal with knocking to teach them manners and privacy.

But of course in your society you just have kids locking themselves in bathrooms or people walking in on them.

FYI the lock in my house has been fixed for 5 years.

 

[Mise]

Ahh, just like Nanny State America to treat everyone as though they were children! Here in freedom-loving Europe, we expect adults to take personal responsibility for their actions by locking their own doors.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Where I live we have these technological advanced locks, which not only lock the door, but also can display a message to the people who are outside the toilet. In case the restroom is locked it will display: "engaged" or something similar. So there is no need for knocking, and there is no danger of walking into someone who is having a nice crap. Who is having a nice crap in the knowledge he will be having his crap in the complete and utter privacy in which craps should be enjoyed.

Upon unlocking the door, the display will chance into: "vacant" or something similar.

I think this is an essential addition to homes, for anyone who enjoys a civilised restroom experience