Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On feeling sorry for people
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 226 of 300 (342740)
08-23-2006 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by robinrohan
08-23-2006 11:15 AM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
My moral code is laid out in thousands of posts here at EvC. It can hardly be called a secret. On the otherhand, you presented a Theory. It is as of now totally unsupported. The ball is in your court Bubba. It is your theory that needs support.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 11:15 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 08-23-2006 11:42 AM jar has replied
 Message 232 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 12:12 PM jar has replied

NeuroCycle
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 300 (342743)
08-23-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by ringo
08-23-2006 10:46 AM


My turn: I just want to make it clear that nothing I have said in this thread was about being helpful - openly or otherwise.
Understood.
And that's a pity.
It is all relative - rather have a "thats cool." I have no pity for you for things that I enjoy and you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by ringo, posted 08-23-2006 10:46 AM ringo has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 228 of 300 (342746)
08-23-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by ringo
08-23-2006 9:42 AM


Mr Correct writes:
And I'm saying it is analogous, just not identical.
The 3 stooges incident sounded great. The difference that breaks the analogy for me is that one of your guys offered you something first. In Robin's case nobody did. Personally I would have jumped at a chance to have the three stooges conversation. In the other example though, I would have felt uncomfortable making the assumption that anyone wanted to speak to me - apparently purely on the basis that they were missing limbs.
I imagine you would think I was misconstruing things here. Maybe your attitude would be "nothing ventured nothing gained, I bet these guys have an interesting story to tell." Forgetting any other constraints that Robin might have neglected to mention (like the time issue), that is one of many legitimate reactions to the situation. I don't think its the best. For instance, it might transpire that you might inadvertantly upset a vet through said conversation. Of course, that could be used as an excuse not to talk to anyone ever, as you rightly pointed out in a previous post. I'm not advocating that; merely that just as it can be argued that in not talking Robin was acting in some way regretfully, it could equally be argued that an attempt to engage someone in conversation "to hear an interesting story" or "to learn something" or whatever might be considered selfish.
Anyone who is socially adept to a high degree probably won't experience this problem very often - but its still something to think about.
I just think there are too many unknown variables in the situation described to have anything like a firm opinion about the rightness of Robin's (in)action.
Mr Correct writes:
"I didn't have time" is the oldest excuse in the book for letting life pass you by. The conversation I described didn't take five minutes.
I agree entirely. That's not to say that every time that it's used it isn't legitimate. But that was just one example of a possible reason that Robin might not have had a chat with a veteran. I wasn't there so I don't really feel confident to comment on anyone's motivation.
Mr Correct writes:
Tusko writes:
... everyone who is berating him....
Nobody is "berating" him.
jar made a fairly innocent comment that robin had missed an oppurtunity to interact with the veterans. I agreed, giving a somewhat similar example from my own life. Since then, it's been nothing but whiny complaints from people who are afraid to talk to strangers.
I agree that Jar's comments were innocuous. It was some of the others that slightly perplexed me. Let me see...
ohnhai writes:
Being moved by something is different from being moved enough to do some thing about it.
Did you stop to ask these people their story?
to me that sounds quite accusatory - though perhaps this is a matter of interpretation.
Also, Schraf's:
quote:
I was most impressed by their silent, stony stoicism.
It might have been stoicism.
Or, it might have been depression.
Or deafness.
Or the effects of medication.
You wouldn't know unless you tried to speak to them.
There may have been a couple of others that sounded similarly... I don't know. Short? Unamused? I don't think it was totally unreasonable to say he was being berated, at least by some people for his (in)actions.
I'm not so interested in this whole shy people thing, even though it seems reasonable enough to me for shy people to be shy. Personally I'm totally up for a nice conversation with strangers.
Mr Curious writes:
I'd be glad to {spell it out}, if you'll spell out what you're after.
How kind.
I was merely trying to say that if I grant you that I don't have any evidential support for the fact that Robin didn't speak to the vets for a perfectly legitimate reason (e.g. he might have been in too much of a hurry to have a chat with the veterans), I don't see why you can't grant me that you don't have any more support for your contention that through his actions Robin did something a little (or a lottle) regrettable.
Clearly, we both agree that I don't have any evidence to support my position; however, you disagree on the second point point - that is, you think that you have some evidence to support your position.
I just wanted to know what it was.
Look forward to hearing from you, Angel Eyes.
T x
Edited by Tusko, : Jar's comments didn't even seem "fairly" innocuous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ringo, posted 08-23-2006 9:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by ringo, posted 08-23-2006 3:44 PM Tusko has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 229 of 300 (342750)
08-23-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by jar
08-23-2006 11:21 AM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
My moral code is laid out in thousands of posts here at EvC. It can hardly be called a secret. On the otherhand, you presented a Theory. It is as of now totally unsupported. The ball is in your court Bubba. It is your theory that needs support.
What a very odd fellow you can be. Why are you making this big deal over Robin's theory that the reason you put him down about his reaction to the vets was that you have a moral code that favors public-spiritedness and interaction with others? Seems awfully straightforward. Just say it is or it isn't, and give the real reason if it isn't. Maybe the real reason is just that you dislike him and would put him down about anything he wrote. Well, that's another theory. You can easily confirm or correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 11:21 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 12:09 PM Faith has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 230 of 300 (342753)
08-23-2006 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by robinrohan
08-23-2006 11:15 AM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
What an odd comment. Is your moral code a secret?
I watched Saving Private Ryan last night. A great line from it springs to mind:
"Its like looking for a needle in a stack of needles"
I had gathered that Jars moral code (gleaned from many posts on the matter) involved trying ones best. Not getting it right all the time but trying to get it right. Presumably then, Jar would fail to do the called for thing from time to time. And would employ some lame excuse at the time on the road to failing to do the called for thing.
What Jar would probably admit to that your failing to grab the bull by the horns is something he himself does. That there is no judgementalism going on because he fails in the very same way - just using different excuses than you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 11:15 AM robinrohan has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 231 of 300 (342754)
08-23-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
08-23-2006 11:42 AM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
Why are you making this big deal over Robin's theory that the reason you put him down about his reaction to the vets was that you have a moral code that favors public-spiritedness and interaction with others?
I don't put robin down because robin made yet another of his weak attempts to define what others think but because he made the truly ludacrous statement that I put him down because he did not follow MY Moral Code. No one in the world can follow my moral code but me. It is the path that I am on, not you, not robin, no one other than me.
Maybe the real reason is just that you dislike him and would put him down about anything he wrote.
For me to dislike someone they must have some significance to my life. Robin is of no significance, I don't know robin, never met robin, will likely never meet robin, but his posts here at EvC are of significance. Now pudding or green peas, they would be different. I do dislike them, enough so that I avoid pudding and only eat green peas if the effort to separate them out is greater than my dislike.
This is however a discussion board. When robin presents a story such as his tale of the VA hospital, it gives me the opportunity to present a different picture. In that sense it is essential to have someone like robin, or like you in this particular case, who provides us the opportunity to present contrasting points of view. Posters like you and robin are not just valuable but essential. Whether we are discussing science or theology, humor or politics, it is the chance to see those contrasting points of view that help all of us, particularly me, grow, learn and temper our own beliefs and knowledge base.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 08-23-2006 11:42 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Phat, posted 08-23-2006 2:50 PM jar has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 300 (342755)
08-23-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by jar
08-23-2006 11:21 AM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
My moral code is laid out in thousands of posts here at EvC. It can hardly be called a secret. On the otherhand, you presented a Theory. It is as of now totally unsupported. The ball is in your court Bubba. It is your theory that needs support.
Well, ok, if you insist. Here's what I've figured out so far. According to your system, people have to learn to love themselves. If they do, they will then be capable of loving others. The next step is to show this love to others by "just trying." Trying, I think, means helping people. It might be just a small action, like reaching up to the top shelf for the vertically-challenged. Even this counts as trying.
Your religion is very inclusive in that it makes no difference what one believes--one can be an atheist or Buddhist--no matter. All that matters is if you try to help others. However, it's not totally inclusive. If one doesn't try to help others, one is wicked and left out of this large group of those who do in fact try.
Part of trying is being interactive with others, not just close friends or relatives, but people in general. I pick this idea up from your comments about my experience with the Veterans, both in the original thread and this one. If one is not sufficently interactive with people, one has not tried: thus the criticism about not talking to them and learning something from them. If I were a good citizen I would have talked to them, but this I failed to do.
I also get the impression that volunteerism plays a role in your concept of trying. One ought to volunteer sometimes for beneficial projects.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 11:21 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 12:35 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 243 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 3:17 PM robinrohan has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 233 of 300 (342758)
08-23-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by robinrohan
08-23-2006 12:12 PM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
Your summary of my belief system is pretty accurate, nothing I'd get too upset about other than I would stick to trying to do what is right. In some situations that might be helping someone, in others it might be an intentional act of not helping.

But that was not what I was laughing so hard about.

Robin, that is my moral code™, something I have to live with. I do not and TTBOMK have not said, that anyone else should live by my moral code™. They can't. They are not me. You can no more be me than I could be you.
If you have read my posts here at EvC, one other recurring theme is that a person should try to be themselves. A member here once said "when I grow up I want to be jar". My response was to just be himself.
That is all any of us can do. I can tell folk what I believe, what I have done, experiences I might have had, but I cannot live their lives and they certainly cannot (and wouldn't want to I hope) live mine. I do not tell folk what is right. I do say that IMHO we should try to do what is right, but that will depend on the unique circumstances of the moment, the incident, the individuals knowledge and the individuals moral code.
Part of trying is being interactive with others, not just close friends or relatives, but people in general. I pick this idea up from your comments about my experience with the Veterans, both in the original thread and this one. If one is not sufficently interactive with people, one has not tried: thus the criticism about not talking to them and learning something from them. If I were a good citizen I would have talked to them, but this I failed to do.
I don't quite see where you could get any of that from anything I have said. What I said was "You missed a great opportunity". That says nothing about whether what you did was moral, immoral, right or wrong. All I did here and in the other thread is present a similar experience and what I learned from it. You might well say, "jar, try some pudding". I might respond, "sorry, don't like pudding". That pretty much sums up the conversation.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 12:12 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 12:49 PM jar has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 300 (342762)
08-23-2006 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by jar
08-23-2006 12:35 PM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
Robin, that is my moral code™, something I have to live with. I do not and TTBOMK have not said, that anyone else should live by my moral code™. They can't. They are not me. You can no more be me than I could be you.
So everybody has their own personal moral code, and one is not better than another?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 12:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 1:14 PM robinrohan has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 235 of 300 (342765)
08-23-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by robinrohan
08-23-2006 12:49 PM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
So everybody has their own personal moral code, and one is not better than another?
Yes and no. Everyone has their own moral code. Likely some are better than others. That will of course vary and some may be detectable differences while others may be neutral when compared or beyond our ability to rate.
I personally believe that a moral code such as that held by many Christians, that allows them to deny basic human rights to homosexuals is wrong. That is my opinion, no more, no less.
In the exaample you gave of your trip to the VA hospital, morality was not an issue. I never said or implied that what you did was moral or immoral, only that you missed a great opportunity. It is far more on the level of my personal dislike of green peas. You may well disagree with me and think green peas are tasty. That's fine. You might even be right and I may well be missing out on a great opportunity by avoiding green peas, but it is certainly not an issue of morality.
Moral codes do carry consequences and it is something the individual should consider. Whether it is the sanctioning of someone by society when an individuals personal moral code conflicts with the generally accepted societal moral code, or as many of us believe some ultimate judgement by GOD, there will be consequeces to whatever moral code one chooses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 12:49 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 1:31 PM jar has replied
 Message 238 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 2:14 PM jar has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 300 (342768)
08-23-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by jar
08-23-2006 1:14 PM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
Likely some are better than others
Would you say there is a way of determining, even if not quite with certainty, if one moral code is better than another? If so, the standard we would use to determine that would be the part of your moral code than is not personal, but which applies generally. Is there some basic principle that a good moral code must contain?
(I understand you believe that morals are subjective---so do I-- but perhaps we can waive that point and just say that we cannot prove FOR CERTAIN that a given rule is accurate, but that we can at least make a good case.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 1:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 1:49 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 241 by Phat, posted 08-23-2006 3:00 PM robinrohan has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 237 of 300 (342769)
08-23-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by robinrohan
08-23-2006 1:31 PM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
Would you say there is a way of determining, even if not quite with certainty, if one moral code is better than another?
Well, there will be a general societal moral code. It too will change over time. For a long time it was moral to own slaves, and immoral to harbor runaway slaves. That was part of both the societal moral code and in turn, part of many personal moral codes.
Is there some basic principle that a good moral code must contain?
I doubt it unless you want something as vague as "It is usually better not to harm another." There are some though that I would say were BAD. For example the old saying "Do unto others before they do unto you" would, IMHO be a bad moral code. Often it comes down to looking at two or more possible moral positions and choosing the less bad choice.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 1:31 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 300 (342772)
08-23-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by jar
08-23-2006 1:14 PM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
I personally believe that a moral code such as that held by many Christians, that allows them to deny basic human rights to homosexuals is wrong. That is my opinion, no more, no less.
Let me suggest this (you may not agree): Those moral opinions we have which we hold firmly, not tentatively, are those which are applicable generally and do not just apply to ourselves. For even though our moral opinions are subjective (not provable), nonetheless
we are fairly certain about some of them.
Do you hold the moral opinion expressed above about homosexuals firmly or tentatively?
Because I really don't understand a moral code that is merely personal.
Surely there are moral ideas that we think apply generally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 1:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 2:36 PM robinrohan has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 239 of 300 (342774)
08-23-2006 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by robinrohan
08-23-2006 2:14 PM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
Let me suggest this (you may not agree): Those moral opinions we have which we hold firmly, not tentatively, are those which are applicable generally and do not just apply to ourselves. For even though our moral opinions are subjective (not provable), nonetheless
we are fairly certain about some of them.
Well I can't really respond since I have no idea what that means.
Do you hold the moral opinion expressed above about homosexuals firmly or tentatively?
Strongly but Tentatively. Personally I feel strongly about it but who knows, someone may show me I am wrong.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 2:14 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2006 3:12 PM jar has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 240 of 300 (342776)
08-23-2006 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by jar
08-23-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Ah, now we get Robin's Theory.
Jar writes:
No one in the world can follow my moral code but me. It is the path that I am on, not you, not robin, no one other than me.
I agree. It is only my face that I see in the mirror every morning and it is that face that faces the world every day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 12:09 PM jar has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024