Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: respect

Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2015, at 1:25:49

In reply to Re: Lou's request-pheel UR Bill82, posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 24, 2015, at 22:12:53

> First, I am baffled by the assumption, implicit in your first point, that a statement to the effect that no reasonable sense can be gleaned from a comment to which a response has been requested or impliedly invited, *necessarily* evidences a "lack of respect". The application of reason in the articulation of one's views determines in the first place whether they merit reasonable consideration by any one. No one can be obliged reasonably to consider *views* which are unreasonable in themselves.
> Are these views to be "respected"? Or perhaps you mean more accurately to state that they, however wicked, should be *tolerated* as part and parcel of entering into the bargain of rational discourse and debate? If the later, I agree to an extent, subject to the proviso that no view is immune from vigorous criticism if reasonably warranted.
> Further, you should appreciate that "respect" is a loaded term importing, in substance and in contrast to "tolerance", some degree of endorsement of the views advanced. ... Then again, perhaps what you really mean to state is that members should in advance "respect", not the view itself, but the *right* to express the view, even if disagreeable. If this is your intended meaning, you should of course say so.
> The supposition that every member is here for "support" is, of course, a prima facie plausible one. But it does not by logical necessity exclude the possibility that the "support" any one hypothetical member might seek is conditional on him or her outrageously misrepresenting, denigrating, defaming, and bullying other members in the pursuit of his or her aims.
> If your admonition was really aimed at nothing more exceptional than encouraging members to express their views, when in disagreement, with a sufficient degree of "sensitivity" in the circumstances, then no one would disagree. But it should not be underestimated how difficult it can be to summon up such "sensitivity" in the face of a battering succession of insensitive, repetitive, and irrational comments.

> I have been seriously considering departing from this site altogether. And yet I remain because the site attracts and has members whose knowledge of mental disease and medication is so much more extensive than my own.
> This is the best site for peer-to-peer **intelligent** (not inflammatory, or misinformed, or irrational) discussion about medication. I have learnt a huge amoumt from members like Ed in the UK, for instance.
> If I may say so without disrespect, peurile injunctions - as the most recent one from Dr Hsuing in this thread - that all members are obliged to "respect" irrationality - are simply not satisfactory. Consider their logical applications. Such injunctions mandate that the proposition that mental illness be an illusory phenomonon is conferred "respect".
> Robert_Burton_1621

Thanks for taking the time to explain where you're coming from.

1. How would you feel if someone said you didn't merit reasonable consideration, or were puerile?

2. You're of course free to decide that someone doesn't merit reasonable consideration. Or is puerile. Or ugly. But do you have to say that to them? I think Ed is great, too. Do you see him saying certain people don't merit reasonable consideration?

3. IMO, the reason that is the natural possession of all persons isn't really so common; reasonable people can disagree.

4. The goal here is support, not vigorous criticism. I believe vigorous criticism will be more tolerated if posted elsewhere.

I do suppose that everyone here is here for support. Say someone does post that mental illness is an illusory phenomenon. It's fine to post that you disagree, and why. It might be described as supererogatory, but you could at the same time also wonder what led them to post that, and how you might be able to support them (without compromising your own beliefs).

5. To try to be more clear, I mean "respect" as in "refrain from interfering with", as in "you must learn to respect other people's property", not "consider worthy of high regard", as in "the students respect the principal for his honesty." Maybe you'd call it respecting the right of others to express their views, or expressing one's own views with a sufficient degree of sensitivity. Have you read Dinah's post on I-statements?

I know how difficult that can be. Sometimes interacting with others may be frustrating and staying civil may be a challenge. New skills may help. Other posters can also support you in developing new skills (which I realize may not be why you came in the first place).

6. I see it as my role to deal with bullying, etc. And saying someone doesn't merit reasonable consideration, or is puerile, or ugly, could, depending on the circumstances, be considered bullying.

7. I'm delighted that you consider this the best site for peer-to-peer intelligent discussion about medication. I hope you continue to contribute to it.


> That last thing I want to see when severly depressed, so anxious I've been stuck in my shower for 4 and a half hours. Or just plan irratibile due to the problems my brain is causing me, is a seemingly non sensical unrelated speech about topics that I cannot string together no matter how hard I try. For this reason, if you plan on making a statement and getting a message across, please do it to people who actually have the mental stamina to abstractly think about whatever you are saying, and not to some of the most tprtured souls in the world. I beleive you will receive much more interactive and supportive talk if you post this message elsewhere.
> Bill82

1. Please be civil. How would you feel if someone referred to your speech as non sensical unrelated?

2. His objective may not (or may) be interaction and support.

3. If you can't make sense of someone's posts, it might not be worth your while to keep reading them.


a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Dr. Bob thread:1077800