In the context of a dedicated oddities ledger inspired from the King of Mystery and Grotesque – Edgar Allan Poe, a weird law has been adopted recently – the prohibition of side of the road tomb stones, crosses, monuments to those tragically deceased in traffic accidents. Death is indeed a human personal drama, not to mention the more so if inadvertently caused by inattention, negligent behavior, or willful/criminal intent from thyself or the OTHERS (participants in the traffic). From another point of view, this seems to me, to be equivalent to tobacco smoking prohibition – on each box of cigarettes there is the hygiene authorities’ warning that smoking is bad for the health, as it definitely leads to premature death, still this is not an effective deterrent. Correspondingly, the reminding death tokens in point, flock preponderantly on the kerb at so-called deadly turnings, steep junctions, mazy crossings, despite the technically informing traffic code signals. Besides, anyways, the strong argument for casting away the mortuary requisites is – there are no bodies buried there, those are just markings, the corpses lie in place of origins cemeteries.
The counter-claim of the pleadants would be that according to the Christian religion rituals, those accident casualties had passed away without light, a candle had not been lit to accompany the fleeing soul. The traffic accidents victims are considered almost like the suiciders and buried at the margins of common cemeteries. In such a case, in order to differentiate the dead in a treacherous manner by suicide from those dead in a violent way on the road, it would be more acceptable maybe to have an all-nation dedicated cemetery in one destined place, where all the relatives and dear ones of the traffic accidents victims would bring their own memory cross.
…Just like the world renowned Crosses Hill in Siauliai, Lithuania – a entire nation’s cemetery, a place of recollectedness where the Christians from all over the Baltics come for a visit and leave a cross at the spot.
I am not a paid blogger, I do not pursue a legal/political correctness enforcement in the events I reflect upon, I am a philologist impassioned by pragmatics and discourse laws, moreover, I am a responsible, committed observer and annotator of regular-common and less so, human, social behaviour and attitudes.
This is to frame adequately the above-mentioned “arguments/counter-claims/pleadant” terminology not as pretentious indicative-directive law-enforcement one but merely as pertaining to the human communication context within pragmatics of the situation and human communication exchanges.
Geoffrey Leech’s elaboration on the Maxim of Politeness is one of four of Paul Grice’s originally elaborated Maxims of Discourse Laws. The Politeness Maxim focuses specifically on the so-called FTA – /face threatening acts/ pointing to the IDENTITY and PUBLIC SELF-IMAGE which every participant claims for him/herself in the social interaction and the precautions taken in order not to LOSE FACE in the roles negotiation and during the proper intercourse. Geoffrey Leech, as I already mentioned, elaborated a strategy of avoiding discord and seeking concord, and leaving each of the participants to the interaction the chance to retort-replicate and save their face. Politeness strategies are developed namely for countering the antagonistic nature of ANY human communication and maintain a positive image of oneself, safeguard the due approval and appreciation, preserve the respect of the micro-medium.
Penelope Brown & Stephen Levinson later in 1978 defined politeness as a “REDRESSIVE ACTION TAKEN TO COUNTER BALANCE THE DISRUPTIVE EFFECT of FTAs”. Thus Brown & Levinson offer four strategies for that purpose: bold-on-record, negative/positive politeness and off-the-record indirect one. The former two are aggressive ones and have little concern for securing a partner’s interest to save face or establish a trustful friendly relationship. The latter two are attempts to avoid FTA and establish reciprocity.
I am reflecting how imperative are these strategies in the virtual ALTA VISTA medium, the digital citizenship or netiquette are like laws or a traffic code in the cyberspace. Predatory behavior should not only be condemned, prevented but by all means banned and punished by netizens and cyberpolice alike. There would definitely be a more discreet, reasonable exchange in the virtual space as well and consequently less face-losing incidents correspondingly less identity theft crimes casualties.
Not any double standards advocating here are acceptable.