Heidi Graw wrote:
> >"Mark Sobolewski" 
wrote in message

> > But note that you chose to use that word rather than compassion.
>
> But compassion *means* pity.  Have compassion, have pity...it's one
and the
> same.

Hello Heidi,

Yet, here we are, eh?  If the two words were equivalent, then you
wouldn't
be quibbling over using one word over another.

I think the reason is that "pity" has a different connotation than
compassion.

> >But let's explore your point:
> >
> > I also find people laying guilt trips to be dispicable.  It
undermines
> > the true people who deserve (note, not need) pity.
>
> Do you want to know who I *really* pity?  A lot of the children.
Many of
> them are the truly helpless ones...the ones who have no power to
determine
> their lives for themselves.

Have you forgotten when it's like on the playground?

Children can be little barbarians and they DON'T necessarily learn it
from their parents.

> The children have to rely on the goodwill and
> kindness of *adults.*  All too often is the the children who are
brutalized
> and bullied around.  They have no say!  Abused, hungry and neglected
> children are who move me to compassion...true, real and deep
compassion.
>
> As for the adults?  Well...they have the power to act on their own
> will...they have the power to make choices.

As you half-way acknowledge above, the "adults" (to use Dr. Evil
double-quotes)
often don't have a lot of power in their personal lives themselves.
Remember
the old lady you showed how to use the audodoor?  She had the power
to get it open herself all along but didn't know how.  Note: I'm not
giving these parents a free pass either.

Much of the time, the parents are trapped in behaviour they learned
as children and as I said, it's not necessarily what their parents or
other adults taught them.

>  They don't need me to pity
> them.  If, however, an adult tells me their sob story, I'll listen,
but only
> for so long.  I expect an adult to pull him/herself up by their own
boot
> straps 'cause they have the legal authority and power to act on their
own.

You mean like the Tsunami victims?

Sometimes life can be difficult and people need help especially from
their
own family members even if it's just a shoulder to cry on or lean on
while
they get back together.  I always thought that was precisely what a
family
was for: A "tribal" association of trust create some measure of
stability.

> And if they don't have this legal power they can get it, fight for
it,
> whatever.

Ever hear of Columbine?

What disgusts me about modern leftists (ok, not just this but it's one
of
things that disgusts me :-) is how they laud Doctor Reverend Martin J.
Luther
King, Jr. as this great orator and leader for getting up and
non-violently
asking white establishment and the media repeatedly for more rights
and support for his black community while at the same time calling
white men who do the same as whiners.  They then turn around and
condemn the violence such men committed when they took matters
into their own hands.

I think our western society is admirable because it does provide
numerous,
albeit incomplete, safeguards and avenues for desperate people to
take to help them get back on their feet.  But it's by no means
complete
and in some cases it's even contradictory.

> > On the contrary: often the people who deserve pity the most
> > are those least likely (or able) to ask for it.
>
> Like who?  Give me an example?

Heck, I grew up surrounded by such people: working class families who
were too proud to ask for welfare.  They had job skills enough to
earn a living but maybe not enough to raise a family as well as they
should have.

The problem with the welfare system is that oftentimes the people
who are best aware of how to use it to their advantage use it
precisely to avoid getting out of trouble while those who need
it the most want to avoid association with the above people.
It's a social paradox that needs to be worked out.

> > But yes, there are times that a "guilt trip" is warranted
> > to hold people up to their chosen standards and conscience.
> > If you didn't think that the weak, elderly people whom
> > you hold open doors might squawk in a plaintive voice
> > a request you help them, might you be more inclined to not
> > notice them?
>
> If I was that blind not to be able to notice whether or not an
elderly
> person needs help or not, then I probably wouldn't hear such a person

> either.
>
> I'll give you an example:  One day I was doing my grocery shopping.
I saw
> an old man sitting in a wheelchair moaning and groaning and pointing
to
> something on a rack.  I watched numerous adults just walk by this
> person..not paying attention and basically deliberately ignoring this
old
> man.  Well... I recognized a need and went over to this old fellow
and asked
> him if I could get something off the shelf for him.  The relief on
his face
> was priceless.  I had difficulty understanding what he muttered, so I
chose
> to point to various objects and asked if this, this or this is what
he
> wanted.  Finally, I came upon the right item.  I took it off the
shelf and
> handed it to him.  This old man gave me the sweetest most beautiful
smile
> I've come across in my life.  ;-)  That was my reward for being
observant
> and acting on a need.  It wasn't pity or compassion that motivated
me, but
> merely seeing a need.  That's it.

Oh cut the bull! :-)

Lots of people "need" things but you don't necessarily reach into your
pockets
and help them.  You have a personal conscience or meter that determines
merit and act accordingly.  This is "pity" or "compassion".

I'm going to go one step further and observe that it's not merely need
that
drives good manners.  Even if the person is capable of doing something
beyond "need" doesn't mean that you don't help them.  The elderly
usually are able to get around, albeit slowly, without help.

> > Mark wrote:
> > I'm not attacking you.  I don't think you're a bad person.
>
> I don't think of myself in terms of good or bad.  I prefer to coast
in
> neutral.  ;-)
>
> > I'm only discussing the value of "pity" and compassion in
> > human nature.  Sometimes, people can be disgusting creatures
> > but other times they can make us proud.
>
> I actually don't care what other people think of me.  I know what I
think of
> myself.  That is more important to me.  And should another person
think
> kindly of me...well...that's a bonus!   I don't expect it, and I
don't
> demand it.  If I happen to get it from others...wonderful!  I'll
accept it.
> And if I judge someone else's *actions* as something worthy of my
love, I'll
> give it gladly.

This also presents food for thought.

I heard this kind of thinking often in college and didn't think much of
it
until I lived in the midwest for a while and noticed how people REALLY
DID
need to worry about what other people thought.  You could be a total
jerk behind someone's back but to their face, if you dotted your I's
and
crossed your T's, they loved you.  And vice versa: I'm a nice person
who is friendly and open but blurted out very small things that the
people would blow totally out of proportion.  I was glad to leave
because
I felt that it wasn't a very free or exploratory atmosphere that
offered
a lot of room for growth.

It's hard for me to fit in sometimes because I appreciate the freedom
of the urbane world but at the same time have "conservative" or
traditional values.  I'm one of those guys living in a blue region
(but fortunately in a red state :-)

> For example:  What I noticed about my husband was that right from the
start
> he wanted to include me into all aspects of his life.  This was such
a
> refreshing change from what I had previously experienced with other
fellows.
> It is this inclusion that impressed me and endeared me to him.  His
actions
> I judged worthy of my love.  He got it voluntarily.  He didn't have
to bribe
> me, tell me sweet little nothings.  His *actions* are what counted.

I don't understand what you mean with your Dr. Evil double-quotes.
I think you mean, maybe, that what he said in terms of being open
was an "action" rather than insincere gestures.

>  His
> actions made him lovable.  ;-)  He certainly doesn't want my pity.
He
> actually got annoyed when I tried to be compassionate when he broke
his leg.
> "Don't fuss over me...I can do it myself!"  is what he told me when I
wanted
> to get something for him from upstairs.  I thought I could save him
the
> trouble.  Instead, he got on his butt and dragged himself up the
stairs to
> hobble along on his own.  I'm the same way...do for myself
first...and if I
> really and truly need help only then I might ask.

But I think deep down he appreciated that you offered.  Even if someone
just
yak yak yaks but doesn't want you to do anything that still is an
"action" on your part of just listening (and as you know, that can
be harder than just fixing the problem for them.)

> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> I
> >> will, however, discuss with them their needs to correct in various

> >> practical
> >> ways whatever mess they created for themselves.
>
> > Mark wrote:
> > So do you have a chat with the elderly men about how they can
> > better get those heavy doors open in the future when you
> > aren't around?
>
> Actually, there was a time when I did tell an elderly lady with a
walker
> that for the next time she could use the ramp with the door that
opens
> simply by pushing that button.  She hadn't noticed it before...a new
> installation.  She thanked me for that bit of valuable advice.  ;-)

But you at least had the good graces to get the door for her first,
right?

It used to piss me off when people made the pretense to want to help me
but instead wanted to give me condescending lectures or advice.
In other words, talk is cheap and so is the sentiment behind it.

> > Mark wrote:
> > After all, there is no guarantee that someone will be there
> > to help them with their needs.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Here's the thing, Mark...a socialist is socially aware...they are
*people*
> persons.  So, it is very easy for me to recognize a people need when
I see
> it.  I notice people moreso than I do things.
>
> Heidi

I think you're right about socialists being more "aware" and even
about being aware about needs but not necessarily in actually helping
that other person.  Sometimes, the person is using that awareness
for the wrong reason.  A vampire could be called a socialist using
that definition.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/6/05 6:30:19 PM ---