Theory of suffering

[DeletedUser30834]

I find it interesting the so many people are dwelling on the facts of the anecdote instead of the point of it. The point is that many people can and do use the "it could be worse", "I had it worse", or "someone I know had it worse", excuse to ignore the original request or situation brought to them for whatever reason and it somehow seems to common that it's acceptable in many circles.

I think it's connected to the fact that many of the advances in technology that makes life easier doesn't necessarily make it as much easier as it does different and we are more capable of accepting the differences until it becomes or appears to become a burden. But once that burden rears it's ugly head, the easiest cop out would be reverting back to the "X worse" lines of reasoning.

I had a personal experience with this as a kid, my mother worked the graveyard shift and my father worked the AM shift. So mom was just getting home from working all night at the factory when we would be going to school, and dad would be on his way to work before breakfast was finished. One day, I needed to take a poster board project to school for an assignment I was working on and it started snowing a thick wet snow. I asked for a ride to school instead walking the ten minutes because of the snow, and I was promptly not only told about, but shown pictures of my father walking to school in 2 feet of snow. She was tired and worn out and wanted to get us off to school to get some sleep. Once she saw me carrying my assignment, she then drove me to school so it wouldn't get wet and ruined.

The "it could be worse" excuse is just a sign of frustration concerning a burden of some sort. It's why it's acceptable. It's the same reason we can justify paying $10 more for something on this side of town verses driving 20 minutes to the other side of town then driving another 20 minutes extra back for the same thing $10 cheaper. It's why people will spend twice as much per serving of something and buy it in a gas station or corner convenience store verses going to the nearest groceries store or mega mart for it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I disagree. You're jumping to a conclusion as to the motive behind stating, "it could be worse," and your conclusion is without supporting evidence. Once again, as I said in my earlier posts, we don't know the motivations behind why one person or another states such. It could very well be that the mother wants to provide awareness to their child that things are harder for others, that they have a relatively good life, and that they should appreciate what they have, instead of complain about what they don't.

I used to attend meals with a friend and his family. Their father used to pose a prayer and a remembrance for all those less fortunate, those suffering in various nations, the violence, the starvation, the abuse and neglect. And then we're supposed to enjoy our meal!?!?! Ugh, well anyway, it did somehow make our meals taste better and we ended up not discussing such topics on the table for having had it brought up and addressed at the onset.

So, was that the goal? I have no friggin' clue, because I don't have VIP access to his mind! All I can do is examine how I and others were affected by his statements. As I said, and continue to say, we just don't know why someone would say it, as we don't know their inner thoughts at the time. So really, is there a point to this besides mental masturbation --- sans lubricant?

 

[DeletedUser9470]

I disagree. ... as I said in my earlier posts, we don't know the motivations behind why one person or another states such....

this is indeed the whole point.
if harsha was informed of said motivations then there wouldnt be an issue.

if there is no explanation then it is just plain lazy parenting.
so a BS excuse is basically a cop out for being lazy.

i understand it is a parents right to be lazy, but I sustain a parent needs to be straight with his/her kids, and tell them :
-"I cant be assed with your question, maybe if you ask me at the right time next year or the year after i might consider"
at least then the child knows where to stand
he knows you are not lying through your teeth and thus can trust you for advice in the future.
he knows youre lazy and may or may not help.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Well, it's pretty universal in my opinion, especially when you do not know the motivations behind something. In the school bus route example, we can infer by default that changing the bus the kid rode on would require some effort otherwise he would have been already on the shorter route and it was stated that no technical reasoning would have prevented it. So the kid says, I could do this and be home sooner, and the mom replies with "it could be worse" then dismisses it out of hand.

Unless you are going to superimpose some other line of reasoning not implied by the limited information into the mix for why the mom dropped it, we are basically left with something that is common with human nature. The essence is getting out of having to do something that you see as burdensome because it could be worse. IF this wasn't something that happens all the time, I could agree with it being something more specific to the situation. But how many times have you seen someone along side the road with a flat tire, or otherwise broken down and not stopped to offer assistance- even if it was just to take them to a phone where they could call for help? Now how many times have you used the reasoning that they were talking on the phone already so there was nothing you needed to do. Oh, I'm using the word you as a generic term not meaning you specifically, but meaning you as in whoever is reading this.

Believe it or not, this is common behavior for people. Call it laziness, selfishness, associative disconnect, call it whatever, but if they can somehow imagine a worse situation, they will often use it to get out of some chore or responsibility or use it as an excuse to half a$$ something. It's like when two guys are in the woods being chased by a bear. The one guy looks at the other and says, do you think we can outrun this bear, the other guy looks back and says, all I need to do is outrun you.

 

[DeletedUser]

this is indeed the whole point.
if harsha was informed of said motivations then there wouldnt be an issue.

if there is no explanation then it is just plain lazy parenting.
so a BS excuse is basically a cop out for being lazy.

i understand it is a parents right to be lazy, but I sustain a parent needs to be straight with his/her kids, and tell them :
-"I cant be assed with your question, maybe if you ask me at the right time next year or the year after i might consider"
at least then the child knows where to stand
he knows you are not lying through your teeth and thus can trust you for advice in the future.
he knows youre lazy and may or may not help.

Wow, here's a perfect example of someone jumping to conclusions. You are "assuming" the parent is being lazy.

Unless you are going to superimpose some other line of reasoning not implied by the limited information into the mix for why the mom dropped it, we are basically left with something that is common with human nature.

Your definition of, "common with human nature?" is, "getting out of having to do something that you see as burdensome because it could be worse," which I define as jumping to a conclusion.

Yes, without more information you are left to jump to a conclusion, which is precisely why some posters have requested additional information. Because of the lack of information, we are left to posing conclusions that could very well be erroneous. Artemis presented a quite valid alternative conclusion, which the OP dismissed out of hand. Without additional information, we're left to play a game without all the rules.

IF this wasn't something that happens all the time, I could agree with it being something more specific to the situation. But how many times have you seen someone along side the road with a flat tire, or otherwise broken down and not stopped to offer assistance- even if it was just to take them to a phone where they could call for help? Now how many times have you used the reasoning that they were talking on the phone already so there was nothing you needed to do. Oh, I'm using the word you as a generic term not meaning you specifically, but meaning you as in whoever is reading this.

A prime example of assuming laziness. In my case, I drive by people on the road, and not provide assistance, because in many U.S. States it is against the law to assist someone on the side of the road unless you are a licensed "emergency service" provider. Just as well, sometimes I'm in a hurry, or late, and thus cannot put the effort to assist. Etc and so on.

There's a lot of valid reasons, other than laziness, for someone to "not" assist a person on the side of the road. Just as well, there are a lot of valid reasons, other than laziness, for a mother to toss out a dismissive white lie to their child. If you focus on the turtle on the road, you're going to make an erroneous assumption based on that tunnel vision. You focused on "laziness," ignoring all other valid reasons.

It's like when two guys are in the woods being chased by a bear. The one guy looks at the other and says, do you think we can outrun this bear, the other guy looks back and says, all I need to do is outrun you.

A cute story, but that's an entirely different thing, associated with survival of the fittest. Neither laziness, posing a white lie to a child, nor jumping to erroneous conclusions have anything to do with survival.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Your definition of, "common with human nature?" is, "getting out of having to do something that you see as burdensome because it could be worse," which I define as jumping to a conclusion.

I don't believe that was ever intended to be a definition of the other. It was intended to be a statement that something is common with human nature as in it happens and has been know to be associated with.

Yes, without more information you are left to jump to a conclusion, which is precisely why some posters have requested additional information. Because of the lack of information, we are left to posing conclusions that could very well be erroneous. Artemis presented a quite valid alternative conclusion, which the OP dismissed out of hand. Without additional information, we're left to play a game without all the rules.

Not really, we can still use basic scientific tools to examine the situation and apply deductive reasoning and come to a clear conclusion without all the facts involved. Some things can legitimately be inferred by others which if we step through it from the beginning, it becomes clear that the pattern of behavior is what the op is speaking of, and the example was purely illustrative of this behavior. Except the op saw it as people wanting others to suffer as much as others have suffered, when the real pattern seems to be, don't bother me, it could be worse. And as long as it could be worse, they do not feel guilty about shirking whatever it was you needed them for.

A prime example of assuming laziness. In my case, I drive by people on the road, and not provide assistance, because in many U.S. States it is against the law to assist someone on the side of the road unless you are a licensed "emergency service" provider. Just as well, sometimes I'm in a hurry, or late, and thus cannot put the effort to assist. Etc and so on.

There's a lot of valid reasons, other than laziness, for someone to "not" assist a person on the side of the road. Just as well, there are a lot of valid reasons, other than laziness, for a mother to toss out a dismissive white lie to their child. If you focus on the turtle on the road, you're going to make an erroneous assumption based on that tunnel vision. You focused on "laziness," ignoring all other valid reasons.

Well, where it is illegal is mostly in the liberal states. And it's not really illegal, the liability laws make you severely vulnerable to lawsuits. Quite a few of the states have good Samaritan laws which absolve you from liability as long as you do not do something stupid like try to operate on them or something.

But again, the problem seems to be the concentrating on ancillary things and neglecting the point or purpose of the anecdotal story. It's like those word problems they used to give us in math class that amounted to too much information to confuse you on the real question. You know, the problems that check to see if you are paying attention like "it takes 2 minutes to order one pizza and 20 minutes to have it delivered. There are 60 streets that cross the town from east to west, 35 streets that cross the town from north to south. If there are three pizza shops placed on three different sides of the town equally spaced apart. How long will it take to order 3 pizzas".

Of course the answer is 6 minutes because it takes 2 minutes to order one pizza and you are tasked with ordering 3.

 

[DeletedUser]

What I'm trying to say, with all my posts here --- is that this so-called "theory of suffering" is invalid. It's invalid at the premise.

The theory states: "If someone suffers a lot, people expect you to suffer in the same measure"

It is making an assumption that "people expect you to suffer in the same measure." It bases this assumption on an invalid argument. The presentation further undermines the invalid argument by posing a one hour bus trip as someone, "suffering a lot," which in itself is preposterous.

By the poster's presentation, he is assuming his mother expects him to "suffer" in the same measure as her friend's son, when her friend's son is actually suffering more (2 hours, omg, call a hospital!). I.e., he assumed the motivation as being "expecting one to suffer in the same measure," but placed an invalid argument, a flawed example and an erroneous inference as his supporting evidence.

Therefore, the theory is invalid. It is not a theory, but a wild ass guess (and there's your scientific tools and application of deductive reasoning for you).

 

[DeletedUser30834]

What I'm trying to say, with all my posts here --- is that this so-called "theory of suffering" is invalid. It's invalid at the premise.

Therefore, the theory is invalid. It is not a theory, but a wild ass guess (and there's your scientific tools and application of deductive reasoning for you).

I completely agree with you there. It is an invalid theory.

I attempted to alter the theory stating there is behavior that is noticeable where someone will use someone else's worse suffering as justification for not ending or helping another who is suffering. Now suffering to me (in this usage anyways) basically means a misfortune or hardship of some sort that could otherwise be avoided.

 

[DeletedUser9470]

Wow, here's a perfect example of someone jumping to conclusions. You are "assuming" the parent is being lazy.

not at all.
I can confirm the parent in this case is being lazy, there is no assumption as such.
if the parent wasnt lazy she would have taken the time to explain the reasons for not changing harshas bus route, rather than giving some BS excuse.

as simple as

 

[DeletedUser]

not at all.
I can confirm the parent in this case is being lazy, there is no assumption as such.
if the parent wasnt lazy she would have taken the time to explain the reasons for not changing harshas bus route, rather than giving some BS excuse.

as simple as

Hmm, so you can confirm it by presenting yet one more "assumption as such?"

Fascinating.

 

[DeletedUser]

Since it was a hypothetical question, only Harsha.. would be able to confirm what the mother's reason was for giving that answer; however, since the point of the post was to ask what might make a person respond that way (meaning that Harsha.. doesn't know), there is no way to confirm or disprove any answer. There are many possible reasons why anyone says or does anything, and I doubt that there is just one correct response here.

 

[DeletedUser24989]

thats really sad man..Maybe you should cry in front of her..which will make feel bad for you and do what ay want

 

[Harsha..]

Sorry guys, was away from the forum for a while

For starters, i apologize, Artemis - i do not normally give out red rep, i just took your comment there personally as i and my mother are particularly close . I would take the red rep back if i could. For the matter, i always sign on my rep messages, no matter what - through i do feel disappointed if i get an unsigned red rep (which i got just after my post) as it reminds me that there are people in this forum who are only here for the reputation....in a way, i feel that the reputation system curtails freedom of expression - as people wont post their true opinion, in the fear of getting a red rep, if the subject broached does turn out to be too "radical"

Back on topic - let's just assume that there are no relationship problems between the mother and child, with no long-standing disputes. Both the school and the house are based in a "safe neighborhood", and actually its the current bus driver who isn't trustworthy. Even more, it's actually the father who drops and picks the child from the bus stop

That's the problem i'm propounding - the mother does not "intentionally" want to make the child suffer, but some sub-consciousness sense promoted her to tell him about her friend's child longer bus journey and drop the topic

 

[DeletedUser]

Harsha, why don't you just ask her? You claim to have no relationship problems, yet you failed to ask her what motivated her to pose that answer (and instead posed this "theory" as the answer). Seems to me, there's a communication problem.


(and yes, I know it's hypothetical. In turn, instead of maintaining this 3rd person crapfest, which quite frankly puts us back where we started, I pose the hypothetical as, "you and your mother" that we're talking about, thereby affirming a 1st person examination and allowing us to examine this from a more realistic perspective)

 

[Harsha..]

Harsha, why don't you just ask her? You claim to have no relationship problems, yet you failed to ask her what motivated her to pose that answer (and instead posed this "theory" as the answer). Seems to me, there's a communication problem.


(and yes, I know it's hypothetical. In turn, instead of maintaining this 3rd person crapfest, which quite frankly puts us back where we started, I pose the hypothetical as, "you and your mother" that we're talking about, thereby affirming a 1st person examination and allowing us to examine this from a more realistic perspective)

yeah, i meant in a hypothetical way, it is nothing related to my real life...actually i posted this, modeled around some other simple agrument we had, adding the part about school transport, just to make it seem more relastic and discussable

Anyways, there is no real need to proceed with this topic - let's just move on to other stuff

 

[DeletedUser]

you seem to say that your real life is boring....don't say that

 

[Harsha..]

haha, that isn't the case. plenty of stuff does happen which gives me several ideas, such as this - unfortunately, it isn't all that interesting, something with science fiction involved would have been better