What Doesn't Belong to us

[Paladin]

What simply astounds me in human nature is the propensity for "taking offense"
Many are those who offend easily and I must ask, why? Within the different rooms/sub forums I saw one recent post where another poster was attacked for simply expressing his/her own view, the attacker was justifed in his/her behavior because the person had expressed an idea that "offended".
Now I can see this kind of behavior at different levels of understanding, and Heaven knows that emotional intelligence isn't a given in many humans, but isn't being offended or taking offense simply taking something that doesn't belong to you? Even if verbally attacked for your views what damage can really be done except to pride? Other persons on the board recognize an unjustified attack when they see one, and a truth, if it be a real truth cannot be destroyed or damaged by a different belief.
Maybe all of us, perhaps mostly myself, need to grow up a little bit?

Peace
Mark

[InLove]

Paladin--your philosophy in this regard is something that has helped me a great deal in the past. I am glad you brought it up. It is always timely, in my opinion.

InPeace,
InLove

[lunamoth]

What I tend to notice is that we sometimes, being human, take something personally or make an issue personal, when there is no need to do this. When this happens, when it becomes an us-them, I-you issue, we quickly move into defensive position. No longer thinking, but brain-stemming it.

I've been trying harder not to take personal offense at issues, and when a thread starts to get personal I withdraw. Sadly, I've been withdrawing a lot lately.

[wil]

the four agreements by Miguel Ruiz...

#2 Don't take anything personally.
Nothing others say or do is because of you. What ohers say and do is a projection of thier own dream. When you are immune to the opinionns and actions of others, you won't be the victiom of needless suffering.

I agree with him....but that still does not excuse me for bad behaviour on my part.

Many of us take ownership of our beliefs and are quite upset if others pull our rug out...or if we perceive same. We are all works in progress...and this place does present such an opportunity to work on our progress.

oh yeah, withdrawing...some threads I don't even open anymore....

[Prober]

The Buddha said "when someone brings you a gift of their anger and you don't accept the gift, where is the gift?" (or something like that)

[flowperson]

Hello all:

I believe that peoples' tendencies to "get in each other's face" even over trivial issues, and yes even over subjects discussed here, is an overall reflection of the global media milieu that we are all cursed and blessed to be immersed in. You have vice presidents of world superpowers that refuse to watch anything other than Fox news on the TV. Then you have alternative reality freaks like me that seek out liberal news and commentary to try and balance somehow the conservative/corporate viewpoints that are officially traversed over the airwaves and through publications at us each hour of the day, usually accompanied by prolific commercial messages.

This richness in quantity and dearth of quality of educated opinion in the common public forums has caused, IMO, an accentuated degree of polarization in societies; and, even here in this small place where we should be coming together sometimes for the good of the whole. It's just easier and more acceptable in society these days to choose sides and argue. It's no wonder that the disease of sports competitions seems to have devolved the art of rational discourse. But you get to a point where it is understood that we are likely somehow becoming passive victims of our own insatiable quest for real information in a world wherein there is increasingly less and less of that.

We are deluged with sound bites in a world that cries out for deep analysis..but of course few except for the paid "experts" have any time for that nor an outlet to disseminate what they find to be true. More and more internet-based journalists, photographers and editors are being jailed by offended governments every day because of their work, and the trend in this practice is decidedly on the upgrade.

We then take the default route of trying to interpret what's going on these days with ancient and sacred writings (and, IMO, the situations we are experiencing are totally unique to our species' history in some important ways), then the ancient and sacred offers little real succor in going about our everyday lives. At least that's how I experience this thing we're addressing here. And yes, true believers avoid conflict and don't even offer opinions on some issues where open conflict is prevalent. Life's just less stressful and easier that way. Jesus said that the hard and narrow way is the true way. Does anyone think that has anything to do with arguing with others about things that are usually illusory and untrue ? I don't .

flow....

[wil]

Originally Posted by flowperson

... It's just easier and more acceptable in society these days to choose sides and argue. ...then the ancient and sacred offers little real succor in going about our everyday lives.

Namaste flow,

I disagree on both counts, elsewise I wouldn't be here playing. I am here to learn...and while I am known to be opinionated...and argue/discuss...If I wasn't able to use my belief system everyday to my benefit, I'd be looking for another...

[cyberpi]

I can understand the term, ‘attack’ when someone fabricates opinions or lies about someone and disperses or projects them to be damaging to a person’s character. In law it is known as defamation, libel or slander. However, if someone is just disappointed or offended because someone thinks differently or believes differently, then I suggest they are going to be disappointed everywhere in life.

I submit that words themselves can NOT hurt or control anyone except the person that speaks them.

Imagine that I have several trained Dobermans and I say, “Dogs, attack that evil man.” Would my words hurt? Does it hurt if the dogs attack? I suggest the reality is that you don’t have to hear the words to get attacked. So it is not hearing the words themselves that do the hurting. When a person hears the words it might very well illicit emotions if the person does not have a grasp of themselves and their emotions. If there are dogs at the ready then those emotions might serve to be helpful. I further submit that emotions do not necessarily help or hurt anyone except the person that experiences or makes use of them. In other words if a person feels good or bad by some words, it doesn’t serve to help or hurt the person that spoke them.

So in the case of a character attack I suggest it is not the words themselves that do the attacking. You don’t even have to hear the words, and the damage is that someone else might pick them up and believe the projection rather than to see it as someones interpretation or belief. If false information is pushed on purpose then it is known as defamation, libel, or slander. In the media it is propaganda. The character is just a personification or a projection.

But if I say something and someone responds, “You offended me”, or, “You make me angry”, or, “You make me sad”… I just see a person denying the power that their soul has in their gray matter by insisting that words can hurt them or control their emotions. They are projecting an intention or motive from their own set of beliefs. There is always information in the words and emotions, but I don’t think for a second that I caused them. If I am to get offended or angry over someone’s words, then I consider that my reaction… I either choose the reaction or I do not have a firm grasp of my own emotions. I am not downplaying the value of emotions, but I am recognizing the person that they serve. As another example if I hear a person singing out of tune, see them pick their nose, or get stuck near them when they have bad breath, I’m not going to blame them for ruining my ears, my eyes, or my nose… I might go look elsewhere and seek fresher air but I consider it my fault if I stick around or don’t say something. How different is an emotion?

The other gem I’ve picked up along the way is recognizing when people project their beliefs and thoughts onto other people. It happens all the time and it is very telling when a person does it. For example if I asked, “Why are you scared?” It might be a harmless question but it basically projects an emotion. In a group, some people will actually look at you as if you were possibly scared. It was conjecture. A longer statement like, “It sounds to me like you are scared… why?” might be better than the original which basically said, “You are scared… why?” I suggest it might be better because it helps to teach those who have not learned that interpretations only represent what the person that speaks them thinks and believes. Is there anyone on the planet that can say to you, “You are scared”, and induce fear into you? I suggest NOT because the words only reveal the heart, soul, or mind of the person that speaks them. So if I were to say to anyone, “I am going to offend you,” should they feel offended? It would only reveal the false belief that words can necessarily offend.

Some other examples of projection might be, “Now stop getting mad at me.” Or, “Don’t get offended again.” Or, “No reason to be disrespectful” or even, “No offense was given.” It is like a magic trick. An illusion that someone has telepathy to determine that someone was mad, offended, trying to be disrespectful, or that a person thinks they can be offended by someone’s words. Certainly a person can have senses and try to pick up the emotions of another person in their words, but it often relies on the assumption that two people think, feel, and believe the same way. There should be plenty of examples around to show that is false. So when the projection is made it ends up revealing quite a bit about the originator if you learn how to read it.

Projections don’t have to be negative either. They can be positive and seeking agreement too. For example simple things like, “You are so right” or, “You made my day with that thought.” To me it just means someone agreed or liked something. If a person draws pride from the praise then he/she has already set themselves up to be directly controlled by the words of others without their control. Taken literally they can easily be false statements too.

Doesn't have to be emotions. I know a number of individuals that deny emotions and prefer to think they themselves are above them with logic. I think I have spent a bit of time with this belief. Who wants to be the emotional wreckage seen in others, right? But sometimes if words are challenged then it is considered an attack, as if having some 'Truth' or logically correct answer justifies a person. To this I would ask if the logic or challenge from a young child is unjustified? Is it an attack? Is it wrongful for a child to question? I say not. Sometimes undesired words are responded to with a reply something like, "That is an emotional response"... or, "That is an opinion"... or, "You have proved nothing"... or, "I have proved you wrong". With a person like this you can't really tell them too much from your life experiences, beliefs, or scripture because those can all be thrown out as emotions, unproven material, or somehow tainted. Furthermore why waste the time laying out logic when it too will be considered an attack? When a differing belief, logic, or train of thought is considered an attack it reveals that someone thinks the words can hurt them. So I ask... how logical is that? In science and engineering the 'attack' or 'challenge' is often referred to as 'peer review'... which is itself usually a good thing but some people have a hard time with it. Especially when their job performance or career is being evaluated. If behind the logic is attached pride, money, or a leveraged belief system then it ceases to be logic when it is percieved that the words from others might bring harm to whatever the logic was attached to.

I dislike long posts... but my cents, guided or misguided.

[flowperson]

Hi wil:

I was of course ranting in broad generalities, which always break down when they come up against examples of people with strong beliefs and discussion skills. I was, of course, also talking to the great brainwashed mass of "other" people who have been taken in by this scamming and argumentative lifestyle most of us choose to live these days, just because it's easier that way in the short term.

flow....

[cyberpi]

Flowperson, so you think it is good to avoid confrontation or controversy? If a person said, "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" what would be your reaction? Would the 'true believers' truly avoid the conflict?

[flowperson]

I see and interact with serpents, snakes, and broods of vipers everyday in my life, and yet I do not call them out on it. Not being in conflict with others has more to do with conscious efforts on my part not to point out and label others in the first place. However, if others do wrong to me or those I love and care for, I acknowledge and remember the situation and strive not to put myself and those I care about in a position to be abused in similar ways in the future. In my experiences, the situations usually take care of themselves over time.

flow....

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by flowperson

I see and interact with serpents, snakes, and broods of vipers everyday in my life, and yet I do not call them out on it. Not being in conflict with others has more to do with conscious efforts on my part not to point out and label others in the first place. However, if others do wrong to me or those I love and care for, I acknowledge and remember the situation and strive not to put myself and those I care about in a position to be abused in similar ways in the future. In my experiences, the situations usually take care of themselves over time.

flow....

So you think it is better to look the other way when someone commits a sin? I'm guessing you recognize the people you interact with and are internally judging to call serpents, snakes, and broods of vipers must be committing some sins. May I ask what line of work you are in?

[Francis king]

if u come into my house in the middle of the night and attack me with a meat cleaver, I will try my best to prevent myself from injury... if u call me a fool on a forum, I am happy enough to have evoked a response from u, and even if u slate me and resort to calling me names, I will neither hold it against u or sit at home worrying about it...I think flow has the right idea about avoiding confrontations, if that is what flow does, as ultimately, a confrontation means u attack or defend, whereas turning on ur heels and heading for the hills means u'll live to see another day... even the "saints" are "guilty" of not sticking up for their beliefs when it means death- I'm thinking of peter after the crucifixion...

as for looking away when someone commits a sin, who determines what is sin, and who decides its ur place to intervene? didnt jesus say something about those being without sin casting the first stone? there but for the grace of god goes u...

[Saltmeister]

When I find a post that's offensive, attacking back is not something I prefer doing anyway because . . . isn't it a breach of the Code of Conduct?

Retaliating with an attack of your own for me isn't an option. For me I have to options: 1) reason with the offender by giving my own opinion about why I disagree or 2) withdrawing slowly from the discussion before finally disappearing altogether.

Moreover, what if by attacking back I become the offender himself (by accident)? I do not want a reputation of slandering people, bickering or putting them down. I do not want people to think of me as a wolf hungering and desiring to inflict emotional damage to other people as revenge for what they've said.

I do it not because I pride myself on being a dignified, polite and respectable person, but because I know I'm probably one of the most obnoxious people on the planet. I do it because I don't want any trouble. The consequences aren't favourable.

Considering what you said Paladin, I don't own CR. I am a guest here. I have no territorial ownership of any forum. There is nothing for me to covet. What's the point of attacking anyone? Nothing here belongs to me anyway.

Offensive posts are not an attack on my personal space or personal feelings, though I may interpret them as such. I do have an identity on CR, and a reputation which I treasure. I'd like to say it's a privilege to be able to post one's views and opinions. For that reason it doesn't seem favourable to attack someone for making offensive posts.

I disagree with the views in the post, but don't try and slaughter, kill or murder anyone. I'm not out to kill. I simply have the understanding that people may think differently. That said, I also understand why people may retaliate. Nothing in this world is perfect.

If people do retaliate and attack others, that to me is understandable. Most of us have an attitude problem, or have simply not learnt to interact with "potential hostiles" in a health manner. For many of us it's a problem of which we're aware and we're going through a process in which we learn to relate better.

Nevertheless, I do think it's time someone asked the question about attacking offensive posts and taking things personally at CR.

[flowperson]

Cyberpi:

I don't work because I inherited hundreds of milions of dollars from my grandparents and I spend my entire life these days working hard to undermine the existing social order. Nice try though.

fllow....