Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site dsi1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!rlgvax!dsi1!lee
From: lee@dsi1.UUCP (Lee Hagerty)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: responsibility, sensitivity, the usual stuff
Message-ID: <438@dsi1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 31-Dec-85 09:21:08 EST
Article-I.D.: dsi1.438
Posted: Tue Dec 31 09:21:08 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 04:47:52 EST
References: <2338@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Dynamic Systems, Inc., Arlington, VA
Lines: 14

> 3) The claim that anyone who DOESN'T take charge of the feelings/emotions (as
> 	these people have) is "responsible" for their predicament is a total
> 	fabrication.  Clearly, as shown in the analogy above, you cannot be
> 	"responsible" for not knowing what you've been *taught* just the
> 	opposite of.  It also seems to be a rationalization to eliminate

If it's "their predicament," then how can they not be responsible for it?
If someone acts on feelings/emotions, he/she is still responsible for his/her
actions.  As far as what you've been taught, you become responsible for that
knowledge the moment you accept it.  Therefore, any actions that you take
based on something you've been taught are your responsibility because you
accepted what you've been taught as being the truth.

Lee