Hungry Britain

Thanks for the link, Joelsnan

I read the post by Janeainsworth to read that she couldn't begin to understand how someone else feels not that she could Aka .Talking about someone who had suffered a grievous loss, she even goes as far as to say "it would be presumptions of me to imagine that I could know how "they" really feel" .

Just saying.

Below is a link to an academic paper on the psychology discipline of Perspective Taking,'Misstepping into others shoes'

It is rather a long paper, but it's introduction does summarise.
faculty.chicagobooth.edu/nicholas.epley/EpleyCarusoMisstepping.pdf
Thank you for your comments to my earlier post. You will note that I did not specify any particular poster.

We all base our perspectives on a mixture of experience, evidence, culture, social paradigms, heresay and the media.

Not one person on this thread said that the truly deserving should not receive all the social benefits they require.

wouldn't. One day I'll get my brain and fingers to communicate. I blame my phone.

Aka I think Jane was saying that she couldn't, and would presume to think that she could, understand...?

I think this 'walk in another's shoes' is a fallacy. You can't ever know what someone else felt or feels even if you have had an exactly similar experience. That doesn't mean, shouldn't mean, that you can't feel real sympathy and compassion for other people without having experienced something similar.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

How exactly does one 'walk in another's shoes' ?
It has become one of those well-worn phrases that is becoming rather irritating.
I have friends and relatives who have suffered grievous loss in their lives.
I think it would be presumptuous of me to imagine that I could know what they were really feeling.

Joelsnan I do not agree with your analysis that comments relating to cactus's posts amounted to bullying. There have been a variety of opinions expressed in this thread and the suggestion that people were "ganging up" on cactus is, I think, wrong. You ended your last post with the words "not nice".

My feeling is that what was "not nice" was:

" I've heard ... people taking out loans to buy their kids a TV ....... "

" I've heard of a woman who gets £1,000 a month and the first thing she does is buy £100 shoes"

This isn't justifiable comment or opinion based on verifiable facts, but just idle gossip and tittle tattle.

Then there was:

"these people ... if they stopped taking drugs, alcohol, cigarettes they would have enough money".

"People on benefit have huge dogs"

"Carers have an easy life .... sitting down all day watching TV ..."

There was also a suggestion that if people with depression are able to walk around then they are not depressed.

There are no doubt many people on Gransnet who have personal or family experience of being on benefits, of depression, caring for sick family members, etc., etc. and it's hardly surprising that such sweeping generalisations elicited some sharp responses.

According to you, Aka, we shouldn't have opinions. They have to be based on something.
I agree with Absent, we all base our opinions on experience. What else can we do? What do you mean by experience? We are all by definition, old enough to have lived a lot and had varied experiences.
I do not like the insinuation that we all live in "little" communities and base our opinions on the gossip we hear. I base my opinions on my experience and opinions I read on various websites where the people care about those who have problems with their lives, opinions of those I trust.

Have to disagree Absent that most people base opinions on experience, but wish it was true. Too many people base opinions on what they've read in certain papers, what gossip is currently circulating in their little community and what they think they know, without having walked in another's shoes.

Just because a post is honest does not prevent it from being disgraceful or disgusting. And I would suggest that most people form their opinions based on their experience as well, perhaps, as some other things such as evidence.

Very succinct Joelsnan.

I tend to back out of a thread when I notice that it is getting personal and true debate is replaced by nasty and barbed comment.
I have observed that there are some contributors on this site who appear to possess a somewhat rose tinted intransigent view on humanity, which is fine, however, there are others who see life from a different perspective whose current and past life experiences may have formed these opinions. Until you have lived in each other's shoes what right has one contributor to humiliate another through decrying their honest post as right wing, disgusting, disgraceful or whatever. This is not debate, it is bullying and there are some on here like a schoolyard gang who pounce on a contributor with a different view and collectively hammer them.
Not nice.

That's true.

Advocating 'standards' and 'manners' then calling someone a bitch in a pm is a tad hypocritical.

The pm' s were bad.

Hope she's not feeling too bad though.

(that was in response to Elegran's post)

No - which is a pity in one way, as alternative views can sometimes be insightful. Abusive PMs are of course another matter entirely.

I was wondering that. Probably had a snotty an email from HQ. Or perhaps it was someone else and has been barred.

I don't think that cactus is going to post any more.

Thanks sweetie , still not clear though !

Perhaps absent is referring to a previous poster on this thread, Nonu

Absent , ??