An Open Question for 'Jock Scot' (and Scots)

[O'Searcaigh]

Or, might it be that those voicing an opinion, (any oppinion) have not come up with a train off thought that is just not good enough to persuade those with a diiffering view to change their mind?

There are differences of opinion and differences of attitude; they are not the same thing. Differences of opinion are open to the possibility of resolution by appeal to fact; differences of attitude frequently are just matters of value. No one has a right to impose his or her values upon another although we are all responsible for the consequences of the values we hold. Respect for others' values, even when they are not one's own and as long as they do not harm anyone else, is one of those values upon which this Forum is based -- as well as expressed in the philosophical tradition represented by John Stewart Mill -- and oddly and ironically perhaps -- the Great Scottish Philosopher David Hume (among others) upon which modern western civilization is based. There is also a difference between being harmed and being offended. Harm is something one does, either to oneself or another; offense is something one takes. No one can be offended if they refuse to take offense and "no true harm can come to a good person in this life or any other" (Socrates).

[Jock Scot]

Jock - wrong. Dead wrong, and mildly offensive. I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything. I'm trying to explain my own mindset. I'm expressing my opinion, much as you express yours, and it's offensive to suggest that anyone's thinking isn't good enough. That suggests an affected air of defensive superiority that is only hurtful, and you and a couple of others have taken up that defensive position.

Anyone's expression of their own mindset is perfectly good enough, because it is their own mindset, and as you have clearly, in this case abruptly and frequently stated, it's not acceptable to you. That's dismissive of an opinion and an emotional perception, not of a line of logic, and it suggests encrustment and anger.

Are you dismissive, encrusted, or angry? I don't think so. There are too many things that you say and do that suggest otherwise, and I still like and respect you for those. That's why it hurts when you dismiss our emotions, worldview, and gestalt. It starts to feel like a personal attack, and I don't think you'd do that if you were willing to recognize them as such. When somebody takes the risk of sharing their emotions and heartfelt thoughts, it's inappropriate and unfortunate to be flippant, disengaged or dismissive.

Oh dear Bill you have taken against something that was none other than me posing another reason for us all not getting anywhere here. You raised a perfectly valid point ,I think that all I did was raise an equally valid point. I cannot see what could have possibly been there to cause you any angst. However, if I have upset you then I am very sorry.

You are, sadly, reading into what I have said quite wrongly, so , I am not dismissive, encrusted, or, angry, however it is fairly obvious to me that our----every one------- best option is just accept that we------every one------ are not going to agree. That is not because one arguement is better than the other, it is simply a case of some people cannot comprehend the other, simply because their respective "national, cultural etc," experiances are so different.

[SlackerDrummer]

I think the greatest sticking point here is that for Scots, particularly those who reside in the Highlands, their national identity and their cultural identity are one and the same. That just is not true in the New World. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. Some Scots may "get it" and some may never fully understand or appreciate that fact. But as Stuart Smalley would say, that's okay.

[Father Bill]

Oh dear Bill you have taken against something that was none other than me posing another reason for us all not getting anywhere here. You raised a perfectly valid point ,I think that all I did was raise an equally valid point. I cannot see what could have possibly been there to cause you any angst. However, if I have upset you then I am very sorry.

You are, sadly, reading into what I have said quite wrongly, so , I am not dismissive, encrusted, or, angry, however it is fairly obvious to me that our----every one------- best option is just accept that we------every one------ are not going to agree. That is not because one arguement is better than the other, it is simply a case of some people cannot comprehend the other, simply because their respective "national, cultural etc," experiances are so different.

Thank you Jock. That's more like the friend I have come to know and respect. When you attack the logic without explanation, you can come near to attacking the man and I had, rightly as it turns out, expected better of you, as you have now demonstrated. I don't ask you to "get it." I demand that you respect it as a true personal position and opinion.

If there is a logical error in the statment, then please identify it. Otherwise things can trend downwards towards personal attacks. I know you well enough from your many pleasant postings to know that you would not intend it. An explanation is just that, and unless illogical is not open to attack. Ever.

I do not ask or expect that we agree on the geographical proposition of kilt wearing. I do however, demand (and you have demonstrated it better here) respect for one another's thoughts and feelings.

Thank you.

Bill

[creagdhubh]

Or, might it be that those voicing an opinion, (any opinion) have not come up with a train off thought that is just not good enough to persuade those with a differing view to change their mind?

Having given this topic a fair deal of thought I am not sure there is ever going to unilateral understanding. We have an "old" country that seems to be moderately comfortable with their, history, traditions, culture-----who they are. Also there are "new" countries who are struggling(in a nice sence) with merging into a one nation and-------AND----- who they are. A simplistic view maybe, which leaves a huge gap for all the, yes buts, not reallies, I don't understand, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, and all the rest and inevitably whilst we all agree that understanding each other's thoughts is at the very least helpful, it is almost impossible to achieve when the people in the discussion cannot even put themselves in the others "shoes". How can they? Their experiences are so different, particularly as their respective nation is at a completely different stage of their devolpment .-----------------There is no harm in trying to understand though, as long as there is no high expectation of success!

Well stated, Jock.

[Jock Scot]

Thank you Jock. That's more like the friend I have come to know and respect. When you attack the logic without explanation, you can come near to attacking the man and I had, rightly as it turns out, expected better of you, as you have now demonstrated. I don't ask you to "get it." I demand that you respect it as a true personal position and opinion.

If there is a logical error in the statment, then please identify it. Otherwise things can trend downwards towards personal attacks. I know you well enough from your many pleasant postings to know that you would not intend it. An explanation is just that, and unless illogical is not open to attack. Ever.

I do not ask or expect that we agree on the geographical proposition of kilt wearing. I do however, demand (and you have demonstrated it better here) respect for one another's thoughts and feelings.

Thank you.

Bill

Bill, I think we are struggling with this "common language" problem and if this thread proves anything, then it is a bigger problem than many of us thought.

I was not attacking anyone. In my terms I had picked my words very tactfully and I was completely unaware that any one would or could take exception to what (or how) I said. On a scale of 1 to 10(totally beyond the pale) what I said in my terms was barely a 2! I really think it would help if more "over there" could be more mindful that this "common language" is not so common!

[tundramanq]

Hey guys, Got me thinking. Got some questions.
I am 2nd generation American.

1. Is clansmanship only passed down only thru the male side? If so it's easy I'm danish ( Holm ). If not I need to check out the other three: McConnell, Bushman and Porter.

2. I would consider wearing someone elses tartan poaching and offensive. So the only possible clan tartans I have are Blackwatch which I think is a regiment and Gordan. They are both Sport Kilt Comfys that I kickaround the house in. Are these two tartans clan or generic?

Thanks in advance for chewing on this one. Chuck

BTW I kilt everyday, mostly solid colors in Utilikilts (for comfort reasons).

[Father Bill]

Bill, I think we are struggling with this "common language" problem and if this thread proves anything, then it is a bigger problem than many of us thought.

I was not attacking anyone. In my terms I had picked my words very tactfully and I was completely unaware that any one would or could take exception to what (or how) I said. On a scale of 1 to 10(totally beyond the pale) what I said in my terms was barely a 2! I really think it would help if more "over there" could be more mindful that this "common language" is not so common!

A thoughtful possibility, Jock, but I think not. We can take refuge in the cultural-linguistic interpretation defence but when you say that a "...train of thought just isn't good enough..." that's much akin to saying that someone is too stupid to clearly state their feelings or emotions. It's not a matter of language, it clearly states that in your opinion someone can't think well and that doesn't cut it. I imagine that you were indeed careful in what you hoped to say, but it basically called us incapable of thinking clearly. I would guess that would be at least an "8"

Thanks for your message here.

Bill

[Jock Scot]

A thoughtful possibility, Jock, but I think not. We can take refuge in the cultural-linguistic interpretation defence but when you say that a "...train of thought just isn't good enough..." that's much akin to saying that someone is too stupid to clearly state their feelings or emotions. It's not a matter of language, it clearly states that in your opinion someone can't think well and that doesn't cut it. I imagine that you were indeed careful in what you hoped to say, but it basically called us incapable of thinking clearly. I would guess that would be at least an "8"

Thanks for your message here.

Bill

AN 8!!!!!! I am stunned! Particularly as I took pains to say "ANY OPINION" I shall leave this website forthwith.

[Sir William]

Bill, I think we are struggling with this "common language" problem and if this thread proves anything, then it is a bigger problem than many of us thought.

....I really think it would help if more "over there" could be more mindful that this "common language" is not so common!

I go back to what I said many pages back when I paraphrased George Bernard Shaw:

"We are two cultures divided by a common language."

There is a difference between nationality and culture, just as there is a difference between nationality and ethnicity. In the "Old World" these terms are often used interchangeably: to be a Scot defines one's nationality, culture and ethnicity (based on what I've read here).

Not so in North America with it's multitude of ethnicities and where the national culture is to celebrate and embrace one's ethnic heritage regardless of the number of generations that separate us from the old homeland.