Thread: Wtf

Originally Posted by Tahr

You are correct. Law and objectivity are important elements of this discussion. But so too is emotion. All human interactions have elements of emotion, our own values and our own truths. To deny their existence and to not give them credence is to demean your own level of EQ (emotional intelligence).

Please do not respond with an assignment. I will not grade it. A response that demonstrates that you are at least one legally trained person who can operate at both the objective and emotional levels would though be appropriate.

While our emotive response to a persons desire to return to his previous lifestyle is understandable, because of the trauma associated.... what we don't understand is the absolute loss of identity of a person who can no longer do that thing that formed a massive part of their life.

You may find it hard to reconcile that desire, because you are at the front end of that situation and I am exactly the same. I find it difficult to think that I would too, but don't presume that you would know how you feel in his situation.

C'mon Thar.. thats a little patronising. I am not your student. Nor am I some 20 something with more conviction than understanding.

Perhaps you would like to identify empathy or emotional understanding in what is already written as above? Sympathy for the victims for their loss is an absolute given.

But I'm actually not convinced that encouraging people to think that its OK to feel aggrieved about someone resuming hunting after such an event, is in fact much different than allowing people to not ban firearms for the same reason.

In fact you could well argue, that the intentional use of firearms is far more traumatic and provides far stronger argument for banning such, but we don't accept that sort of discussion or emotional response as being appropriate either. Nor do we prevent drunk drivers returning to the road, careless drivers or dangerous drivers .. unless they are likely to have continuing issues for other peoples safety.

That is the qualification, your knowledge of this man might indicate that is more likely, and that needs to be assessed and I have no issue with that. Your posts were very sane but some of the following were not.

Originally Posted by Sidney

C'mon Thar.. thats a little patronising. I am not your student. Nor am I some 20 something with more conviction than understanding.

Perhaps you would like to identify empathy or emotional understanding in what is already written as above? Sympathy for the victims for their loss is an absolute given.

But I'm actually not convinced that encouraging people to think that its OK to feel aggrieved about someone resuming hunting after such an event, is in fact much different than allowing people to not ban firearms for the same reason.

In fact you could well argue, that the intentional use of firearms is far more traumatic and provides far stronger argument for banning such, but we don't accept that sort of discussion or emotional response as being appropriate either. Nor do we prevent drunk drivers returning to the road, careless drivers or dangerous drivers .. unless they are likely to have continuing issues for other peoples safety.

That is the qualification, your knowledge of this man might indicate that is more likely, and that needs to be assessed and I have no issue with that. Your posts were very sane but some of the following were not.

Yeah, it could have read as being patronizing. I actually thought I was being as funny as hell. A nice example of the difference between intention and impact. I need to up my EQ

The absence of tone and visual cues is a bitch...