Hi there
I agree with you John all ethical judgments are subjective,
emotive and in the eye or perspect of the beholder. As for
rational, again you are right. There are no rules and
procedures for telling us what is rational, such ideas went
out in early 1900's - The end of Enlightenment and
beginning of Postermodernism. I was meaning to point out
to someone who said, after being rebucked for say teasing
was 'just' that, different from bullying. I was trying to
point out that teasing/bullying's status was indeed in the
eye of beholder.
Michael
On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:24:03 +1000 homan
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Good morning Michael,
>
> the dimension missing in your email is: in whose eyes? To the teaser it
> may be teasing, but bullying to the teasee, and vice versa. this means
> that it is the emotional interpretation of the participants (which may
> not be the same) that determines which is what.
>
> If you can define rational rules, that are simple and comprehensive,
> from this you are a better man than I am. Teasing/bullying is - like
> beauty - in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Have a good time,
>
> rgds John
>
> "M.G.Peckitt" wrote:
> >
> > To all
> >
> > Looking at an exchange on teasing. My question is mainly
> > philosophical. When does teasing become bullying.There may
> > inded be a legal definition of it but is is accurate? Is
> > the line between the two ultimately subjective? You have to
> > judge how fair you can crack a 'joke' with someone. What I
> > regard as bullying another may regard as a teasing. And an
> > event of perceived teasing can be just as bad as it real
> > teasing.
> >
> > ----------------------
> > M.G.Peckitt
> > [log in to unmask]
----------------------
M.G.Peckitt
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|