Not true. That was a popular tenet of 1970's feel-good psychology, but the reality is that human beings have feelings, and it's natural to react to antagonism with anger, insult with pain, etc.
One may be able to control how they act on those feelings and thus how they respond, but being offended is no more a conscious choice than the pain one feels when stubbing their toe.
All of this is of course notwithstanding psychosis or atypical anatomy.
Well, thank you for the civil, measured response. Is that an example of your "choosing" how to respond?
Not at all. One is still responsible for how they act on their feelings. That's not the same as saying that we choose how we feel. We don't.
Do you see what I mean?
You support this:
"Yeah see, the thing is, noone fucking asked you. Quite pathetic how you feel the need to inject your vitriolic brand of politics and xenophobia into absolutely everything. Do us a favor and keep that useless vomit to yourself."
...but believe this:
"What a crock of shit"
...to not be civil and, of all things, unmeasured.
Just wait until the next article comes along that has something to do with Apple and Australia. There's not too many of those. If I feel that Australia is in the wrong, then don't worry, I would have no problems with bashing Australia, or anybody else for that matter!
If I feel that Australia is in the wrong...
The village's fool is going to establish that Australia is wrong ?
I'm quite certain that Australia has a legal system good enough to establish if a company is wrong or right.
And, as far as I know, Apple's been wrong a couple of times in Australia. In Europe as well...
Well, thank you for the civil, measured response. Is that an example of your "choosing" how to respond?
Not at all. One is still responsible for how they act on their feelings. That's not the same as saying that we choose how we feel. We don't.
Do you see what I mean?
You support this:
"Yeah see, the thing is, noone fucking asked you. Quite pathetic how you feel the need to inject your vitriolic brand of politics and xenophobia into absolutely everything. Do us a favor and keep that useless vomit to yourself."
...but believe this:
"What a crock of shit"
...to not be civil and, of all things, unmeasured.
An interesting contradiction, don't you think?
In the interest of finding the truth, I shall elect to adjudicate on this matter.
You're both right to a degree. The truth lies in both opinions. We aren't free to choose to be offended, but we can control it and change it over time.
The pain citation was an interesting one. Our reaction to pain is involuntary, and yet we can learn to overcome that reaction with training, at least partly.
Well, thank you for the civil, measured response. Is that an example of your "choosing" how to respond?
Not at all. One is still responsible for how they act on their feelings. That's not the same as saying that we choose how we feel. We don't.
Do you see what I mean?
You support this:
"Yeah see, the thing is, noone fucking asked you. Quite pathetic how you feel the need to inject your vitriolic brand of politics and xenophobia into absolutely everything. Do us a favor and keep that useless vomit to yourself."
...but believe this:
"What a crock of shit"
...to not be civil and, of all things, unmeasured.
An interesting contradiction, don't you think?
Actually, I have never said I support Slurpy's comment, so I don't know how there can be a contradiction. You're right, it's insulting. Whether or not it was warranted is another discussion. None of that is relevant to the point, though, which was whether or not we can control how we FEEL
Apple ]['s original post was offensive. Slurpy's comment was the result of being offended by Apple ]['s post. You said Slurpy had a choice about how to feel. I say he doesn't because none of us do.
He can choose how to ACT on his feelings, though. We choose how to respond, and are accountable for what we say and do. I have no problem with someone taking exception to what Slurpy wrote, I just don't agree with your assertion that anyone can CHOOSE to be offended or not.
In the end the argument probably isn't worth this much screen space since the ultimate expectation is the same either way -- that people take responsibility for what they write and show a little respect.
[...] We aren't free to choose to be offended, but we can control it and change it over time.
Right.
That said, a consistently belligerent, antagonistic and deliberately provocative asshole will eventually exceed the community tolerance threshold. In such cases, an angry response is not only likely, but perhaps even appropriate.
Actually, I have never said I support Slurpy's comment, so I don't know how there can be a contradiction. You're right, it's insulting. Whether or not it was warranted is another discussion. None of that is relevant to the point, though, which was whether or not we can control how we FEEL
Apple ]feel[/I]. I say he doesn't because none of us do.
He can choose how to ACT on his feelings, though. We choose how to respond, and are accountable for what we say and do. I have no problem with someone taking exception to what Slurpy wrote, I just don't agree with your assertion that anyone can CHOOSE to be offended or not.
In the end the argument probably isn't worth this much screen space since the ultimate expectation is the same either way -- that people take responsibility for what they write and show a little respect.
Very well argued, Mr. Schultz. Yes, a lot of screen space, but Apple ][ has earned the original rebuke from Slurpy many times over for his gratuitous barbarisms, such as his comment a few weeks ago that he was going to sit back with some popcorn and enjoy watching the destruction in Gaza.
So every time he comes up with something like this Swiss coward comment, he deserves a rebuke. I would argue that it is one's obligation as an American to deliver a rebuke, since his wanker blowhard jingoism is what has led America into the role of being an international pariah and sower of murderous disorder since, I would say in extremis, the Reagan era. Of course it goes back further, but let's stay current. The Iraq war, now 11 years old, is a product of Apple ]['s kind of us vs. them, to hell with history and humanity, kind of thinking.
Australians, Brits and Canadians are hardly in a position to speak freely on this matter out of good manners, maybe not even Europeans or Asians. It's up to the "compatriots" of the brownshirt/skinhead/neofascists like Apple ][ to speak up. He isn't some loner freak. He has a whole TV and newspaper network behind him. Americans can't even govern themselves because of the "thinking" he represents.
By the way, all this assumes he's for real. I still believe he's acting the provocateur for ulterior reasons, to make this site a mess of uncivility. That's a good argument for ignoring him, but anyone who attacks him is paradoxically doing good work and shouldn't be the first attacked in turn, which GTR so casually did.
Actually, I have never said I support Slurpy's comment, so I don't know how there can be a contradiction. You're right, it's insulting. Whether or not it was warranted is another discussion. None of that is relevant to the point, though, which was whether or not we can control how we FEEL
Apple ]feel[/I]. I say he doesn't because none of us do.
He can choose how to ACT on his feelings, though. We choose how to respond, and are accountable for what we say and do. I have no problem with someone taking exception to what Slurpy wrote, I just don't agree with your assertion that anyone can CHOOSE to be offended or not.
In the end the argument probably isn't worth this much screen space since the ultimate expectation is the same either way -- that people take responsibility for what they write and show a little respect.
Very well argued, Mr. Schultz. Yes, a lot of screen space, but Apple ][ has earned the original rebuke from Slurpy many times over for his gratuitous barbarisms, such as his comment a few weeks ago that he was going to sit back with some popcorn and enjoy watching the destruction in Gaza.
So every time he comes up with something like this Swiss coward comment, he deserves a rebuke. I would argue that it is one's obligation as an American to deliver a rebuke, since his wanker blowhard jingoism is what has led America into the role of being an international pariah and sower of murderous disorder since, I would say in extremis, the Reagan era. Of course it goes back further, but let's stay current. The Iraq war, now 11 years old, is a product of Apple ]['s kind of us vs. them, to hell with history and humanity, kind of thinking.
Australians, Brits and Canadians are hardly in a position to speak freely on this matter out of good manners, maybe not even Europeans or Asians. It's up to the "compatriots" of the brownshirt/skinhead/neofascists like Apple ][ to speak up. He isn't some loner freak. He has a whole TV and newspaper network behind him. Americans can't even govern themselves because of the "thinking" he represents.
By the way, all this assumes he's for real. I still believe he's acting the provocateur for ulterior reasons, to make this site a mess of uncivility. That's a good argument for ignoring him, but anyone who attacks him is paradoxically doing good work and shouldn't be the first attacked in turn, which GTR so casually did.
Guys,
There are hundreds of regular posters on this site, and thousands of readers-only.
However, I don't see thousands or hundreds of people condemning him for the views that he expresses. I don't even see a large percentage of a hundred.
That makes you a minority.
I can understand your difference of opinion. However, it is staggeringly arrogant to automatically assume that yours is right and another is wrong when that conclusion is drawn by only considering data from that amazingly limited perspective known as 'your experience'.
Failing constructive criticism, setting an positive example, or ignoring any perceived 'incorrect information', you may wish to consider tolerance as a more effective response rather than the tit-for-tat bullshit that we've already implemented to such incredible success in various regions around the world.
There are hundreds of regular posters on this site, and thousands of readers-only.
However, I don't see thousands or hundreds of people condemning him for the views that he expresses. I don't even see a large percentage of a hundred.
That makes you a minority.
I can understand your difference of opinion. However, it is staggeringly arrogant to automatically assume that yours is right and another is wrong when that conclusion is drawn by only considering data from that amazingly limited perspective known as 'your experience'.
Failing constructive criticism, setting an positive example, or ignoring any perceived 'incorrect information', you may wish to consider tolerance as a more effective response rather than the tit-for-tat bullshit that we've already implemented to such incredible success in various regions around the world.
Still don't get it, ok. One more try.
We're not talking about a difference of opinions. We're talking about someone who repeatedly wants to disturb the peace. Like a wino who stumbles into the meeting, belches, farts, and throws around insults about third parties not present, throwing off the discussion. A bully, but also a coward. He only insults those not present or those he thinks beneath him.
You admire that, fine. A lot of people worship the pretend alpha males, the ones with the big stick a the trash can lid. Bootlickers,
We're talking about someone who repeatedly wants to disturb the peace. Like a wino who stumbles into the meeting, belches, farts, and throws around insults about third parties not present, throwing off the discussion. A bully, but also a coward. He only insults those not present or those he thinks beneath him.
If this is all true, then why hasn't he been banned?
If this is all true, then why hasn't he been banned?
Not a question for me, as far as the site's policies go. Speculation would be unfair. I do know that he's careful not to ad hom anyone, or insult the regulars, and keep up his schtick of Apple cheerleading and anti-Androidism. One reason that I think he's fake is that he's smart enough to work the system, too smart to hold the medieval views he pretends to hold.
Not a question for me, as far as the site's policies go. Speculation would be unfair. I do know that he's careful not to ad hom anyone, or insult the regulars, and keep up his schtick of Apple cheerleading and anti-Androidism. One reason that I think he's fake is that he's smart enough to work the system, too smart to hold the medieval views he pretends to hold.
I think you might have missed the Gaza thread. Like Woodstock, you had to be there. The mods had to delete possibly half the thread and I would guess he might have come extremely close to getting banned. It's either a new mental illness - a sort of Tourette's syndrome - or just old fashioned Trolling
Not a question for me, as far as the site's policies go. Speculation would be unfair. I do know that he's careful not to ad hom anyone, or insult the regulars, and keep up his schtick of Apple cheerleading and anti-Androidism. One reason that I think he's fake is that he's smart enough to work the system, too smart to hold the medieval views he pretends to hold.
Speculation would be unfair?
In reference to another forum member you've just posted a picture of Nazis!
And there are at least four or five individual moderators for the forum.
How could they ALL have missed these claims you make?
I think you might have missed the Gaza thread. Like Woodstock, you had to be there. The mods had to delete possibly half the thread and I would guess he might have come extremely close to getting banned. It's either a new mental illness - a sort of Tourette's syndrome - or just old fashioned Trolling
I saw that thread.
Did the moderators only delete Apple ]['s posts or did other posters get material deleted as well?
No, they deleted all posts on the off-topic by all posters, but of course you can guess who typically rolled the hand-grenade into the room.
Actually, here's why most of those posts were deleted.
From AppleInsider forum rules:
"3. Posts or replies of political nature belong in Political Outsider forum, the "safe harbor" for political discussions. Such posts will either be deleted or moved there."
Comments
What a crock of shit.
Sounds like an excuse for lack of discipline.
Oh great! Until now everyone in Switzerland was a banker, now they're all watchmakers... How I love generalisation and reduction of this sort. LOL
And here I am being neither a banker nor a watch maker. I must be jobless then.
What a crock of shit.
Well, thank you for the civil, measured response. Is that an example of your "choosing" how to respond?
Sounds like an excuse for lack of discipline.
Not at all. One is still responsible for how they act on their feelings. That's not the same as saying that we choose how we feel. We don't.
Well, thank you for the civil, measured response. Is that an example of your "choosing" how to respond?
Not at all. One is still responsible for how they act on their feelings. That's not the same as saying that we choose how we feel. We don't.
Do you see what I mean?
You support this:
"Yeah see, the thing is, noone fucking asked you. Quite pathetic how you feel the need to inject your vitriolic brand of politics and xenophobia into absolutely everything. Do us a favor and keep that useless vomit to yourself."
...but believe this:
"What a crock of shit"
...to not be civil and, of all things, unmeasured.
An interesting contradiction, don't you think?
Just wait until the next article comes along that has something to do with Apple and Australia. There's not too many of those. If I feel that Australia is in the wrong, then don't worry, I would have no problems with bashing Australia, or anybody else for that matter!
If I feel that Australia is in the wrong...
The village's fool is going to establish that Australia is wrong ?
I'm quite certain that Australia has a legal system good enough to establish if a company is wrong or right.
And, as far as I know, Apple's been wrong a couple of times in Australia. In Europe as well...
We shall see soon.
Are there any Apple Stores in Switzerland? Perhaps you could find work there.
In the interest of finding the truth, I shall elect to adjudicate on this matter.
You're both right to a degree. The truth lies in both opinions. We aren't free to choose to be offended, but we can control it and change it over time.
The pain citation was an interesting one. Our reaction to pain is involuntary, and yet we can learn to overcome that reaction with training, at least partly.
Well, thank you for the civil, measured response. Is that an example of your "choosing" how to respond?
Not at all. One is still responsible for how they act on their feelings. That's not the same as saying that we choose how we feel. We don't.
Do you see what I mean?
You support this:
"Yeah see, the thing is, noone fucking asked you. Quite pathetic how you feel the need to inject your vitriolic brand of politics and xenophobia into absolutely everything. Do us a favor and keep that useless vomit to yourself."
...but believe this:
"What a crock of shit"
...to not be civil and, of all things, unmeasured.
An interesting contradiction, don't you think?
Actually, I have never said I support Slurpy's comment, so I don't know how there can be a contradiction. You're right, it's insulting. Whether or not it was warranted is another discussion. None of that is relevant to the point, though, which was whether or not we can control how we FEEL
Apple ]['s original post was offensive. Slurpy's comment was the result of being offended by Apple ]['s post. You said Slurpy had a choice about how to feel. I say he doesn't because none of us do.
He can choose how to ACT on his feelings, though. We choose how to respond, and are accountable for what we say and do. I have no problem with someone taking exception to what Slurpy wrote, I just don't agree with your assertion that anyone can CHOOSE to be offended or not.
In the end the argument probably isn't worth this much screen space since the ultimate expectation is the same either way -- that people take responsibility for what they write and show a little respect.
[...] We aren't free to choose to be offended, but we can control it and change it over time.
Right.
That said, a consistently belligerent, antagonistic and deliberately provocative asshole will eventually exceed the community tolerance threshold. In such cases, an angry response is not only likely, but perhaps even appropriate.
Very well argued, Mr. Schultz. Yes, a lot of screen space, but Apple ][ has earned the original rebuke from Slurpy many times over for his gratuitous barbarisms, such as his comment a few weeks ago that he was going to sit back with some popcorn and enjoy watching the destruction in Gaza.
So every time he comes up with something like this Swiss coward comment, he deserves a rebuke. I would argue that it is one's obligation as an American to deliver a rebuke, since his wanker blowhard jingoism is what has led America into the role of being an international pariah and sower of murderous disorder since, I would say in extremis, the Reagan era. Of course it goes back further, but let's stay current. The Iraq war, now 11 years old, is a product of Apple ]['s kind of us vs. them, to hell with history and humanity, kind of thinking.
Australians, Brits and Canadians are hardly in a position to speak freely on this matter out of good manners, maybe not even Europeans or Asians. It's up to the "compatriots" of the brownshirt/skinhead/neofascists like Apple ][ to speak up. He isn't some loner freak. He has a whole TV and newspaper network behind him. Americans can't even govern themselves because of the "thinking" he represents.
By the way, all this assumes he's for real. I still believe he's acting the provocateur for ulterior reasons, to make this site a mess of uncivility. That's a good argument for ignoring him, but anyone who attacks him is paradoxically doing good work and shouldn't be the first attacked in turn, which GTR so casually did.
Guys,
There are hundreds of regular posters on this site, and thousands of readers-only.
However, I don't see thousands or hundreds of people condemning him for the views that he expresses. I don't even see a large percentage of a hundred.
That makes you a minority.
I can understand your difference of opinion. However, it is staggeringly arrogant to automatically assume that yours is right and another is wrong when that conclusion is drawn by only considering data from that amazingly limited perspective known as 'your experience'.
Failing constructive criticism, setting an positive example, or ignoring any perceived 'incorrect information', you may wish to consider tolerance as a more effective response rather than the tit-for-tat bullshit that we've already implemented to such incredible success in various regions around the world.
Still don't get it, ok. One more try.
We're not talking about a difference of opinions. We're talking about someone who repeatedly wants to disturb the peace. Like a wino who stumbles into the meeting, belches, farts, and throws around insults about third parties not present, throwing off the discussion. A bully, but also a coward. He only insults those not present or those he thinks beneath him.
You admire that, fine. A lot of people worship the pretend alpha males, the ones with the big stick a the trash can lid. Bootlickers,
If this is all true, then why hasn't he been banned?
Not a question for me, as far as the site's policies go. Speculation would be unfair. I do know that he's careful not to ad hom anyone, or insult the regulars, and keep up his schtick of Apple cheerleading and anti-Androidism. One reason that I think he's fake is that he's smart enough to work the system, too smart to hold the medieval views he pretends to hold.
Not a question for me, as far as the site's policies go. Speculation would be unfair. I do know that he's careful not to ad hom anyone, or insult the regulars, and keep up his schtick of Apple cheerleading and anti-Androidism. One reason that I think he's fake is that he's smart enough to work the system, too smart to hold the medieval views he pretends to hold.
I think you might have missed the Gaza thread. Like Woodstock, you had to be there. The mods had to delete possibly half the thread and I would guess he might have come extremely close to getting banned. It's either a new mental illness - a sort of Tourette's syndrome - or just old fashioned Trolling
Speculation would be unfair?
In reference to another forum member you've just posted a picture of Nazis!
And there are at least four or five individual moderators for the forum.
How could they ALL have missed these claims you make?
I saw that thread.
Did the moderators only delete Apple ]['s posts or did other posters get material deleted as well?
No, they deleted all posts on the off-topic by all posters, but of course you can guess who typically rolled the hand-grenade into the room.
Actually, here's why most of those posts were deleted.
From AppleInsider forum rules:
"3. Posts or replies of political nature belong in Political Outsider forum, the "safe harbor" for political discussions. Such posts will either be deleted or moved there."
Were you aware of that?