The question is why it upsets us so much to hear this consideration of the offender as a human being, as deserving of compassion as we are. — Possibility
Would it make you feel better if the response was to denigrate this family member, label them as ‘evil’ and resolve hatred towards them? — Possibility
When you express an interpersonal interaction, you cannot always expect people to immediately relate to your position. — Possibility
In this case, they may relate initially to the family member instead, and may be responding defensively to your pain and anger for their own reasons that have nothing to do with you. Your taking offence at a lack of validation is based on an assumption that yours is the only position in the encounter worth consideration: either in the situation of abuse or in the telling of it to others. Sorry to burst your bubble. — Possibility
If I respond instead by telling you how my family member physically abused me, is it because I’m expressing compassion for your situation, or because I want to position myself as more deserving of validation than you are? Being conscious of our limited perspective can be a lesson in humility. — Possibility
Yeah, well, I did ask for that didn’t I? It’s obviously still raw for you. — Possibility
Did you just want validation here, or a philosophical discussion? It wasn’t clear, sorry. This is a philosophical forum. — Possibility
I agree with you that it’s inappropriate and insensitive to dismiss someone’s expression of negative experiences with phrases such as ‘nobody’s perfect’. I agree with you that when someone is clearly looking for validation, then the appropriate response would be to give it as required. I would have thought that was obvious, and doesn’t require discussion. I doubt you’ll have any argument on these points. — Possibility
But your claim was also that the phrase was “useless and irrelevant to ANY discussion” - I disagree with this. There are situations where it could be useful — Possibility
If there is a god, then god is perfect. — TheMadFool
Scenario A: — VagabondSpectre
The first part of the scenario's statement is a good starting point and good question, but the end is unnecessary.Scenario B — VagabondSpectre
The person saying Bobby was a shit chess player was demonstrably wrong. And you can prove that by showing the games he won. Saying 'Nobody's perfect' after the rebuttal, is completely useless and adds nothing to the point.Scenario C: — VagabondSpectre
The context in which the statement is made is more important than the statement.Is saying "nobody's perfect" helpful? — chatterbears
I doubt the judge would think that phrase has some validity to it.
Conclusion: The phrase was useless to say. — chatterbears
The first part of the scenario's statement is a good starting point and good question, but the end is unnecessary.
Conclusion: The phrase was useless to say. — chatterbears
The person saying Bobby was a shit chess player was demonstrably wrong. And you can prove that by showing the games he won. Saying 'Nobody's perfect' after the rebuttal, is completely useless and adds nothing to the point. — chatterbears
That's a terrible use of that phrase, and, of course, many people use this idea idiotically. But in the context where something more easily forgivable, an error in judgment, for example, is the issue, it could be a useful phrase. And it could be a gentle reminder to the person that they have done some crappy stuff also, in their time.If I tell you how my family member verbally abused me, does a response of "Well, nobody is perfect.", — chatterbears
Suppose Mary is yelling at Harry for having made some mistake, and Harry responds, "everybody makes mistakes" or "nobody's perfect". Which one is being more unreasonable? It depends on the circumstances. — Relativist
What do you mean "unnecessary"? As long as "nobody's perfect" adds something to the statement, then it serves a purpose, and in this scenario it's a functional or rhetorical answer to the question it posed. — VagabondSpectre
It points out that failing to achieve absolute perfection is not the same as achieving overall failure. — VagabondSpectre
One of my many names is "Nobody". — MathematicalPhysicist
This is a bit strange. Why would God be perfect if it existed? — chatterbears
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. — Matthew 5:48
It may, sometimes, be used in this way, but I hear it used in contexts that do not fit this criticism. I see it used in reaction to petty judgment that has nothing to do with mediocrity. Further The most amazing people make mistakes. In fact many of them make more mistakes than other people. To find new things: inventions, innovations, works of art - you have to make mistakes. If you do not make mistakes you are not taking risks and this will lead to mediocrity.It is an excuse for mediocrity. — Wittgenstein
It is an excuse for mediocrity. Most of us want to feel that everyone is like us. In reality, there are countless people in every field that are light years ahead of us and no matter how much we strive, we cannot reach their level. I don't even know if it is worth doing something unless you aim for perfection. — Wittgenstein
Once an artist accepts his work as being good enough, he fails to improve it.There is always room for improvement. We will benefit more by striving for perfection. — Wittgenstein
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.