Thursday, February 17, 2011

Human Beings With All of their Differences and Inequalities of Nature (Part 4)

To continue with this series of essays about human beings we need to examine one more position. It is the center position of the extremes as described in the previous posts.


The absolute extreme of the center is more difficult to describe. The reason being is that it is usually defined as a combination of the two outer extremities, the right and the left. One way to describe it would be that it is an absolute compromise of the absolute extremes. The big problem with this is that it focuses on the outcome without considering what happens to the means.

We as human beings are governed by our principles concerning morality. Those principles influence our every decision of behavior. What a compromised solution does is necessitate a change of behavior without consideration of the beliefs involved. The behavior has changed but the principle held still remains. In other words, the man has become a hypocrite to his beliefs and with each compromise he makes the more of a hypocrite he is. And with each compromise made the easier it becomes to compromise again.

A man who is willing to compromise is a liar. For that man is portraying himself to the world as being somebody that he is not. His behavior belies his beliefs. Most important is the fact that he is betraying the most important person in his life, himself. In order to live with himself truth would have to have no meaning to this person.

And like lies one compromise will, inevitably, lead to another compromise. Sooner or later this man will be forced to face the truth about himself and when this happens he will have to suffer the consequences of his own making. Since compromise cannot be justified on its own merits then it only can be justified by demeaning the purity of the absolute extreme positions in some manner or another.

The big problem with this position concerns responsibility and doing things the right way or the wrong way. This is a position of shared responsibility. This would be a position where all behavior is behavior that is considered as being both determined and of free will. This alone would declare this position as being self-contradictory. Why would we want someone to accept responsibility for a behavior that they have no control over? We would be blaming the victim of this behavior if we hold him responsible. Is that the right thing to do?

It is also a position where right and wrong must be considered as being blurred. Some would even say that there is no right or wrong way of doing things. This would be a position of amorality. It would be a position taken where evaluation of behavior is not influenced by one's sense of morality. The only conclusion that a person can come to based on the premises allowed is that responsibility of the behavior cannot be ascertained logically without presupposing responsibility. This would go against the whole idea of the meaning of justice.

This would presuppose that something else other than a sense of morality should be used to ascertain responsibility. What else can people possess on an equal basis that could be used as a determinant of responsibility that would not be biased and prejudicial? What else can people possess on an equal basis that does not automatically declare one person guilty and another person innocent of behavior simply by the possession of it? What else can a person possess on an equal basis that doesn't automatically prevent a relationship between two persons of different positions of society? What else can a person possess on an equal basis that would restrict the behavior of each equally?

What say you, my friends? Can someone provide me an answer to my questions?

31 comments:

BB-Idaho said...

Assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that your conclusion advocates an
'inverted normal distribution' (eg, large numbers of either extreme with little or no central
numbers), I googled 'inverted normal
distribution'. And got an infection in my browser!!
Having taken care of that,
and with further consideration, I can only offer a corollary:
"A man who is willing to compromise is a liar."
Corollary I: OR MARRIED!

The Griper said...

lolol... dang, you're hot, BB. one right after another. you're making me look bad. :)

question: but doesn't the divorce rate show a man will suffer the consequences of his own making too?

The Griper said...

but seriously, BB, all the three posts did is take the three positions of the curve that can be considered as already a measured position, the two extremes, each being exactly 100% and the center being exactly a 50/50 position and come to conclusions based on the attributes as they would exist within each.

the problem lies in the central position where there are many ways to create a 50/50 distribution. i only presented it by a single most obvious way of distribution because of lack of space for a post.
make sense?

BB-Idaho said...

Color me confused: keeping in mind the previous post with Jane Russell, I naturally googled 'double
hump normal distribution'.
Darned if there weren't some 20,200 references thereto. Glad there are others confused! :)

Lista said...

Hi Griper,
I Wrote Quite a Bit in Response to this Post, yet to Avoid the Risk that you Might be Getting Tired of me, I'm just going to Submit for now, the Two Last Paragraphs that I Wrote. I'll Submit the Rest Later.

Not Everything has to do with Morality, Griper, and therefore, not Everything has to do with Responsibility. I Think that it is Sad that you have a Mental Block Relating to Shared Responsibility, as Well as Shared Blame. I'm sure you've heard the Saying that "There is Plenty of Blame to Go Around.", as well as "It Takes Two to Tangle." Very Few People, Griper, Actually Struggle with the Idea of Balance to the Extent that you do.

As to the Comments, Griper, the Divorce Rate Shows the Consequence of One who will not Compromise.

The Griper said...

i have no struggle with the idea of balance, lista. in fact, i'm very comfortable with the idea.

Lista said...

She Chuckles as she Thinks about the Part of her Response to this Post that she was Considering Delivering Last, yet the Man's most Recent Response is Causing her to Reconsider and Possibly Present it First instead, so here it is...

It is Interesting to me, Griper, how Difficult it is for you to Discard the Words Extreme and Absolute. As if anything Less than this Creates Considerable Discomfort for you.

It just so Happens, though, that the Phrase "Absolute Extreme" does not Fit with the Description of Positions in the Center because that is not what the Word "Extreme" Means. The Word "EXACT" Center would be more Accurate.

The Phrase "Absolute Compromise" is Misleading as well because this Phrase Implies that One of the Parties is Compromising Absolutely and Completely and the Other One is Absolutely and Completely Getting Their Way. The Perfect or Exact Center, though, is 50/50 and that is not Absolute at all, for it is IN BETWEEN the Absolutes.

You are Caught Up in a Distortion, Griper. You are so Black and White, that you don't even Know how to Accurately View what's in the Center.

"it focuses on the outcome without considering what happens to the means."

Huh? Oh well, Whatever.

Lista said...

One more thought in Relation to the Statement, "i have no struggle with the idea of balance, lista. in fact, i'm very comfortable with the idea."

You have the Horrible Habit, Griper, of Saying Things when all of the Evidence Points to the Exact Opposite of what you are Saying. When you do that, you Insult the Intelligence of all who are Listening.

The Griper said...

you are right, lista, but only if you confine yourself to a single defintion of words without thinking outside of the box, as they say.

it is like asking; is the glass half full or half empty? the truth is that a glass is always full. when we put something into a glass we are not filling it but displacing one thing with another.

Lista said...

When the Definition of Words is too Broad, Griper, it is Impossible to Understand what anyone is Saying and when you are Overly Technical, such as in the Glass Example you just Gave, you Only Complicate Things, Continually Moving People Away from the Common Understanding of Things Towards Something more Difficult and this Creates Misunderstanding, rather than Clarity and Occasionally such Misunderstanding can Actually Lead to Pain, Making you sort of a Dangerous Person to be around.

The Griper said...

and you'll find the broadest of defintions in the dictionary, lista. most of the time you just need to ascertain which of the definitions is the most appropriate for the situation.

Lista said...

Griper,
You are Only Changing the Subject and Avoiding Admitting that the Way that you Communicate is Unclear and at Times Even Misleading (Thus Deceptive). I'm not Stupid, Griper. I Know what I Know and you are not Going to be able to Clear yourself of what I Know so Easily. Even BB-Idaho, who is quite Intelligent, has Admitting being Confused, but I'm sure that that is his Fault, for it Certainly can't be Yours.

I've Gotten so Used to you Defining Words in Confusing Ways while Avoiding the Real Issues and it doesn't Impress me any more.

I have One more Installment of my Initial Long Response, but I Think I'll Put that Off Until Tomorrow.

Be Assured, though, that you are not Going to Side Track me from what I am Trying to Say.

The Griper said...

ok, lista, what is the real issue since you seem to understand that better than i do?

Lista said...

Of Course I Understand it better than you do, Griper, because "the Real Issue", that I'm Trying to Convey, is Based on what I'm Trying to Convey. You Might have Issues of your Own that you would Like to Discuss, yet you also Need to Take the Time to Listen and Hear me as well. Here is the Last Installment of my Initial Response to the Above Post...

"Some would even say that there is no right or wrong way of doing things."

This is Called Relativity. Some Things are Relative, but there are Other Things that are not.

Why is it, Griper, that the Same Rules have to Apply to all Things? Why is it so hard for you to Accept that Stealing and Murder is Wrong, yet if you Walk to the End of a Street and Turn either Left or Right and Decide to either go to a Movie, or just Walk through the Park, that Either Decision would be Ok, that this Decision can Depend on how you Feel at any Given Moment and Morality has nothing to do with it? Why would Making a Compromise and doing what someone Else Decides in such a Matter be a Compromise of Values?

Why does Every Compromise have to be about Morality, Griper? A Couple, for Example, Decides that I'll Cook, if you do the Dishes, how does that have anything to do with Morality. Both of these Jobs do Need to be Done by Someone. Basically what is Happening is that the Two People are Working Together by Compromising their Wants in Order to Make a Relationship Work.

Politics is not Really so Different than this. Basically, it is a Battle Between what One Group Thinks will Work and what Another Group Thinks will Work. It is also a Battle against what Works for the Rich and What Works for the Poor, yet why should the Desires of One be Placed above the Desires of another. Morality is not the Issue. Not Every Dispute between People is a Moral One, Griper, some Disputes are just about Opinions and Wants.

More Times than not, it is Desire, Selfishness and Greed, NOT Morality, that Drives Politics. To Call some of these Financial Debates Moral Issues is Actually Side Stepping the Reality of what is Actually Going on.

Within Marriage, it is the Same Way. If a Person Calls Every Compromise a Compromise of Beliefs, he is Avoiding the Issue. If a Person Refuses to Compromise Something that he Wants in Order to Allow for the Wants of his Partner, this is Not Sticking Up for a Principle of Morality. This is Selfishness, Plain and Simple, and if he Calls such Selfishness, Standing Up for Principles of Morality, then he is Lying to himself, while being Unjust with his Partner.

We are Responsible to do Our Best. No One is Perfect. In Fact, No Thing is Perfect. Choice is not Perfect. Determinism is not Perfect. Responsibility is not Perfect and Victimization is not Perfect. This is the Reason why God has given us Grace.

Sense Nothing is Perfect, all that Exists is Between the Extremes.

I'm Sorry, Griper, if Imperfection Makes you Feel Uncomfortable, but that is how Life is.

The Griper said...

lista,
if you choose to believe that there are moral, immoral and amoral acts then you go right ahead and believe it.

i'll admit that i am not an advocate of amorality.

i'll also admit that i am not an advocate of secularism.

i'll even go as far as to say that i am not an advocate of equality.

Lista said...

Well, as Long as you are Clear on this. And I would like to Add to Anyone who is Listening, that when he says that he does not Believe in Equality, he Means it. Personally, I doubt that anyone who Understands how Fully and Completely you Mean that, Griper, is not going to be Interested in Marrying you. I could be Wrong, but that's just what I Think.

As to Amoral Acts, though. Are you Saying that the Decision to see the Movie that you want to see, or the Movie that your Partner wants to see, is a Moral Decision? That is Assuming that there is Nothing at all Morally Wrong with either Movie. I Find it Hard to Understand how Such a Decision could be a Moral One, except in that Always Picking the One that you Want to See would be Selfish, yet to Give in and see the Other one Instead would be a Compromise in what you Want, not in what you Believe in. That's all I'm Saying.

Thanks for Allowing me to Warn your Audience of who you Actually are. As it Turns Out, I didn't have to. You have done it yourself. Perhaps that is the Long Awaited Closure that I Need.

The Griper said...

"That is Assuming that there is Nothing at all Morally Wrong with either Movie."

your assumption just proves your contradiction, lista. if it isn't an immoral descision then it must be seen as a moral one, no?

Lista said...

Ok, But isn't it Possible that Two Movies can be Morally Equal? Or another way to Put that would be Equally Beneficial (Morally Good) or Equally Destructive (Morally Wrong)? Is there no such Thing as a Personal Preference?

Once Again, your View Point Represents Black and White. That is that what you're Words are Implying now is that Everything is either Good or Bad and there is nothing in the Middle. Considering this, How can you say that you are Comfortable with the Idea of Balance? Just the Statement that you do not Believe in Amorality is an Indication that there is Nothing in the Middle. Everything that Exists is Near the Far Extremities of the Bell Curve.

Getting Back to the Original Question, though, Is there no such Thing as Two Options that are Morally Equal? and If so, then How Can Compromising Ones Desires, Wants and Preferences in Relation to Two Morally Equal Options be Considered a Compromise of Values? This is Called Sharing and most of us Learn it in Grade School.

You have Opinions, Griper, that most People are not going to Agree with you on and the Reason Why is because your Principles do not Work in a Way that Brings About Healthy Relationships.

"your assumption just proves your contradiction, lista. if it isn't an immoral decision, then it must be seen as a moral one, no?"

The Answer to all of the Above is No, Absolutely Not. All that my Statement Proves is that I Believe that some Decisions are Neither Moral or Immoral, but Neutral. The Only Way that my Assumption can be a Contradiction is if you Insist that All that Exists is either Moral or Immoral and that there is Nothing in the Middle. I have Insisted no such Thing and therefore, have not made any Contradictions.

I'm Curious if there is even a Single Soul Out there that is as Black and White and Uncompromising as you are.

She Chuckles in Closing. You Know, it could be that you are just so Determined to Disagree with me in Relation to Everything that if I said that it is Not Smart to Jump Off a Cliff, you would say, "That's Only True If...".

Lista said...

As I was Reading Through the Comment that I Just Sent you, a Couple Additional Thoughts Came to Mind. Since we Often Misunderstand Each Other Based on Definitions of Words, I want to Tell you that when I heard you say Amoral, I was Thinking Morally Neutral.

There are Other Possible Definitions for the Word Amoral, but the Definition of Morally Neutral is the Most Relevant to what we have been Discussing and I don't Know Why you would Pick an Irrelevant Definition.

Also, the Definition of Balance in this Context, should be Finding Balance between the Extremes. I Realized Later that another Form of Balance is having a Balanced Life or a Balanced Schedule. Since the Subject Being Discussed, though, is the Center between Two Extremes, the Definition of Balance between the Extremes is again the Most Relevant, so that is what I meant when I said that you Struggle with Balance.

If you Chose a Different Definition than the Ones that I just Stated, then you are Defining Words in ways that are Irrelevant to the Issue being Discussed and thus Creating Confusion, so if I am Misunderstanding anything this would be the Reason.

Lista said...

It Appears that you have Failed to Post One of the Two Comments that I Submitted to this Post and That's Ok. Perhaps I should Try and Reword it and in Doing so... Well, I Changed some of my Accusations to Assumptions that you are Free to Correct if I'm Wrong and I also Removed Three One Sentence Paragraphs that I Thought you Might have Found Offensive, so here we Go Again.

Isn't it Possible, though, that Two Movies can be Morally Equal? Or another way to Put that would be Equally Beneficial (Morally Good) or Equally Destructive (Morally Wrong)? Is there no such Thing as a Personal Preference?

Once Again, Griper, your View Point Appears to Represents Black and White. Correct me if I’m Wrong, but you Appear to be Saying that Everything is either Good or Bad and there is nothing in the Middle. Considering this, How can you say that you are Comfortable with the Idea of Balance? Perhaps you Meant a Balanced Life, or a Balanced Schedule, but what I Meant was the Balance Between Two Extremes. This Understanding is more Relevant than the Other Possible Definitions.

Just the Statement that you do not Believe in Amorality (The Way I Understood this Word was "Morally Neutral") My Understanding of this Word Indicates that there is Nothing in the Middle. Again, this is the Most Logical and Relevant Definition. Considering this, It Appears that you are Saying that when it Comes to Morality, Everything that Exists is at the Far Extremities of the Bell Curve and there is no Middle Ground. This to me Indicates a Problem Dealing with Balance.

Getting Back to the Original Question, though, Is there no such Thing as Two Options that are Morally Equal? And If so, then How Can Compromising Ones Desires, Wants and Preferences in Relation to Two Morally Equal Options be Considered a Compromise of Values? All you have to do, Griper, is to Give and Adequate Answers to these Question and I Will not Consider you Selfish.

"your assumption just proves your contradiction, lista. if it isn't an immoral decision then it must be seen as a moral one, no?"

The Answer to all of the Above Quote is No, Absolutely Not. All that my Statement Proves is that I Believe that some Decisions are Neither Moral or Immoral, but Neutral. The Only Way that my Assumption can be a Contradiction is if you Insist that All that Exists is either Moral or Immoral and that there is Nothing in the Middle. I have Insisted no such Thing and therefore, have not made any Contradictions.

The Griper said...

lista,
a lot of questions :) and good ones too, lista. i'll try to explain my position on each.

"Correct me if I’m Wrong, but you Appear to be Saying that Everything is either Good or Bad and there is nothing in the Middle."

1. not everything. we are speaking only of human behavior. nothing in and of itself, other than human behavior, can be considered as moral or immoral.

2. since there is no absolute middle nor absolute extremes, which would be positions of perfection, then every behavior must be right or left of center. any behavior right of center would be moral and left of center would be immoral behavior.

3. now does this mean that every behavior has elements of both, immorality and morality? the answer is no. what it means is that there are better choices we can make in terms of morality or poorer choices we can make in terms of immorality. the determinant being the benefits or consequences that we, as persons, derive from that behavior in terms of becoming a better person morally.
------------
"(The Way I Understood this Word was "Morally Neutral")"

the idea of moral neutrality is a bit misleading. the reason being;

1. only persons without a sense of understanding of the difference between right and wrong can be defined as morally neutral on behavior.
2. science studies behavior without making judgment of morality of that behavior. this would lead one to think in terms of ammorality. the reason for this is not to allow personal moral values to prejudge their findings. this results in ammoral conclusions(theories) in regards to behavior.
------
as for your movie example let's take it a bit farther.

1.should a guy take a girl to a movie(his personal preference) that she considered as morally objectionable? the answer is no.

2.should a girl seek to go to a movie(her personal preference) with a guy who finds the movie morally objectionable? the answer is no.

3.should that guy and gal go to a movie that neither find as morally objectionable? the answer is yes.

4.does this mean that every couple will go to the same movie that this couple went to? the answer is no.

the reason being is not every couple will find the other movies as morally objectionable, will they?

5.the only question that needs to be answered is, did going to any one of those movies contribute to each of those persons becoming a better person morally?

6.should we judge those persons as being morally depraved just because they went to a movie that we found morally objectionable? the answer is no. that is the definition of tolerence not ammorality.

7. ammorality leads to indifference of behavior not tolerence of behavior. to possess tolerence one must possess a sense of understanding of morality.

The Griper said...

lista,
the answer to one more question;
"Is there no such Thing as a Personal Preference?"

under the circumstances that you presented the answer is yes. but i must caution you in regards to the conclusion that you might derive from it. a difference of preference usually cannot lead to a compromise under these circumstances. they only lead to a third agreed upon option or an agreement of who will make the decision in that particular instance if a third option does not exist.

Lista said...

What am I Going to do, Griper? This is now the 6th Post Down and I've got another Three Part Comment to Submit. I'm Sorry that it's Taken me so Long to get Back to you. I haven't been Feeling well and am Still a Little Tired, but I thought I should Get Back to this any way and Post what I have Written Earlier in my Word Processor.

1. Let me Rephrase the Question that you Quoted. Is Every HUMAN Behavior or Decision either Moral or Immoral? And is Every Choice either Moral or Immoral?

2. Just Because there is No Absolute or Exact Center, Griper, does not Mean that there is not a Range Close to the Center that could be Considered Neutral. One Type of Decisions and Behaviors that are Close to the Center are Debatable Kind and not Only That, but what is just Slightly on the "Immoral" side of Center would Actually be more Accurately Called "Not the Best of Two Possible Decisions", yet since this is Debatable, it is not Worth Making an Issue Over and for all Practical Purposes is Neutral.

When I Read the Above Paragraph again, just now, I was Thinking of some of the so-called "Immoral Decisions". I was Thinking about Things such as Dancing, Playing Cards, Wearing Shorts or Watching TV. These are Things that Only a Few Groups of Christians would Consider Immoral.

3. "now does this mean that EVERY behavior has elements of both, immorality and morality? the answer is no."

Well of Course it’s No, Griper, and the Reason why is because of the Presence of the Absolute, EVERY.

Lista said...

1. "defined as morally neutral on behavior." That’s not what I Said, Griper. I’m Talking about Morally Neutral Choices and Behaviors, not about a Person who is "Morally Neutral on Behavior". You are just Determined to Change the Subject aren’t you?

2. I’m Talking about Reality, Griper, not Science. A Discussion about Morality can not be Limited to Science, for the Simple Reason that Science does no Deal with such, just as you just Said. At Some Point, though, we Need to be Able to Discuss all of Reality and not just that which Fits with Science.

You are Missing the Whole Point of my Questions, Griper. Let’s say that the Guy Likes Adventures and the Girl Likes Romances. Should the Couple Go Only To Adventure Movies and Never to Romantic Ones? Should the Guy Always Choose the Movie? I wonder why it is that you are Having so much Trouble Understanding what I’m Asking.

My Questions have more to do with Personal Preference than with Morality, yet you can’t Seem to Get Off your Focus on Morality Long Enough to Answer what I am Actually Asking. Talking to you Griper, is Sort of Like Pulling Teeth. It’s such a Struggle.

"5. the only question that needs to be answered is, did going to any one of those movies contribute to each of those persons becoming a better person morally?" What is so Wrong with just Relaxing and Enjoying Oneself, Griper? What if the Goal is simply Enjoying Each Others Company and nothing more? Is that really so Wrong? If Absolutely Everything has to be about Learning, you are Going to Totally Exhaust yourself. This Train Of Thought Makes you Come Across more as a Slave Driver than a Friend.

Question 6 is on a Separate Subject than what I was Talking about.

Lista said...

"7. amorality leads to indifference of behavior not tolerance of behavior."

Don’t you see you ARE Defining that Word Differently and thus Talking about a Totally Different Subject then I am. I’m Talking about Morally Neutral Choices. Not all Choices are Morally Neutral only Some of Them. You are Talking about Attitudes. That is an Amoral Attitude, rather than a Tolerant One. That is a Different Subject. That was not what my Questions were about.

Amoral - Neither Moral, nor Immoral. Morally Neutral.

This Can Apply to Specific Decisions, not all Decisions. Just Because a Person Believes that some Decisions are Morally Neutral does not Mean that they are Amoral Over all, nor does it mean that they do not "possess a sense of understanding of morality"

Amoral - Having no Sense of Moral Responsibility.

This is the Definition that you Appear to be Focusing on. That is NOT the Definition that I was Thinking of when I Asked you my Questions. To Adequately Answer someone’s Questions, Griper, you Need to Answer the Questions Asked According to the Definitions Understood by the Person Asking the Questions. Otherwise you are Changing the Subject to Something that has nothing to do with what was Actually Asked. I Used to Think that you were just a Poor Communicator,Griper, yet in Reality, you are a Very Poor Listener as well.

Lista said...

Well, I was going to Send the Above to you a little at a Time, yet since yous Blog is Moving along Rather Quickly, I Guess I don't have the Time to Dali either.

As to the Last of your Comments. It Looks Like you did Finally Get Around to the Key Question that is the Only One that Really Matters to me anyway and that is...

"Is there no such Thing as a Person Preference?"

Under What Circumstances, Griper? What Circumstance do you Think I have Presented? You Mean in Relation to the Movies? The Only Movie Related Circumstance that I can Think of in which a Difference in Preference cannot Lead to Compromise is if you are Limiting your Thoughts to One Particular set of Movies on One Particular Evening.

Couples who are either Dating or Married are not Limited to One Particular set of Movies on One Particular Evening. Since they either are, or should be Spending a lot of Time Together, the Idea of Taking Turns is Not an Unavailable Option. Honestly, Griper. There is a Name for this. It is called Sharing and Most People do Learn about this Concept in Kindergarten.

And Yes, sometimes there is also a Third Option that is Sort of Like a Compromise, for it is Neither Party's First Pick, yet a Movie that Both can Agree on.

It is Hard for me to Comprehend why it would be so Difficult for you to simply say "Yes, Sometimes it is Necessary to Compromise our Wants and Preferences in Order to Share and Allow another to Have some of what they Prefer and Want as well." Why in the World is it so Hard of you to Admit something so Simple that we Teach it in Kindergarten?

The Griper said...

And Yes, sometimes there is also a Third Option that is Sort of Like a Compromise, for it is Neither Party's First Pick, yet a Movie that Both can Agree on.

i would not define this as a compromise decision, lista. it is just a third option. neither party is giving up anything. every decision made is just a personal preference of many options based on a certain criteria.

the bottom line is that you are not seeking compromise, lista but a feeling of being treated as an equal. and you see your definition of compromise as a way of achieving that goal.

Lista said...

Compromise is just a Word, Griper. Just Because you have an Aversion to the Word, doesn't Change the Reality of the World Around you and of how no one should ever Always have their Way at the Expense of someone else.

"neither party is giving up anything."

Yes, they are. She Wanted to see her Most Favorite of all Movies; the One that she has been Wanting to see for Ages, yet he's just not Interested in Seeing it and he has a Favorite as well that she will not Agree to. They are Both Giving Up their Absolute Favorite Picks and Settling for Something Less than their First Pick.

"every decision made is just a personal preference of many options based on a certain criteria."

Exactly and so Many of the Options are Morally Equal, which makes the Decision more about Preference than Morality, so the Only Question Left is Are you going to Make a Sacrifice and Share the Decision with your Partner or are you going to Continually Cram your Own Preferences Down her Throat and Not Allow her to have a Say?

You see, It Amazes me How Long I can Keep Talking to you about this Very Subject and yet you do not Seem to See what I'm Saying. Why? Because you do not Like the Word Compromise.

To not Believe in Equality, though, Griper, in Relation to the Man and the Women is called Chauvinism and you will Find Very Few Women who are Willing to Put Up with it.

Equality is a Good Thing. Chauvinism is not. The Only Reason that you Like the Idea is Because it Favors Men and you are a Man. If you were a Women, Griper, you would Learn Very Quickly to Resent it.

Anger does not Rise Out of a Vacuum, Griper. People are Angry because they have been Hurt. Chauvinism is Selfish, Plan and Simple and if you can not see that, then you are a Fool.

Lista said...

There is Absolutely Nothing Wrong with Seeking Equality, Griper. We all have the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Happiness has a Lot to do with Freedom, Griper, and if Certain Groups, such as, in this Case, Women are Enslaved by their Husbands and are allowed no Say in the Decisions, then this isn't Freedom. To me, this is Slavery, not Happiness.

Personally, Griper, I Think to Believe in Freedom in American, but to not Believe in it in the Home is a Contradiction and a Hypocrisy.

The Griper said...

lista,
i've ascertained your reason for seeking compromise as you define it.

and i have no intention of arguing the value or the consequences of equality with you for it would serve no purpose.

you have your beliefs on it and i have mine.

and if you understood my position on the issue of equality you'd know that the word "chauvinist" as it is perceived does not describe me.

and i do not expect you to change your mind on the issue so treat me as an equal and don't expect me to change my mind.

i've got nothing more to say in this thread.

Lista said...

The Only Reason why I Continue to Argue is Because when done in Public, I Know that there are others besides you who are Listening and Coming to their Own Conclusions on the Matter. Also, when Others Know your True Nature Besides just myself it is Comforting somehow, cause I Know that there are some who Do Understand what I'm Saying.

I Believe that your Philosophy and Principles in Relation to Male/Female Relationships is Actually Destructive to the Female and that what you are Seeking is a Codependent Relationship, not a Healthy One and this is Why, I do not in any Way Apologize for Trying to Persuade you.

When my Girl Friend died and Our Friendship Started Changing Right at the Same Time, I have Struggled and Struggled and for some Reason there was no Closure and this Public Interaction has Helped me to Find Closer to it Somehow.

Inequality has Consequences, Griper, for different People than Equality does. Equality Helps the Weak and Inequality Helps the Strong and People are Going to Favor One Over the Other Depending on How Weak or Strong they are. I Continue to Believe in Compromises Made between the Weak and the Strong.

"and if you understood my position on the issue of equality you'd know that the word 'chauvinist' as it is perceived does not describe me."

Oh yes it does, Griper. I've Never Seen it so Strong in anyone before you.

Followers

Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code

 

Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster