Having respect versus being respectful

[fast]

There are some ambiguities and distinctions that need to be hashed out. First, some of us may be able to relate to what is apparently an old-fashioned concept sometimes eluded to by the statement that "children should be respectful of their elders." This can embody a variety of virtues such as being helpful, friendly, kind, and obedient. The idea is to instill in them to be polite and well-mannered. There is the hope that children who learn to listen and be mindful early on will carry these positive and endearing traits into adolescence and adulthood. That is all on the one hand.

There is a second and substantially different and distinct concept that says respect should be earned and not automatically granted merely because someone is an adult or holds an authoritative status. That's all fine and good as far as principles go, but this is all on the other hand. The problem I see is when the difference between the two hands are meshed together as if they are undiscernable.

I present the following thought experiment to vividly illustrate the difference. A mother and her seven year old son is approached by a senator at a nearby festival. Both the mother and son exchange introductory pleasantries with the senator. Shortly into the conversation at the gathering, the senator offers the little boy a handout geared towards the kids. The boy politely accepts the gift and thanks the senator with genuine and positive mannerism. Impressed by the well mannered behavior of the mothers' little boy, the senator comments in awe about his level of respect.

The mother says, "yes, he's been raised to have a lot of respect." Her little boy (who has recently spent a lot of time with his grandparents) immediately said, "but that's not true momma! I don't have any respect for Mr. Wilson because like grandpa says, he's been making some really bad decisions for our community, but I do try to be very respectful because that's what grandma says I should do."

So, again, to recap and summarize, there is respect (of the first kind) on the left hand, and there is respect (of the second kind) on the right hand. Language makes the distinction problematic. I could refer to the first kind as being respectful and refer to the second kind as having respect, but the ambiguity is still in our language, so people will continue to argue with the label whether they conflate them or not, but for stipulative purposes, I'll move forward with a real life example to see what others have to say as their defense for lacking the first when lacking the second:

President Donald Trump.

There are some good people in this country. Some of them don't respect him. Some of them do. Some of them that don't respect him aren't respectful of him (and you know who you are), but some of them that don't respect him are respectful of him. There are people that respect him, and of those, while some are respectful of him, some aren't. Also, there are some not so good people in this country, and even if [they] don't respect him, then what other than pathetic upbringing explains [their] rude comments?

I would be honored to help my president make improvements for my country. That doesn't mean he gets my stamp of approval for every decision he makes, but then again, it's not always about what he says but how he says it. Either way, I find it quite questionable that others use the idea that respect should be earned as a defense for acting like they've been raised by juveniles with no sense of professionalism.

 

[Lion IRC]

It pretty much boils down to the old adage - it's not what you say but how you say it.
Human language is more than capable of communicating disrespect in a polite and civil manner.
...if we feel like making the effort.

 

[fast]

It pretty much boils down to the old adage - it's not what you say but how you say it.
Human language is more than capable of communicating disrespect in a polite and civil manner.
...if we feel like making the effort.

I can see that.

1a) We might hold in our minds respect for someone, or
1b) we might hold in our minds a lack of respect for someone.

2: If we hold (1a) respect or (1b) lack of respect, we may
2a) choose to express our (1a) respect or (1b) lack thereof, or we may choose to
2b) refrain from expressing our (1a) or (1b).

If someone (1b) holds in their mind a lack of respect for someone and (2a) chooses to express that, then the basis of that just might depend on whether or not the person failed to earn respect.

But, there's still another consideration, the character of the person choosing to express themselves.

Will the person be respectful or disrespectful?

The point is that the retort "respect is earned" applies not to our decision to be disrespectful but to whether or not we hold respect. I'm afraid there is a distorted view that people who have not earned our respect deserves to be treated disrespectfully, and my argument is that the basis for that view meshes the two.

We are capable of expressing our lack of respect, and if one feels the need to do so, then by all means, justify your doing so on the fact the person has failed to earn our respect, but don't forget that we can express our lack of respect respectfully. If someone chooses to be disrespectful in doing so, it would be a mistake to blame the person you don't respect on that. The blame for that would be the parents of the person doing the complaining.

 

[laughing dog]

There are some ambiguities and distinctions that need to be hashed out. First, some of us may be able to relate to what is apparently an old-fashioned concept sometimes eluded to by the statement that "children should be respectful of their elders." This can embody a variety of virtues such as being helpful, friendly, kind, and obedient. The idea is to instill in them to be polite and well-mannered. There is the hope that children who learn to listen and be mindful early on will carry these positive and endearing traits into adolescence and adulthood. That is all on the one hand.

There is a second and substantially different and distinct concept that says respect should be earned and not automatically granted merely because someone is an adult or holds an authoritative status. That's all fine and good as far as principles go, but this is all on the other hand. The problem I see is when the difference between the two hands are meshed together as if they are undiscernable.

I present the following thought experiment to vividly illustrate the difference. A mother and her seven year old son is approached by a senator at a nearby festival. Both the mother and son exchange introductory pleasantries with the senator. Shortly into the conversation at the gathering, the senator offers the little boy a handout geared towards the kids. The boy politely accepts the gift and thanks the senator with genuine and positive mannerism. Impressed by the well mannered behavior of the mothers' little boy, the senator comments in awe about his level of respect.

The mother says, "yes, he's been raised to have a lot of respect." Her little boy (who has recently spent a lot of time with his grandparents) immediately said, "but that's not true momma! I don't have any respect for Mr. Wilson because like grandpa says, he's been making some really bad decisions for our community, but I do try to be very respectful because that's what grandma says I should do."

So, again, to recap and summarize, there is respect (of the first kind) on the left hand, and there is respect (of the second kind) on the right hand. Language makes the distinction problematic. I could refer to the first kind as being respectful and refer to the second kind as having respect, but the ambiguity is still in our language, so people will continue to argue with the label whether they conflate them or not, but for stipulative purposes, I'll move forward with a real life example to see what others have to say as their defense for lacking the first when lacking the second:

President Donald Trump.

There are some good people in this country. Some of them don't respect him. Some of them do. Some of them that don't respect him aren't respectful of him (and you know who you are), but some of them that don't respect him are respectful of him. There are people that respect him, and of those, while some are respectful of him, some aren't. Also, there are some not so good people in this country, and even if [they] don't respect him, then what other than pathetic upbringing explains [their] rude comments?

I would be honored to help my president make improvements for my country. That doesn't mean he gets my stamp of approval for every decision he makes, but then again, it's not always about what he says but how he says it. Either way, I find it quite questionable that others use the idea that respect should be earned as a defense for acting like they've been raised by juveniles with no sense of professionalism.

Respect should be earned. But acting respectfully is good manners. The holder of the Office of the President should be treated respectfully because of the office. But the holder of the office needs to earn respect.

And it is not unfair or disrespectful for anyone to think that our current Trump has not earned respect. He should be treated respectfully, but that does not extend to private discourse or discussions.

 

[fast]

There are some ambiguities and distinctions that need to be hashed out. First, some of us may be able to relate to what is apparently an old-fashioned concept sometimes eluded to by the statement that "children should be respectful of their elders." This can embody a variety of virtues such as being helpful, friendly, kind, and obedient. The idea is to instill in them to be polite and well-mannered. There is the hope that children who learn to listen and be mindful early on will carry these positive and endearing traits into adolescence and adulthood. That is all on the one hand.

There is a second and substantially different and distinct concept that says respect should be earned and not automatically granted merely because someone is an adult or holds an authoritative status. That's all fine and good as far as principles go, but this is all on the other hand. The problem I see is when the difference between the two hands are meshed together as if they are undiscernable.

I present the following thought experiment to vividly illustrate the difference. A mother and her seven year old son is approached by a senator at a nearby festival. Both the mother and son exchange introductory pleasantries with the senator. Shortly into the conversation at the gathering, the senator offers the little boy a handout geared towards the kids. The boy politely accepts the gift and thanks the senator with genuine and positive mannerism. Impressed by the well mannered behavior of the mothers' little boy, the senator comments in awe about his level of respect.

The mother says, "yes, he's been raised to have a lot of respect." Her little boy (who has recently spent a lot of time with his grandparents) immediately said, "but that's not true momma! I don't have any respect for Mr. Wilson because like grandpa says, he's been making some really bad decisions for our community, but I do try to be very respectful because that's what grandma says I should do."

So, again, to recap and summarize, there is respect (of the first kind) on the left hand, and there is respect (of the second kind) on the right hand. Language makes the distinction problematic. I could refer to the first kind as being respectful and refer to the second kind as having respect, but the ambiguity is still in our language, so people will continue to argue with the label whether they conflate them or not, but for stipulative purposes, I'll move forward with a real life example to see what others have to say as their defense for lacking the first when lacking the second:

President Donald Trump.

There are some good people in this country. Some of them don't respect him. Some of them do. Some of them that don't respect him aren't respectful of him (and you know who you are), but some of them that don't respect him are respectful of him. There are people that respect him, and of those, while some are respectful of him, some aren't. Also, there are some not so good people in this country, and even if [they] don't respect him, then what other than pathetic upbringing explains [their] rude comments?

I would be honored to help my president make improvements for my country. That doesn't mean he gets my stamp of approval for every decision he makes, but then again, it's not always about what he says but how he says it. Either way, I find it quite questionable that others use the idea that respect should be earned as a defense for acting like they've been raised by juveniles with no sense of professionalism.

Respect should be earned. But acting respectfully is good manners. The holder of the Office of the President should be treated respectfully because of the office. But the holder of the office needs to earn respect.

And it is not unfair or disrespectful for anyone to think that our current Trump has not earned respect. He should be treated respectfully, but that does not extend to private discourse or discussions.

That was a thoughtful response. Thank you. The "does not extend to" part wasn't even considered. Food for thought.

Thanks again.

 

[ronburgundy]

There are some ambiguities and distinctions that need to be hashed out. First, some of us may be able to relate to what is apparently an old-fashioned concept sometimes eluded to by the statement that "children should be respectful of their elders." This can embody a variety of virtues such as being helpful, friendly, kind, and obedient. The idea is to instill in them to be polite and well-mannered. There is the hope that children who learn to listen and be mindful early on will carry these positive and endearing traits into adolescence and adulthood. That is all on the one hand.

There is a second and substantially different and distinct concept that says respect should be earned and not automatically granted merely because someone is an adult or holds an authoritative status. That's all fine and good as far as principles go, but this is all on the other hand. The problem I see is when the difference between the two hands are meshed together as if they are undiscernable.

I present the following thought experiment to vividly illustrate the difference. A mother and her seven year old son is approached by a senator at a nearby festival. Both the mother and son exchange introductory pleasantries with the senator. Shortly into the conversation at the gathering, the senator offers the little boy a handout geared towards the kids. The boy politely accepts the gift and thanks the senator with genuine and positive mannerism. Impressed by the well mannered behavior of the mothers' little boy, the senator comments in awe about his level of respect.

The mother says, "yes, he's been raised to have a lot of respect." Her little boy (who has recently spent a lot of time with his grandparents) immediately said, "but that's not true momma! I don't have any respect for Mr. Wilson because like grandpa says, he's been making some really bad decisions for our community, but I do try to be very respectful because that's what grandma says I should do."

So, again, to recap and summarize, there is respect (of the first kind) on the left hand, and there is respect (of the second kind) on the right hand. Language makes the distinction problematic. I could refer to the first kind as being respectful and refer to the second kind as having respect, but the ambiguity is still in our language, so people will continue to argue with the label whether they conflate them or not, but for stipulative purposes, I'll move forward with a real life example to see what others have to say as their defense for lacking the first when lacking the second:

President Donald Trump.

There are some good people in this country. Some of them don't respect him. Some of them do. Some of them that don't respect him aren't respectful of him (and you know who you are), but some of them that don't respect him are respectful of him. There are people that respect him, and of those, while some are respectful of him, some aren't. Also, there are some not so good people in this country, and even if [they] don't respect him, then what other than pathetic upbringing explains [their] rude comments?

I would be honored to help my president make improvements for my country. That doesn't mean he gets my stamp of approval for every decision he makes, but then again, it's not always about what he says but how he says it. Either way, I find it quite questionable that others use the idea that respect should be earned as a defense for acting like they've been raised by juveniles with no sense of professionalism.

It isn't that "respect must be earned" but rather that some baseline level of respect should be the starting point when dealing with a person, but they can earn either more or less respect than that on their basis of their actions. And note that "actions" does not mean "status". People with more authority and status do not deserve any more respect than the people with the least status and authority. Parents deserve no more respect from their kids than their kids deserve from them, or than each person in a society deserves from its leaders, and cops deserve no more respect than does each person they arrest and interact with.

Any notion otherwise is just pure authoritariansim, and as such, inherently harmful and antithetical to principles of liberty and equality.

The respect Trump deserves did not change at all last Nov by mere fact of him being elected. President Trump deserves the same level of respect as the citizen Trump who has engaged in fraud, theft, sexual assault, and actively promoting racist and sexist ideas and actions that cause serious harm to millions.
In addition to these actions that have earned Trump far less respect than one should give an unknown beggar on the street, Trump has has been more disrespectful in every sense toward most of the human population than anyone is toward him. And he disrespects people who haven't done anything to warrant being disrespected. Whereas Trump has earned all the disrespect shown him.

 

[bilby]

Our elders 'deserve' respect only as a starting point, and only because sheer age increases the baseline probability that a person has relevant experience to draw upon.

That very tenuous baseline respect can (and should) vanish very fast indeed if and when they demonstrate by word or deed that they have failed to take advantage of their extra years of life.

Having not died yet is a fairly minor achievement, and only deserves respect commensurate with that minority.

Most people, old and young, are unworthy of the slightest respect, having wasted their lives collecting second hand opinions and adopting them without question. A bad idea remains a bad idea no matter how old it is.

 

[rousseau]

There are some ambiguities and distinctions that need to be hashed out. First, some of us may be able to relate to what is apparently an old-fashioned concept sometimes eluded to by the statement that "children should be respectful of their elders." This can embody a variety of virtues such as being helpful, friendly, kind, and obedient. The idea is to instill in them to be polite and well-mannered. There is the hope that children who learn to listen and be mindful early on will carry these positive and endearing traits into adolescence and adulthood. That is all on the one hand.

There is a second and substantially different and distinct concept that says respect should be earned and not automatically granted merely because someone is an adult or holds an authoritative status. That's all fine and good as far as principles go, but this is all on the other hand. The problem I see is when the difference between the two hands are meshed together as if they are undiscernable.

I present the following thought experiment to vividly illustrate the difference. A mother and her seven year old son is approached by a senator at a nearby festival. Both the mother and son exchange introductory pleasantries with the senator. Shortly into the conversation at the gathering, the senator offers the little boy a handout geared towards the kids. The boy politely accepts the gift and thanks the senator with genuine and positive mannerism. Impressed by the well mannered behavior of the mothers' little boy, the senator comments in awe about his level of respect.

The mother says, "yes, he's been raised to have a lot of respect." Her little boy (who has recently spent a lot of time with his grandparents) immediately said, "but that's not true momma! I don't have any respect for Mr. Wilson because like grandpa says, he's been making some really bad decisions for our community, but I do try to be very respectful because that's what grandma says I should do."

So, again, to recap and summarize, there is respect (of the first kind) on the left hand, and there is respect (of the second kind) on the right hand. Language makes the distinction problematic. I could refer to the first kind as being respectful and refer to the second kind as having respect, but the ambiguity is still in our language, so people will continue to argue with the label whether they conflate them or not, but for stipulative purposes, I'll move forward with a real life example to see what others have to say as their defense for lacking the first when lacking the second:

President Donald Trump.

There are some good people in this country. Some of them don't respect him. Some of them do. Some of them that don't respect him aren't respectful of him (and you know who you are), but some of them that don't respect him are respectful of him. There are people that respect him, and of those, while some are respectful of him, some aren't. Also, there are some not so good people in this country, and even if [they] don't respect him, then what other than pathetic upbringing explains [their] rude comments?

I would be honored to help my president make improvements for my country. That doesn't mean he gets my stamp of approval for every decision he makes, but then again, it's not always about what he says but how he says it. Either way, I find it quite questionable that others use the idea that respect should be earned as a defense for acting like they've been raised by juveniles with no sense of professionalism.

Respect should be earned. But acting respectfully is good manners. The holder of the Office of the President should be treated respectfully because of the office. But the holder of the office needs to earn respect.

And it is not unfair or disrespectful for anyone to think that our current Trump has not earned respect. He should be treated respectfully, but that does not extend to private discourse or discussions.

I'd think the president shouldn't be treated respectfully because of the office, he should be treated respectfully because he's a human being. If he's not being treated respectfully in private discourse or discussions, then he's not being treated respectfully. There is no in between. You are either respectful to someone, or you are not. Doing it behind their back just means that you're two faced.

And while the definition of respect means that it's something that's earned, and in an anthropological regard, it is, I'd argue that respect should be swapped out with understanding. Those who have not achieved your respect have not deliberately chosen for that to be the case, and so they don't deserve disrespect, as much as people who've earned your respect haven't made a deliberate choice to be talented, and so, in a sense, they haven't actually earned the right either.

So the rational thing is to approach people with understanding. This person is this way because of [x], and while I don't necessarily want to spend time with them, or be around them, that is their right, and it's fine.

 

[rousseau]

Our elders 'deserve' respect only as a starting point, and only because sheer age increases the baseline probability that a person has relevant experience to draw upon.

That very tenuous baseline respect can (and should) vanish very fast indeed if and when they demonstrate by word or deed that they have failed to take advantage of their extra years of life.

Having not died yet is a fairly minor achievement, and only deserves respect commensurate with that minority.

Most people, old and young, are unworthy of the slightest respect, having wasted their lives collecting second hand opinions and adopting them without question. A bad idea remains a bad idea no matter how old it is.

Your ennui is showing

I have to respectfully disagree. Your theoretical person who wasted their life has been locked into their way of thinking. They are in a black box, and their mental systems haven't managed to get them out of it yet.

These days I'm starting to realise, like fully and truly realise how much ignorance is out there. Most people just don't know a lot of shit, and whatever concepts that need to exist in their minds for them to find it, don't exist either. And so they float through the days confined by whatever they've already learned.

This is why I find it really hard to hate on anyone anymore, usually I just do my best to not piss them off, or in the case of the local bar nearby, not get stabbed

 

[bilby]

Respect should be earned. But acting respectfully is good manners. The holder of the Office of the President should be treated respectfully because of the office. But the holder of the office needs to earn respect.

And it is not unfair or disrespectful for anyone to think that our current Trump has not earned respect. He should be treated respectfully, but that does not extend to private discourse or discussions.

I'd think the president shouldn't be treated respectfully because of the office, he should be treated respectfully because he's a human being. If he's not being treated respectfully in private discourse or discussions, then he's not being treated respectfully. There is no in between. You are either respectful to someone, or you are not. Doing it behind their back just means that you're two faced.

And while the definition of respect means that it's something that's earned, and in an anthropological regard, it is, I'd argue that respect should be swapped out with understanding. Those who have not achieved your respect have not deliberately chosen for that to be the case, and so they don't deserve disrespect, as much as people who've earned your respect haven't made a deliberate choice to be talented, and so, in a sense, they haven't actually earned the right either.

So the rational thing is to approach people with understanding. This person is this way because of [x], and while I don't necessarily want to spend time with them, or be around them, that is their right, and it's fine.

It's fine unless they are in a position of authority that makes it impossible to avoid them.

When someone rises to the position of President of the world's only superpower, it is really not effective to simply ignore them. Doing so in no way prevents their actions from impacting upon your life.

 

[rousseau]

I'd think the president shouldn't be treated respectfully because of the office, he should be treated respectfully because he's a human being. If he's not being treated respectfully in private discourse or discussions, then he's not being treated respectfully. There is no in between. You are either respectful to someone, or you are not. Doing it behind their back just means that you're two faced.

And while the definition of respect means that it's something that's earned, and in an anthropological regard, it is, I'd argue that respect should be swapped out with understanding. Those who have not achieved your respect have not deliberately chosen for that to be the case, and so they don't deserve disrespect, as much as people who've earned your respect haven't made a deliberate choice to be talented, and so, in a sense, they haven't actually earned the right either.

So the rational thing is to approach people with understanding. This person is this way because of [x], and while I don't necessarily want to spend time with them, or be around them, that is their right, and it's fine.

It's fine unless they are in a position of authority that makes it impossible to avoid them.

When someone rises to the position of President of the world's only superpower, it is really not effective to simply ignore them. Doing so in no way prevents their actions from impacting upon your life.

I wouldn't recommend ignoring someone like Trump, but I don't think disrespect serves any particular purpose. Understand the situation, act on it rationally.

Justin Trudeau's response to Trump is actually a great example of this. If Donny shirks the Canadian economy we're fucked, so Trudeau has locked our government down from doing or saying literally anything that will offend him, but at the same time they're standing their ground.

Insulting him on Twitter? Not sure that will accomplish much for anyone.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's fine unless they are in a position of authority that makes it impossible to avoid them.

When someone rises to the position of President of the world's only superpower, it is really not effective to simply ignore them. Doing so in no way prevents their actions from impacting upon your life.

I wouldn't recommend ignoring someone like Trump, but I don't think disrespect serves any particular purpose. Understand the situation, act on it rationally.

Most of the time, "disrespect" is nothing but being honest, and therefore it promotes accurate understanding and enables rational action.

If he's not being treated respectfully in private discourse or discussions, then he's not being treated respectfully. There is no in between. You are either respectful to someone, or you are not. Doing it behind their back just means that you're two faced.

Justin Trudeau's response to Trump is actually a great example of this. If Donny shirks the Canadian economy we're fucked, so Trudeau has locked our government down from doing or saying literally anything that will offend him, but at the same time they're standing their ground.

This second quote from you shows why your comment above it wrong. "Insults" toward Trump are merely accurate statements about who he is. The truth is always useful to expose, and especially so when it is the truth about powerful people who can a will harm most others. However, as your second comment illustrates, it can have short term harm to oneself if that person uses their power to attack those that dare expose them. Thus, sometimes it is better to expose those truths in a manner that doesn't expose you to such retribution, such as "behind their back" or merely anonymously. Thus, one can and sometimes should be disrespectful about a person while using respectful discourse when speaking to them.

 

[rousseau]

I wouldn't recommend ignoring someone like Trump, but I don't think disrespect serves any particular purpose. Understand the situation, act on it rationally.

Most of the time, "disrespect" is nothing but being honest, and therefore it promotes accurate understanding and enables rational action.

If he's not being treated respectfully in private discourse or discussions, then he's not being treated respectfully. There is no in between. You are either respectful to someone, or you are not. Doing it behind their back just means that you're two faced.

Justin Trudeau's response to Trump is actually a great example of this. If Donny shirks the Canadian economy we're fucked, so Trudeau has locked our government down from doing or saying literally anything that will offend him, but at the same time they're standing their ground.

This second quote from you shows why your comment above it wrong. "Insults" toward Trump are merely accurate statements about who he is. The truth is always useful to expose, and especially so when it is the truth about powerful people who can a will harm most others. However, as your second comment illustrates, it can have short term harm to oneself if that person uses their power to attack those that dare expose them. Thus, sometimes it is better to expose those truths in a manner that doesn't expose you to such retribution, such as "behind their back" or merely anonymously. Thus, one can and sometimes should be disrespectful about a person while using respectful discourse when speaking to them.

No disagreement there, but I wouldn't equate exposing the truth with disrespect. Being with your personal friends and saying Trump is probably a psychopathic narcissist that shouldn't be in power is just an accurate statement that improves everyone's understanding of Trump, and not necessarily disrespectful. On the other hand, being with your friends and saying someone should burn Trump with fire would probably be over the line.

When it comes to what you make public and direct, as you say, exposing someone's faults while not assuming any good in them, may not be in your best interest.

It's the classical liberal trap, where hordes of people get pissed off and hurt vitriol at Trump on Twitter en masse. This isn't the way to convince the guy (or anyone) to actually do what you want. When you directly insult someone, they'll usually want to snap back just out of principle. Can apply the same thing to how liberals often treat Conservatives.

People just don't know how to effectively communicate with each other, and on and on.

 

[WAB]

Our elders 'deserve' respect only as a starting point, and only because sheer age increases the baseline probability that a person has relevant experience to draw upon.

That very tenuous baseline respect can (and should) vanish very fast indeed if and when they demonstrate by word or deed that they have failed to take advantage of their extra years of life.

Having not died yet is a fairly minor achievement, and only deserves respect commensurate with that minority.

Most people, old and young, are unworthy of the slightest respect, having wasted their lives collecting second hand opinions and adopting them without question. A bad idea remains a bad idea no matter how old it is.

Your ennui is showing

I have to respectfully disagree. Your theoretical person who wasted their life has been locked into their way of thinking. They are in a black box, and their mental systems haven't managed to get them out of it yet.

These days I'm starting to realise, like fully and truly realise how much ignorance is out there. Most people just don't know a lot of shit, and whatever concepts that need to exist in their minds for them to find it, don't exist either. And so they float through the days confined by whatever they've already learned.

This is why I find it really hard to hate on anyone anymore, usually I just do my best to not piss them off, or in the case of the local bar nearby, not get stabbed

1+ for rousseau.

bilby, please don't ever go into any field where caring for the elderly is involved. Please!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

President Donald Trump.

There are some good people in this country. Some of them don't respect him. Some of them do. Some of them that don't respect him aren't respectful of him (and you know who you are), but some of them that don't respect him are respectful of him. There are people that respect him, and of those, while some are respectful of him, some aren't. Also, there are some not so good people in this country, and even if [they] don't respect him, then what other than pathetic upbringing explains [their] rude comments?

I would be honored to help my president make improvements for my country. That doesn't mean he gets my stamp of approval for every decision he makes, but then again, it's not always about what he says but how he says it. Either way, I find it quite questionable that others use the idea that respect should be earned as a defense for acting like they've been raised by juveniles with no sense of professionalism.

I barely had enough respect for the office for the W Administration. An Administration that warned its population about speaking out, that led a war/occupation that was failing, yet sought to spin soldier deaths as bad reporting. An Administration that sought to stifle science and research to achieve political goals.

Trump's run up in the election was bad enough to void any credibility of him as a person. Then after assuming office, there was hope that Trump would grow into the position. He recently shat upon the Puerto Ricans because a Mayor in Puerto Rico objected to hearing about how their suffering was a "good news story". Fuck Trump. Fuck his supporters. None of them deserve any respect.

Respect? Trump is publicly critical of an island that suffered from a very bad Cat 4/5 hurricane that knocked out its entire power grid... because of a single person in Puerto Rico that dared to question an inappropriate statement made by a FEMA representative. Shat upon the entire island as being lazy, bringing up how they owe money (thanks to the removal of investment into Puerto Rico by the Republicans), because his pride was hurt.

 

[Philos]

I barely had enough respect for the office for the W Administration. An Administration that warned its population about speaking out, that led a war/occupation that was failing, yet sought to spin soldier deaths as bad reporting. An Administration that sought to stifle science and research to achieve political goals.

Trump's run up in the election was bad enough to void any credibility of him as a person. Then after assuming office, there was hope that Trump would grow into the position. He recently shat upon the Puerto Ricans because a Mayor in Puerto Rico objected to hearing about how their suffering was a "good news story". Fuck Trump. Fuck his supporters. None of them deserve any respect.

Respect? Trump is publicly critical of an island that suffered from a very bad Cat 4/5 hurricane that knocked out its entire power grid... because of a single person in Puerto Rico that dared to question an inappropriate statement made by a FEMA representative. Shat upon the entire island as being lazy, bringing up how they owe money (thanks to the removal of investment into Puerto Rico by the Republicans), because his pride was hurt.

Jimmy,

You're not wrong. My wife is a gentle soul, built-in respect for authority and finds the good in just about everyone. She surprised me the other day with an outburst: "Trump - is an obscenity!"

Was she being disrespectful or just sayin'?

Not the point.

A.

 

[Juma]

There are some ambiguities and distinctions that need to be hashed out. First, some of us may be able to relate to what is apparently an old-fashioned concept sometimes eluded to by the statement that "children should be respectful of their elders." This can embody a variety of virtues such as being helpful, friendly, kind, and obedient. The idea is to instill in them to be polite and well-mannered. There is the hope that children who learn to listen and be mindful early on will carry these positive and endearing traits into adolescence and adulthood. That is all on the one hand.

There is a second and substantially different and distinct concept that says respect should be earned and not automatically granted merely because someone is an adult or holds an authoritative status. That's all fine and good as far as principles go, but this is all on the other hand. The problem I see is when the difference between the two hands are meshed together as if they are undiscernable.

I present the following thought experiment to vividly illustrate the difference. A mother and her seven year old son is approached by a senator at a nearby festival. Both the mother and son exchange introductory pleasantries with the senator. Shortly into the conversation at the gathering, the senator offers the little boy a handout geared towards the kids. The boy politely accepts the gift and thanks the senator with genuine and positive mannerism. Impressed by the well mannered behavior of the mothers' little boy, the senator comments in awe about his level of respect.

The mother says, "yes, he's been raised to have a lot of respect." Her little boy (who has recently spent a lot of time with his grandparents) immediately said, "but that's not true momma! I don't have any respect for Mr. Wilson because like grandpa says, he's been making some really bad decisions for our community, but I do try to be very respectful because that's what grandma says I should do."

So, again, to recap and summarize, there is respect (of the first kind) on the left hand, and there is respect (of the second kind) on the right hand. Language makes the distinction problematic. I could refer to the first kind as being respectful and refer to the second kind as having respect, but the ambiguity is still in our language, so people will continue to argue with the label whether they conflate them or not, but for stipulative purposes, I'll move forward with a real life example to see what others have to say as their defense for lacking the first when lacking the second:

President Donald Trump.

There are some good people in this country. Some of them don't respect him. Some of them do. Some of them that don't respect him aren't respectful of him (and you know who you are), but some of them that don't respect him are respectful of him. There are people that respect him, and of those, while some are respectful of him, some aren't. Also, there are some not so good people in this country, and even if [they] don't respect him, then what other than pathetic upbringing explains [their] rude comments?

I would be honored to help my president make improvements for my country. That doesn't mean he gets my stamp of approval for every decision he makes, but then again, it's not always about what he says but how he says it. Either way, I find it quite questionable that others use the idea that respect should be earned as a defense for acting like they've been raised by juveniles with no sense of professionalism.

”Professionalism” is another weasel word... But what you dont realize is that those people still has respect for the presidency, but no respect for the Turd.

 

[Tigers!]

Most people, old and young, are unworthy of the slightest respect, having wasted their lives collecting second hand opinions and adopting them without question. A bad idea remains a bad idea no matter how old it is.

So long as you don't chuck a wobbly if someone treats you like that......

 

[TV and credit cards]

It is important to differentiate between the officeholder and his administration and the office and the institution it represents. We may have no respect for the man and the people he surrounds himself with but to be disrespectful of what it represents, however shamefully so, tears at the fabric of the institution. If we hold the institution dear, we should be mindful to keep the institution strong.
I would have no qualms prefacing a conversation with Donald Trump that any respect he may feel I am displaying toward him is a misunderstanding on his part.


Elderly people deserve no more respect than anyone else. Everyone is afforded a level of civility in conversation. If you spend you leisure time in sloth, never trying to fight your way out of your "black box", you are not deserving of respect, just basic civility.