Someone may be unable to forgive for psychological reasons, but this doesn't change what it would be preferable that they do — Agustino

You weren't just saying it's preferable, you were saying if they don't, they are guilty of approving the horrific acts that were inflicted upon them. Again, you need to adjust your language.

I'm not going to continue to give you English lessons and I'm not going to let you away with that comment. If you remain confused, quickly grab a dictionary.

There is no sense in which a raped woman approves of her rapist's actions because she doesn't forgive him.

Are you ready to agree to that yet?

(+Not forgiving is not equal to hating. + Not forgiving is not equal to wishing violence on someone etc.)

What you seem to be getting at, which I understand, is the idea that we should eventually get past our negative emotions towards those who have done us harm as that is psychologically healthy. That, I presume, was what Jesus was getting at too. I don't necessarily accept that that is a moral obligation but at least I understand it. But you need to stop using the wrong vocabulary if that is what you want to say.

@Agustino also seems to presume that victims of harmful acts are capable of forgiving those who have harmed them (otherwise how could it be wrong for them not to do so?). But that could only be claimed by someone ignorant of the psychological affects of trauma.

I'm justifiably looking for a justification. My basic point here is there is no sense that a woman who is raped "approves" of the act on the basis of not forgiving the rapist. I know more or less what Agustino is trying to say but he is using words wrongly and that has consequences for his argument, which I'm trying to hold him accountable for.

What you think isn't important. What you argue for might be. So, go ahead.

No, I'm not equivocating. "To approve" of something involves believing it is good, acceptable or satisfactory. If you don't then you don't "approve" of it. That is the meaning of that word. Your garbled meaning is in your head only.

With regards to the second kind of approval, if we will not to forgive the other, if we will to punish him - that is willing in the same nature that he wills in. That would be to will under the logic of violence, which would make us approve of him by virtue of sharing in the same underlying logic that he shares in. By virtue of the very fact that we want to distance ourselves from him, we will only make ourselves approach closer to him. It is only the radical break offered by forgiveness that can tear away the logic of violence and create an abyss between us and him. — Agustino

That's not approval. And to say of a woman who is raped that she is of the same nature as her rapist because she doesn't forgive him is disgusting. A raped woman or a victim of a similar crime is a person in torment. Their nature is chaotic not evil. So, no, a raped woman does not "approve" of her rape in any sense regardless of her attitude towards the rapist (can't believe I actually have to write that on a philosophy forum).

It really isn't that farfetched... — Posty McPostface

Really? Based on what research? AI experts can't even come up with a decent chatbot. What you're talking about is building a functioning person.

Yes, it does, because from his point of view my hatred of him and unforgiveness justifies his behaviour, — Agustino

So, you believe those men who don't forgive those who rape their wives approve of their wives being raped. OK. Can you take a look at the edited example? Does the woman also approve of being raped if she doesn't forgive?

Not to forgive her is to justify her actions and approve of them. — Agustino

A man rapes your wife. She doesn't forgive him. Does that mean she approves of his actions? And at what point should she forgive him? I would say forgiveness should only be offered when the threat a person represents dissipates. Agree of disagree? If you disagree, please explain.

(The example is more extreme but the principle seems to be the same to me.)

[Edited to be more on point.]

You don't leave your children with a sex offender. You don't give your life savings to someone you don't trust very much. — T Clark

Yes, because you judge them in the sense I meant.

This is completely and absolutely not true. Not judging is not an act of virtue or kindness, it's the most effective way of dealing with problems. Judging leads you in the wrong direction and makes you less effective. — T Clark

You seem to be using the word "judging" in the derogatory sense, which means essentially "unfairly judging", something like being prejudiced. I'm using it in the general sense as in making judgements of people's intentions and likely behaviours. So, yes, we should make our judgements carefully and fairly but in the end we must judge someone, for example as sincere or insincere, in order to know how to act towards them.

Yes you do. If we live together, and I lock myself in one room at night for fear that you will kill me, that would justify aggressive behavior from you and may actually even bring it about. — Agustino

If you'll just open the door and then we can talk. Oh, never mind, I'll speak through the keyhole. No, it doesn't. Which is why that defence would not be used by even the zaniest of lawyers in a court of law. Now, it might cause aggressive behaviour, but that's a different thing. If someone acts afraid of you, you are not justified in being aggressive towards them on the basis of that fact. True or false?

The authenticity is irrelevant. We are not to judge our neighbor. If they lie, that is their fault. But if you act and expect them to lie, that is your fault, for you have justified their behavior by your low esteem of them. — Agustino

This is incoherent. We constantly judge our neighbours. We've been designed that way and it's impossible not to judge at some level. Those that couldn't or wouldn't are dead ends on the tree of life. And no, you don't justify someone else's behaviour by taking reasonable precautions against it. Don't pretend you actually act that way in real life. You wouldn't last five minutes.

The difference to me seems to be a matter of trust. You can forgive someone on the basis of compassion alone but true reconciliation requires a rebuilding of trust.

Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing? — TimeLine

Both, it seems to me. But it also seems you still don't trust her, which is not at all unfair considering the circumstances.

I just saw that. Lol :D Anyway, this joke is far deeper. Dig a little. You'll get there.

Watt? — Sapientia

Takes 60 votes to break a fillibuster.

Q: How many chickens does it take to stop a light bulb crossing the road?

A: Quine.

As I am free to express my opinion and I did not inted to offend anybody I ask you not to delete my post again. — Meta

You're subject to the guidelines like anyone else and your previous post was reprehensible the way you phrased it. The present one is mostly just very odd. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just badly worded what you were trying to say. (Please PM in future by the way or start a feedback discussion.)

Well, congratulations on proving you are oppressed @WISDOMfromPO-MO on the basis of quoting one questionable law applicable to some US states. Good luck with the placard printing and the whining.

Well, at least you didn't say "Yes". :D

Does manhood get any purer?

Success!

That's what I thought. Bloody hell...

I can only hope I can put my own vanity and narcissism to better use than that. Again, ugh.

Bah. When you say 'leader', I think you mean 'figurehead' - an image stuck at the prow of the boat - rather than the guy in the stern with his hand on the tiller. You want to be a leader, start steering the right course. — unenlightened

I didn't say "good" leader.

But one only has to act (as if) one was something, to the extent one is not that thing. If men are masculine, they do not have to act; if some men are more masculine than others, neither have to act. Folks act to escape what they are, which is futile, painful and self-destructive. Have a dick by all means, be a dick if that's what you are, but for God's sake don't feel obliged to act like a dick — unenlightened

We have to act. Period. In doing so we are necessarily acting as if we are something because we are something, something that is both a result of and a cause of our actions. It may be futile to pretend to be something but it's just as futile to pretend that you can't be more than you are at least to some degree. But that more should not be more dick. Agree with that part.

It sounds like an attempt at art to me. I wouldn't sell the game to kids, but I don't see anything objectionable in it. But, ok, maybe someone will.

So you've answered your own question. What else is there to say? Is there an angle on this you want us to debate?

Do you mean something like you don't know if your beard, for example, is a simple expression of masculinity or based on some form of underlying neuroticism?

On top of that, most people have a psychopathic shadow lurking not far underneath the surface, but it takes some form of authority (or maybe extreme event) to bring it out so they can offload moral responsibility and not feel the pain we're talking about. Milgram experiments, Eichmann, etc.

A psychopath's truth is very clear to them. It's just built on different foundations to ours. Maybe you're numb to their truth and wandering aimlessly in moral delusion. That's what they would say anyhow.

Well, yes, being immoral doesn't hurt them. If someone gave you or me a drug that suppressed this moral pain, I have no doubt we would do whatever we could get away with that benefited us.

Then what is it?

Some unconscious process? — Posty McPostface

It's a set of physical and mental traits associated with maleness.

How do you know that? — Posty McPostface

Observe. You want to be a leader, for example, act masculine (to a degree).

We aren't just born moral, and don't have to learn it, and strive for it. This is clearly not the case. What do you figure when you see someone that is immoral? Mutant? Every time? — Wosret

Yes, but once you've learned it, it's very hard to unlearn it. It's like trying to rewrite your personality from scratch. Can't be done. You can only really tinker with what you have after a certain age. So, you're moral because it hurts not to be.

Obviously, there's a social element to masculinity; just as obviously, there's a biological element that kicks in after puberty. So, no, masculinity is not a purely social construct nor is there anything necessarily bad or wrong about it. So, it's malleable to a degree but it's not fully fluid. As for expressing masculinity, it depends on the context. Do it when it works.

It's pretty simple folks. The grammar was in the form of a (conditional) instruction, so the default meaning is an instruction. Pragmatics becomes relevant when the context shows the default meaning doesn't apply. Pragmatics are culturally informed. It's been clarified that we've hit on a situation where Americans and non-Americans are informed differently about this kind of situation. No fault on either side.

Call me crazy but it is a bit different to the original.

(No, don't actually call me crazy.. :))

That's interesting as I can spot that one straight away as not being meant as an instruction.

He only has some many positions, so many facts, and I've seen him say them all about fifty times. — Wosret

I'm close to that point. I also think a lot of his philosophy stems from his own super high conscientiousness. I haven't heard him address that. Much does ring true too though.

Yes, and that is again the right thing to say in this environment. We're at an impasse because you'll just keep making all the right moves and proving me right every time you say something intending to prove me wrong. (And being honest I don't care much about being right about this. Or do I...?)

OK, I don't consider being flexible more negative than being dominating though. Or being aggressive more negative than being accommodating. Both have their place and both are needed. Yin / yang as I said. Maybe assertiveness isn't a good term because the opposite does seem mostly negative.