Admitting fault and apologizing and Self-Defense...

[Cruentus]

I was reading through some threads which caused me to think a bit about this subject.

How do you guys feel about the idea behind apologizing? How about admitting fault?

I guess I feel that the true "bad-a$$es," "experts," or "masters" have no trouble apoligizing, even when they are not in the wrong. They have no problems admitting fault when they may have been mistaken. The ability to apoligize and admit fault shows humilty. This is the kind of humility that is a requirement if you consider yourself a self-defense teacher, or expert.

The why is pretty simple, but I'll explain it anyhow for some who might not get the concept right away. Basically the old sayings, "Walk softly but carry a big stick," and "an armed society is a polite society," apply here. I'll use myself as an example. I've been in the martial arts for almost 20 years. I have far exceeded what a prosecuting attorney would consider "a martial arts expert" if I were a defendent in a courtroom. Now, also consider that I am armed daily. This ups the anty even more for me. So, can I choose to not be polite? Can I choose to be a jerk to people around me? Can I choose to get into conflicts and fights? If I choose to be a jerk and it gets me into a physical confrontation, I will be prosecuted, and if I hurt someone I will go to jail. Period.

So, what do I do when someone talks smack with me, or trys to pick a fight with me? "I must have made the mistake sir. I apologize sir for anything I may have done in offense." My ego does not stand in my way. I am confident that if I am attacked I will handle it accordingly. Others around me, even those who don't know me, generally can see my confidence and know that I can handle myself if the s**t hits the fan. So, I don't need to PROVE a thing. I will backdown, I will apoligize, I will try to find where I could improve myself and admit fault where nessicary. This is what I need for prudent self-defense...this is what I need to stay out of jail.

Most will probably agree with me on this so far. Yet, I often watch people's behavior on these forums, and I am amazed. I watch people who tote themselves around like self-defense, martial arts, or "tactical" experts, pretending to have all the answers, yet who can't themselves admit fault in an arguement, or apoligize when they have offended someone else. Hell, some can't even let simple arguements go. I contest that if these people have such fragile ego's that they can't show this kind of humilty on a forum, then they are not credable self-defense instructors or even practitioners. They are, simply, a bunch of weenies.

Now, I know that some will argue, "but not backing down from an arguement on the internet where there is not iminent danger is not the same as backing down on the street. I may not back down on the net, but on the street I would do the right and lawfully prudent thing." I was going to let some weenie pose this arguement before I said anything, but I better address this now. I don't want to be in the position of insulting anyone after they have hung themselves with a similar statement. Basically, that arguement only exposes how big of a weenie the arguer really is.

There is something that I'll call "the masters humility" vs. "the weenie's humility." [yes, this is similar to beggers humilty vs. warriors humility from Castenada, but not exactly the same] A master is not concerned about his own ego. He knows who he can beat and who he can't, and he knows he is an expert. He knows where he stands, what he knows, and what he doesn't. So, being humble is second nature to the master. Whether it is on an internet forum, or on the street, the master has no problems saying "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" or "I am at fault here." Why? The master's motivations are not fear based, and the master has a humilty that comes very natural too him. The weenie, on the other hand, is only humble when he is afraid. On an internet forum he yells and argues consistantly with no regards for anyone else or their opinions. He will never apoligize because he is afraid of admitting that someone else has a good point, or may be right. The weenie is afraid that he will lose face. However, in on the street and in the face of a real conflict where he can be hurt or thrown in jail, then its, "I'm sorry. Your right I am wrong. I don't want to fight you." Whine whine whine. The weenie is afraid of losing face, but is often even more afraid of having his @$$ handed to him on in a fight, or going to prison or jail. The weenie's humilty, and actions are controlled by fear.

Weenies are the kind of guys who lie about their martial arts experience to look tough. Weenies are the kind of guys who join the military for the GI bill and push paper in an office, but then tell tall tales about their training and experiences as a soldier. Weenies are the kind of guys who hide behind their sheilds or their authority instead of just doing their jobs and giving back to the community. Weenies are the guys who constantly look for drama and conflict in their lives, because with out it they don't feel that they are getting the attention they crave. However, despite these details, weenies are the easiest to spot on the forums, because they are constantly trying to sound like experts, with ego's so fragile that they could never admit fault and could never apologize, even when they should.

So, what kind of person are you? I have seen people with 2 months of training with a masters humilty, and others with 20 years who act like weenies.

What are your thoughts on the subject? I will be watching for them, as I have much to learn.

Are you striving to be a master...or are you just another weenie?

Paul Janulis, MOD.

P.S. I apologize if my post here offends anyone. Thanks you for your understanding. ;)

[dubljay]

Nice post Tulisan. Humilty and honor seem to be in short supply these days (not of anyone on this site). It's good to be reminded of these values. I strive for humility, but there are times that ego gets the best of me.

[Feisty Mouse]

They are, simply, a bunch of weenies.
I laughed at this one!

Nice post. I try to be humble, but when my ire is pricked, I can go from calm to ...well, feisty... in no time.

But I think humility is important. Like so many important things, sometimes it's hard to do! :)

[terryl965]

Tulison excellent post you hit the nail on the head with the example, we need more MA'ers like you Sir... My hat goes off to you.. GOD BLESS AMERICA

[michaeledward]

Here is a topic on which I thank my youthful indescretion into Evangelical Christianity. During that phase of my life, in which I learned to value of truth, even when it is uncomfortable. Humility, and the ability to admit I am wrong also plays an important part in the path to sobriety; which I have been on for 12 years.

Step 10 - continued to take personal inventory and when we are wrong, promptly admit it.

While, no doubt, I miss in some instances to practice this step thoroughly, for the most part, I think get more hits than misses.

[psi_radar]

Great post Paul. :asian:

[Tgace]

I would hesitate to make personal judgments about people based on internet arguments over politics, martial arts history and philosophy, and whatever else we post here. People have interests, lives, strengths, weaknesses, and many other things that are FAR beyond the scope of this little e-community. To make judgements on peoples character is pretty harsh. To judge whats being posted on its face may be a different story.

I admittedly have fallen short on that end a few times in the "heat of battle". I have tried to fess up to that and have placed some people on my ignore list to try to keep from going down that road again.

That being said I thought that this was a place to discuss/debate topics at times. If people dont believe in what they post, than this is a large waste of time. So I have no reason to believe there is a requirement to "apologize" as long as the debate stays within the scope of the thread and dosent turn into attacking each other (or their professions, associations, teachers, etc.). Again admittedly, it is tough not to respond when you believe you are being attacked. I would make this more of a metaphor to a debate than a streetfight though.

Naturally in a debate the goal is to try to "prove" your point. It would be interesting to see if Bush or Kerry will debate and see if either apologizes for the shots that are certain to come. Unfortunately there is no judge here like there is in a debate to control the exchange and things devolve into arguements, past arguements and various other issues.

No offense intended ;), but this sounds like one of the "argument" techniques posted in another thread.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17259&page=2

ATTACK THE ARGUEMENT:
Another great one to use when everyone thinks your opponent argues too much. Telltale signs of this tactic are phrases such as "You never admit you're wrong," "Opinions are opinions for a reason," "Don't turn this into a fight," and "You're arguing for the sake of arguing." Basically, attack the idea of arguing rather than the actual arguement itself. The sole purpose of this is to make your opponent look and feel like an a**, and most of the time, it works. Even if your opponent points out the fact that, because you are arguing as well, you're guilty of all of the above statements, it doesn't matter. Just interrupt him with a barrage of, "See, you never admit you're wrong!" Works like a charm.
Maybe each thread initiator should state if the intent of the thread is to debate. Ive been involved in some HEATED debates in the study and yes said some things I probably wouldnt say again. Even then, there was very little "personal" attack and trading of reputation because everybody knew "the game".

To wrap up I would finish by saying that making thinly veiled allusions, with pretty detailed examples, and not coming out and just saying what you mean, and about who is kind of "weeniesh" too.

[lonecoyote]

This is pretty interesting. Wasn't there a John Wayne movie where he said "Never apologize or explain" ? The problem with apologizing and even civility and politeness is that among a certain type of people they never get taken as the dignified, water calming, life enhancers that they are. A lot of people interpret apologies, civility, and politeness as weakness. You see these people on the job, on the street, sometimes in ones own family. To apologize, to treat them with the respect due to any human being only invites abuse. Once in a bar I said to a man trying to start a fight with me "Well, I apologize, I meant no offense" to which he replied "Well, you're just a @#$%@% p@#%y aren't you" as he moved to close with me. It made a bad situation worse. I know anecdotes are like elbows, everybodys got one, and I admire what you're saying but I think it only counts for certain people. Some people deserve to be treated with honesty, and respect and humility. Some don't. And don't call me a weenie.

[Sin]

Its ok to brag on occasion but only when you have something to brag about....such as winnning at a Tournament. But to keep yourself humble is the best way for someone to learn more...when you are humble you are lesss argumentive and stubborn. Just follow the ways of your instructor.

[bignick]

to reply to the main topic of the thread...i think there is a lot of truth to what you said, Tulisan. But i think Tgace made the good point that as long as the debate stays within the boundries of civility there is no need to apologize for expressing your beliefs...

you need to strike a fine balance between standing by your beliefs and diplomacy...it's a grey area that shifts from situation to situation...

[loki09789]

to reply to the main topic of the thread...i think there is a lot of truth to what you said, Tulisan. But i think Tgace made the good point that as long as the debate stays within the boundries of civility there is no need to apologize for expressing your beliefs...

you need to strike a fine balance between standing by your beliefs and diplomacy...it's a grey area that shifts from situation to situation...Good point Bignick. I think, too, that this idea could apply to recognizing the difference between what you are inferring vs. what is being said. If I have knowledge, training, experience on a topic that I bring to the discussion and it is relevent and the discussion stays on track and doesn't become about the people then I don't see that as a problem. If someone has a problem with it or feels 'less' or 'stepped on' because they can not draw from the same background on that topic how can that be the message sender's problem? There may be another topic that they are more versed in that would put them in the know and I would gain from their thread posts... it all comes around in the end.

Much like the issue of conviction or principles, your damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you 'apologize' or 'concede' (as a gesture of keeping the peace, not necessarily because of actual wrong doing or true shift in mentallity) then you will be seen as a 'flip flop' person with no moral courage.

If, on the other hand, you stick by your convictions in the face of opposition, you are percieved as arrogant, uber-self important and so on...

Personally, at least on issues of principle and philosophy, I would rather stand by my beliefs and present them honestly - even at the price of 'niceties' if it means using the discussion to really sharpen my understanding of myself, my values and re-evaluation if need be. That can happen through other insights/posts or through the process of clarifying and articulating my own points well.

In addition to the "master's humility" topic that Paul started, I would add that a master also doesn't really worry too much about what other people think or how they percieve him/her if he/she is acting, speaking and behaving within a personal set of values. A master does not let himself/herself be steared by the crowd. If you are a 'master' you may be open to learning from anyone, but you also are good at critiquing the validity and usefulness of information.

The focus should be about growth and topics not about 'what people mean' with statements. In a perfect world, people should be strong enough to accept a "Nope, I don't agree with that and here is why" without a perception of insult or character attack and simply say "fine, that is your world this is mine. It works for me and you, ultimately don't sign my paychecks or kiss me goodnight so your opinion doesn't really affect me too much." It might be interesting to get feedback, but it doesn't have to be such a personal investment.

I have said before, read the statement not into it and everything should be as civil and topical (if not polite) as it needs to be.

[TigerWoman]

I can second that. This is not the place for personal attacks especially when the topic is humility.

Humility is not always easy for me, although it is something which I do try to be more aware. That was a nice post, Paul. Sometimes, though humility is not so black and white and it is not a "physical" confrontation. I don't believe in the method of "do the dirty first" and apologize later. So, much easier. That is prideful too, in that I must have my way no matter who I hurt along the way. It is even harder to accept an apology of someone who knowingly hurt you, not physically, but in other ways. Its hard to judge whether an apology is really truthful, from the heart, when this behavior has been witnessed before with other apologies and other hurt people. Humility in someone who says, "I just want to have peace" but offers no real remorse , actually a disclaimer that it didn't happen. Instead just the words, "I apologize for hurting you directly or indirectly" is supposed to be a show of humility to make everything right. But in the interest of "peace" you accept the apology as the best you will get - he sincerely wanted peace. What I am saying is, is that people do know if an apology is genuine...and from the heart. And it is, therefore, harder to have the humility to accept an insincere apology. But humility does = peace and someone has to make the real sacrifice. TW

[loki09789]

Instead just the words, "I apologize for hurting you directly or indirectly" is supposed to be a show of humility to make everything right. But in the interest of "peace" you accept the apology as the best you will get - he sincerely wanted peace. What I am saying is, is that people do know if an apology is genuine...and from the heart. And it is, therefore, harder to have the humility to accept an insincere apology. But humility does = peace and someone has to make the real sacrifice. TW
Theoretically, where would you draw the line to distinguish humility = peace and making personal sacrifices and either 'selling out' or becoming a sucker/victim?

I think that, though not necessarily in internet discussions, there has to be a personal point where you will not compromise any further and you will make a stand (either physical or moral). Think about the 'intimidation' game. Yes, you could 'refuse to give them a fight' and concede every point:

"Yes, I am a loser"
"I am sorry, I didn't mean to upset you"
"Yes, I do respect you"
......
until it becomes:
"Yes, I deserved to be fired for that(when you really didn't)"
"Yes, it was my own fault that you hit me. I should have had dinner on the table"
and so on.

Humility=peace taken too far can also mean permissive participation in abuse or allowing yourself to become a victim.

Again, I am not so stupid as to think that you and others don't realize this, just interested in 'where you would draw the line' or how much you would 'sacrifice' for peace.

[Cruentus]

heh, heh. Wow. O.K, I'll keep this brief...
#1. For many of you, thanks again for your comments of support! :)

#2. Patrick, just wondering wtf? Was that a joke, or were you taking a shot at fiesty. You'll have to excuse my ignorance but I am not on here as much anymore to know the history between you too.

#3. Although some actions on different threads got me thinking, and inspired me to start this post, I really could care less about other childish arguements that I am not involved in. So, no, this is not a vieled attack on anyone, for the very few of you who may think that. However, don't whine like a b**ch if the shoe fits either. This topic is just something to think about, and of course discuss amongst ourselves.

#4. loneoyote brought up some interesting points. Let's examine a typical circumstance at the bar. A guy is giving you a hard time and you take the humble route and confidently say, "I'm sorry if I have offended you sir. I don't want any trouble from yea. How about if I buy the next round." That guy has one of two options: Continue to create a conflict or not. If not, then good job, you have defended yourself.

Let's, however, say he smells blood and continues to escalate the problem. Well, you continue to handle it accordingly. "Sir, I have apoligized to you, I have told you I don't want trouble, I have offered to buy you a beer. If you don't leave me to my evening I am going to have a talk with the management." If it is a well bounced bar, and your not the person acting like an a$$, then the staff will warn him, watch him, and throw him out if needed.

If it is not a well bounced bar there is usually a cook, a bartender, a manager, or someone who can be called upon to try to break up fights if there is trouble. Find that person, tell him the problem, and ask for his help. I have done this on a number of occasions, and I have gotten permission to throw people out if they get out of line, and I have gotten help from the staff to throw people out as well.

Now, if there is no one on staff deligated to handle troubles in the bar (which is rare), then get the few who are working to at least give you permission to handle it yourself if you have too. You see, the whole time you are doing this (the apology, the politeness, the talking with the staff, etc.) you are creating witnesses around you who will advocate for you if the cops get involved. Witnesses who will say that you apologized, that you "backed down," that you tryed to get help, and that this guy was the preditor and not you.

Now, you could run into the case where your the outsider and this guy is the regular, and no one will advocate for you. This IS the worst case scenario. Well, you will find that out very quickly when you go to talk with the staff. If that is what you find out, then you need to get the f**k of there ASAP. You are on his turf. This means that the cards are not stacked in your favor by any means, and your assalient knows it. He will have no qualms about trying to hurt you, and you can bet that he will have friends and family in that bar who will step in if you have the upper hand. You can also bet that when the cops come, and this is after you have been stomped into the floor by your assalient, his brother, his friend, and a couple of other locals, they will all be filling out the police report about how you were out of line and how your were the preditor, not your assalient. You will be the one to go to jail. So...get the F out of there if you find out that you have stepped on that guys turf, and fast. If you feel that he will follow you outside if you try to leave, and that he is determined to eventually hand you your @$$, then get to a phone if you can and call the cops. Or try get up to go to the bathroom or something, then pull a fast one and leave. Do something, but your primary concern is leaving! You are not in a good situation here, but the longer you stay most likely the worse it will get. btw...I hope your armed with something for a time like this, because it can go bad to worse in a matter of seconds. Regardless, because you chose to be polite, they may let you go. That apology may save your life here, where returning his impoliteness with impoliteness would have gotten you beat down or killed in a heartbeat.

Now, Let's pretend that you choose not to be polite. You choose not to apologize, and attempt to ignore him or whatever. Lets say he escalates it too a fight. You won't have the witnesses advocating for you, saying that you tried everything you could to disipate the conflict. To the cops, your just another dude fighting another dude. If you win with all your "martial arts training" your going to jail for sure. You may even go to jail if you lose. Plus, for practical reasons, I know I am justified in putting a hurtin' on someone if I have tried every which way to avoid the fight. By the time he attacks me, most is fair game. If lethal force is justified, all is fair game. A sane, law abiding citizens is more likely to not hesitate if it comes to blows and they have tried everything to prevent the conflict. Hesitation is more likely to occur otherwise.

An even worse case scenario is that you choose to return his rudeness with rudeness. If it goes to blows, you will definatily go to jail. You will not be able to plea self-defense.

So, the prudent thing to do for self-defense is to be polite. This doesn't mean that you aren't assertive when you need to be, and of course circumstances may vary. You need to use discretion; you won't always apologize, and no situation is black and white. However, if your ego is so fragile that you can't apologize and can't be polite, then you are not only a weenie, but your a piss-poor self-defense practioner. If your only motivation for being polite or humble is fear (fear of getting your @$$ kicked, of going to jail, or of lossing face) then you are an even bigger weenie. I think this concept is pretty simple.

Now, take your own inventory on this; I am not finger pointing and calling anyone names. If the shoe fits, then your best option is to discover how to stop being a weenie, then stop. 'Cause when you whine about it and play semantics games, it only makes you more obvious.

#5. Your internet behavior and ettiquite, as well as with all other aspects of your life, directly apply here. If you have to feint expertise 247 on an internet talk forum with no regards to another persons points, and if you can never admit fault or apologize for offenses on an online forum, then you are a weenie. Even if you are polite and prudent in the face of conflict, but you can't be the same online, then what is that motivation? It is fear. You're polite and prudent in the face of conflict because you FEAR the reprocussions, not because it is simply part of your behavior pattern. The "masters" humility is as such where he is not concerned with his ego. Hell, he may be an abrassive prick at times, but he is not afraid of damaging his ego, so he is not afraid to admit fault or ignorance, and he isn't afraid to apologize. The masters humility comes very natural to him, so it comes very natural on the internet as well. The weenie, on the other hand, is only polite and humble when he faces reprocussions in which he fears, and this also becomes evident on the internet.

So, I disagree with the idea that you can't make some character judgements based on internet behavior. Granted, the judgements are limited, but in this case I think it is relevent. If you have over a 1,000 posts with some heated arguements and character attacks under your belt, but no admissions of ever being wrong or of apologizing for offending anyone, then your probably a weenie.

Well, have fun with this one folks. I am not going to argue or hammer my points in...you'll either get it or you won't. It's nice to see that many of you seem to get it.

PJMOD

[Cruentus]

Oh, and one last thing...

I am not saying, never be assertive, never argue, never defend yourself, or never stand behind your arguements and convictions. Where the hell did some of you get that from?

I am simply talking about either having the ability or not having the ability to admit fault or apologize where appropriate. Either you are able too admit falut and apologize when appropriate because your not a weenie, or you refuse too because you are a weenie. Pretty simple, I think.

party on...

:-partyon:

:ultracool

[Feisty Mouse]

You see, the whole time you are doing this (the apology, the politeness, the talking with the staff, etc.) you are creating witnesses around you who will advocate for you if the cops get involved. Witnesses who will say that you apologized, that you "backed down," that you tryed to get help, and that this guy was the preditor and not you.

I didn't think of that, but it's a good point.

And the word "weenie" makes me laugh. :)

[bignick]

Oh, and one last thing...

I am not saying, never be assertive, never argue, never defend yourself, or never stand behind your arguements and convictions. Where the hell did some of you get that from?

I am simply talking about either having the ability or not having the ability to admit fault or apologize where appropriate. Either you are able too admit falut and apologize when appropriate because your not a weenie, or you refuse too because you are a weenie. Pretty simple, I think.
i agree with you here...if there is fault on your part, that's where the humility plays a factor...being humble enough to admit you were wrong...

as for a physical altercation...dave lowry wrote a good article on telling the difference between a puppy's bark and it's bite...

if someone is talking big and trying to put you down...their arguments and insults have no power except for the power you give them(sticks and stones).....

if someone punches you in the face...it's gonna hurt no matter how much you try to ignore it...

the first situation can easily escalate into the latter...but usually when things like this start it's an "alpha male" type of altercation where someone is trying to prove their the biggest, the baddest and this is THEIR territory...in that type of situation...i'd just tuck my tail between my legs and walk away...i know the truth behind the situation...the outside appearance isn't all that important....

[lonecoyote]

Tulisan, great thread, and thanks for addressing my post. I do think that at times though, we've all been guilty of weenieism. Something to aspire to, cleansing yourself of characteristics of the weenie. Thanks.

[bignick]

an admirable and lifelong goal to be sure...i've had my bad moments as well...too many to even begin typing

[TigerWoman]

Theoretically, where would you draw the line to distinguish humility = peace and making personal sacrifices and either 'selling out' or becoming a sucker/victim?

I think that, though not necessarily in internet discussions, there has to be a personal point where you will not compromise any further and you will make a stand (either physical or moral). Think about the 'intimidation' game. Yes, you could 'refuse to give them a fight' and concede every point:

"Yes, I am a loser"
"I am sorry, I didn't mean to upset you"
"Yes, I do respect you"
......
until it becomes:
"Yes, I deserved to be fired for that(when you really didn't)"
"Yes, it was my own fault that you hit me. I should have had dinner on the table"
and so on.

Humility=peace taken too far can also mean permissive participation in abuse or allowing yourself to become a victim.

Again, I am not so stupid as to think that you and others don't realize this, just interested in 'where you would draw the line' or how much you would 'sacrifice' for peace.

I don't think having humility means you have to beat yourself up or let others do the job either. First of all, I wouldn't make any of those first statements starting with "I am a loser" unless I truly really thought I was. That isn't humility, that's a poor self image. But if I had something to do with the problem, I would hope I would own up to it, otherwise it is still a problem. If I was on the other side of the coin and felt I needed to apologize, it would be an heartfelt apology not something to save face.

If I didn't want to take any more abuse-physical or mental, where the injury outweighs the benefits, that is where I draw the line. And I'm not talking about a domestic scene here. Or a bar scene either.

But, peace that comes from acceptance of a false or insincere apology should be mutually beneficial to both parties -a truce. He gets the peace/harmony he wants from his apology, the other person feels that at least an effort was made to recognize the problem and is promised it will not continue and gets the benefit of that. Both can live with the compromise. There would be respect both ways, albeit not a very deep respect, but a livable one hopefully. Of course, no truce holds if there are further offenses. Its a thin line. That's my opinion. TW

[Tgace]

Of course, no truce holds if there are further offenses. Its a thin line. That's my opinion. TW
Ahhh..the crux of the matter. How many times have arguements started where each side accuses the other of starting it?

It would kind of be like bumping into Paul J.'s adversary in this little metaphor over and over again and having to apoligize over and over again. When is enough, enough?

[TigerWoman]

Enough is enough is enough. There is a point when it is unproductive for the student and unproductive for the master or for two people to walk away from a fight in a bar. Better to part ways... TW

[Tgace]

Sorry, I still dont think you can draw an accurate picture of who a person is through this medium. If I believed that I would have an even worse opinion about some people here than I already do. ;)

I also think that drawing a comparison between internet discussions and physical confrontations is kind of a stretch. Should two people in a formal debate be acting like they would in a physical confrontation? Watch the presidential debates. Tell me, if these were two people in a bar, would they be acting the same way? Again, as long as the debate stays on the arguement(and not on each other), who cares if somebody dosent like the "way" somebody argues? Argue your point right back or bow out or you become some sort of oversensitive weenie.

Of course there are exceptions to this...if each point of debate is phrased like "Well I dont expect YOU to understand but...." Or "Obviously you were not trained right if you think..." Or "Since you were just a paper pusher in the military, what do you know about..." Yeah things are going to get ugly. The point is getting off the topic and ON the arguer. I admit Ive fallen into that trap, he with no sin and all.....

The comparison here seems to be "treat each other like they are strangers in a bar." I dont think Id get into discussions/debates about politics/philosophy with some guy drinking a beer at the bar. This is more like a bunch of aquaintances at a coffee shop discussion.

Im pretty comfortable saying that if I were face to face with somebody and they said some things that have been said to me here, I would respond pretty much the same way as I have here. Some here who know me could verify that.

[shesulsa]

Tulisan, nice thread. I see your points of the need for humility and the value of the apology in various arenas.

I only apologize when I have definitely done something wrong or offensive or if my butt is in a sling.

But there are people who are constantly saying, "I'm sorry." It's almost a knee-jerk phrase and comes too easily. It can be difficult to ascertain a person's character - just because they apologize doesn't necessarily mean they are humble nor honest.

One of your points, however, that no one is above reproach and apology from time to time, is quite valid.

Rock on.

P.S. did you post one of those create-a-face avatars yet?

[Marginal]

Without the tone of voice, the facial expressions etc, people's imaginations tend to go wild on the net. It's not so much a question of what one person said, it's what someone else thinks you said, which they proceed to argue against, issue slanders etc all in the defense of a cause they beleive is "just". Anyone can become guilty of this at any time.

For example say someone posts a comment like:
"I hate Spumoni."
Someone may think it's perfeclty in the cause of right and good to then respond with:
"You sir, are a bigot. This clearly illustrates your hatred of Italians. You're monocultrecentric, and a jingoist! Boo!"

Does the guy who hates Spumoni then have to apologize to the second poster? He still hates spumoni, and disliking a dessert doesn't logically carry over into one hating an entire ethnic group. In that case you just have an apology demanding weenie, not a wronged party that deserves an apology. Fear doesn't dictate a lack of a concillitory response. Common sense however, does.

I don't beleive this illustrates a character flaw regardless. For that matter, some situations which are largely based on opinion with little supporting fact/logic (Say, religion or style comparisons) cannot be resolved with a right/wrong Spaceghostesque yes no answer. In that case, there's no real grounds from which to be demanding or issuing an apology in the first place.

[loki09789]

Without the tone of voice, the facial expressions etc, people's imaginations tend to go wild on the net. It's not so much a question of what one person said, it's what someone else thinks you said, which they proceed to argue against, issue slanders etc all in the defense of a cause they beleive is "just". Anyone can become guilty of this at any time.

For example say someone posts a comment like:
"I hate Spumoni."
Someone may think it's perfeclty in the cause of right and good to then respond with:
"You sir, are a bigot. This clearly illustrates your hatred of Italians. You're monocultrecentric, and a jingoist! Boo!"

Does the guy who hates Spumoni then have to apologize to the second poster? He still hates spumoni, and disliking a dessert doesn't logically carry over into one hating an entire ethnic group. In that case you just have an apology demanding weenie, not a wronged party that deserves an apology. Fear doesn't dictate a lack of a concillitory response. Common sense however, does.

I don't beleive this illustrates a character flaw regardless. For that matter, some situations which are largely based on opinion with little supporting fact/logic (Say, religion or style comparisons) cannot be resolved with a right/wrong Spaceghostesque yes no answer. In that case, there's no real grounds from which to be demanding or issuing an apology in the first place.
Even with facial expressions and vocal tones there can be confusion because the sender---message----reciever process happens on an informational level and an emotional level. That means that no matter how well intentioned the sender might be or how well constructed the message may be, if the reciever 'brings their own issues' into the interpretation of either the informational or emotional message that puts the 'problem' in the hands of the reciever - so, who should apologize? The responsibility to accept 'fault' if the sender has either constructed a poor message or delivered a 'bad intentioned' message....

I guess my idea of 'master' is someone who is more 'self aware' and has the skill and ability to sift through something (whether a fight or themselves), figure out what is going on in as objective a manner as possible, and then accept fault or, more accurately, know what it means to 'fix the problem not the blame' - even if the 'problem' that needs to be fixed is in themselves...

Humility? I don't know if it is humility as much as self assurance and self awareness/awareness sensititivity in general.

[KenpoTess]

MOD NOTE

I have removed some disparaging posts from this thread which are 'stored' not deleted. Any posts that quoted or related to the initial problem posting were also removed.
Please keep things respectful and if you have an issue with someone, Use the Report to Mod button.

Thank you,

~Tess
-MT S. MOD-

[loki09789]

Oh, and one last thing...

I am simply talking about either having the ability or not having the ability to admit fault or apologize where appropriate. Either you are able too admit falut and apologize when appropriate because your not a weenie, or you refuse too because you are a weenie. Pretty simple, I think.

party on...

:-partyon:

:ultracool
Here is a "Devil's Advocate" position to keep this topic rolling:

Couldn't 'labelling' or 'judging' people who, at that moment or phase of life, can't seem to recognize, acknowledge or confront their fault (by that I think you are implying personal accountability and not 'character flaw') as "weenie" be "weenieish" in itself?

In school, we stress that 'labelling' students or 'pigeon holing' people into easily defined character types is not the way to go.

I agree with the idea that personal accountability is a good thing to have. It demonstrates good character, maturity and wisdom but isn't this an evolutionary/growth process that spans an entire lifetime? How does having someone calling you a 'weenie' help guide a person toward better personal accountability? I would say it would more likely drive them into deeper denial (if you are even correct in your assessment of that denial AND fault to begin with OR if you are even a person that should be making such assessments in the first place) than be a way of helping them develop into a master level of conduct and behavior.

In parenting too
(though it really applies to any relationship communication), the recommended method of communication
(yes, I took "parenting training" because well, I'm a geek :)) is to identify the problem not 'type the person' who has the problem. You could say "You are a weenie" or "Your not taking your share of the problem." Neither message is easy to hear, but the second lacks the 'personal attack' element that can put a person even more on the defense than they may already be.

[Flatlander]

Couldn't 'labelling' or 'judging' people who, at that moment or phase of life, can't seem to recognize, acknowledge or confront their fault (by that I think you are implying personal accountability and not 'character flaw') as "weenie" be "weenieish" in itself?

In school, we stress that 'labelling' students or 'pigeon holing' people into easily defined character types is not the way to go.Just wanted to note here, Paul, that I disagree. "Weenie" can be open to interpretation. Also, I wanted to commend you on the cromulent use of "weenieish".

[loki09789]

I don't think having humility means you have to beat yourself up or let others do the job either. First of all, I wouldn't make any of those first statements starting with "I am a loser" unless I truly really thought I was. That isn't humility, that's a poor self image. But if I had something to do with the problem, I would hope I would own up to it, otherwise it is still a problem. If I was on the other side of the coin and felt I needed to apologize, it would be an heartfelt apology not something to save face.

If I didn't want to take any more abuse-physical or mental, where the injury outweighs the benefits, that is where I draw the line. And I'm not talking about a domestic scene here. Or a bar scene either.

But, peace that comes from acceptance of a false or insincere apology should be mutually beneficial to both parties -a truce. He gets the peace/harmony he wants from his apology, the other person feels that at least an effort was made to recognize the problem and is promised it will not continue and gets the benefit of that. Both can live with the compromise. There would be respect both ways, albeit not a very deep respect, but a livable one hopefully. Of course, no truce holds if there are further offenses. Its a thin line. That's my opinion. TWThose statements were more (though poorly explained) examples of the decline in mentallity that can happen if you continually are 'compromising in the name of peace' than they were intended to be true statements that someone would outright say.

Some good points about 'peace' and gestures, but my further question is this:
If the apology is false, what does that say about the 'gesture' it represents as well. Is the motive "I need to look like the bigger man here", "I just want this to be over with" or something along those lines? If so, the quality or integrity of any truce formed by that kind of gesture is just as false as the statement.

Honesty is honesty IMO. If you 'honestly' want a truce (which may create peace, but doesn't have to mean 'like' or 'cooperation') then stating that clearly is the best way to go. If you sincerely, honestly mean that you are apologizing (taking your part of the blame for any fault or problem) then that also should be clearly stated.

Sort of along the same lines that Janulis pointed out about Self Defense with the verbal apology being like a trump card, honest statements like "I don't want to fight, I am not looking for any trouble, I just want to leave" would be more honest and clear and powerful if a witness can quote that during an interview with LEO after the fact that "I'm SOrry" - especially if it isn't an honest apology and only a tactical maneuver.

I have no problem with tactical applications, but picking good ones that are efficient and get more bang for your buck are the way to go.

"I'm Sorry" can lead to a series of questions from attorneys that might be used against you because they will interpret this relatively 'ambiguous' statement - even to the point of "So, you really weren't sincere when you apologized, you were lieing to get out of there....what else have you lied about?" In other words they could find a way to turn it into a demonstration of weak character, and therefore weaken your case. Not saying it's correct, just saying it can happen.

"I don't want any trouble, I just want to be left alone...." or something that is a stronger statement of INTENT and clarity (combined with some attempt/gesture to avoid the conflict of course) would make a stronger case and therefore a better tactical application IMO.

[loki09789]

Just wanted to note here, Paul, that I disagree. "Weenie" can be open to interpretation. Also, I wanted to commend you on the cromulent use of "weenieish".Yeah, 'weenie' is open to interpretation. But then again so is 'loser', 'fatso', 'faggit', 'gay' (which I absolutely HATE hearing teens use when they really mean 'stupid' or 'I don't like it'....). or a million other negative 'labels' that people use They are all open to interpretation, but any reasonable interpretation is pretty negative and does not identify behavior as the problem and instead focuses on the person as the 'fault.'

My Dad, after he got done being really upset and maybe said some things that weren't the greatest would try to explain by saying that he wasn't "Mad at me" but mad "about what I did." At the time it might not have made a huge difference, but later (like now that I have my own son) I understand and probably get along with him better than if he had not made that statement and others like that. Pretty 'wise' and sensitive guy for an Un'edumicated' high school diploma holder with no higher education to speak of...

As far as weenie-ish.....words/language is a tool. There really are no hard and fast "rules" as much as acceptable 'function' and 'context.' As long as people get what I am trying to say, and it is in the right tone for the audience, what the hey!

[loki09789]

I was reading through some threads which caused me to think a bit about this subject.

How do you guys feel about the idea behind apologizing? How about admitting fault?


If I choose to be a jerk and it gets me into a physical confrontation, I will be prosecuted, and if I hurt someone I will go to jail. Period.

Was rereading this portion of the thread starter...

If you choose to get into a physical confrontation, regardless of whether you also choose to be a jerk could lead to prosecution. I can be 'nice' and polite all the way up to the point where, in the words of Patrick Swayze, "it's time not to be nice" and still be in legal trouble. The law does not require 'polite' for justification of self defense. Generally, it does require that the threat be reasonable and that you use an appropriate amount of force relative to the situation and threat.

Being a jerk unto itself might cost you popularity, a good rep and such, but it does not have to mean prosecution. Of course, being 'nice' at the expense of any other virtue (integrity, honestly, loyalty....) puts you in another bad place and might earn you the label of 'sell out' or 'fake.' Striking a balance in all of this that works for you and keeps you true to yourself is a life long process. I am no ones judge here or anywhere else.

Concerning 'less than lethal' implications of these ideas, similar to TGACE's point that I would say that I have and generally do express myself in person the way that I write here - for good or ill, but at least you know where I stand and don't feel that it is two faced or that I am blowing smoke up your... you get it. Pulling punches or being "Bolder on the Boards" isn't really my way. My opinions are just that, mine and really don't have much weight in the larger sense because, in the end, I don't kiss the rest of the world good night or have my paycheck signed by anyone here or sign theirs for that matter.... basically how 'weenie-ish' someone seems is as subjective and reflects more on the evaluator than the evaluated in the end. You are going to carry that habit and tendency with you everywhere you go. The person being 'labelled' or judged a 'weenie' will go on with their lives and may not even realize what you think of them....or care very much even if they do know it.