Sign in to follow this  
VonNoble

Upset about the statue

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

 

 Once someone complains about your actions, you have been warned that those actions produce a negative reaction from that person. At that point, if you choose to continue those actions, you are choosing to provoke a negative reaction. As such, any harm that arises due to the negative reaction you provoke is an avoidable consequence of your decision. So the key question to ask is "Are the potential rewards of this course of action worth the potential costs?"

Sure.  But they have also been warned.  And it does become a slippery slope eventually, caving in to what others want while they do not do the same for you.  

I attended my daughters' school Christmas program last night.  The last song they sang was "happy birthday Jesus".  Now, I could go rile some feathers and complain that they are promoting a specific religion at a school event, and it would be true.  I could claim to be offended, but I am not.  But for the sake of argument, let's say I was.  I could get lawyers, raise a stink.  All because I was offended.  But the reality is that I control my RESPONSE, not REACTION.  That's the big difference between adults and children, I think.  Kids react, adults respond.  If a person tells me they are offended by something innocuous that I have done, such as putting a Santa hat on Buddha, they are telling me they had a negative reaction that they failed to control, not that I caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

  And it does become a slippery slope eventually, caving in to what others want while they do not do the same for you.

You know that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy?

There seem to be two separate threads to your argument. One seems to be that you shouldn't be nice to other people, because other people arent nice. The second seems to be that you have no responsibility to avoid harm to yourself, provided you can say that the harm is someone else's fault. Does my interpretation of your position seem accurate to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Brother Kaman said:

Then maybe we wil learn not to to be offended by so much of the things that come our way.

Will that happen before or after we get beaten up for saying the wrong thing to the wrong guy?

"Carrying a firearm has taught me great patience with fools, reduced my road rage and made me very polite. Should I ever have to use my firearm to defend myself, family or property, I can never be seen to have picked a fight or incited others to violence."

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Will that happen before or after we get beaten up for saying the wrong thing to the wrong guy?

"Carrying a firearm has taught me great patience with fools, reduced my road rage and made me very polite. Should I ever have to use my firearm to defend myself, family or property, I can never be seen to have picked a fight or incited others to violence."

Conforming to the rules your society enacts is a survival mechanism. I have conformed well enough to satisfy the society I live in to have reached 70 yrs and not been jailed. If I offend unintentionally and am attacked, well, that is part of what the firearm is for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Brother Kaman said:

 I have conformed well enough to satisfy the society I live in to have reached 70 yrs and not been jailed.

Is it safe to assume that part of that involved making an occasional small sacrifice just to keep the peace? Even if was unfair, or even if the other guy was just being stupid? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Is it safe to assume that part of that involved making an occasional small sacrifice just to keep the peace? Even if was unfair, or even if the other guy was just being stupid? 

 

I thought I had made a self explanatory post. I will have to live longer to try to communicate it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mererdog said:

You know that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy?

There seem to be two separate threads to your argument. One seems to be that you shouldn't be nice to other people, because other people arent nice. The second seems to be that you have no responsibility to avoid harm to yourself, provided you can say that the harm is someone else's fault. Does my interpretation of your position seem accurate to you?

no.

i think people should be nice to eah other insofar as it doesn't take away anothers freedom to express themselves in a non violent manner.

i think a person is responsible for how they respond to external stimuli.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

no.

i think people should be nice to eah other insofar as it doesn't take away anothers freedom to express themselves in a non violent manner.

i think a person is responsible for how they respond to external stimuli.

 

To a point, yes.  But only to a point.  I can not look upon the KKK or Nazi's with equanimity.  Neither do I want to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, mererdog said:

You know that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy?

There seem to be two separate threads to your argument. One seems to be that you shouldn't be nice to other people, because other people arent nice. The second seems to be that you have no responsibility to avoid harm to yourself, provided you can say that the harm is someone else's fault. Does my interpretation of your position seem accurate to you?

i did not realize the slippery slope was a fallacy, though in researching it, it does seem fairly obvious, so thanks for pointing that out...although research suggests its only fallacious if the chain of events is improbable(which mine was).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

To a point, yes.  But only to a point.  I can not look upon the KKK or Nazi's with equanimity.  Neither do I want to.  

the kkk and nazis have and continue to have a tradition of violence, and attempting to usurp others rights, so i agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

the kkk and nazis have and continue to have a tradition of violence, and attempting to usurp others rights, so i agree.

 

A less extreme example:  Can you look upon a Fundamentalist street preacher with equanimity?  Notice, I did not specify what type of Fundamentalist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

A less extreme example:  Can you look upon a Fundamentalist street preacher with equanimity?  Notice, I did not specify what type of Fundamentalist.

 

 

Yes, I can.  I do not say I agree with their message, but I can view them spewing forth their truths just the same as I can a stray cat on my porch eating the left over chicken I left out for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Yes, I can.  I do not say I agree with their message, but I can view them spewing forth their truths just the same as I can a stray cat on my porch eating the left over chicken I left out for it.

 

How about if that cat dies on your porch?  It's not dangerous, but it will stink the place up.  In other words, it's disgusting and hard to ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

In other words, it's disgusting and hard to ignore.

Like the International Jewish Conspiracy?!?

 

Sorry. I know its a cheap shot, and likely to offend the irony-blind, but it made me laugh to type it, so it might brighten someone's day...

 

 

Anyway, disgust is a personal reaction that is not really about the object of the disgust. What I find disgusting, a gay man may find sexy (and vice versa). What I find disgusting, you may find delicious (and vice versa). To thrive in a free society requires a combination of controlling how we express our disgust, and controlling how we disgust others.

 

Personally, I HATE seasonal decorations. Every year, people joyfully stick the tackiest garbage in their yards and on their walls under the pretext of being "festive." Being out at night can feel like the world is trying to turn me elileptic, what with a million out of sync blinking lights screaming for attention from every direction. To sum up: It is disgusting and hard to ignore.

 

And yet, I like living in a society- II don't long for the hermitage. So I exercize patience and I practice tolerance. And,also, because I know how visceral my reactions to decorations can be, I try to remain cognizant of how my decorating affects others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

How about if that cat dies on your porch?  It's not dangerous, but it will stink the place up.  In other words, it's disgusting and hard to ignore.

Removal of a dead cat isn't that big a problem.  Removal of a preacher on my door step is likewise not that big a problem.  I simply tell them I am not interested and close the door, and they go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think really this boils down to expenditure of effort and feasibility, for me.  Is it worth expending effort to make someone else happy?  Will it actually make that other person happy?  What will it cost me to make that person happy?  In the case of the street preacher, there is simply more effort involved in arguing and debating with someone that I am fairly reasonably sure will not change their mind in any way and will probably be upset with me for not changing my mind.  Should I simply roll over and change my mind to make the other individual happy with their ability to express themselves?  That's kind of like what's being advocated, to me.  Why should I change my principles?  Because someone else thinks I should?  Someone who in all likelihood will be offended if I don't, but won't even consider changing their position?  

No.  I am my own individual.  If someone wants me to change, and they want to present their evidence, and I am willing at the time(or able), it might be I will at least give it a listen.  But for them to expect me to change is unreasonable, just as unreasonable as me expecting them to change.  I have lived my life, I am the one who put in the effort to get where I am, I am the one who has taken the time to investigate what seemed important to me, and I am the one responsible for my conclusions.  If I put out something that offends someone else, that's on them.  They haven't taken the time to consider why they are upset.  Or if they have, they are following a fallacious path.  To be offended at someone else's decorations, where does it end?  Yes, it sounds a bit like the slippery slope fallacy.  But it isn't.  It isn't unreasonable to assume someone might be offended that I paint my house blue.  There are places where there have been lawsuits over such a thing.  It isn't unreasonable to assume someone will be offended that I don't keep my grass less than an inch high, it has happened to me here.  I do not feel a need to bow down to opinion of something so trivial.  

Now, get into something that actually has impact, and maybe I will consider.  I won't, for example only, be offended if my neighbor comes to my house and asks me to move my twenty seven garbage cans full of old stinking soda cans from next to their yard.  I would fully understand that my actions(hypothetical though they are) would have an actual impact on them, not an imaginary one.  I would realize the risk for insects such as roaches being enormously higher, and the smell in general being very unpleasant and hard to ignore.  But for something like a Christmas decoration?  Nope.  That isn't harmful.  Even if they feel like they have been harmed, they haven't really.  They are just throwing a grade school level tantrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 12:45 AM, VonNoble said:

We do very little by way of holiday decorating in our senior citizen years.   When there were kids around we did plenty.   But there is no sense to being on ladders and such now.

 

So we hauled a few totes to the thrift store and put up exactly four decorations.   Two sockings on the front courtyard wall.   A Santa hat on the Greek statue next to the driveway.    And we hauled a Buddha staute from the house outside and put it on the wall by the stockings.   The statue I’d maybe a foot tall.    We happened to find a small child size Santa hat in our collection of odds and ends...and that fit the Buddha statue.   We thought it was funny.... so we put it out by the decorative stockings.

 

We were amused and assumed others would be too.    Eh.... not so much.   As I was retrieving the trash can ysterday a woman stopped me.    She was passing by and told me putting out a Buddha like that was offensive.... especially at Christmas time.

 

i am assuming she thought it offensive to Christians.    Perhaps she thought it offensive to Buddhists?   I didn't Have an immediate thought about it.... so I just said....well “Merry Christmas!  “      Smiled and waited.     She walked away.    That was the end of it.

 

Now I am wondering if we have a warped sense if whimsey?    Does anyone else see a Buddha wearing a Santa hat as an offensive item?

von

It is your constitutional right to display a Buddha statue wearing a Santa hat. If one should be offended by you exercising your rights, they should take it up with the law makers.

Edited by Brother Kaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Brother Kaman said:

If one should be offended by you exercising your rights, they should take it up with the law makers.

Only if they want violence, or the threat thereof, to be used to prevent them from being offended. Otherwise, it makes send that they would take the complaint directly to the offending person.

 

When my neighbor's music was preventing me from sleeping, I went next door, explained the situation, and asked him to turn it down. He apologized and it hasn't been an issue since. Per local noise ordinance, he was within his rights to be loud at noon on a Tuesday, but I keep weird hours and he was nice enough to accomodate me... Small favors make the world go round...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I think really this boils down to expenditure of effort and feasibility, for me. 

The way you ended your post suggests to me that it boils down to an interpersonal hot-cold empathy gap. If those words are unfamiliar, it's worth the time to look it up. The research is fascinating.

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this