Are people basically good?

[ricechickie]

I suppose it depends on what one’s goal is, as to whether one is successful or has failed.

Sure, if your goal is to get divorced than acting selfishly and cheating on your spouse would be the way to go. However, if your goal is to have a happy and long lived marriage then being faithful and selfless is the better choice.

But most people tend to view success and failure in the traditional sense. Where success is defined as good and failure is defined as bad.

You were the one who said my definition of success might have been too narrow. Now you seem to want to narrow it.

Consider this example:

A woman with children works hard, makes money, and gets promoted. The promotion involves more hours, more travel, but a hefty raise. The family will be well off, but everyone else will feel the strain and have to sacrifice time and energy to make up for her absence.

If her goal is to make as much money as she can, she takes the job and is successful.

If her goal is being there for her kids’ lives as much as possible, then she doesn’t take the job, and she’s successful.

Those who share her values and goals will applaud her decision. Those who don’t may even go so far as to call her a failure.

Not really what I was talking about now is it.

So your examples “work” and mine don’t.

Quelle surprise.

I didn’t say that. I said it was not really what I was talking about. To understand what I am saying you must compare stark contrasts.

It seems to me that you don’t want to believe in absolute wrong and right unless a wrong has been done to you. In those instances you absolutely do believe in a universal right and wrong.

When I use the term successful behaviors I am talking about universal rights and when I use the term failed behaviors I am talking about universal wrongs.

You can argue against this all you want but the moment a wrong is done to you you let the cat out of the bag that you do believe in a universal right and wrong.

Really?

Actually, I express my feelings, which I acknowledge are not universal.

 

[ding]

It’s like Jesus speaks through you....

More like CS Lewis.

Tell me, when you said ropey crossed the line, why did you even have an expectation that a line existed in the first place?

 

[ding]

Sure, if your goal is to get divorced than acting selfishly and cheating on your spouse would be the way to go. However, if your goal is to have a happy and long lived marriage then being faithful and selfless is the better choice.

But most people tend to view success and failure in the traditional sense. Where success is defined as good and failure is defined as bad.

You were the one who said my definition of success might have been too narrow. Now you seem to want to narrow it.

Consider this example:

A woman with children works hard, makes money, and gets promoted. The promotion involves more hours, more travel, but a hefty raise. The family will be well off, but everyone else will feel the strain and have to sacrifice time and energy to make up for her absence.

If her goal is to make as much money as she can, she takes the job and is successful.

If her goal is being there for her kids’ lives as much as possible, then she doesn’t take the job, and she’s successful.

Those who share her values and goals will applaud her decision. Those who don’t may even go so far as to call her a failure.

Not really what I was talking about now is it.

So your examples “work” and mine don’t.

Quelle surprise.

I didn’t say that. I said it was not really what I was talking about. To understand what I am saying you must compare stark contrasts.

It seems to me that you don’t want to believe in absolute wrong and right unless a wrong has been done to you. In those instances you absolutely do believe in a universal right and wrong.

When I use the term successful behaviors I am talking about universal rights and when I use the term failed behaviors I am talking about universal wrongs.

You can argue against this all you want but the moment a wrong is done to you you let the cat out of the bag that you do believe in a universal right and wrong.

Really?

Actually, I express my feelings, which I acknowledge are not universal.

So then you can’t blame Ropey for doing what he did, anymore than you could blame him for having brown eyes.

 

[ricechickie]

It’s like Jesus speaks through you....

More like CS Lewis.

Tell me, when you said ropey crossed the line, why did you even have an expectation that a line existed in the first place?

Did I say he crossed a line?

I remember that I expressed how awful it was to read that post and wondered if he cared. Then I said it was a low blow.

All based on my emotional response.

 

[ding]

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The only thing I learned from this post is that in your Mind, God has a penis and two balls.

What I just learned is that your high-school English teacher should be slapped.

In the English language, it is grammatically incorrect to refer to a sentient being as "it". The male pronouns also serve as neutral pronouns. Therefore, although God does not have a sex in the same way that humans do, proper English grammar refers to Him with male pronouns.

You will notice, if you ever discuss abortion with me, that I also refer to unborn babies as "he", even though they obviously are not all male. Same reason.

1. I don’t see the “it” in GT’s post to which you were responding.

2. That grammar rule is changing to relfect a society that isn’t patriarchal.

1) Reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. No one said the word "it" appeared in GT's post, Brain Trust. He said that I think God has male genitalia, because I refer to Him by male pronouns. I explained that I do so for grammatical reasons.

2) I have no interest in participating in the degradation of the language by low-class, slackjawed imbeciles. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively, not to make people with emotional issues feel better.

And when I need instruction on how I "should" speak, I certainly will not look for it OR receive it from the likes of you.

You’ve descended into insults. No wonder you think humans are inherently bad. It’s your defense, poor thing.

I just ask, WWJD?

GT descends into insults all the time. You don’t seem to have a problem with that. Why?

 

[ricechickie]

You were the one who said my definition of success might have been too narrow. Now you seem to want to narrow it.

Consider this example:

A woman with children works hard, makes money, and gets promoted. The promotion involves more hours, more travel, but a hefty raise. The family will be well off, but everyone else will feel the strain and have to sacrifice time and energy to make up for her absence.

If her goal is to make as much money as she can, she takes the job and is successful.

If her goal is being there for her kids’ lives as much as possible, then she doesn’t take the job, and she’s successful.

Those who share her values and goals will applaud her decision. Those who don’t may even go so far as to call her a failure.

Not really what I was talking about now is it.

So your examples “work” and mine don’t.

Quelle surprise.

I didn’t say that. I said it was not really what I was talking about. To understand what I am saying you must compare stark contrasts.

It seems to me that you don’t want to believe in absolute wrong and right unless a wrong has been done to you. In those instances you absolutely do believe in a universal right and wrong.

When I use the term successful behaviors I am talking about universal rights and when I use the term failed behaviors I am talking about universal wrongs.

You can argue against this all you want but the moment a wrong is done to you you let the cat out of the bag that you do believe in a universal right and wrong.

Really?

Actually, I express my feelings, which I acknowledge are not universal.

So then you can’t blame Ropey for doing what he did, anymore than you could blame him for having brown eyes.

Are you saying I don’t deserve consideration for my feelings?

You could be right.

 

[ding]

It’s like Jesus speaks through you....

More like CS Lewis.

Tell me, when you said ropey crossed the line, why did you even have an expectation that a line existed in the first place?

Did I say he crossed a line?

I remember that I expressed how awful it was to read that post and wondered if he cared. Then I said it was a low blow.

All based on my emotional response.

As I recall you explicitly said he crossed a line.

But even if you only said it was a low blow you still let the cat out of the bag that you believed there was a standard you expected him to adhere to.

 

[ding]

Not really what I was talking about now is it.

So your examples “work” and mine don’t.

Quelle surprise.

I didn’t say that. I said it was not really what I was talking about. To understand what I am saying you must compare stark contrasts.

It seems to me that you don’t want to believe in absolute wrong and right unless a wrong has been done to you. In those instances you absolutely do believe in a universal right and wrong.

When I use the term successful behaviors I am talking about universal rights and when I use the term failed behaviors I am talking about universal wrongs.

You can argue against this all you want but the moment a wrong is done to you you let the cat out of the bag that you do believe in a universal right and wrong.

Really?

Actually, I express my feelings, which I acknowledge are not universal.

So then you can’t blame Ropey for doing what he did, anymore than you could blame him for having brown eyes.

Are you saying I don’t deserve consideration for my feelings?

You could be right.

I didn’t say that at all nor do I believe you don’t.

I do believe there is a universal right and wrong.

The question I am posing is that if you don’t believe there is one how can you get upset when one violates it.

 

[ricechickie]

The only thing I learned from this post is that in your Mind, God has a penis and two balls.

What I just learned is that your high-school English teacher should be slapped.

In the English language, it is grammatically incorrect to refer to a sentient being as "it". The male pronouns also serve as neutral pronouns. Therefore, although God does not have a sex in the same way that humans do, proper English grammar refers to Him with male pronouns.

You will notice, if you ever discuss abortion with me, that I also refer to unborn babies as "he", even though they obviously are not all male. Same reason.

1. I don’t see the “it” in GT’s post to which you were responding.

2. That grammar rule is changing to relfect a society that isn’t patriarchal.

1) Reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. No one said the word "it" appeared in GT's post, Brain Trust. He said that I think God has male genitalia, because I refer to Him by male pronouns. I explained that I do so for grammatical reasons.

2) I have no interest in participating in the degradation of the language by low-class, slackjawed imbeciles. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively, not to make people with emotional issues feel better.

And when I need instruction on how I "should" speak, I certainly will not look for it OR receive it from the likes of you.

You’ve descended into insults. No wonder you think humans are inherently bad. It’s your defense, poor thing.

I just ask, WWJD?

GT descends into insults all the time. You don’t seem to have a problem with that. Why?

He never claimed to be a Christian, so I don’t expect him to emulate Christ.

Of course, not to upset the Christians among us, but I happen to believe that if God exists, He would appreciate a good person who doesn’t believe rather than a hypocrite that pays lip service to Him.

But that’s just me.

 

[ricechickie]

It’s like Jesus speaks through you....

More like CS Lewis.

Tell me, when you said ropey crossed the line, why did you even have an expectation that a line existed in the first place?

Did I say he crossed a line?

I remember that I expressed how awful it was to read that post and wondered if he cared. Then I said it was a low blow.

All based on my emotional response.

As I recall you explicitly said he crossed a line.

But even if you only said it was a low blow you still let the cat out of the bag that you believed there was a standard you expected him to adhere to.

Find the quote, because I don’t see it.

However, even if I said that, it might have been my personal line. My line, not the line.

 

[ricechickie]

So your examples “work” and mine don’t.

Quelle surprise.

I didn’t say that. I said it was not really what I was talking about. To understand what I am saying you must compare stark contrasts.

It seems to me that you don’t want to believe in absolute wrong and right unless a wrong has been done to you. In those instances you absolutely do believe in a universal right and wrong.

When I use the term successful behaviors I am talking about universal rights and when I use the term failed behaviors I am talking about universal wrongs.

You can argue against this all you want but the moment a wrong is done to you you let the cat out of the bag that you do believe in a universal right and wrong.

Really?

Actually, I express my feelings, which I acknowledge are not universal.

So then you can’t blame Ropey for doing what he did, anymore than you could blame him for having brown eyes.

Are you saying I don’t deserve consideration for my feelings?

You could be right.

I didn’t say that at all nor do I believe you don’t.

I do believe there is a universal right and wrong.

The question I am posing is that if you don’t believe there is one how can you get upset when one violates it.

I know you believe that. I don’t.

Still, whether I agree with it or not, I would not intend to cause you pain. Or anyone on here. And I’ve said it before, but if I do cause someone pain with my words, I want someone to let ms know, and I would apologize and not do it anymore.

Just because I don’t believe in a universal standard of decency, doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to have feelings.....which seems like what you’re telling me.

 

[ding]

What I just learned is that your high-school English teacher should be slapped.

In the English language, it is grammatically incorrect to refer to a sentient being as "it". The male pronouns also serve as neutral pronouns. Therefore, although God does not have a sex in the same way that humans do, proper English grammar refers to Him with male pronouns.

You will notice, if you ever discuss abortion with me, that I also refer to unborn babies as "he", even though they obviously are not all male. Same reason.

1. I don’t see the “it” in GT’s post to which you were responding.

2. That grammar rule is changing to relfect a society that isn’t patriarchal.

1) Reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. No one said the word "it" appeared in GT's post, Brain Trust. He said that I think God has male genitalia, because I refer to Him by male pronouns. I explained that I do so for grammatical reasons.

2) I have no interest in participating in the degradation of the language by low-class, slackjawed imbeciles. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively, not to make people with emotional issues feel better.

And when I need instruction on how I "should" speak, I certainly will not look for it OR receive it from the likes of you.

You’ve descended into insults. No wonder you think humans are inherently bad. It’s your defense, poor thing.

I just ask, WWJD?

GT descends into insults all the time. You don’t seem to have a problem with that. Why?

He never claimed to be a Christian, so I don’t expect him to emulate Christ.

Of course, not to upset the Christians among us, but I happen to believe that if God exists, He would appreciate a good person who doesn’t believe rather than a hypocrite that pays lip service to Him.

But that’s just me.

Universal right and wrong applies to everyone.

I agree that God does not appreciate lip service. The Bible is full of books on the subject.

Which is why I try to avoid rationalizations.

But just so I’m clear on your answer you give GT a hall pass on insulting others because he’s not a Christian? It seems to me there might be a different reason. Like you approve of it because you have judged the other person worthy of abuse. Could that be it?

 

[ding]

It’s like Jesus speaks through you....

More like CS Lewis.

Tell me, when you said ropey crossed the line, why did you even have an expectation that a line existed in the first place?

Did I say he crossed a line?

I remember that I expressed how awful it was to read that post and wondered if he cared. Then I said it was a low blow.

All based on my emotional response.

As I recall you explicitly said he crossed a line.

But even if you only said it was a low blow you still let the cat out of the bag that you believed there was a standard you expected him to adhere to.

Find the quote, because I don’t see it.

However, even if I said that, it might have been my personal line. My line, not the line.

I’m not going to argue with you over it. He clearly upset you because you believed he violated some standard in your head. My only point is that if it is indeed not a universal standard then you have no real reason to believe he violated anything at all.

I personally believe he did.

 

[ding]

I didn’t say that. I said it was not really what I was talking about. To understand what I am saying you must compare stark contrasts.

It seems to me that you don’t want to believe in absolute wrong and right unless a wrong has been done to you. In those instances you absolutely do believe in a universal right and wrong.

When I use the term successful behaviors I am talking about universal rights and when I use the term failed behaviors I am talking about universal wrongs.

You can argue against this all you want but the moment a wrong is done to you you let the cat out of the bag that you do believe in a universal right and wrong.

Really?

Actually, I express my feelings, which I acknowledge are not universal.

So then you can’t blame Ropey for doing what he did, anymore than you could blame him for having brown eyes.

Are you saying I don’t deserve consideration for my feelings?

You could be right.

I didn’t say that at all nor do I believe you don’t.

I do believe there is a universal right and wrong.

The question I am posing is that if you don’t believe there is one how can you get upset when one violates it.

I know you believe that. I don’t.

Still, whether I agree with it or not, I would not intend to cause you pain. Or anyone on here. And I’ve said it before, but if I do cause someone pain with my words, I want someone to let ms know, and I would apologize and not do it anymore.

Just because I don’t believe in a universal standard of decency, doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to have feelings.....which seems like what you’re telling me.

No offense and I do not wish to cause you pain but I think you pay lip service to what you just wrote.

 

[ricechickie]

1. I don’t see the “it” in GT’s post to which you were responding.

2. That grammar rule is changing to relfect a society that isn’t patriarchal.

1) Reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. No one said the word "it" appeared in GT's post, Brain Trust. He said that I think God has male genitalia, because I refer to Him by male pronouns. I explained that I do so for grammatical reasons.

2) I have no interest in participating in the degradation of the language by low-class, slackjawed imbeciles. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively, not to make people with emotional issues feel better.

And when I need instruction on how I "should" speak, I certainly will not look for it OR receive it from the likes of you.

You’ve descended into insults. No wonder you think humans are inherently bad. It’s your defense, poor thing.

I just ask, WWJD?

GT descends into insults all the time. You don’t seem to have a problem with that. Why?

He never claimed to be a Christian, so I don’t expect him to emulate Christ.

Of course, not to upset the Christians among us, but I happen to believe that if God exists, He would appreciate a good person who doesn’t believe rather than a hypocrite that pays lip service to Him.

But that’s just me.

Universal right and wrong applies to everyone.

I agree that God does not appreciate lip service. The Bible is full of books on the subject.

Which is why I try to avoid rationalizations.

But just so I’m clear on your answer you give GT a hall pass on insulting others because he’s not a Christian? It seems to me there might be a different reason. Like you approve of it because you have judged the other person worthy of abuse. Could that be it?

He’s not a hypocrite. I don’t see him whining about being insulted by others, or God forbid, reporting them.

He doesn’t pretend to be a Christian who then says vicious things to people who dare question him.

I’m not his momma, so his posts don’t reflect on me.

 

[ricechickie]

It’s like Jesus speaks through you....

More like CS Lewis.

Tell me, when you said ropey crossed the line, why did you even have an expectation that a line existed in the first place?

Did I say he crossed a line?

I remember that I expressed how awful it was to read that post and wondered if he cared. Then I said it was a low blow.

All based on my emotional response.

As I recall you explicitly said he crossed a line.

But even if you only said it was a low blow you still let the cat out of the bag that you believed there was a standard you expected him to adhere to.

Find the quote, because I don’t see it.

However, even if I said that, it might have been my personal line. My line, not the line.

I’m not going to argue with you over it. He clearly upset you because you believed he violated some standard in your head. My only point is that if it is indeed not a universal standard then you have no real reason to believe he violated anything at all.

I personally believe he did.

Yeah, he violated my feelings. FWIW, if he had an ounce of empathy, he would have thought better of it, but maybe he’s a sociopath not capable of love, so he has no concept of grief. I tried to tell him.

Or he’s a liar, so he believes we’re all liars.

I can’t control that.

 

[G.T.]

1) Reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. No one said the word "it" appeared in GT's post, Brain Trust. He said that I think God has male genitalia, because I refer to Him by male pronouns. I explained that I do so for grammatical reasons.

2) I have no interest in participating in the degradation of the language by low-class, slackjawed imbeciles. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively, not to make people with emotional issues feel better.

And when I need instruction on how I "should" speak, I certainly will not look for it OR receive it from the likes of you.

You’ve descended into insults. No wonder you think humans are inherently bad. It’s your defense, poor thing.

I just ask, WWJD?

GT descends into insults all the time. You don’t seem to have a problem with that. Why?

He never claimed to be a Christian, so I don’t expect him to emulate Christ.

Of course, not to upset the Christians among us, but I happen to believe that if God exists, He would appreciate a good person who doesn’t believe rather than a hypocrite that pays lip service to Him.

But that’s just me.

Universal right and wrong applies to everyone.

I agree that God does not appreciate lip service. The Bible is full of books on the subject.

Which is why I try to avoid rationalizations.

But just so I’m clear on your answer you give GT a hall pass on insulting others because he’s not a Christian? It seems to me there might be a different reason. Like you approve of it because you have judged the other person worthy of abuse. Could that be it?

He’s not a hypocrite. I don’t see him whining about being insulted by others, or God forbid, reporting them.

He doesn’t pretend to be a Christian who then says vicious things to people who dare question him.

I’m not his momma, so his posts don’t reflect on me.

if i were christian id still call names. my standard is the golden rule, and i dont fuck with anyone who isnt a dickhead 1st. by MY standard

sad youre not my momma tho : (

 

[ding]

1) Reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. No one said the word "it" appeared in GT's post, Brain Trust. He said that I think God has male genitalia, because I refer to Him by male pronouns. I explained that I do so for grammatical reasons.

2) I have no interest in participating in the degradation of the language by low-class, slackjawed imbeciles. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively, not to make people with emotional issues feel better.

And when I need instruction on how I "should" speak, I certainly will not look for it OR receive it from the likes of you.

You’ve descended into insults. No wonder you think humans are inherently bad. It’s your defense, poor thing.

I just ask, WWJD?

GT descends into insults all the time. You don’t seem to have a problem with that. Why?

He never claimed to be a Christian, so I don’t expect him to emulate Christ.

Of course, not to upset the Christians among us, but I happen to believe that if God exists, He would appreciate a good person who doesn’t believe rather than a hypocrite that pays lip service to Him.

But that’s just me.

Universal right and wrong applies to everyone.

I agree that God does not appreciate lip service. The Bible is full of books on the subject.

Which is why I try to avoid rationalizations.

But just so I’m clear on your answer you give GT a hall pass on insulting others because he’s not a Christian? It seems to me there might be a different reason. Like you approve of it because you have judged the other person worthy of abuse. Could that be it?

He’s not a hypocrite. I don’t see him whining about being insulted by others, or God forbid, reporting them.

He doesn’t pretend to be a Christian who then says vicious things to people who dare question him.

I’m not his momma, so his posts don’t reflect on me.

I never said his posts reflect on you, they don’t. What reflects on you is what you do.

Are you trying to say that I say vicious things to people who don’t agree with me. Because that’s exactly what GT does.

As to your reporting comment are you referring to TN’s comment that I was home schooled by someone who had sex with me?

 

[ricechickie]

Really?

Actually, I express my feelings, which I acknowledge are not universal.

So then you can’t blame Ropey for doing what he did, anymore than you could blame him for having brown eyes.

Are you saying I don’t deserve consideration for my feelings?

You could be right.

I didn’t say that at all nor do I believe you don’t.

I do believe there is a universal right and wrong.

The question I am posing is that if you don’t believe there is one how can you get upset when one violates it.

I know you believe that. I don’t.

Still, whether I agree with it or not, I would not intend to cause you pain. Or anyone on here. And I’ve said it before, but if I do cause someone pain with my words, I want someone to let ms know, and I would apologize and not do it anymore.

Just because I don’t believe in a universal standard of decency, doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to have feelings.....which seems like what you’re telling me.

No offense and I do not wish to cause you pain but I think you pay lip service to what you just wrote.

Tell me an example.

I have a few standards that I try to uphold, even when I’m angry. Anything else, someone would need ro tell me that it’s crossing their line. And I’d listen.

 

[ding]

More like CS Lewis.

Tell me, when you said ropey crossed the line, why did you even have an expectation that a line existed in the first place?

Did I say he crossed a line?

I remember that I expressed how awful it was to read that post and wondered if he cared. Then I said it was a low blow.

All based on my emotional response.

As I recall you explicitly said he crossed a line.

But even if you only said it was a low blow you still let the cat out of the bag that you believed there was a standard you expected him to adhere to.

Find the quote, because I don’t see it.

However, even if I said that, it might have been my personal line. My line, not the line.

I’m not going to argue with you over it. He clearly upset you because you believed he violated some standard in your head. My only point is that if it is indeed not a universal standard then you have no real reason to believe he violated anything at all.

I personally believe he did.

Yeah, he violated my feelings. FWIW, if he had an ounce of empathy, he would have thought better of it, but maybe he’s a sociopath not capable of love, so he has no concept of grief. I tried to tell him.

Or he’s a liar, so he believes we’re all liars.

I can’t control that.

I agree. He did what I would call practice failed behaviors.