Admitting fault and apologizing and Self-Defense...

[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...

artyon:

: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. TW

Those 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.