"You will not be punished for your anger. You will be punished by your anger." Buddha

[SirJosephPorter]

There again we differ, "nut" to me has the connotation of mentally unbalanced or a lunatic or fanatic, whereas some religious people (my old great aunt for instance) are very sane people.

But that is just it, religious right are fanatics. You are talking of religious people, I was not talking of that, I was talking of religious right. While no doubt some religious people can be very nice (Mother Teresa, Jimmy Carter for instance), religious right are a bunch of fanatics.

 

[El Barto]

lol. leave it to Bart.

Just snooping to see if you had me on ignore ;-)

 

[karrie]

Just snooping to see if you had me on ignore ;-)

lol..you? never.

 

[JLM]

I disagree here, karrie. You are giving ignoring it or getting angry as the only alternatives. Both are inappropriate. Anger teaches the child nothing. On the part of the parent, it may lead him to administer corporal punishment to the child, to give the child a swat or a good beating. That would be the worst possible outcome.

When our son was a little kid and if he did something like that, I would sit him down and talk to him about it. I would tell him that what he did was wrong, explain to him how it was wrong and tell him that he will be punished.

Punishment would never involve physical beating, that was out. I would wait for 24 hours before I hand down the punishment, which would be denial of privileges.

So the two alternative you gave, ignoring it or getting angry, both are totally unacceptable to me.

I certainly don't agree that corporal punishment is the best type of punishment as a matter of fact I think that ANYTHING ELSE that works should be tried first, but there are those rare times when a "damn good licking" is the only resource left and sometimes it works. I got a couple myself as a kid when I disobeyed a nice polite request and I can tell you I never tried that crap again. One was taking my hatchet to the girl across the street. (I get along good with girls now..:lol::lol

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Just snooping to see if you had me on ignore ;-)

Why would anybody put you on ignore, Bart? Doesn't make sense.

 

[El Barto]

Why would anybody put you on ignore, Bart? Doesn't make sense.

I wasn't serious , Karrie got it ;-)
Then again , she knows me pretty well .
My seriousness is always over shadowed by my clowning around

 

[karrie]

I certainly don't agree that corporal punishment is the best type of punishment as a matter of fact I think that ANYTHING ELSE that works should be tried first,

One also needs to differentiate between anger as a reaction (like I said, react, then get rational), and anger as an emotional state. I don't believe it has value as an emotional state. If you've hit the point of beating a child, you've chosen to live with anger as an emotional state for a while. I don't think that's necessary.

But no one, no matter how saintly, NEVER gets mad. They may choose to keep it as a reaction and move on to more constructive things (which is what I advise), but, a child, or a loved one, will still see the initial reaction. It's still a vital part of what makes us up.

 

[AnnaG]

At any rate, some people are punished by their anger. Others simply get angry, deal with it and feel better for having done so. No punishment need be involved. I don't care if anyone thinks anger is bad good or what, because as Karrie said, we ALL get angry at some point. It is part of being human.To deny one's anger is trouble. To unleash it at someone else is trouble. Hating it is stupid. These are simply instances of bad anger management.
Sir Poofer made me angry a while back because I can't handle egoistic, pompous, know-it-all chickens very well. I did something constructive; I went for a run and a swim. It's just a matter of channeling it properly.

 

[bluedog]

To me it is the same thing, JLM. In my opinion, ‘religious right’ and ‘religious right nut’ are synonymous.

*********************************************************

I'm sure someone is overgeneralizing here. This is a SPIRITUALITY and PHILOSOPHY post. This post if you read it at all is directed towards other Christians.. and asking for comments from Buddists!
Both are well respected spiritual philosophies the world over.



While the "Nuts" label is therefore only the opinion of the person using it,
it in no way negates the belief of the world.
I'm afraid you are by far outnumbered by the world reknowned respect of these "historical institutions" by millions. At the same time your remarks perhaps earn the respect of few.


Though your input is always appreciated if not asked for, please first, read the post.:fish:

 

[JLM]

One also needs to differentiate between anger as a reaction (like I said, react, then get rational), and anger as an emotional state. I don't believe it has value as an emotional state. If you've hit the point of beating a child, you've chosen to live with anger as an emotional state for a while. I don't think that's necessary.

But no one, no matter how saintly, NEVER gets mad. They may choose to keep it as a reaction and move on to more constructive things (which is what I advise), but, a child, or a loved one, will still see the initial reaction. It's still a vital part of what makes us up.

You might have something there, some people are angry as a state of mind like the world owes them a living or they've just been picked on and ridiculed for so long they don't care anymore...........THAT'S BAD. Some people are angry (temporily) as a reaction to something that shouldn't be.........like the four year old girl across the street got molested................THAT''S GOOD, especially if it leads to the perp. getting arrested (or better yet killed) :lol:

 

[gopher]

Exactly, but those who are for it assume there is no entity in the first place to have a choice.

In other words, there is no free will. Fair enough.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I certainly don't agree that corporal punishment is the best type of punishment as a matter of fact I think that ANYTHING ELSE that works should be tried first, but there are those rare times when a "damn good licking" is the only resource left and sometimes it works. I got a couple myself as a kid when I disobeyed a nice polite request and I can tell you I never tried that crap again. One was taking my hatchet to the girl across the street. (I get along good with girls now..:lol::lol

I was subject to corporal punishment as well, JLM, in our generation, all of us were. That doesn’t mean that it achieves any good.

I knew what it felt like and I resolved when I was a kid, that my kids won’t receive any corporal punishment. And I kept that promise to myself. We have only one child, and I never laid a hand on him.

Corporal punishment is an easy way out. The child stops doing what he was doing wrong out of fear, the parent gets the satisfaction of having resolved the problem. But it only builds up the long term damage, the child learns that the most effective way to resolve an issue is by violence.

Not using corporal punishment is more difficult, one has to be creative in designing appropriate punishments. But in the long run that way is more productive, it does not build up resentment, a tolerance for violence in the kids. And there are more effective ways of disciplining a child than beating him. I can only point to the saying by Asimov (for whom I had great respect).

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Some people are angry (temporily) as a reaction to something that shouldn't be.........like the four year old girl across the street got molested................THAT''S GOOD, especially if it leads to the perp. getting arrested (or better yet killed)

JLM, how is getting angry going to get him arrested? Calm, logical, rational thinking on the part of the police will (probably) get him arrested. If the police act out of anger, they very likely will arrest the wrong man.

It has happened many times, somebody has been arrested for a particularly heinous crime, anger of the society is channeled towards the individual (and his family), his family may even be harmed by the angry mob (setting his house on fire etc.) only to discover later (sometimes much later) that the guy was innocent. Sometimes anger can have terrible, tragic outcome. But rarely does it lead to anything good.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

At any rate, some people are punished by their anger. Others simply get angry, deal with it and feel better for having done so. No punishment need be involved. I don't care if anyone thinks anger is bad good or what, because as Karrie said, we ALL get angry at some point. It is part of being human.To deny one's anger is trouble. To unleash it at someone else is trouble. Hating it is stupid. These are simply instances of bad anger management.
Sir Poofer made me angry a while back because I can't handle egoistic, pompous, know-it-all chickens very well. I did something constructive; I went for a run and a swim. It's just a matter of channeling it properly.

Anna, when you get angry at me, you let mo control your emotions, you give me too much power over you.

That is why I get a feeling of satisfaction when I make somebody angry (and believe me, it is easy get under the skin of some people). That is why I can that when somebody gets angry at me, that means I have won the argument.

But at the end of the day, you get angry because you want to, nobody can make you (much as I like to think that I have the power to make you angry).

 

[MHz]

That is why I get a feeling of satisfaction when I make somebody angry (and believe me, it is easy get under the skin of some people). That is why I can that when somebody gets angry at me, that means I have won the argument.

Sounds a lot like trolling.

 

[AnnaG]

Anna, when you get angry at me, you let mo control your emotions, you give me too much power over you.

It's only momentary, so don't let your head swell past your hat.

That is why I get a feeling of satisfaction when I make somebody angry (and believe me, it is easy get under the skin of some people). That is why I can that when somebody gets angry at me, that means I have won the argument.

A sign of a sociopath: manipulation of others' emotions. I would not be proud of that, myself.
No, it doesn't mean you won a discussion, it just means you drove your opposition away. Winning a discussion is proving your point is more valid than theirs. You sure have a twisted idea of things.

But at the end of the day, you get angry because you want to, nobody can make you (much as I like to think that I have the power to make you angry).

So make up your mind, either you can make someone angry or you can't.

BTW, I suppose it never occurred to you to wonder how you make people angry; what you do that gets them that way.

 

[JLM]

"That is why I get a feeling of satisfaction when I make somebody angry (and believe me, it is easy get under the skin of some people). That is why I can that when somebody gets angry at me, that means I have won the argument."

That doesn't sound like an attribute (to use the word loosely) that I'd want to advertise about myself- actually I would tend to be a little ashamed of it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

BTW, I suppose it never occurred to you to wonder how you make people angry; what you do that gets them that way.

I know perfectly well what I do to get people angry, Anna. Without resorting to personal insults, without resorting to abusive, vulgar language, without resorting to four letter words, using polite, civil language, I demolish their arguments by logical, rational and reasonable points. They cannot come back to me with effective counterarguments and that is what makes them angry.

And I have no intention of stopping any time soon.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"That is why I get a feeling of satisfaction when I make somebody angry (and believe me, it is easy get under the skin of some people). That is why I can that when somebody gets angry at me, that means I have won the argument."

That doesn't sound like an attribute (to use the word loosely) that I'd want to advertise about myself- actually I would tend to be a little ashamed of it.

Why JLM? If I can demolish somebody’s argument by rational, logical counterarguments (and make them angry as a result), I see nothing to be ashamed of in the process.

As I said, it is not my fault that somebody gets angry (much as I like to claim credit for it); people get angry because they want to get angry, because they have ran out of arguments. Normally, when arguments are exhausted, that is when angry diatribe, insults etc. begin.

If anybody should be ashamed, it is the person who gets angry, why should I be ashamed?

 

[AnnaG]

BTW, I suppose it never occurred to you to wonder how you make people angry; what you do that gets them that way.

I know perfectly well what I do to get people angry, Anna. Without resorting to personal insults, without resorting to abusive, vulgar language, without resorting to four letter words, using polite, civil language, I demolish their arguments by logical, rational and reasonable points. They cannot come back to me with effective counterarguments and that is what makes them angry.

And I have no intention of stopping any time soon.

lol
Sorry, but I, as well as several other people, have shown you to be wrong. You are only a legend in your own mind, not everyone else's.
It's your cowardly habit of refusing to admit to being wrong that gets people angry along with your arrogant display that you know it all. Well, sorry, Peewee, but you don't know it all and that is evident in your lack of supporting data for your positions.