· So we all know that murder is understandable but not acceptable (funny in this case it is the “understandable” part that is a problem in our thinking. This is because a judge will take into account the circumstance of the murder as to the punishment.)
· Assault is understandable but not acceptable also
· These two are part of the law but because we have not made anger illegal
I guess some people still think that it is acceptable ie they become a law unto themselves.
· When I say that I think that anger is understandable but not acceptable, this is not a law per se but an agreement that I am looking for with people that I wish to have deeper relationships with.
rethink PERFECT 
Recent conversations I’ve had with people have hung on whether it’s a choice or not to get angry.
Some have said it’s not a choice they make – hence that’s why it’s acceptable coz they are a victim of their reactions.
Others have said that it is a choice to get angry but because they have ‘reason’ that’s why it’s acceptable.
When I say that I am caution talking with people who can pick and choose when they get angry at me, where they expect that I just accept their anger as justified and as if I deserved it. Given I don’t think I ever deserve to be abused with someone’s anger. Not even my own towards me .
So I agree this topic is an important predictor of what relationship could end up looking like with someone who excuses their anger as opposed to trying to understand their anger.
Thats an affirmative from me too Steve. This is a very interesting postulation and seems to get a different reaction from each mention. I know that I have always wanted to be able to understand and deal with my reactions (especially anger) and these conversations seem to be leading to some interesting results.
I think, that in this case, it seems that most will get what they believe in.
If we think anger is acceptable in our lives then we will ultimately give and get agner a lot more than if we think that it is unacceptable in our lives.
Whether they think that they have a choice or not to get angry, Rethink Perfect works, I think, because we think that we have a choice to accept anger and we are finding theirs and our unacceptable.
What would be interesting is to ask those that think that they have no chioce in getting angry or not, if they think they have a choice in accepting or rejecting someone else’s anger? As we learn to understand other peoples anger but not accept it we learn to do the same to our own, in my view.
I think we can only successfully find anger unacceptable (but not reject it) by finding anger understandable.
How about to help clarify what “understandable but not acceptable” means, we could enphasise that: we don’t want to ‘deny what we feel’ but we also don’t want to deny that we have a ‘choice in how we feel’.
So I guess then, like you say, by not rejecting (eg. denying) how we fell – we then better set ourselves up to understand how we feel (eg. choice).
I think “understandable but not acceptable” says it all to those that agree or disagree with it and is only used to begin the conversation.
What about this: suggest to those that say they don’t have a choice or don’t think that they have a choice, that as a child do they think that they were more likely to get angry, sad and euphoric than they are now? And if they agree then what has happened between then and now? Is it possible that they have learned to temper their reactions as they got older and that it is even possible that we continue to do this until we die.
I think this is true.