Let's debate! #2

I like that we were able to debate multiple topics in Hellon's thread (although we went off topic against her will).
For this thread, I welcome and encourage you to go off topic. You must, however, debate!

"People treat you the way you let them treat you."
Agree or disagree?

EDIT: Gonna wait to give my opinion.

I agree for 2 reasons
1st I think you only choose how to be treated by how you treat people
so If you were nice people would be nice to you and if you were mean people will be mean to you but some people are just dumb and go bother people who are nice or not nice

2nd is that when you get treated badly by somebody and you never mentioned it bothered you he will continue doing it cause he might think it is okay with you

Sometimes the only way to learn about the character of the people you intend to befriend, is to be intelligently passive and observe their behavior with a smile. Let them treat you in the way they want, before deciding whether they are truly worthy of your friendship. But I agree, you do want to let them know that you will not be mistreated, if they begin to step on your toes.

Is this debate a postulate from your poem "crabs" silvershoes?

-----------------

Pacifist.....maybe, acquiescent (=passive) or complacent....definitely NO.

First, Jane: "Semantic gyrations" AHAHAHAHA! I can't process the word "gyration" without imagining gyrating hips. In this case, it's your hips, Larry."
I'm sexy & I know it.

IMHO, dysfunctional treatment is pure conditioning. A person learns it in some strong relationship (parent, lover, boss) and internalizes it. Then the same person responds to similar treatment from others, attracting a certain type of antogonist. Only conscious analysis can change the pattern.

Disagree, some people are arrogant, rude and full of themselves.

There is no rule that can be applied to the general aspects of the world, not even on everyone. I agree to that quote but not with a full percentage.

Some people got used to be who they are, no matter how nice you try to be and how good your intentions are, the won't see it, they are who they are and their treatment won't change in regard to how you act with them, if you are nice, they are who they are, if you are rude, they become worse XD

but ya...at times again, it helps with those who aren't so...whatever we wanna call them.

Not all people have good intentions.

"Is this debate a postulate from your poem "crabs" silvershoes?"
Yes indeed. Love that you care enough to piece that together :)

I disagree with the quote because even if it held true for everyone else in the world, I would know I'm an exception. One exception means it's a false statement.
I try my best to treat people how they deserve to be treated, not how they allow me to treat them. Some of the kindest people are those who let you walk all over them because they don't have the heart or the confidence to stop it.

If someone treats you badly just because they can, that's a terrible quality. I can only hope someday their maltreatment of others will come back to bite them in the ass.

Since when does one exception make a statement false?

I see nothing wrong in a statement that works for the vast majority of cases. Science is built that way - with an understanding that nothing is absolutely concrete, but there may be a generally consistent way to understand something.

Sure, people can treat you like shit for no reason of your own. You may not be able to change those people, but what the statement is saying is that you can change the way YOU react to those people. You can accept it, you can talk with them about it, or you can walk away.

And, in return, I know you must treat people the way they let you in many ways, too. You are easier with talking about sex and drugs with certain people, you perhaps take care not to speak out against religion with others. You ask certain people for help more than others - because they let you.

People always give signals about how they want to be treated, about where their sensitivities and boundaries lie. Some people aren't so good at sending out these signals - this usually comes from a lack of self-identification/maturity/respect/psychological injury etc. And some people like you, Jane, are better at picking up these signals than others.

The kind people you speak of are the ones who should heed this statement the most.

My understanding of the statement is a little bit different. When I've heard people use it, it was meant to excuse themselves for treating others badly. As if our natural state as humans is to treat others as badly as we possibly can. We are inherently bad - that sort of thing. The less bad someone lets you treat them, the less bad you treat them, and simply because of a "letting" or "not letting." Like a reaction.
However, this isn't a science maybe. It's about ethics and emotion.
The fact that I refuse to treat someone badly just because they'll let me, is in my opinion enough to make the statement false. It should be "some people will treat you how you let them treat you," or even, "people [can] treat you how you let them treat you." As it reads currently, it's an absolute, and it implies people are treated how they let others treat them, not that others [can] or [should] treat them how they let others treat them... but they [will]. Like a Murphy's law type thing! Ha.

To my knowledge, science isn't about accepting something as fact even though it has some exceptions. Science is about accepting something as fact because you haven't found any exceptions YET. When you do find an exception, you revise the fact (or I guess "the theory" is more accurate).

A statement with many sides to it, Jane...

It is indeed so that, when you do not draw lines in the sand and /or make known people overstep your bounderies, some will walk over over you, because that is who they are. Some are respectful to all others and wil not take advantage of the "oppertunity"that rises.

To my son, and to other young friends I always say this: we all have our unique place in this world, but no one is going to give it to you for free, you have to fight for it. To defend yourself and expect to be respected should come natural to all of us, because we are equally important and deserving of the life we have been given.

The ones who try to make others feel small are the little people, without exception..the ones who have not accomplished what they wish they had and try to prevent you from achieving your full potential. Think of this, when someone tries to belittle you and pity them for having to live with themselves and then go on with what you are doing: becoming the best you can be and feel good about it!!!

Very intelligent responses from all of you. Thanks for the insight.

Ingrid, is that you as a child? Cute!

Here's another topic of debate. My boyfriend and I are looking for a cheap getaway sometime in late August. We're limiting the search to somewhere in the western half of the United States, and it will only be a weekend trip. Any thrifty suggestions? You don't have to have been there! Anything you've heard about a certain place will do just fine. Could really use the help.

Thanks, Jane:) Yup, it's me all bundled up by mum for a trip in my first winter ever (1966)

Have a great trip in August!

Can't we all just get along and sing We Are the World!
we are the childreeen!

Broadly speaking, science is based on probability. Statistics. Trial and error. Finding patterns. Research means search and search again. Even when there is an exception, there usually has to be a statistical significance for that exception.

Anyway. That is not the point of your debate. The thought that the statement reflects negatively on humans did not occur to me. I think that it's a sign I'm mellowing/aging, getting dumber/happier. I think the statement is intended to have more meaning for the receiver than the giver. And some people don't let people treat them kindly either. You can spin the statement around to make it seem more careful, but to me, it's neither here nor there.

It's how and why the statement affects us so differently that interests me.

In high school, you're popular when you're damn courageous, confident and sexy. In 'real' life, I have no idea. Yet. And when you're popular, you're treated well.

Hhhaahah sounds a great idea Rab :P

"People treat you the way you let them treat you."
Agree or disagree?

I disagree.Sometimes you can't defend yourself and you have to shut up and consent because there is nothing you can do about it.

Well, Karla, that's called dictatorship not 'treating you bad'.

Noura, I've faced too many clients escaping from marriages that Karla has described perfectly.

But when you can't defend yourself, you are weak, you are acting weak. Hence, they treat you bad because you let them do so.

Noura, sometimes it is better to be a coward alive than a hero dead.

^^^"trying to escape" or something else? Most do escape eventually, here in the US/West...tough in other countries.

"People treat you the way you let them treat you."

sometimes one needs to look at both sides of the coin, to decide who is wrong. So a better quote is:

"How people treat you is their karma; how you react is yours".----Wayne Dyer

OR look for a compromise if in an otherwise successful marriage/partnership/friendship, because often what is right to one is wrong to another....
----------------------------
And Jane ^^^^^^^^^^^, here is my suggestion, if you guys can't find a (thrifty) place to go, don't worry, come on down to my town and I will lend you some beach blankets and a tent, to spread out on the sand...watch the seals, the sunsets, the stars and the moon! That should be enough, for a romantic getaway and the next poetic inspiration, what do you think?

Don't do it! I've seen this on Pulp Fiction. He's got some hidden dungeon & you'll never escape.

Go to the north rim of the Grand Canyon & camp out.

Beware, of the coyotes that will tear you out in the canyon! Hope, the hawk-eyed is smart enough to look out for them.

Hidden dungeon, haha, they do not have in CA, too quaky!

Said the spider to the fly

Loved reading this last part:

And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.

The Spider and the Fly
Mary Howitt

---------------------------------------
An evil spider? ha ha so much for an over-protective counselor! Should have stopped by on your way from SD to LAX.
--------------------------
Reminds me, lived and worked in SD in the early 1990's, the most beautiful town I have ever lived in.....Mission Beach, Coronado Is, La Jolla...paradise for the vacationers.

I'd rather have visited than spend the night @ LAX for sure. Ugh, so many people getting bumped for storms back east.

I agree about San Diego area, especially La Jolla. Told my daughter to expect frequent visits.

You can always be counted on for a massive response as you wrap up your prey with 'wwwebbing,' Mr Spider.
; 8-)

There is a line in the sand of this discussion I feel.

In general interactions, yes you have a pretty strong influence on how people treat you. You can respond in various ways, verbal, body language, positioning et cetc.

However, there are situations where despite everything you are capable of, someone may have so much power over you (either physical or political etc) they can treat you in a way you do not accept and there is nothing you can do about it.

Some may say "ah you you can always choose how to respond to any situation", but that is about 70% horseshit. If I stab you in the eye with a pencil, you don't really have many options of how to respond. You are going to fall to the ground, scream and probably die. You might have a few minor options along the way, but your choices have just been severely limited by me.

No...you can make a response before the pencil actually reaches your eye...if you're quick enough.. Aikedo...?

Beyond the physically overpowering, there are other situations which are equally controlling, although I know many of you will say it's "her" fault for putting up with it.

There is a "cycle of violence" which develops in some relationships. It starts when a man begins to deride his wife/companion, telling her that noone else would put up with her faults, isolating her from friends & family, preventing her from seeking outside connections. This process usually works best when the lady has low self-esteem and has been raised to expect little.

This situation is bad enough, but in many cases it gets worse. At some point the man begins escalating his complaints, evidences jealousy, accuses her falsely of affairs with men with whom she had the slightest contact. It builds to a crescendo in which he manhandles her, perhaps hitting or beating her, often while he is drunk. The next morning he apologizes profusely, swears it will never happen again & begs her forgiveness. This posture gives her a false sense of power over him, since she could send him to jail, and she inevitably forgives him. Then they enter a honeymoon period where he is solicitous to her every wish & she feels she has finally come into the true relationship.

However, tensions begin to mount, he lets a few put-downs slip out, things get worse, the controlling behavior returns and then the violence recurs, followed by the contrition, and the cycle repeats endlessly.

I describe what social workers, as well as other family attorneys, have become intimately familiar with, but I do not talk of it from theory: I have been presented with this pattern so many times in my practice that I sometimes get burned out from the agony of dealing with it. It takes a woman pushed beyond a very high threshold of tolerance to escape from this relationship and it takes great effort to convince her to go through therapy so that she does not fall back into the same pattern with him or another man. My practice is about helping them to become strong, independent women. I wish that I could claim success most of the time, but I cannot.

These people actually send out signals to others, subtle indications of personality that attract abusers. The abusers on the other hand are exquisite in their ability to say the right words and present sufficient sympathy to get into fresh relationships. Even when the divorce is over, the anguish for others has not always been prevented.

So true. But, Larry there are both sides of the story, and a bit of scientific basis (unproven, indirect) to it....

Men have a bipolar complex too, though mostly women get diagnosed of the disorder. Love-abuse-hate relationship cycle, as you describe above. In terms of what provokes men, it is suspected to be the androgenic (testosterone) stimulation to a sometimes genetically and other times environmentally influenced brain particularly in those from a poor educational, social and economic background and those with family history of domestic violence. However, other research suggests that testosterone is only a partial facilitator of this behavior of social dominance, and there are certainly many other factors. In a nutshell, a "hulk" (=loaded with T-hormone) may be more likely to be involved with such issues (not always), and when castrated (animal experiments, and an ancient form of punishment for violent individuals/prisoners) they become docile. (Now caution ladies: This does not mean that the nice, slim, timid, superbly mannered guy you want to date is "low" on testosterone = will have low libido! and vice-versa...). But, just in general, the more virile the man (even woman), the more likely he (and she too) will be to have tumultuos relationships.

Now women...same is true......there is an innate bipolarity built in the brain unfortunately, by the homone cycles....each month...you are all familiar with what is known as PMS, a biological fact.
Other than that, excess testosterone in women also results in the same change of behavior like anger, rage, aggression, violence, increase in sexual desire and competitive feelings. (latter two may be good for some :), but "goodies" generally always come with some "baddies."

So, it is not always the men who create a situation that lead couples to divorces and such, it can be the women too...e.g with age and approaching menopause there is declining estrogen (niceness hormone/wink :) levels, which unmask the steady levels of androgens secreted by their adrenals, that influence the brain the same way they do in men...lead to aggression, tendency for social dominance, dysphoric moods, and so forth). Another example is the study measuring testosterone in violent female prisoners or those with PCOS.
Net result, they end up in Larry's office, trying to convince him that it is entirely her husband's fault. Typically, by the time they arrive in his office, some men, have found love elsewhere (finding difficulty at home) or have lost their affection in their marital relationship, leading to the break up.

Corollary: 1) Don't believe that it is entirely the other persons fault. It is just a perception. Often what leads to break ups after a successful courtship/marriage, is the fact that one party took everything for granted. One has to work hard all life to make a relationship successful, on both ends.
2) Try adding E2 (a kind of sweetner found in the ovaries of nice chickens) to your your spouse's diet to see if he/she becomes "tame." Caution: He may loose his libido. Women rarely do with E2.
(haha! SERIOUSLY Not recommended without medical advice, just my funny side of brain acting up).

I can see Larry you have more women clients than men! Poor men, often get beaten up in divorces.

Larry, I wholly sympathise with the people stuck in abusive relationships, having been a close witness to several. But I feel this only supports Jane's statement instead of negating it. I understand only too well that there are different personality types that attract dickwads, and this is through no fault of their own - but they do CHOOSE to stay for whatever reason - security, social standing, identity as a wife/carer/giver, undying love and forgiveness, their history/psychology... I'm sorry, I know this is an unsympathetic way to look at it, but from my experience, it is the case. The fact that you work with women to help them change their own patterns of behaviour further supports the idea that you have to be the one to allow yourself to be treated the way you deserve.

This statement is about giving people empowerment and responsibility over the control of their lives and appreciation and respect for self, instead of sinking into a well of hopelessness, resentment and blame. I take no issue with it.

Kevin, your post made me laugh. I'm pretty sure the statement is speaking in general terms. Sure, you can say:
"People treat you the way you let them treat you UNLESS:
* they stab you in the eye with a pencil without warning
* you're in a jail cell locked by an evil tyrant
* you are a turnip
* etc"

but that would be pretty exhausting. It would be pretty hard arguing any point at all.

Abby, I both agree with you and understand the lack of ability of these women to escape. My personal experiences have shown me that a partner who seeks to empower their mate becomes strong and independent as well. However, human foibles as they are, I have compassion for those not at the point of standing up yet.

There is only one statement which is true in every situation and Jane's is not it. In fact, no one has stated it in this thread.

David, please refrain from recommending, even in jest, that persons medicate others surreptitiously. People look up to you & should not be misguided.
Also, I hope your analogy of Bi-Polar disorders to PMS & menopause was tongue in cheek. Bi-polar Disorder is a mood disorder occurring in less than 5% of people in the US in their lifetime. It does NOT equate to PMS.

And here I thought I made some headway in explaining with classy scientific humor, only to be shot down again! ahahahah.. :( really hurts each time that it happens, not counting the dozen times before! No worries, have crocodile skin, and know how to defend most things I state. This one should not be any different. :)

So let me defend what I stated and why....

--I never used the term bipolar disorder, which is something not unknown to me. The words I used were 1)"men have a bipolar complex too..", 2) Now women...same is true......there is an innate bipolarity built in the brain...

These are inventive jocular wordings (non-scientific) commonly used implying the similarities between the cyclothymic (cyclical) variant of the BP disorder to a women's mood changes in a cycle.
(http://bipolarworld.net/Phelps/ph_2001/ph547.htm
Where Dr. Phelps, a psychiatrist in Oregon, discusses the similarities between severe PMS and a bipolar disorder.)

These "mood" changes during the PMS in women are suspected to be related to the influence of hormone cycles on the brain.

Similarly, there are men who have a problem with dysphoric mood suspected to be related to T-hormone in part (will cite if needed), but not that cyclical, unless they are truly bipolar. Hence, the usage of the word "bipolar" in each instant is a jocular analogy of the hot-cold-hot OR love-abuse-love-hate behavior seen in these unfortunate breakup's that is often compared to the depression-manic-depression cycles of a true bipolar individual. Hence, the phraseology, my apology if I did not explain it enough earlier.

Yes, bipolar cycles do not coincide with menstrual cycles, most times, nor is a true bipolar disorder caused by hormone imbalances....so I was extra careful in the usage of the terms limiting it only to purposes of analogy. Incidentally, there is a high incidence of PMS in bipolar disorder, though the reverse is not true (google for citations pl).

Re: "Try adding E2 (a kind of sweetner found in the ovaries of nice chickens) to your your spouse's diet to see if he/she becomes "tame." - very clearly is a jocular usage, as clearly notated next to it. I do not believe people will think otherwise.

But, I will take your advisement regardless on this. I do have to comment that this post was made simply to give a scientific reasoning to the idiom "men are from mars and women are from venus." (metaphor/book by John Gray), in this open debate thread.

Hopefully, I have explained everything satisfactorily. :)

So the next topics, I will like to introduce here and seek your opinions as to how much truth there is in here:

"men are from mars and women are from venus."
&
"opposites attract but the like-minded last""

Love to see your opinions, and particularly what are the relationship outcome when partners are like-minded and not like-minded?

Men are from mars, women are from venus is very truthful...Of course there are always exceptions to the case, but over generalizing, men and women are just wired differently. Not wrong, just different.

"Love to see your opinions, and particularly what are the relationship outcome when partners are like-minded and not like-minded?"

I personally wouldn't be able to be in a long-lasting relationship with someone who didn't agree with me spiritually, politically (the two go hand in hand for me, usually) and we would have to have very, very similar values.

I dated guys before that didn't have the same thoughts and values I did on the things I felt important to me, and it was a struggle trying to make it work. With my husband, we are very likeminded and our relationship is beautiful and easy. We see eye to eye on the big things in life, and the smaller things sometimes too. We are different in our interests and hobbies (some of them) and do have our own lives outside of the relationship, but we create a balance in our differences.

That was a big ramble to really just say I think the big things are important to be like-minded on. lol.

This one is transferred from Nevi's Quote thread to continue the hot discussion it seems to be generating.

LARRY quoted:

""The aim of argument should be to change the nature of truth."
- Frank Herbert
------------------------------------------
I responded: Why have an argument when you already know the truth?
---------------------------------------------
@allabout first response:

"The nature of truth like science is unchangeable. A discussion or an argument would not change or affect the subjects of our discussion, but it would do so though to our relationship with them. Mirrors, could reflect subjects concavely or convexly or other ways but they are unable to mold the objects to their own versions of interpretations."
----------------------------------------
Larry's response:
The wisest man, said the Delphic oracle, was Socrates. He insisted that if he were truly wise, it was because he realized that he knew nothing.

The Truth as Plato envisioned it may be immutable, but our poor understanding of it can only approach yet never reflect that truth. The Socratic method of argument is the attempt to discover it.

----------------------------------------------------
@allaboutus response:
It is the figure of speech sort of thing. I always notice there are, even in academic level, confusion about the "truth" as concrete objects out there, reflecting on us through our senses and the "truth" as a concrete object itself.
We sense, then later on, through the aid of others or objects such as tools, we certify the accuracy of those senses and format them in some formulas that practically coordinate with all the aspects of our corresponding sensory data, of that subject. Those formulas change when our scope changes, but they still remain definite in there own realms: like the law of gravity, the Newton physic or then in bigger scope the "relativity" theory. The "relativity" defies the general aspects and certainty in the simple physic, but it could never conflict with their definite rules in their specific dominion.
In the other hand is the truth as the essence, in which existentialism, for example tends to deny: like universal human qualities, things with general values, such as god and meaning or existence, existing on their own.
Existentialism in opposite puts emphasis on the uniqueness of individual experiences. As Camus says :
" there is always at best an imperfect fit between human reasoning and its intended objects."
----------------------------------

Now, I suggest everye one who wishes to debate the Quote continue here. I will try in my simple concrete way to debate this abstract quote which by itself defines the imperfect philosophy of "existentialism".............so let us debate the quote here, whether we undersatnd it as concrete or abstract...Go on guys!

Truth is the condition of questioning.
If we consider that nowadays we live in a world where everything is relative and dependent on culture, where language is per se a metaphor with no connection to truth or reality at all, we can conclude that there is no truth.So judgements based on truth (sic) will bring problems.

"The falseness of a judgement is to us not necessarily an objection to a judgement...The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding"
(Friedrich Nietzsche)

Therefore we don't have to be worried about truth itself because there will be mistakes .However we have to be aware to what extent truth -right or wrong- will contribute to an advance in life.

The fundamental principle of education is to understand the truth for oneself. The fundamental principle of philosophy is to realise that all truth comes from reality.My questions are:
why is it necessary to understand truth?
Can reality really account for truth?
If we consider there is always (a hidden) ideology in language and language itself is a social process, so how can it produce truth?

This concept is so broad and Larry's respond was even more general so it is difficult to be detailed in such a broad concept with so many insufficiencies in time, space and knowledge ( in my part).

Plato and Socrates they both believed in apollonian truth, the all might truth in which dominated the human believes for centuries. Existentialism however replaced the god of scriptures with our concrete experiences; it mostly emerged from intellectual void, after second world war, concurrently with Surrealism and Dadaism.
After two world wars, people started to lose their trust in essential truth and began to believe in supremacy of individual experience, ( the only thing an alienated individual could seemingly rely on with some certainty , which in extreme would turn to Solipsism in my opinion; because it would deny the experiences of others.-This goes more and less the same for the other side also-)
So bending too much towards extremes, in either sides, would bring us back to the same point, which is nothing but the good old zero.
Balance is not in extreme; it is in 180 degree. Anything more or less is out of whack.
Truth exists, and our sensory data, confirm ( and deny) its existence constantly. As Camus said: though, our measurement of it, would never be definite.
This is a good thing because it would make us to keep on going. Definite ( general truth) is not achievable in the cubes confines of time sequence.

This somehow confirms and denies the religions fairytales, and correspondingly the mechanical atheism, approaches in the same time.
We neither could rely too much on, nor live without, the reliance of our sensory data. Truth is relative and definite in the same time.
This is where the "abracadabra"'s butterflies comes handy: Living in the stalk of butterfly. Birds need left and right wings in the same time in order to fly .
Things without balance would fall down.