No question!

Some posters have suggested that you *can* be!

I maintain that no-one can be responsible for the feelings of others. Everyone chooses how they feel. I reckon my argument is particularly strong where there is no actual physical interaction, as is the case in the forums and inworld. Unless it is at the point of a gun, blackmail or reasoned argument, no-one can make you do anything, so it is no good complaining that someone else is responsible for your choice about the way you feel.

I realise that acceptance of this would probably reduce the number and lengths of threads here dramatically, but let's hear your arguments (*not* emotional ones please; let's keep it sensible) that I might "own" your feelings.

Pep ("You made me love you, I didn't want to do it"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfAwQSk9STI&feature=related

Assuming sarcasm as default (points to your little taggie on the left) ~ I have to presume that you actually mean the opposite.

That's my argument. Solid enough?

grins

The sarcasm was restricted to this part of my post, Des.

Pep (invites serious responses too, if any can be formulated. )

When someone is intentionally offensive, don't you think they're responsible (and wrong) for using words in that way?

Don't you think that people use words to evoke particular responses?

Or do you think, for example, that if someone laughs when they read a joke, that they are behaving inappropriately?

Or in your view, should the writer of the joke be astonished and say, "I'm not responsible for making you laugh! That's all you, not me."

.

It is all about how you react to your world, physical or imagined. Your world, your imagination and/or your reaction.

Me? My reaction is always with love.

Hi Pep! Hullo Des... I have admired you from afar!

Always a big hug from me! Lula

Oh and Seven... you are such a cutie! Hello and hugs!

Hi, Lula! Back at you! I was actually coming back to delete that post of mine - regretted falling into this thread, but now you made me glad I did.

.

Never regret what you post. You are one sweet soul that I have always admired. I must go visit your blog soon! Hugs!

my thought is that mental torture can be much more effective than physical torture. bullying and teenage suicide comes to mind.

I think you can be responsible for the feelings (emotions) experienced by others - sometimes unkowingly. Everyone ultimately is reponsible for their actions, but feelings are often involuntary and it is not always possible for every individual to control their feelings all of the time. We can all be triggered into emotion by others. (Although we should always do our very best to control our actions.)

Leaving aside those who deliberately set out to provoke others - we cannot be always aware of how others will be affected by what we do, say or write. This is more significant with written communication where there are no visual or aural clues. People recognise this in theirselves. Usually people control their reactions, and in so doing they modify their "feelings" and most people are polite and sensitive to the fact that any interaction can provoke an emotional response.

It is the emotional response that we feel towards the outside world that informs us that we are alive and sentient. Capgras Syndrome and Cotard's Syndrome are caused by brain misfunctions which can cause a loss of emotional response to other people and the outside world - in extreme cases, sufferers believe that they are actually dead!

Everyone has it in their power to engender nice feelings in others, so, give me a nice, warm feeling every time, please.

Yes, they are responsible for the words (and I can't comment on whether they might be wrong - that is a very different moral question and depends on the circumstances), but they are *not* responsible for the feelings of the listener or reader, who might be bored or amused, rather than offended.

Absolutely, and some are better at it than others - look up the *real* meaning of NLP!

Probably not, but it depends on the circumstances - and the joke!

I might agree about some responsibility for making them laugh - but *not* for whether they feel it was funny.

Pep (Thank you for allowing me to explain myself further.)

I agree that it can be . . .

Pep ( . . . but the victim still chooses to feel the way they do, and could choose to feel otherwise.)

My main view on this is that an author is not responsible for the reactions of readers. In example of maybe "The Sorrows of Young Werther" by Goethe it happens that people dancing on table and being happy after reading it, some others are just bored and some may hang themselfs after reading the book. This and all between can happen and this is in any case not Goethe's fault nor problem. (Beside Goethe is dead, meanwhile)

People can use anything to harm themselves. Give them any object, and they'll use it to commit suicide or kill someone, rolling on floor laughing or just yawning and sleeping in over it. The only responsibility as author is to express what one observes with own eyes, thinks with own mind. What conclusions will people draw from this is clear individual and not in hands of any author.

Perceptions/conclusions are autonomous from what one may have written. There is no need for an author to pay attention to readers and listeners, who are absolutely free to draw their own conclusions. I think, people are all roughly in the same situation while receiving signals from others, which in this sense is precisely a situation of freedom to act, react, feel, think in any possible way.

But I also see a slightly difference between a signal to very anonymous and very huge masses in form of books, artwork, movies which are mostly statements which are not created for direct correspondence between an author and the global audience - there is mostly only the work "speaking" in a sense of maybe "here it is - do what you want with it" - and on the other hand sorts of dialogs, discussions around tables or even in forums. I like humor and sarcasm very much, but since there is kind of a dialog or question/answer situation, it is no damage to try to be polite and to try to not hurt someone arbitrarily, being helpful where asked and depending on individual character to give a response on personal attacks or to have the wiseness to be an end-station for personal attacks and let them (the attacks) die in silence in oneself instead of putting oil into the flames.

But in general: the decision about what to make with a signal is ever at the receivers side, not at the senders side, is my view on this theme.

How can you be responsible unknowingly?

Pep (Of course, whether you can be responsible for something when you have not accepted responsibility for it is another moral question.)

I find little to disagree with in this post as it broadly supports my contention . . .

Pep ( . . . but I might query whether in *all* circumstances there is "no damage to try to be polite".)

Knowing you you choose words very carefully, I am going to focus on two: responsibility and choice.

Yes, I take responsibility for provoking hurt or negative emotional reactions in others. I may not understand why their emotions are so extreme but if I, through action or inaction did something that resulted in an emotional response, then I'm responsible. On the flip side, it is also nice when I impact people positively Cause and effect.

Choice is where it gets tricky. I can't be responsible for how people choose to express their emotional response. Ultimately that is each individual's burden.

pst- is next Friday's question going to be, "Cause and Effect: It exists but do you care? Take these surveys to discover the depth of your schizoid and sociopathic tendencies!"

We're more or less on the same page.

For instance, in my email this morning I received a notice that a certain forum animator has sent me a finger wagging animation. That simple act of kindness stoked me and was certainly responsible for making me feel good. I can't wait to try it out

I take full responsibility to how I am reacting to this, btw. I am going to be wagging my finger all over 2L.

You are equating "emotional responses" to "feelings". Is this a valid equivalence?

Pep (Is one visceral and the other intellectual?)

PS I am trying to do Jig's job for her - but better! And I like the idea about a discussion of sociopathy . ..

/me has a feeling he might be given a personal demonstration . . .

Pep ( . . . very soon!)

In this passage feelings=emotions. Emotional response= response to stimuli. Stimuli, for the purpose of this discussion=peeing in someone's cornflakes or the equivalent .

Timely question for me. I've been thinking about that myself lately.

Ultimately, nobody is responsible for what I feel except me. I bring my own expectations and experiences with me every where I go including SL. When I realize that my feelings are not in alignment with a given situation, I know that I have some pondering ahead of me.

I'm a person who enjoys knowing and understanding why I feel the way that I do at any particular moment. I also relish those moments when I just feel good for no darn reason other than "Just because!"

I really don't want to compare the people I meet in SL to the people I meet IRL. That is because if I were to make a statement to the effect that people are more transparent IRL I would have so many people correcting my belief and offering solid evidence to the contrary.

But SL offers so many choices about how a person wants to present him or herself. "Your world, your imagination", alts, forum persona vs inworld persona...

That leaves so much room for acts that have potential to be hurtful. Not necessarily acts of commission either. If one person forms an attachment to another person based on the latter's presentation of him/herself without any attempt on the latter's part to correct or otherwise enlighten the other person...there is a very good chance that someone is going to be hurt.

While I do believe that empathy can direct our emotions, I don't believe that another person can force an emotion on us. You are right, nobody can "make" me do anything. But, they sure as heck can influence the way I feel. That is normal though isn't it?

I would argue that emotions are involuntary whereas feelings are under the control of the person.

Pep (But YMMV)

I don't make that distinction. I think we're using the same concepts but applying different labels. Your feelings=my emotional response. See? I agree, emotions are involuntary, it is how they are handled and shared that falls under choice.

you often get irritated/riled by other's opinions/posts
they invoke an emotional response from you
that is my opinion/observation

feel free to critique my grammar, punctuation, and opinion, etc

edited to add:
feelings= "an emotion or emotional perception or attitude: a feeling of joy; a feeling of sorrow."

Responsible in the sense of "being the cause of" - the trigger for them. I was thinking in terms of cause and effect - nothing about morality.

It is now believed that emotion is essential for creating memories - it's an automatic emotional response that is a function of the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion

Entirely normal - everyone is potentially influenced by everyone else . . .

Pep ( . . . you just can't tell what the effect of that influence is going to be on all the people that might be influenced, in anything but a one-to-one scenario - and sometimes not even then!)