Self Improvement

[Delano]

What do you consistently do to become a better person?

[Cynique]

Provocative question, Delano, particularly so,  since I can't come up with an answer.  Tell us what you are doing to improve yourself, so I can be inspired to search my soul for an answer...     

[Delano]

Nothing i just live like i am going to die. I don't rationalize may behaviour good or bad. I don't try and improve myself. I just try to be as honest as possible, although most people are delusional myself included.

[Cynique]

Me, too, Delano; I've pretty much congealed into the inertia of simply being who I am, - which is probably more bad than good. Such is life...

[Delano]

Sometimes I'll change something because it doesn't work. Not certain if that qualifies as an improvement. I just look at things as working or not working.

[Troy]

This question makes me thing about a video I just posted here: near the end the woman emphasizes being yourself.  Sure we all know this but how many actually try to do this.

 

But that does pose a dilemma.  We should all try to be our true selves, but suppose that person is just bad. If I'm a pedophile should I try to change my nature? 

 

Most of us are capable to doing things that would hurt others, if left to our own devices.  We must try to avoid doing these bad things; striking a balance between being your true self and fitting into a civilized world.  In our world we have to figure all this out and make money too -- no easy feat.

 

Or we could just go live, by ourselves, in the woods somewhere.

 

Del changing something based upon whether it works or not is the definition of improvement ;-)

[Delano]

Perhaps not, I just ask if it works for me.

[Troy]

If were a pedophile in 2013 America I would try to change.  I'll also go out on a limb and say that would be an improvement were I successful.

[Cynique]

In males, pedophilia is supposedly an innate affliction that has no cure expect possibly castration. Changing flaws that would improve one have to fall within certain parameters. Some flaws are an integral part of our make-up, like those that characterize psychopaths and sociopaths. People should be commended, however, for recognizing and acknowledging the changes that would make them better. If Pioneer hadn't moved on(?), I'd be interested in his input about whether or not homosexuals would be better persons if they changed.

Change always involves ambiguity and ambivalence. Guess that's why the "serenity prayer" is such a popular mantra.

SERENITY PRAYER

God grant me the serenity

to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can;

and wisdom to know the difference.

That other old adage about "what doesn't kill you will make you stronger" may apply when one is forced into making a correction.

[Troy]

Sure if the poor souls can't control themselves castration sounds good to me. 

 

I have no issue with Homosexuality or anything two (or more) adults do that does not infringe upon the rights of others -- like forcing others else to accept homosexuality as "normal". 

 

People like Pioneer are free to reject homosexuality as normal as long as they are not forcing others to reject it as well. 

[Cynique]

Self-improvement has certainly run amok when it comes to plastic surgery and weight obsession. Once perfection intrudes into the equation, then people get carried away. Obviously it's important to strive to make yourself a better person but, of course it depends on what constitutes "better."

"This above, all, to thine ownself be true, and it shall follow as the night the day that thou can'st not then be false to any man."

Whatever.

[Delano]

Troy - When I said it needs to work for me, it isn't from a moral point if view. At the same time my decision do have an ethical component. As an aside morality is agreed by the group you belong to. Ethics for me is more fairness in interactions.

[Delano]

Cynique- Is it change or rather the decision/decision process to change, that us ambiguous.

I don't think I am qualified to say what id better for someone else, when it's almost impossible. To judge where The Butterfly Effect will take you.

[Troy]

Hi Del I try to behave as ethically and morally as possible. I see no distinction in the terms -- certainly in terms of determining what is more or ethical. I don't always succeed and I'm bothered by it when I fail -- sometimes for an extended period of time.

 

There is behavior condoned by my group (lack of reverence for the elderly) that I don't believe is moral or ethical behavior and there are things that are illegal that I do believe is both moral and ethical (smoking marijuana).

 

Del, of course there are things you can say that are better for others.  It is better for people not to wantonly kill others, and so forth.  Wouldn't you agree?

[Pioneer1]

Although I haven't always been successful, I can remember TRYING to improve myself since I was a little kid.
Working on improving my handwriting.
Working on improving my drawing of cartoons like Donald Duck
Working on cleaning up my room

I believe, self improvement is in the very nature of some people whether they're successful at it or not.

I think SUCCESSFUL self improvement though involves 2 major things:

1. The acknowledgement that one has faults that need to be improved.
2. A motive for that improvement

Like an alcoholic you first have to acknowledge that something is wrong with you before you can move on to a cure. And in our society, getting someone to admit that something is wrong with them is almost like getting them to admit that they have a weakness.

Also, unless you have a strong motive to better yourself, often times your attemps at self improvement will fail because it doesn't pay to go through the effort.

I believe this is one of the biggest problems with Black men in our society.
Most Black men are getting all the coochie they want and most can manage to scrape and hustle up enough money to do what they want to do in life so there is no real drive or motivation to improve themselves mentally, physically, or morally.

If your only goal in life is to find someone to live off of and/or pimp the system so you can get your daily supply of liquor, blunts, and the occasional "bj"......what motive do you have to improve yourself?

Your expectations may be low, but you're still getting all you want out of life anyway so why go through the effort to improve?





Cynique

 

If Pioneer hadn't moved on(?), I'd be interested in his input about whether or not homosexuals would be better persons if they changed.

You just couldn't resist could you......lol.

It's funny you should bring that up because on CNN Anderson Cooper (who is gay) has been doing a piece the past few nights on some evangelical group who has officially stopped it's program for turning gay people straight.
They said it led to too much emotional turmoil and had a very low success rate.

But it all depends on HOW they changed and for what reason.

If a person changes themselves voluntarily through for their own positive motives like gaining new insight on their condition, or desiring more success, salvation, ect.....then it's usually a good thing.

But if they don't really want to change themselves but are being FORCED to change through threats of violence, intimidation, abandonment, ect.....
Not a lot of good will come out of it and as soon as the pressure is off  people often go back to their old habits.


 

This is one of the reasons I don't support a "theocracy".
You can't really FORCE people to be righteous, they have to want to be.

You can institute laws that keep the public safe and protect people from eachother as well as provide them with proper information so they can know HOW to improve themselves....but ultimately the decision is up to them.


 

[Pioneer1]

Also, I've found a key element in improving oneself is having a PROPER EXAMPLE of who/what is better.

 

Sometimes you don't even know you need improving until you see someone else doing better or being more successful in a certain area then you realize you're a little sloppy with your game and gotta tighten up.

Sometimes someone needs to hold a clean glass of water next to the dirty one you're drinking out of to know you need improvement.

 

[Troy]

Well everything and anybody can be improved.  Lebron James can improve as a basketball player, but since he is so much better than everyone else, maybe the extra effort required to improve on the basketball is not worth the extra time.

 

Right now I would like to improve my fitness.  I had a period of a couple of years recently when I was in the best  shape I've been in during the last 15 years.  But my business requires more time and I like to socialize.  As a result working out has become a lower priority and my fitness is waning as a result.  If I get too out of shape I'll dedicate more time to exercising.

 

Everyone body has different priorities.  Whether one "needs" to improve anything is purely subjective and, as long as they are not hurting anyone else, up to the individual -- not anyone else.

[Delano]

Del, of course there are things you can say that are better for others. It is better for people not to wantonly kill others, and so forth. Wouldn't you agree?

No I don't exactly agree with you. There have been killings that lead to good. Like examining why people kill.

I would say ethics is more tactical. Whereas morals has a philosophical undertow.

Most professions have a code of ethics.

Whereas religion has morality tales.

Ethics are in place to keep you from harming others. Morality is for not getting ostracised by a group of your peers. It is more likely to involve guilt, then financial penalties. Although there can be some overlap. It id from what the person feels not the sanctions of the governing body.

[Delano]

Pioneer Those men are Zen masters. There's is no ambition. There needs are met what di they need to improve. I am not making a statement about the morality or fairness or equity. Luke Lebron they are at the top of their game. You can even argue they function ad a societal warning.

[Troy]

Del, "wonton killing" means an inhumane, cruel, unprovoked, merciless killing. 

 

Surely you'd don't mean to suggest that if we can get individuals to stop doing this that it would not, necessarily be an improvement?

 

I'm not sure why you are making a distinction between morals and ethics as if they are opposite sides of a coin, or not in the least bit related.  Ethics without a moral foundation are just rules.  Like holding your fork in your left had while eating.

 

"Most professions have a code of ethics."  Sure the Hippocratic Oath ask new medical professionals not to do harm to anyone
"Whereas religion has morality tales."  I'm not sure what you mean by that but if you look at the 10 commandments one says don't kill anyone.

 

Here Ethics and Morality, as you've defined them intersect. 

 

Again my only points are

1. anyone and anything can improve.
2. There are things everyone (reasonable people anyway) can agree are absolutely wrong (ex. wanton killings, pedophilia, etc) and any cessation of these activities would be an improvement of the person doing them.
3. Laws for criminal conduct, professional ethics, morality (religious or otherwise) are inextricably intertwined.  For they are all based upon the same things:  Helping people improve and stopping them from allowing someone else to improve.

[Delano]

Can you give me some examples.

I disagree with all three points. Nit everyone would agree. Give me a few hours.

[Delano]

Donald Trump is a perfect trump, no improvements are needed.

Most people would classify the 911 bombings in this category. Whereas the bombers feel it was their religious duty.

To be charitable can be a religious imperative, but not doing so does not make one unethical. Even the believer.

[Delano]

Troy The arguments may not be very convincing. However the show an alternative, which I believe is sufficient.

[Troy]

Del I gave you plenty of examples. But you are changing the parameters to make your point rather than understanding or even accepting mine.

 

If you are going to say Donald is the perfect Trump because he is Donald Trump.  Then one can argue EVERYONE is perfect as it is, including you or I.  And that would be the end of the conversation.

 

However your original subject was "self improvement".  You then posed the question, "What do you consistently do to become a better person?" implying that you believe people can improve. 

 

My reaction was anyone can improve on any aspect of their lives -- an idea you have inexplicably rejected.  However you admit your counter-arguments are unconvincing, a statement of the obvious if you ask me

 

At any rate, you want to argue that the 911 bombers were right in the actions because they felt it was their religious duty.  So killing thousands of innocent people becomes right because the mass murders felt it was their religious duty?  Using that logic, NOTHING can be wrong.  Again the conversation dead ends.

 

Del, If you wrote, "To be charitable can be a religious imperative, but not doing so does not make one unethical".  Sure that can be true but that does not negate anything I've written.  Giving is just once aspect of some religions and one can make an argument that it is unethical for the wealthy not to give to the underprivileged.

 

To summarizing your beliefs, as you've expressed them, people are perfect just as they are and nothing is universally wrong.  Obviously I'm diametrically opposed to these positions.

[Delano]

Troy. I believe o understand your point. I am just posing a counter argument. There can be other alternatives. I am guessing but I would sat that Donald Trump may feel the only improvement he needs is to make more money.

There is a quote in Candide by Voltaire. "This is the possible world." Some would say that Voltaire is being ironic. The argument goes this us the best possible world, if ut weren't it would be changed. I would argue that the petsob addicted to drugs is doing the best they can possibly do at that point in time. Which in now way says or even implies that they will always be addicted to drugs.

I am making a fairly subtle point which you may have missed. My argument may not be very convincing. However it does open the discussion to other possibly. Even though they may not be likely, they are not impossible.

Troy you get my point but is unfathomable to you. Yes those bombers thought that what the did, was divinely inspired. Which most people would agree with tgat statement. Were they wrong, that depends on your religious beliefs. Please not the operative word in that sentence is belief not fact.

I would disagree with you. A wealthy person nit giving is not unethical not matter how morally bankrupt they may be. For me ethics is about nit stealing, morality us about giving because it is just. This in my opinion is a fine distinction. Which you and others may choose nit to make

I am very careful about making universal statements about what is the correct behaviour ir viewpoint fir other people. I feel that once you take a step in that direction you cab become intolerant. Ir strident that you have the truth. Although most fundamentalist would more like agree with your overall idea but argue about the application. I have no such certainty about the correction if my opinions, beliefs or thoughts.

I think toy have misunderstood me. I don't think you can find any issue that everyone will agree is universally wrong. Even if we only include people of "sound" judgement.

While you are diametrically opposed to my opinions. I di not feel the same way. Since I firmly believe that everyone us entitled to their opinions no matter how uninformed they may be. This is the idea behind democracy. I may nit believe in what you do, bit I will defend to the death your right to your opinion.

[Delano]

I believe that people can be better.

[Troy]

OK Del lets try a simpler approach.  Let me ask YOU, Del, a simple question:  Do YOU the believe the 911 World Trade Center bombers were right? 

 

I'm not asking based upon some hypothetical anything is possible alternative universe thinking.  I just want to know what Del thinks about this very specific activity.

[Delano]

I believe everyone's opinion is fitting to their life and their world view. When you are discussing beliefs the question of facts, proof right and wrong is not valid. I believe there's little doubt that felt they did they right thing. Would I have done the same if I were them. Well how could I possibly answer that question. Would I do that, no. Can I judge if it was a terrible thing yes it was. I was working at the World Financial Center during the first attempt. Er have a NYU alumnus that lost his life. No had his life taken away. With all of that I am not God, so I can judge no man. I don't even want to serve on a jury.

[Delano]

My beliefs are a function of my life. As a consequence I do not expect, demand or require anyone share my beliefs. Including my children. I encourage them finale up their own minds. However I also say they must own the consequences of their decisions. Quite often I'llsay to my kids I don'tthink something is a good idea. And most of the time I am right pretty quickly. So now my kids listen when I say somewis not a good idea. Sometimes they are right. And I am zuprised at the limitations or constrictions of my beliefs. I day to my kids you can do it your way or my way. But if you do it your and it doesn't work then you fix it.

[Troy]

Wow, Del you can't answer a simple, rather trivial question.  I did not inquire about eveyone else -- just YOU.  All the stuff about facts, proof, whatever, are no relevant.  I'm not asking you to be God or prove anything.  No wonder you can't be reasoned with or understood.  You don't have a perspective, a belief system (any choosing not to believe anything is not a choice but the avoidance of choice)

 

Here is my response, "I believe the bombers were wrong because killing thousands of innocent people is evil and not just wrong, but horribly wrong. Similarly the US Government using remote controlled death machines, otherwise known as drones, to kill "enemies" and causing collateral damage (murder of innocent people) is wrong too."  Simple.

 

Why, pray tell, would you ask about self improvement if you aren't even clear when something needs improvement?

[Delano]

You asked a simple question and I gave you a detailed answer. A simple answer would be, "I believe the bombers were wrong." I could give very simple answers but I thought we were having a thought provoking discussion. That is not true. I also prefer I discussion where there are differences of opinions.

Here's a parsimonious yet, mentally rigorous argument. I am clear about self improvement.

Delano wrote. "Sometimes I'll change something because it doesn't work."

[Delano]

Troy wrote, "Everyone body has different priorities. Whether one "needs" to improve anything is purely subjective and, as long as they are not hurting anyone else, up to the individual -- not anyone else."

Troy wrote, "Why, pray tell, would you ask about self improvement if you aren't even clear when something needs improvement?"

Perhaps you can reconcile these later statements with my

initial answer. Sometimes if something doesn't work I'll change it.

[Cynique]

Orignal post erased and reposted elsewhere.

[Troy]

Del when your answer is too obtuse to be understood by an educated person, it does not provoke discussion it is just confusing.

 

Del it is obvious if something does not work, we try to fix it.  If it is not within our capability we then get some help.  Again this is all obvious.  People usually fix things that are broken, not working or otherwise not meeting one's expectations.

 

Improvement implies we are making something that already works better.  If something is wrong you don't improve it -- making it better at being wrong you fix the darn thing.

 

The 911 bombers were wrong by killing those people.  Improving their technique so that were able to successfully navigate the other plane into the White House and killing more people would be an improvement even more wrong.

 

I glad you believe the 911 bombers were wrong.

[Cynique]

I have some thoughts and opinions on this subject.

To me, it's not like morality is a component of the Big Bang. It evolved later as a human survival tool, and has a lot to do with what best benefits the perpetuation of civilization, Morality is fraught with subjectivity and has to be taught and maintained. If an alien from Mars came to earth, there would be universal things that earthlings forbid that aliens might not bat an eye at.

Good and bad are relative, and they are not intrinsic. Morality is in the eye of the beholder and can be determined by a peer group. Pedophiles are doing what comes naturally to them. So a community of pedophiles would not think their attraction to children is immoral. The same goes for homosexuals. If siblings were raised in an isolated enviroment, they'd engage in incest if nobody told them not to. (In-breeding was how tribes came into being.)

When it comes to "war", all bets are off. The Crusades killed millions in the name of religion. Islam and Christianity both thought they were on moral missions. World War II is referred to as the "good" war, a war in which America dropped the atomic bomb on 2 Japanese islands and killed a hundred thousand innocent Japanese civilians in order to send a message to their military forces to surrender. This was an action which the generals tried to sanitize by claiming that killing thousands saved the lives of thousands more. The British forces annihilated the beautiful historical city of Dresden in Germany, wiping its population out, and doing this was a simple act of revenge. But the Allied forces were considered the good "moral" guys defending freedom, which for Black G.I.'s was something they did not fully enjoy at home.

911 was in the true "smote thy enemies" tradition of religion. The guys who did it didn't think they were doing wrong, or they wouldn't have done it. America thought the act of terrorism was wrong because they felt victimized. The same day 2 thousand people were killed at the twin towers, scores of people all over America were killed in accidents. Shit happens. Just ask Osama bin Ladin.

And there is such a thing as amorality. - a lack of morals which is how humans are born. Little kids are very self absorbed and cruel. They have to have their natural behavior curbed and modfied by adults.

Improving yourself can result in making the world a better or worse place. Value judgments have to be made. The Robin Hood effect can come into play. If I rob a bank and use the money to buy myself a fine new house and help my debt-riddled children, then I would have not only improved my circumstances but I will have raised my self approval because I risked going to jail in order to help my children. If I never got caught for this "crime", I would experience further self-approval because I improved my ingenuity when it came to acquiring money. The bank would be the loser, - but banks are not exactly institutions that deserve sympathy.

For me, personally, the ultimate act of self improvement would be to acknowledge that robbing a bank was dishonest and, that in the future, I will be more scrupulous.

[Troy]

Cynique for the sake of this argument and my personal beliefs I'm taking the position that good and bad are NOT relative. 

 

I agree good and bad may not be intrinsic, built into our nature.  Simply observing the behavior of man will tell you that.  In fact one could make an argument that being BAD is intrinsic, part of our nature.  But that does not matter

 

Even mass murders KNOW killing is wrong.

 

Also I'm not talking about aliens. I'm talking about humans on planet Earth, in THIS space time continuum, the one we are in right now.  I believe there are actions that are universally good and bad.  

 

I don't mean to suggest there are no gray areas and that everything is black or white.  I'm saying, certainly at the extremes, one can, or at least should be able to determine whether an action is good or bad.

 

My guideline for making this determination is if your action hurts someone else or prevents them from exercising their freedom it is bad -- simple. 

 

It is not all that complicated.

 

We ALL do things we know is wrong if we were raised properly.  

 

The best of us try to improve - constantly, throughout our lives; for some of us that might just mean trying to get through the day without killing someone.

[Cynique]

Just for the sake of argument, Troy, there are sane people who don't think killing is wrong. In war it is considered collateral damage, a tactic to improve chances of victory.

Do people think killing someone who they wish dead is wrong? Not always. The reason they don't do it is because they don't want to go to jail. Murders occur everyday, comitted by ordinary people who want somebody out of the way, and think they can get away with it.

Laws had to be established to keep people from killing each other. Punishment is the deterrent. Not conscience. Your moral code is a personal one and a commendable one. But people with a sense of entitlement think they are above others and dont give a damn about "rights".

Is there such a thing as knowing something is wrong? Or is it a case of being told it is "wrong".

"Man's inhumanity to man" has never phased out. It has just been repressed.

[Troy]

Cynique do you think a person who is truly and I mean truly does not think murder is wrong AND actually carries them out would be considered sane?

 

If so, lets exclude the socio-paths or psychotic people.

 

Now if we consider war, killing someone (a likely socio-path) in self-defense.  I too believe this is wrong but not so wrong I don't think it should be done.  I certainly don;t believe we should defende ourselves with no regard for collateral damage -- the way the 911 bombers were or the US is with Drones or with Nukes.

 

Dropping a 2nd nuke the way the US did in WW II is completely wrong.  We can argue about the 1st nuke but dropping the 2nd nuke is just beyond monstrous.  I'm sure the 1st one sent the so called "message".

 

We live in a country where the leadership is unable or unwilling to make the right moral/ethical judgements.  They know what is right and wrong, they just do not care.  Or rather they care more about power and money than people

 

I doubt the nuts in charge today would have ended slavery.

[Cynique]

Well, Troy, in the court room the insanity defense is a very thin one and loses more than it wins because the thinking of the judge and jury in the majority of cases is that the accused knew what he/she was doing, had no qualms about doing it and - wasn't crazy.

There are, indeed, sane people who think others deserve to die, and they kill them. Battered wives who finally work up the nerve to kill their husbands don't think that taking the life of the person abusing them is wrong.

People who claim to kill in self defense and plead justifiable homicide, don't think killing their assailant is wrong, and they usually win their cases.

State governments don't think capital punishment is wrong.

Drive-by shooters don't think they're doing wrong if they hit who they're aiming at.

Accused killers may acknowledge that "in the eyes of the law", a murder may be legally wrong, but deep down inside they may not think they did anything wrong. We really can't say what goes on in people's minds. Some have said that after murdering a nemesis, they felt relieved, and even glad.

You can't dictate to people what is wrong without asking "wrong for whom"? Invoking morality, is an exercise in futility because morality is just a word and people don't necessary feel the need to conform to the standards and definitions of others. Folks want to play the morality card when it suits them.

The famed existentialist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche has some very profoundly interesting to things to say on the subject of man and superman and who has to abide by "rules".

[Troy]

As with all things, good and bad, there is a spectrum a range 

 

Good <-------------------------------------------------------------------> Bad

 

Where killing Hitler would be on the "good" side, and raping and killing a infant would be considered "bad".  Drive-by's, capital punishment, and all the rest would be placed somewhere along the spectrum.

 

At the end of the day, however we want to justify it, killing another person is just wrong.  Whether it is aborting a fetus prematurely, euthanasia, executing a mass murder -- whatever -- it is wrong.

 

I think a major problem with our culture is that we have justified killing for so many reasons, so much so, that we can easily justify doing it.

 

Murder is rampant is ghettos because we do not respect life -- even our own.  It is built into the culture...

[Delano]

Troy I am part of a group that discusses ideas. There is only one rule you can attack the idea but not the person. Saying I am obtuse feels like a personal attack.

[Troy]

Del I've been writing on these boards for 15 years.  More than a decade of conversation are archived here.  You'd have to look VERY hard to find an instance of me attacking, personally, another individual here.

 

Now being accused of attacking someone is not the same thing as attacking someone.  I found the sentence with the word "obtuse" to try to figure out why you thought I was attacking you as a person (one that I like) rather than your ideas or actions.

 

I wrote: "Del when your answer is too obtuse to be understood by an educated person, it does not provoke discussion it is just confusing."

 

I stand by the statement because I asked you a question and I not only did not understand your response I was left more confused.

 

Sure I could have softened the statement, perhaps been less blunt.  But I did not get the impression I needed to do that with you. 

 

I apologize if you took my statement personally it was meant to obtain clarity not hurt your feelings.  Thanks for mentioning it.  I did not appreciate that I was coming across that way to you.

[Delano]

Troy its not about hurt feelings its about tone or decorum.

[Troy]

Why does obtuse sounds like a personal attack?  It is a fairly innocuous word much less harsh than the words throw around by the like about by Roy Hibbert and Paula Dean.

 

I just looked up the word;

1. Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
2. Difficult to understand.

I was using the 2nd, definition with regard to your response to my question.  I was NOT calling YOU obtuse.  I was characterizing your statement as such.  That is easy to see based upon what I wrote. 

 

Looking at it another way; can you see way someone would be confused by the response you gave to my question? 

 

I don't know about decorum in the context of this place, but my tone is pretty consistent.  Admittedly I show Cynique some difference cause I usually agree with her and she is my elder, but when I disagree with her I tell her without having to sugar coat it. 

 

Now that I think about it I do recall referring to Cynique as a self loathing negro because she would not blindly support Obama simply because he was Black. I remember this ONLY because I thought about it before hitting the enter key.  Because THAT could be reasonably be construed as a personal attack.  But Cynique and I go way back now    I knew she would not storm off the boards in a huff.  Needless to say Cynique explained her position, and in hindsight, I see that I was wrong for blindingly supporting Obama (or anyone) simply because of the color of their skin.

 

If you are really interested in the exchange of, and debating, ideas we really we have to assume it is the ideas we are attacking -- not the person. 

[Delano]

Ok

[Cynique]

If folks are going to post in a forum whose brand is “controversy“, they would do well to develop tough skin because, at some point, they will be rubbed the wrong way.

 

As a veteran of the “ad hominem” wars, I have adopted a policy of “not-dishing-out-anything-I-can’t-take”. So, bring it on! The only time I play the age card is when a person proclaims as “new” something that is “old”, thereby giving me the satisfaction of getting into my “been-there-done-that” mode.

 

Yes, I often do make personal attacks on people during the course of arguments.  I've decided that this is because an individual gradually becomes the personification of his argument, and if I reject his contentions, then I tend to focus on the things about him that lead him to make these contentions. And I do sustain my share of slings and arrows. 

 

True, you and I don’t agree on everything, Troy, but in the course of disagreeing, we don’t resort to insults. Dare I say this is because we belong to a "mutual admiration society".   Plus, I'm gratified that you've provided me with this cyber bridge to hide under and project my best imitation of a troll, lying in wait, ready to harass the Billy Goat gruffs that cross over.     

 

Delano, I give both Troy and you credit for how you resolved your differences.  Troy offered a straight forward apology and you responded with a simple "OK".  Great. Contrast this to how things went down when Pioneer demanded an apology from me.  My response was to acknowledge that he was entitled to his opinions and his - was to gloatingly interpret this as an apology, forgiving me for my sins by bestowing a "thank you" on me before taking his bows...