A bad winner is far worse than a bad loser. Anger at 'losing' is understandable but smugness at 'winning' is just intolerable.
In this case it doesn't look like B was abusive because he thought he was 'losing' - it seems more likely that he is that arrogant and abusive type of person all the time.
2007-10-18 07:04:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dharma Nature 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you are onto something: childhood. When I was a kid, we learned to share, play fair, and celebrate the victories of our peers. When we failed at something, we were taught how to do better next time. We were encouraged to learn from our mistakes.
I am not so sure this is happening anymore, at least not the way it was before. When a child performs poorly on an assignment and receives corrections and comments from the teacher which are written on the paper, the teacher is punished for using red ink. Supposedly the color red is harmful to the child's precious feelings, even though he wears a red shirt, has a red baseball cap at home as well as a red toy car. The child is taught that there was a problem with the teacher and not with his poor performance. He is taught that he is always right and those who oppose are mean, cruel, and have something wrong with them.
If a child fails at dodgeball, the parents petition to have the game banned at the child's school. Nevermind all of the skills learned and developed from the game. What's most important is that the child does not feel bad for losing. The child is taught that he wasn't a lousy player, but rather the game was designed in a manner to single him out in an unfair way and cause him to be seen as a weakling. The child is not taught to overcome; he is taught to attack the game or the authority under which the game is held.
The list goes on and on with more and more instances of situations where children are taught to avoid personal responsibility and accountability. These types of actions may seem harmless to the ignorant, but for those who are well studied in human growth and development, they may see things differently. We are now living in a world where children who have been raised by irresponsible parents are now full grown and having a greater impact on business, the media, and politics.
Look at the recent story where Ellen DeGeneres had a dog taken away because she neglected to follow the rules and guidelines, which were part of an agreement she signed. What are people learning from her? If things do not go your way, cry and pitch a fit on national television in hopes that people will change their minds. Think of the child who asks her mother for a cookie and the mother says "no" three times in a row. The child then cries until mommy finally says "Okay, just ONE cookie." The child is never taught that this type of behavior is wrong or bad. This type of behavior is reenforced by the media with situations like Ellen or the Chris Crocker guy, who became a celebrity by crying for what he wanted.
It is no wonder that so many people never stop to question themselves in debates or arguments. They have been taught their whole lives that whatever they think or believe is right, and those who oppose are wrong and/or have something wrong with them. They have been taught to not consider possible error of their ways but rather to cry and throw a hissy fit until they get what they want.
They are spoiled little brats who are crying desperately for someone to give them a beating and provide the proper correction, instruction, and discipline they never received.
2007-10-18 07:29:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The personal attack, like calling American's arrogant, come from a lower level of self-esteem. The reason for this tactic is to use a distractractionary manuver to change the metaphorical battleground to a place where they feel more comfortable, and can possibly knock their opponent off balance. The "you cheated" accusation is like asking "have you have stopped beating your wife yet" The question itself is actually an indefensible accusation, and the emotional attack cannot be removed without the help of the accuser. Sure it works, but it is the moral equivelant of throwing baby carcasses. If you have a strong, valid point, and a rational detached pointe of view, then a modification is easy to accept.
2007-10-18 07:10:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mr. BlinK 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe it's an overall sense of immaturity here in America. We want things and go for what we want no matter what we have to do to get it or who we have to squash to get there. This sense of entitlement gives people the idea that what they have to say is so much more important than what the other person has to say they can't seem to argue and disagree in a mature fashion. But that's not true for all. It just seems to be the general feeling when it comes to debates.
2007-10-18 07:12:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by hadadat1996 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
i do not pass to everybody for extremely own help, and that i propose that very few human beings ever do. easily, so some distance as i can see a large share of the inhabitants use medical doctors for actual diseases and attorneys for legal subject matters. they'd communicate issues over with spouse or husband yet they by no skill search for specialist help with different issues. That applies to the non secular and the non-non secular. I easily have by no skill consulted this style of element as a psychologist or psychiatrist and performance no longer consulted a healthcare specialist in years. The very last time I used a legal specialist become in 1990 at the same time as i purchased this living house.
2016-10-21 09:10:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
it's like in boxing when the losing party start grabbing or even throw some non sense punches. I think when such things happen and the party under pressure gets into the personal attacks, I think that the other party (party a) should answer:
- we are talking about this issue at the moment not about what you think of me and you have not yet answered my question or provided a valid answer to our issue.
I think this will either put the party b into a situation where he continues with the insults or else shut his mouth up and for all.
2007-10-18 07:08:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by ville009 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, it starts in kindergarten.... People don't grow-up. I find that human personalities get enhanced through their lives, they don't really change. If you grow up in a constant environment with your parents and friends, then there is nothing there to let you know that you need to be different.
The culture in the U.S. dictates popularity, wealth, and winning. We're not shown how to gracefully accept defeat and learn from our mistakes. We are told to win at all costs, so moral acceptance and sympathy are not part of the equation. This makes us strong, but also quite ignorant.
2007-10-18 07:12:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ilya S 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it shows the character of the person. It has nothing to do with nationality. Some people just think since they can't give a decent rebuttal, the only way to defeat the other person and put them on the defense is to make a personal attack against their opponent. Its sad but it happens way to often.
2007-10-18 07:15:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by binreddy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Personal attacks are used to avoid answering the real questions. If you can get the public to concentrate on some other moral issue or scandel then you do not have to talk about what is really important.
2007-10-18 07:06:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Dragonmistress 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Name calling is a very old way for someone to show their self esteem issues. Apparently, person B is unable to accept defeat without childish issues popping up. Find a new friend. This one seems so immature.
2007-10-18 07:05:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋