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

> (snip)

> >> I don't open the doors because I pity them.  I open the doors
because I
> >> recognize they need help.
>
> > Mark wrote:
> > As I said, this is minimal courtesy.
>
> Mark, recognizing need and acting on it without waiting to be asked
is
> considerably more than minimal courtesy.

I suppose we can quibble over that.  You don't make him fill out a
special
request form first, eh? :-)

My point was that courtesy could be extended without need.
By making a special need requirement, you make courtesy into
something that is a function of pity.  Which is a... shame. :-)

> > Mark wrote:
> > How about just opening doors just to be nice?
>
> If I'm at the door first, I hold it open for the person directly
behind me
> 'cause I don't want to let the door go and have it slam against that
person.
> That's way uncool and potentially harmful.
>
> >Or to
> > make people feel part of a community?  Or even to show
> > them respect and appreciation?
>
> ...and being cognizant of need, acting on it, and not wanting to
cause harm
> is in some way judged in your mind to be disrespectful and
unappreciative?
> How?

Now you're putting words into my mouth that are pretty hilarious.
Storytime:

One very defining moment for me in manners was when a young "lady"
(dr evil quotes) was exiting the cinema about the same time as a friend
and me when she got to her passenger car door and growled out
loud for all to hear "I'm waiting!!!" and the poor bastard had to run
to get it for her.

So trust me, in no way am I going to define you as disrespectual
or unappreciative for not running to open every person's door.

At the same time, as a more mature person, I can say that it is
"appreciative" and "respectful" to open doors for the proper
situation even if no true need is established.

Something that occurred to me I would like to mention: When you
talked about your husband being independant, I appreciate that
but I'm concerned that there may be times when such people
are unable to ask for help when they truly need it (even
if that need is psychological.)  Did it ever occur to you that his
inability to ask you for help and him hobbling around may have
been due to his concern you may not respect him if he did
accept your offered help?

> In my book, *actions* speak louder than words.
> >
> > My wife's father just turned 70 and as a coach he can
> > outrace me.  But I still hold open his door.
>
> Well, good for you!

Thank you but I don't think I'm entitled to any medals.
It's in my best interest to stay on his good side and
I truly appreciate what he's done for me (even if
indirectly) so I don't give it a second thought.

My point is that these manners are part of a social
"contract" (as Parg likes to put it) that when properly
balanced makes our lives better and helps to enhance
"social" awareness.

> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> I can respect these particular men for what they
> >> are and I can recognize a need without waiting for these ones to
ask me
> >> to
> >> hold the door open for them.  It would never occur to me to insult
these
> >> men
> >> by waiting until they humble themselves to ask me for help.  These

> >> elderly
> >> folks do have pride!
> >>
> >> Heidi
>
> > Mark wrote:
> > I'm sure this isn't accurate, but it could be inferred, from
> > what you're saying, that you don't hold open these people's
> > doors because you pity them but instead because you don't
> > want to be seen as a jerk.  (covering your own butt.)
>
> Not being viewed as a jerk is neither here nor there.  If I see a
cripple
> struggling to open the door, I open it, not 'cause I pity these
folks, but
> rather because I recognize the need which prompts me to act.  If you
think
> that that is in some way not good enough....well...tough.  That's
*your*
> perception, not mine.   Think what you want.

You're halfright in that people will usually believe in the
justifications
for their actions even facing social criticism.  We get attached to
our beliefs and actions and become resistant to change.  Myself
included.

So that said, why should it matter to _YOU_, not me, YOU, whether
you're doing so out of pity or "need?"  Aren't both the same thing
in the case we're discussing?   As you note, you're socially aware
so you do care what other people think even if you're not willing to
admit that.  Otherwise, you'd be a New Yorker and to hell with
the people who can't open their doors.

> > Mark wrote:
> > Your reasoning appears to be that you hold the doors for
> > the elderly because you assume elderly automatically have
> > trouble and "need" the doors held for them.
>
> It depends on the situation.  I assess it by observing.  If *I* see
the
> need, then I act.
>
> > Mark wrote:
> > I know I'm twisting things around, but you get the point.
>
>
> You certainly are doing a great deal of twisting.  I, for one, value
> *action* over flowery words.

So stop fussing over saying "compassion" rather than
"pity" if they're
the same thing. :-)

> And when I see a need, I act on it.  How
> others want to view and judge that action is up to them.  They are
also free
> to speculate over what motivation there is behind that action.  I
don't
> perform these actions to try to win some favors.  I just do what has
to be
> done...the reward I determine for myself.  If I think what I do is
great, I
> reward myself.  If I'm not happy with my own actions, then I
castigate
> myself.  I try not to be too hard on myself, though.  I'm not into
> self-abuse.
> ;-)

I think most people live in their own moral universe but understand
that's part of how you think the world should behave around you.
You hold open the disableds' doors because you think that's how a
decent
person should act.  You want to view yourself as a decent person
and for decent people to recognize you as part of their clan.

I anticipate I'll get some arrows directed at me for that claim. :-)

And I think that's a good thing.  You have standards and you want
to live up to those standards and help to make the world
a better place.  Acting together in a group is better than
acting alone, yes?  Do you want to be the ONLY person
recycling and helping stray birds or is it better if you're
part of something bigger?

> > Just as helping people in need isn't necessarily condescending,
> > neither is pity all that bad either.  Pity is what seperates
> > humans from the animals and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
>
> I won't dishonour people with my pitying them.  That's not the way I
> operate.
>
> Heidi

That's why I think you've focused on the word pity.  It implies that
the pitied are somehow lesser which is why it's PC to use the word
"sight disabled" rather than "blind" or hearing
disabled rather than
deaf.

Heidi, maybe YOU choose to make the dishonor out of pity rather
than it being there to begin with.  Did that ever occur to you?
You say you don't care what others think but you seem to care
greatly about what the word means as defined by a bunch of bookworms.
You can pity someone and help them and respect them as a human
being equal to yourself.  In fact, I think that's a moral obligation
on your part, yes?

If you fail to respect people as you pity them then that's your
malfunction.  I pity you. :-)

Get it?

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



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