So, apparently Michael has been reading this thread. If you're still reading this, grow up and start acting mature. Don't be so ****ing childish. And DON'T turn MY friends against me. Really now, who do you think they're going to believe?
We broke up, and I honestly couldn't be happier.
Pokemon...hmm. Maybe I should start a game on my Blue cartridge. My brother has the Red and Yellow ones around someplace.
I have new ringtones! Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" and Reel Big Fish's "Sell Out". YAYYYYY.
Oh, and i tried a little of this mixed drink thing last night. It's called "Hot Sex". It's kind of like spiced chocolate milk? best description I've got.
I figured, if nothing else, you guys would get a kick out of the name.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know it seems that I don't care, but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
I guess I'll try to do a Hot Guy of The Week thing if y'all don't mind. I hope I'm doing this right. If not, scold me and kick my ass >_>
Hot Guy of The Week: Michael Urie
He's an actor, director, and producer. He's the actor of the second best character on Ugly Betty. He's Michael Urie.
Born and raised in Texas. He isn't open about his sexuality, and says that he wants to keep it a mystery. I wonder what that means? Hmm... can we turn the 'straight' boy gay? (Or maybe you ladies out there want to turn the 'gay' boy straight?)
Marc dresses up as Betty for halloween, with hilarious results.
He won some stupid high school forensics competition or something. Whatever. Let's just look at his hotness some more.
Marc and 'Willie' scheme to take over MODE magazine
Marc injects the famous 'duck sauce' serum. Our favorite 'seeing eye gay' is going to be in trouble after this one...
Are you In or Out?
Gaymers, ASSEMBLE! Amanda is trying to take our man!
So whether he's negotiating with Betty for that fabulous purse or making fun of renaissance-fair-goers with Amanda, we all love Michael Urie and his roll of Marc on Ugly Betty. A-thank you.
Oddly enough, I feel much worse for her boyfriend right now. Back in March, when I realized that my friendships with them were thinning out, I gave him some parting advice about watching her for signs of deep depression (I've known almost since day one that she was highly depressed and a probable suicide-case). Advice which he quickly discarded because the two of them talked and she's fine now and they're in love and there's no secrets between them and she'd tell him if things were bad, etc. Cut to now, and he's completely blindsided. And I feel bad for him because he was taken in by her lies so all this came as a huge shock and uprooted everything he thought he knew about her.
I would be feeling sympathy for him, too. Though I'm curious - what is it she lied about? Was is just her emotional health, or was it stuff about their relationship as well?
I couldn't really blame someone for hiding depressing - look at how much stigma it garners - but it's difficult, to put it mildly, when a loved one such as a significant other isn't honest with you about their important feelings, even if those feelings don't directly pertain to you. Not to say jarring when you finally find out about it.
Not a good situation to be in, at all.
What matters is getting him in a state to be of use to himself and her. Which isn't the case if he's kicking himself over not seeing the signs or blaming himself for not doing more before this.
Good idea. The best thing to do is to not even involve guilt and shame. Those are probably going to come up along the course of things, and should be dealt with, but assigning blame is going to exacerbate things. He really shouldn't feel guilty for not noticing earlier - for one, if he made a mistake, then he made a mistake, and should just watch not to make it again. Secondly, it's not that hard of a mistake to make. Even if you know someone very well, you can't read their mind - though signs of severe depression can be obvious, a plan to commit suicide is easily unnoticeable. If you have a relationship with a person that is characterized by trust, then you have reason to want to believe that person. So if she assured him she wasn't in danger, I wouldn't be surprised if he began ignoring or missing subtle warning signs. Especially if he wasn't aware what some of those can be - like sudden, inexplicable calm or resolve, speaking of the world like something already but a memory, dropping previous commitments and long-term goals, so on.
She shouldn't feel guilty or ashamed, either. Despair is a powerful thing, we almost all face it, and people deal with it in different ways - whether through fantasy, apathy, indulgence, taking it out on others, or any other kind of sublimation. Suicide is an extreme form, and irreversible if successful, but certainly not the only manner in which people give up. If that's why she tried to kill herself, it's a very serious matter - but reproaching herself is only going to complicate and cloud things. It's right to say she needs to know that she shouldn't try to kill herself, but that won't mean anything if she sees that as the admonishment of an authority, telling her she's been a bad girl. Instead, what is desireable is for her to realize for herself why it's better not to take her own life. It'd be more beneficial to give herself reasons to want to stay alive as opposed to reasons to feel bad about suicide.
There's also the possibility that the attempt was a cry for help or attention. If that's so, it's a different issue, but still a serious one. Generally speaking, as far as I can say, the best thing for a person wanting to help (such as her boyfriend) to do is to give her that attention. Communication can be an overwhelming challenge at times, especially when powerful emotions like desperation are involved. Some people only seem to show their thoughts and feelings through actions, and such people may develop the tendency to act out rather than directly confront others with problems. It's not hard to look down on that, though it's really pretty natural. Confrontations and other open expressions of emotion are not only daunting and exposing, but they are typically discouraged and punished. People aren't supposed to "make a scene."
Of course, "attention" isn't like money - something uniform. Awareness needs to be gained. What requires attention? Why did she try to kill herself? What was she trying to express or accomplish, if anything?
This can be hard, since simply asking about it may not yield answers. She has to be willing to know.
It's more complicated if she always seems to be trying to get attention through harming herself and it never seems to be enough. That'd be a sign of a rigid personality pattern - but, interestingly enough, she still needs attention in some way. If she is manipulative often, then just not playing the game really can be the best response. But ultimately, she needs to be addressed. A professional is definitely something appropriate, though that's already true even if it's just "normal" depression.
I don't know her, and I'm not a professional, so I really couldn't say what she would need either way, except in very general terms. If she has a problem with ploys to manipulate people, she needs to realize she does that and want to change. Nothing else will make much of a difference.
But it might not be that severe, if it's even that. It'd help if she could try developing more direct communication skills and better ways of dealing with strong emotions. Maybe things she normally forbids herself from doing; even outbursts are better than suicide attempts.
And just as important - don't hide things to make others happy. Don't pretend everything is okay to avoid conflict or letting people down, while letting it build up on the inside until you can't hold it anymore.
Mikey, if I had to make a guess from what you've described, I'd probably assume that communication and coping with emotions is a major aspect of her difficulties. It sounds like she might be someone who's ended up isolating herself through her actions, only making her pain and despair worse by cutting off almost all ways she had of dealing with them. In doing so, she would make herself simultaneously helpless and unable to be helped by others. Double-bind; rinse, repeat. Eventually, suicide starts looking like the only sensible solution.
If that is the case, she needs to get out of that. Which certainly isn't easy, because changing behavior isn't easy. And in any case, it'll be a pretty tough road.
I was concerned for her physical well-being (which has since more or less recovered after a few tense days, which is why I can say I'm fine now - medically, she's out of the woods). Her mental well-being is her own problem and I'm not really concerned about it. I made a choice to distance myself from her for my own good, I'm not about to go back on that because she's extra fragile right now. She has a boyfriend for that.
The way you say that makes it seem as though mental health were less of a concern than physical health, which is interesting because it can often be the other way around. But it makes sense in a way, because physical damage is more immediate and other people can help you with that more easily. Emotional problems are something you have to face yourself, and though others can support you and guide you, it's still something you have to be ready and willing to do, and something that takes a lot of time and patience. That's decidedly harder for someone else to be involved in. And since our various emotional hindrances and issues are not only less visible, but very everyday, I feel it's more than understandable for us to view them with less exigency and interest than physical crises.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
I would be feeling sympathy for him, too. Though I'm curious - what is it she lied about? Was is just her emotional health, or was it stuff about their relationship as well?
I'm not sure if she ever misrepresented things about their relationship (that's something I try to stay out of as much as humanly possible), but it's clear now that she most definately was misrepresenting her emotional state. Through my conversation with him in March, I learned that she had told him all about her history and about how screwed up she had been. But she made it sound as though the bulk of her issues were behind her now that she was with him and she promised that she would always communicate things to him if she ever found herself feeling that badly again. Obviously she was hiding her mental state from him and she certainly wasn't communicating anything she felt was really bad.
I should note now that my conversation with him was brought on when I caught wind that she had attempted to jump off a balcony after catching another friend hitting on her boyfriend. She of course backpedaled with him afterwards, telling him that it was only because she was really drunk and she had no idea where that came from. But she knew I'd find out and she also knew that I'd know the difference, so she also told him to expect me to talk to him about her. She told him that I really didn't know her anymore, not like he does, so whatever I said to him would be based on the girl I knew and not the person she is now. Basically, she told him to ignore whatever I said to him because she was trying to preserve her fantasy world. He admitted as much to me this weekend. And he bought it because no matter what I said to him, he refused to listen, told me to trust him because he knew the situation far better than me and that not everything was the way I thought it was.
Even if you know someone very well, you can't read their mind - though signs of severe depression can be obvious, a plan to commit suicide is easily unnoticeable.
Oddly enough, there was no plan from what I've gathered. She just got really drunk, downed a bottle of pills and went to bed like there was nothing wrong. Which would fit her pattern of dramatic outbursts when she's drunk (which started off as shouting matches and got progressively worse over the past year or so).
If you have a relationship with a person that is characterized by trust, then you have reason to want to believe that person. So if she assured him she wasn't in danger, I wouldn't be surprised if he began ignoring or missing subtle warning signs. Especially if he wasn't aware what some of those can be - like sudden, inexplicable calm or resolve, speaking of the world like something already but a memory, dropping previous commitments and long-term goals, so on.
As I said, I don't think there were any signs of her planning it out. But even still, the signs of her distressing mental situation were there, he just didn't take notice of them. Probably from a combination of her placating lies and his own denial.
Instead, what is desireable is for her to realize for herself why it's better not to take her own life. It'd be more beneficial to give herself reasons to want to stay alive as opposed to reasons to feel bad about suicide.
I think consciously she knows she has reasons to live, but in the back of her mind, she's so focused on all the reasons not to live that when she loses sight of the positive she quickly becomes consumed by the negative. Which is a part of the reason I think things only get really bad when she drinks. When she's drunk, she doesn't even see the good and all the crap she bottles up surges to the front of her mind.
Mikey, if I had to make a guess from what you've described, I'd probably assume that communication and coping with emotions is a major aspect of her difficulties. It sounds like she might be someone who's ended up isolating herself through her actions, only making her pain and despair worse by cutting off almost all ways she had of dealing with them.
Pretty much. The only thing you're short of in your assessment is a complete lack of self-worth from years of emotional and physical abuse from her family. Which I would wager is the source of her poor communication and impulse to isolate herself.
The way you say that makes it seem as though mental health were less of a concern than physical health, which is interesting because it can often be the other way around.
I do generally put equal weight on both physical and mental health, but in this case, for my own protection, I was only letting myself focus on the physical. Between her boyfriend and her shrink, her mental health should be covered, so I'm bowing out of that. I had myself on the hook for caring a great deal for her emotional well-being for over five years, and I just can't do it anymore. I made a decision to stop trying to be the one trying to fix her. I failed repeatedly, the best I ever did was give her a chance to help herself and I might've delayed the inevitable by a few years. But it's just not my job anymore. I can't say the urge isn't there, but I know better now.
Heh. The image I get is that of Rachel cutting her credit cards in the first series of Friends. As long as you're happy, good for you!
No, see, he's been reading my posts for weeks [which i give him some credit for, i guess--this place gets crazy with the posting sometimes. :P], and has recently used what I said to try and turn MY friends against me.
Thankfully, they didn't believe him. Or, at least, didn't call me out on it without asking me about it first.
I'm happy, but at the same time....I can't believe he would sink to that level. It kind of hurts. [there, michael, are you happy?]
He wants to be friends again, after being a HUGE ******* to me the past two days. I'm not ready to talk civilly to him yet. I just want to beat the **** out of him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know it seems that I don't care, but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
@Pokémon: My problem with evolving the Espeon was that whenever I came to pick up the DS and want to play it, it was past the daytime interval (after 8 o'clock), and I usually don't play in the mornings before work.
I did finally get it done, as I reminded myself to do it tonight.
For some reason my DS is 12 hours behind and so its night during the day and day at night. *lol* This morning I remembered the "balloon" pokemon and hightailed it to the windworks! Luckily it was still Friday in the world of Pokemon. Meh...I'll be happy when my brother is off of video game punishment. He and I are gonna go to each other's secret base and talk to each other 32 times so we can get Spiritomb.
Azelf still eludes me. I can kill it fairly easily but if I try to catch it it KO's all my pokemon. Yata Lock, my fully evolved penguin guy does good against him though. I've tried confusing it, paralyzing it, and poisoning it. It uses Uproar every other turn so I can't put it to sleep. I refuse to use the Master Ball to catch it. I caught Mespirit in a Poke Ball and I can prolly do the same with Azelf. Grrr!!
I've been having good luck with the GTS. My strategy is to catch a bunch of Pearl-only pokemon and trade them for pokemon I actually want. My dex is coming along well. I've seen 123 pokemon(I got Dialiga's info from Cynthia's granny already) so far and Victory Road and the Elite Four should put me at 150.
Does anyone like my job with the Hot Guy of the Week? You don't have to ignore it, you can just be honest about the quality of it >_> (Although, I will be rembembering names ;))
@pokemon: I wish I had time to play my copy. I need to get Ditto somehow.
edit @mamelon: Wow, your last post was really interesting. You're completely on the target when you say attention isn't like money, because it's not. I have a little problem with needing attention (Dr. Meiring tells me it's because I feel unwanted because of my failure to impress my parents, so I constantly attempt to overwork myself to impress other people, but that's another story.)
A lot of people, including myself, are in a similar situation. They need attention, so they act like total attention-whores. But what does everyone do to attention whores? Ignore them. I just wish someone could come up with an easy way to get out of it, because the 'fault' is sort of spread around everyone. Yeah, maybe the attention whore is being annoying and they should realize they can get attention in other ways and still be happy without being a douche, but if a few more people had just given him/her a compliment as walking by or maybe said something nice about them or something, there wouldn't be a problem. You know what I mean? The 'offender', the attention whore, that is, isn't the only one at fault.
I should note now that my conversation with him was brought on when I caught wind that she had attempted to jump off a balcony after catching another friend hitting on her boyfriend.
her pattern of dramatic outbursts when she's drunk (which started off as shouting matches and got progressively worse over the past year or so).
Pretty much. The only thing you're short of in your assessment is a complete lack of self-worth from years of emotional and physical abuse from her family. Which I would wager is the source of her poor communication and impulse to isolate herself.
These are all very informative pieces of the puzzle. Poor self-esteem, strong and suppressed emotions, and substance abuse are all poweful factors, but there's something else I notice. You say she has a history of being abused by her family? The thing that immediately pops into my mind is not just a self-worth issue, but an attachment issue. We all have different attachments dynamics and styles, with varying degrees of security. If she tends to have insecure attachments (which she appears to, based on the above), that can make things very difficult when it comes to working out complex relationship dynamics, benefitting from social supports, valuation of herself and others, and self-reflection. If she tends to be anxious-ambivalent, a broad kind of attachment style, then she probably feels very uncertain of her relationships with people, is very concerned with keeping people from leaving, and may even have a tendency to look to others to help her problems or bad feelings go away.
Learning good self-valuation and learning to be secure in one's relationships are certainly interconnected.
The drinking problem makes a lot of sense, too. One of the first things that'd help her would be to address her drinking. She probably wouldn't be able to stop right away, but that's why there's a more important aspect to it. I'd say that she, like most people, has a lot of buried emotions, repressed for years that trouble her - most of the time only semi-consciously - and can be agitated and triggered by all kinds of stimuli. Drinking will make that worse - you lose inhibition, coherency, emotions becomes intense, impulse control weakens, etc. But outbursts while drunk will not help her feel any better, because she isn't really aware of them. Getting those kinds of emotions out while sober actually can make one feel better.
I should note now that my conversation with him was brought on when I caught wind that she had attempted to jump off a balcony after catching another friend hitting on her boyfriend. She of course backpedaled with him afterwards, telling him that it was only because she was really drunk and she had no idea where that came from. But she knew I'd find out and she also knew that I'd know the difference, so she also told him to expect me to talk to him about her. She told him that I really didn't know her anymore, not like he does, so whatever I said to him would be based on the girl I knew and not the person she is now. Basically, she told him to ignore whatever I said to him because she was trying to preserve her fantasy world. He admitted as much to me this weekend. And he bought it because no matter what I said to him, he refused to listen, told me to trust him because he knew the situation far better than me and that not everything was the way I thought it was.
My guess would be that she wasn't trying to deceive him, consciously, so much as she really believed what she was saying. She probably thought she didn't really have a problem anymore.
When someone is important to you and you want to have that person in your life, you don't want to go against them. Which is probably why people often excuse abusive spouses or boyfriends/girlfriends, or those who frequently are dishonest or unfaithful, and yet may spurn friends or other family for less serious offenses. Of course he wanted to believe her, as much as she wanted to believe herself.
And of course, it hurts when people put you second like that, and refuse when you offer help.
I think consciously she knows she has reasons to live, but in the back of her mind, she's so focused on all the reasons not to live that when she loses sight of the positive she quickly becomes consumed by the negative. Which is a part of the reason I think things only get really bad when she drinks. When she's drunk, she doesn't even see the good and all the crap she bottles up surges to the front of her mind.
Intellectually, most of us can see why we have cause to live our lives. But emotions have a profound influence on our perception of reality and our behavior. Emotions are very deep, moreso than thoughts, color our thoughts, and aren't completely conscious or voluntary. In many ways, dealing with our emotions is like dealing with a whole other person - we must get to know them, learn how to "communicate" with them, to interact with them harmoniously.
When you feel trapped, overwhelmed, you don't know why things keep going badly, and you feel like you're trying as hard as you can and nothing seems to help, despair grows quickly. It becomes harder and harder to realize that things can get better. Everything seems like it will never change, which is the core of what despair is. When it's strong, reasoning sometimes isn't enough.
Focusing on the positive surely helps, but one also needs to take action. She would need to make tangible changes in the way she lives her life, and of course just become more self-aware in general.
I'm sure it's already obvious, she really should go for professional, therapeutic help, both to deal with immediate issues and to make long-term changes.
I do generally put equal weight on both physical and mental health, but in this case, for my own protection, I was only letting myself focus on the physical. Between her boyfriend and her shrink, her mental health should be covered, so I'm bowing out of that. I had myself on the hook for caring a great deal for her emotional well-being for over five years, and I just can't do it anymore. I made a decision to stop trying to be the one trying to fix her. I failed repeatedly, the best I ever did was give her a chance to help herself and I might've delayed the inevitable by a few years. But it's just not my job anymore. I can't say the urge isn't there, but I know better now.
To be honest, I would say that is the right decision to make. You certainly can't fix her or cure her problems, as she's the only one who can improve herself. It's good to give to others, but there's a limit. You can't let someone take everything, especially as that probably won't even really be a help most of the time, which is most likely in this case if she is needing to learn how to help herself. It's not that cold distance is necessary, but you most definitely do have to think of yourself. And if you feel you need to stay uninvolved and you don't like being drawn into it emotionally, then it's probably best that you do that. You've made it clear that you don't feel either equipped or inclined to do anything about her problem or handle her emotional issues, which is sensible. And despite harsh words we exchanged the last time this topic was under discussion, I respect that.
If this is too personal, let me know, but . . . I had the impression that you were more unsettled by this than you've said so far, at least you had been in the beginning. When you heard she tried to kill herself again, did you feel angry or upset? You really were concerned for her life, weren't you? And she keeps trying to throw it away, as if it didn't matter? As if the feelings of those in her life don't matter? I'd bet you'd resent that, especially if she keeps doing it.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
It goes beyond the practical considerations. There are a number of things, beyond intent even, that contribute to why people commit certain actions and we don't necessarily have cause to suggest that these things are the basis of what Morality is. For example, you could be predisposed to committing certain actions because of your emotional state at the time, or because of things that have happened to you, and so forth. None of these things, intention included, actually change the impact that the action has on people.
Saying that there are other things that influence why you do things does not affect whether it is the case that intention should be the basis of morality. Also, I would say that your emotional state and such affect your intentions, not merely your action.
If you don't intend to hit someone and you're angry, the angriness doesn't just override your intention. It causes you to change your mind and intend to hit the person. Maybe the person regrets it right afterward, but they did not swing their arm simply because they were angry.
It's unclear to me what you are supposing is subjective.
Your statement that we ought to favor your definition because measured values are better than intuitive ones. That is a subjective statement.
If what you mean is that how I choose to define Morality according to a certain objective system over potentially another... ok, yes when we define our terms we make subjective value judgments.
Given:
___ is defined as the quality of actions have when they impact others.
I'm choosing to use the word "morality" to fill in the blank "___" because arguably, Morality has connotations that are appropriate for that definition. Whatever word we decide to fill in ___, we can see that ___ describes things that are objective. It may be that I'm subjectively choosing the word Morality for this phenomenon, as opposed to using the word morality for whatever quality intent may impart upon actions, but the choice of word itself matters not insomuch as the definition itself. ___ is objective, and if you wish to argue the semantics of whether "morality" is the right word for ___, that's one thing, but you aren't successfully making the point that ___ is subjective.
Well, first of all, that depends on what you consider to be the qualities of actions. You also must assign weights to various different outcomes, which is not objective. And the act itself of assigning "moral" or "immoral" to the outcomes is subjective. You might be able to say objectively what the outcomes are, but when you make judgments about them, you're back in subjective territory.
Also, you can't simply assign "Morality" (meaning "objective morality") that definition and then when I try to say that objective morality could be different, respond that that's not the definition of Morality. You need a reason to define it that way because morality has a more basic definition than the one you're trying to put on it. And because you supposedly can objectively evaluate the impact of actions on people does not mean that you can just say "Morality" is objective.
That's not an argument. That's like arguing with a Christian who says that everything in the Bible is true, and when you bring up a counterexample (such as evidence that the Flood did not occur), they say "That's not the definition of truth".
So you are arguing semantics.
Look here - if you have not even heard of the is-ought problem, or merely think it is semantics, I don't see how you even think you have any business arguing about moral philosophy. It is a fundamental problem of modern ethics.
It is semantics, in that, "is" has a meaning, and "ought" has a meaning, and they are different meanings. And so when you say "X is Y", you can't logically conclude that "X ought to be Y". Because they aren't equivalent statements, and you need another normative statement before you can have "X ought to be Y" as a conclusion.
You seem to be saying that you have solved the problem - that you can get objective morality from objective statements about the world. I would be interested to hear your solution, because as far as I know, there is no solution for the problem.
In which case you've just reduced the intent to an action, and therefore a consequence.
Mmmmm... but the basis of the morality is still based on the intentions. Saying I've reduced it to your system is just silly, unless you expect me to argue that thinking is not an action.
No, I'm using psychological terms to describe how an action (stimuli) has an impact (reaction) on individuals which can be observed objectively. Using the definition of morality (or __), we can conclude from our observations that an action has a moral or immoral characteristic based off their impact, discernible from the reaction.
Mmmmm... just saying "or ___" does not get around the fact that it's subjective. We only care about "___" because you are trying to equate it with morality. If it were something else, we wouldn't necessarily care. Morality does not simply mean what you have defined it as, which is why it is problematic to act as if it's a free word that you can just define any way you want.
And the problem is that assigning those impacts "moral" or "immoral" is still subjective.
My statement is actually that "causing harm to others through actions, observable by their reaction, is ___." My conclusion is that we should avoid ___, which is what leaves me to believe ___ is best articulated as "immoral."[emphasis mine]
And there (the bolded section) is where the is-ought problem comes into play. You have no objective basis for that.
Do you deny that when an action has an impact upon a person, the state of that action because of that impact is objectively discernible?
Your phrasing is a bit off here, but yes, I do deny that you can conclude that that action is "moral" or "immoral" objectively.
This scenario could potentially be moral (or immoral). You did not define whether the person was willing, and infringing upon consent is another impact that an action has on person which would tip the balance.
He was not willing. Also, I do not see how infringing on consent is an impact. The consequence is the same regardless of whether he consented - he's dead.
Now it might affect his family and friend's reaction to things. But even if that were so, it would not affect the scenario I proposed, in which their reaction would still be outweighed even if they knew he didn't consent. Also, he could lie about whether he consented, and thus ameliorate their negative reaction.
Also, we don't know the full extent of other possibilities that were available to your patients. Was it possible to obtain other donated organs? Was it possible to treat that person successfully without a transplant? Until these possibilities are exhausted, we can't consider an action
Yes, you can. There are plenty of people who would have no qualms, in fact, I would say most people, would have no qualms with saying that it is immoral to kill someone for their organs (without their consent, but I think that's implied by the statement "kill him for his organs"). I don't see on what basis you could say that you're being objective and they're not, but you seem to think you are.
Well, I would tend to say that the impact that one's actions have upon oneself is always treated as neutral, so stealing a dollar would still be considered immoral.
That's not what you said earlier, when you said that improving yourself is moral (or was it a moral imperative?).
Kantian ethics potentially has an objective basis, but what it describes is different than what I have been describing. Since I've already adopted the word "Morality" for what I am describing, and these two things are incompatible, I would probably have to select a different word to describe Kantian ethics.
The whole point is that you shouldn't adopt the word "Morality" for what you're describing, because it isn't objective morality in the first place!
Really, the whole "I have defined Morality as this, therefore it is this" defense is just lame.
Would you say that if you steal something and you don't know you're strealing, it can't be wrong by any deontological standard?
Well, it depends on the deontological standard. In Kantian ethics, it can't be in itself.
Good intentions often don't mean anything if you're doing something that ends up terribly.
I understand. I'm not arguing that Kantian ethics is true! In fact, my whole point is that there is no objective basis for deciding between Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism and other such systems. So it would be strange if it were the case that I was arguing that Kantian ethics was true.
Well, they don't rely on consequences. But how do you think deontological definitions are made? How do you think certain intentions are judged as good or bad? All moral systems must originate from observations of relationships between actions/beliefs/whatever and what their effects are - even if that eventually stops being the chief criteria for judging goodness or badness.
I do not believe that ethics based on commandments from God have anything to do with intention or consequences. They may try to say that God's commandments are intended to make the world better in some way that isn't obvious to us, but someone promulgating that form of morality doesn't need to make that move.
Ain_Soph and you are very clearly using different definitions about what morality is. I am merely trying to point this out. I'm not defending consequentialist ethics.
Ain Soph has explained that he has simply defined "Morality" as being what he thinks it is, but I don't think morality is one of those words you can just define like that, since it has a more basic definition, and I'm denying that what he has defined as morality can be said to objectively conform to that more basic definition.
I disagree with the definition you're using for deontology. You seem to be saying that deontology, by definition, is an ethos that is predicated on intent, and that's it.
Kantian ethics is pretty much. Deontological ethics are not necessarily based on intent, I agree. I was only saying that it is only necessary for my point that Kantian ethics only rely on intent.
This is just an example, but take part of the categorical imperative: do not treat humans as means rather than ends (value humanity). Actions can be judged as serving that standard, or conflicting with it. That actions do or do not serve that standard, that norm, is not subjective.
It can be the case that given a particular moral system, you can evaluate an action objectively using that system. That is very different from saying that the system objectively is the same as "Morality". You can't say that Kantian ethics is objective, even if within Kantian ethics you can objectively determine whether an action is in accordance with the categorical imperative.
Ain Soph Aur seems to be saying something along those lines - because in what he has described as "Morality", you can objectively evaluate actions (although, I take issue with that as well, given the definition he gave), he can therefore say that what he calls "Morality" is objective. Those are different statements.
As many others have said, it's more utilitarian (that is, practical) to be deontological than to be utilitarian.
Anyone who says that, it would seem, would be a rule Utilitarian.
Just uut of curiosity, Erimir - why do you believe in deontology?
Oy. I've said this before: I'm not primarily deontological in outlook. I don't think I would say that I am purely utilitarian or deontological - but I lean somewhat strongly towards the utilitarian side.
I don't think that my morality is objective, tho. That's the difference between me and Ain Soph Aur.
erimir, you are just the best. Any plans to come to Chicago?
SilveryCord, you did a fine job. He is indeed a cutie. I've added your entry to the front page. Good for you for stepping up! *eyes Micah disapprovingly*
Oh and Jo, if Mikey is still reading this then here's a message from me to the both of you: I don't pretend to know the whole story of your relationship or even whether or not your side of the story is fair or whatever. But I will say that for one reason or another your relationship with him always seemed to be a source of stress, whether you were fighting or whether you were full of anxiety missing him/anticipating seeing him. It seems to me you both are probably better off in the long run without each other, so the best thing to do would be to let this relationship end as gracefully as possible. Trying to punish or hurt one another will just prevent you from getting closure.
Saying that there are other things that influence why you do things does not affect whether it is the case that intention should be the basis of morality. Also, I would say that your emotional state and such affect your intentions, not merely your action.
If you don't intend to hit someone and you're angry, the angriness doesn't just override your intention. It causes you to change your mind and intend to hit the person. Maybe the person regrets it right afterward, but they did not swing their arm simply because they were angry.
The point is that more contributes to why people commit actions than intent, even if those things may feed into intent. Choosing intent over emotions or past experiences is an arbitrary qualifier that, interestingly, doesn't change the action itself. For example, a person who murders someone happily and a person who murders someone angrily seem to have different intents - one is seeking enjoyment, and the other vengeance or something. You can take these intents, apply them to a different situation and outcome, and while they do not change, the consequence does. For example, instead of murdering a person, the person seeking enjoyment could abuse a doll, and the person seeking vengeance could simply wish ill things to happen to the person. Why wouldn't the intents be immoral in that situation if they are in the first? And, for that matter, what is it that differentiates the mental realm of enjoying murdering others and enjoying, say, saving lives? The people commit their action in these situations with intents fully concerned with their own personal outcome - enjoyment. In that sense, the intent is the same between the two, and certainly a lot of people are self-absorbed enough to act with intentions only regarding the self. What makes the intent of pursuing one kind of enjoyment worse than that of another? The consequences.
Further, if intents precede actions, in many cases emotions precede intents. So that angry face-punching individual would never have the intent to punch someone's face unless they were angry. The intent here seems to depend strongly on the preceding emotional state or other mental condition, whereas the emotional state is independent of the intent. Additionally, while it's possible to reduce consequences to two categories (harm and benefit), intentions run the gamut - how do we decide which intentions are to be labeled moral and which immoral in a way that is not arbitrary?
And some people have a genetic predisposition towards being angry or displaying sociopathic behavior. All of their intentions will be colored by an intrinsic part of who they are. How can we describe them as immoral for their intentions if a "normal" person doesn't possess the same predispositions that will influence how they intend to act?
Your statement that we ought to favor your definition because measured values are better than intuitive ones. That is a subjective statement.
Then it's also a subjective statement to say that science better describes reality than superstition - after all, measured values versus intuition. Why should we even define the word "science" to be "a systematic methodology for the collection of knowledge by use of empirical observation" for example? How do we know that the things we observe in scientific experiments ought to be knowledge? What is knowledge, and how do we know that we have it? We trust our senses because they are consistent and give us functionality. We have to assume that the things we are able to observe and repeat using the same methodologies are, ultimately, accurate. And yet this is not a major criticism of science. You could define science as simply "the understanding of the universe" or something, and while this is true of science to an extent, it's too broad. Lot's of things like religion, superstition and other non-empirical methods attempt to understand the universe, but do so in a different way than science. Science must be specified as the philosophical notion that the universe can be understood through empiricism.
In the same way, morality through the consequences of actions operates objectively. If fuzzy part of science is whether we can know from the things we observe then the fuzzy part of morality entails conduct, that is, if we ought not to do something because of the observations of that something resulting in a certain manner. There's always a little bit of subjectivity present in science from the formation of a hypothesis. If I try this, and the result is that, then the relationship of this to that is something. The problem is that how we define something is necessarily linguistic, it's an explanation of the causality between this and that. For example, you could conduct a study of whether earthworms are more prevalent in deciduous or coniferous forests. From the results of the study, if you find more earthworms prevalent in deciduous forests, the reason why is probably because the environment is better for them. But whether an environment is to be considered better is subjective. What, after all, makes an environment better? We can objectively see how there are more earthworms present in one environment, but how do we know that this makes it better? You can try to specify what you mean by "better" by saying it has more nutrients that the earthworms need to support their larger population, and more nutrients are present because deciduous trees shed their leaves seasonally. This isn't devoid of subjectivity. But, overall, the experiment is objective. You observed two different habitats, measured the populations, got empirical results. Your conclusion attempts to explain your results. Any conclusion we make about things will not be objective because the process of coming to a conclusion involves using reason instead of using observation. And how you use the conclusion might be entirely subjective as well. For example, if you subjectively want to create a earthworm rich habitat, you'll choose the habitat that the study shows will support a larger population. How you decide to put the earthworms in one habitat is subjective. Another person might hate earthworms and put them in a coniferous environment so that they don't do as well. But how we use the results of our scientific experiments practically is not related to the objectivity of the scientific experiment. Science only refers to the collection of knowledge, not how the knowledge is used outside of the process of constantly testing things and refining results. Morality, in the same way, refers to what quality actions possess. They possess moral or immoral qualities based on their impacts on others. What ought a person do who wishes explicitly to hurt another? Well, obviously, doing something violent is likely to hurt another person and have a result that the person wished for. The result is immoral, because it hurt someone. I can't, and have not, said that my conclusion that we ought not to harm people is objective, merely that it is based on objective observations. After all, I don't like being hurt, would like for others to avoid hurting me, and feel that my actions should benefit people instead of hurting them. One thing consistent with all people being hurt is that they do not like to be hurt, whatever it is which they would consider harmful to them. Something is either harmful or it is not. It is either true or false that it's bad to harm people. Whether or not we should be good or bad is subjective, just as anything people should do will be based subjectively. You're insisting that morality tells us what we should do, and that's not necessarily the case any more than science is whatever one does to attempt to understand the universe. Morality tells us what things are good and bad, and it's a flawed assumption to say that we should be good or bad, because we don't necessarily know one way or the other. I do think that we should be good, and I've stated such, but I don't think this belief is, in itself, objective. Morality is something that we can use, an objective system by which to decide our actions, if you want to be good. If you want to be bad, it wouldn't make sense to be moral. Your actions, regardless, take on those objective moral qualities independently of what you think you should do.
Well, first of all, that depends on what you consider to be the qualities of actions. You also must assign weights to various different outcomes, which is not objective. And the act itself of assigning "moral" or "immoral" to the outcomes is subjective. You might be able to say objectively what the outcomes are, but when you make judgments about them, you're back in subjective territory.
No where have I suggested making judgments about actions, merely a description of their qualities. In this sense, describing beneficial actions as moral and harmful action as immoral isn't really subjective, although it could be.
Also, assigning weights to actions can be subjective or objective based on what system or standard you use for weighing them. For example, if they're weighed by generation, this weighing system is objective because we can observe how time passes between generations and the impact of one action may be less and less causally related to the results compared to more recent actions, and often between generations the impact of one action is expressed through an action committed by a person impacted in the prior generation, in which case the new action is what is being measured.
Also, you can't simply assign "Morality" (meaning "objective morality") that definition and then when I try to say that objective morality could be different, respond that that's not the definition of Morality. You need a reason to define it that way because morality has a more basic definition than the one you're trying to put on it.
People have, in the past, used the word morality intuitively to describe a number of things. For example, noting that killing people is immoral. I think linguistically when people use the word "immoral" in this instance, they use it because they don't like the outcome of that person's death. The connotation of the word refers to actions and outcomes. In other words, the word and how people understand the word was subjective. Based on, what seems to me, is the most likely intent of the word (to refer to the consequences of actions), I've concluded that the objective definition of morality would most likely refer to an objective system of observing the impact of actions on others. It could be that most people really just meant the intention of killing others was mean or something, but I find this highly unlikely.
And because you supposedly can objectively evaluate the impact of actions on people does not mean that you can just say "Morality" is objective.
I suppose if a definition is unspecified, clarity is needed, yes.
I am speaking of what morality is, that is, how it is manifested and what it means for things to be moral or immoral. You are speaking of the overarching ethical question of whether we should be moral. I do think that we should be moral, obviously, but while my statements may have strongly implied to you that I thought this belief to be objective, I have not said this nor do I think that it is.
That's not an argument. That's like arguing with a Christian who says that everything in the Bible is true, and when you bring up a counterexample (such as evidence that the Flood did not occur), they say "That's not the definition of truth".
I fail to see how you're connecting these two situations.
In that situation, you're showing how the Bible is not true, that is, it makes a claim that, if taken literally, is contrary to evidence. If the evidence is correct, and the Bible is indeed supposed to be taken literally, then we conclude that the Bible is wrong or, at least, that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. If such is the case, then this disproves their statement either that everything in the Bible is true, or that everything in the Bible is literally true. That Christian has made a claim, and your argument made a connection to that claim.
In this situation, I've claimed that the impact of actions can be observed, and that actions either have one kind of impact or the other, and are thus objective. You're arguing in turn that what we should do is subjective. These two points of contention are going in different directions, not making a connection. Neither statement is being disproven or even addressed. "Morality" etymologically refers to conduct, manner or behavior, or the character that one has for displaying such. Conduct, manner and behavior in morality are, at their fundamental basis, determined through the consequences of certain actions. Even in strange moral systems where you have to sacrifice people to your gods - the gods need the sacrifice and, presumably, without the sacrifice greater harm will result. In Christianity, you have to act in a certain way to avoid the consequence of eternal damnation, a sort of "ultimate harm." These systems are convoluted and have lots of assumptions to them that are demonstratably incorrect or, at least, questionable, but what they all have in common is that they care about the consequences of actions (and in the case of Christianity, the consequences of intents, or an "action on your soul"). In the same way, Alchemy was concerned with a lot of things that we now define as Chemistry even though Alchemy made use of a lot of arbitrary methods whereas Chemistry uses an empirical system.
I have not made statements that what we ought to do is objective any more than I would say that natural selection in evolutionary theory is objective. Natural selection seems to be quite intuitively obvious, of course, but it is an explanation for why populations change in size over time. It explains what we can observe objectively. Note that I, and most people knowledgeable in science, do not choose to reject the explanation of evolution because it can't be proven.
Look here - if you have not even heard of the is-ought problem, or merely think it is semantics, I don't see how you even think you have any business arguing about moral philosophy. It is a fundamental problem of modern ethics.
Well, obviously. I'm a little bit amused at this.
The fatal flaw in your argument is that you have assumed that what I meant in saying that morality is objective is that what we ought to do is objective. I have not said this.
I am quite aware of the "is-ought" problem with respect to the modern ethical question of whether we should be moral. This isn't the same thing as what morality, itself, is.
Any objective system gives us raw data: measurements, observations, counting stuff. What we make of these things, the explanations we make of them, and the consideration of what we should do with regard to them, are all subjective or at least, not objective. Insofar as the ethical question of what we ought to do is concerned, we're in that realm. And it's definitely an important question to ask. But morality doesn't necessarily tell us what we ought to do; ethics does. Morality is simply a description of the things that we do.
It is semantics, in that, "is" has a meaning, and "ought" has a meaning, and they are different meanings. And so when you say "X is Y", you can't logically conclude that "X ought to be Y". Because they aren't equivalent statements, and you need another normative statement before you can have "X ought to be Y" as a conclusion.
You seem to be saying that you have solved the problem - that you can get objective morality from objective statements about the world. I would be interested to hear your solution, because as far as I know, there is no solution for the problem.
I believe I've made it quite clear that when speaking of the objectivity of morality, I am speaking of it at the descriptive level, not the prescriptive one.
Although, I suppose, if we contend that there is a G-d which is good, then our purpose in existing entails acting morally, in which case we should be moral. Such a statement would be objective with respect to the given purpose. This is only a theistic assumption, however.
Mmmmm... but the basis of the morality is still based on the intentions. Saying I've reduced it to your system is just silly, unless you expect me to argue that thinking is not an action.
Let's look at what you said (emphasis mine):
"Kantian ethics might say that ignorance, bias and false rationalizations are the result of immoral actions. Your ignorance may be the result of allowing yourself to remain in ignorance, rather than furthering yourself as a rational, autonomous being. Likewise false rationalizations arise from you having a base desire that is the true intention of your action, which you have deceived yourself about. You would not need a false rationalization if your action was of a good intention from the start. As such, your actions can still be immoral even if at first glance you seem to have proper intentions, because those intentions may be at root improper."
You've reduced the "bad intentions" here to previous actions whose consequence was the ignorant or falsely rationalized intention. So, ultimately, an action committed in ignorance is wrong because you did not act prior to lessen your ignorance. It no longer becomes about the intent of the bad action but rather the lack of a good consequence from a prior action.
Mmmmm... just saying "or ___" does not get around the fact that it's subjective. We only care about "___" because you are trying to equate it with morality. If it were something else, we wouldn't necessarily care. Morality does not simply mean what you have defined it as, which is why it is problematic to act as if it's a free word that you can just define any way you want.
Given linguistic connotations, "morality" seems to be the best fit.
And the problem is that assigning those impacts "moral" or "immoral" is still subjective.
Is assigning those impacts as "beneficial" or "harmful" subjective? No.
And there (the bolded section) is where the is-ought problem comes into play. You have no objective basis for that.
Nor have I said I did.
Your phrasing is a bit off here, but yes, I do deny that you can conclude that that action is "moral" or "immoral" objectively.
No, the phrasing is not off, which is what you seem to not get.
He was not willing. Also, I do not see how infringing on consent is an impact. The consequence is the same regardless of whether he consented - he's dead.
The ultimate consequence of his death consisted of a series of actions and interactions which would have had to occur in order to lead to his death. The first was infringing upon his consent - doing this in any manner will be immoral, and the immorality will increase with the manner in which the consent is breached. Further, if he was harmed during the struggle before his death, this would contribute to the immorality. And if the people told him that he didn't matter as you specified, the harm caused by this would also be immoral. You see, while the ultimate consequence was his death, there were a series of minor consequences prior to that event which contributed to the overall morality.
This is where we get out idea of being "humane" from. You could knock him on the back of the head and dissect him while he was still unconscious, and this might reduce the immorality, although I suspect it would remain immoral.
Further, if the other six patients were complicit with the action, this would increase the immorality.
Finally, I do think that you've actually combined two actions into one: the killing of one person, and the saving of the lives of six other people. The actions are related, obviously, but since there's a number of steps that have to be taken to connect "one person dies" to "six people live" I think that the morality of the two situations must be discerned separately.
Now it might affect his family and friend's reaction to things. But even if that were so, it would not affect the scenario I proposed, in which their reaction would still be outweighed even if they knew he didn't consent. Also, he could lie about whether he consented, and thus ameliorate their negative reaction.
Well, most people do not truly wish to die, so in some sense it's pretty impossible to truthfully consent to sacrificing your life. You might do it anyway, which this person does in lying. In fact, if he does lie as such, how does the person who killed him know he did not consent?
Yes, you can. There are plenty of people who would have no qualms, in fact, I would say most people, would have no qualms with saying that it is immoral to kill someone for their organs (without their consent, but I think that's implied by the statement "kill him for his organs"). I don't see on what basis you could say that you're being objective and they're not, but you seem to think you are.
I'd agree that without consent, it would be immoral to do so unless it saved enough lives to render the lack of consent insignificant.
But I do think you're missing the point in not addressing other possible solutions to your problem. If the organs can be donated by some other manner or the people can be treated without a transplant, then unless these possibilities are exhausted, the possibility of simply having someone killed isn't one that wont be immoral. It's always better to choose an action that will lead to the greater mutual benefit of everyone. For example, if you were forced to fight two people, and if you choose one, the conditions of the fight would be satisfied if you punched him in the face, whereas the conditions of the other entailed killing your opponent, it's better to choose the former. Harm is still caused, of course, in the act of face punching, but much less harm that killing another person which is prevented.
That's not what you said earlier, when you said that improving yourself is moral (or was it a moral imperative?).
Is acquiring possessions a form of self improvement? I don't think so.
When I speak of self improvement, I speak of character, that is, cultivating a personality prone to committing moral acts. I do think this is a moral imperative.
The whole point is that you shouldn't adopt the word "Morality" for what you're describing, because it isn't objective morality in the first place!
Really, the whole "I have defined Morality as this, therefore it is this" defense is just lame.
Oy. I've said this before: I'm not primarily deontological in outlook. I don't think I would say that I am purely utilitarian or deontological - but I lean somewhat strongly towards the utilitarian side.
Oh, I'm aware of that. I didn't mean to say you were primarily deontological in outlook, I asked why you believed in its merits at all (I asked that because what you said earlier made it seem like you thought it had at least some merits). I did this to point out how a system can have a merit not dependent on its own internal definitions - and how a system can have observable pragmatic value even if the system itself isn't predicated on achieving observable pragmatic value.
I do not believe that ethics based on commandments from God have anything to do with intention or consequences. They may try to say that God's commandments are intended to make the world better in some way that isn't obvious to us, but someone promulgating that form of morality doesn't need to make that move.
That's a good point. Authoritarian morality, generally, doesn't really seem to be reasoned in that way. I suppose I was referring more to moral systems that try to be coherent and reasonable - and even with authoritarian morality, there's still a goal being served. Presumably, it's gaining favor with the authority (most of the time). Following such commandments may or may not yield good altogether, but they do yield "good" according to that paradigm in that obedience of the authority leads to being further approved by the authority.
But yes, that's somewhat different.
Ain Soph has explained that he has simply defined "Morality" as being what he thinks it is, but I don't think morality is one of those words you can just define like that, since it has a more basic definition, and I'm denying that what he has defined as morality can be said to objectively conform to that more basic definition.
Frankly, I agree more with you. I tend to feel, probably like you, that the existence of an objective morality doesn't exactly matter because we can't verify it anyway.
I just don't want to dismiss Ain Soph's point. I guess because I'm trying to understand it better from an intellectual point of view.
Kantian ethics is pretty much. Deontological ethics are not necessarily based on intent, I agree. I was only saying that it is only necessary for my point that Kantian ethics only rely on intent.
I understand. You were trying to show how a moral system defined by intent isn't affected by the existence of non-existence of positive results, etc.
It can be the case that given a particular moral system, you can evaluate an action objectively using that system. That is very different from saying that the system objectively is the same as "Morality". You can't say that Kantian ethics is objective, even if within Kantian ethics you can objectively determine whether an action is in accordance with the categorical imperative.
Right, exactly. That's what I sometimes call "the breakdown."
Anyone who says that, it would seem, would be a rule Utilitarian.
Well, not necessarily. I think it's mean to kind of poke fun at utilitarianism. If consequential ethics are supposed to be the closest to objective and are supposed to be more desireable to follow, the idea would be that consequentialist systems fail at this goal. I don't think one has to be a rule utilitarian to simply make that observation.
I don't think it's exactly the same, but one of the reasons I'm against pure utilitarianism is because only watching consequences can lead to the devaluation of actions and attitudes I think are immoral - that is, I think a system that is less focused on consequences is better to have (in other words, it'd be more functional to follow one less focused on consequences, in the way I described a moral system being function in my last post.)
I'm not purely deontological either, though I am necessarily at least a little bit deontological in outlook since I think things can be wrong even with their consequences notwithstanding. And I do care about consequences because I am concerned with the good of people.
Quote from Leilani »
Why do I want to? Because I realize I can't be this uptight ******* about it forever. I gotta learn to live a little. That, and i'm curious as to how some of it tastes. I know for a fact that beer is disgusting.
Yeah, I think I get that. I bet you were feeling like you were restraining yourself. The fact that you described yourself as having been uptight speaks of that.
And you're right. It's good to get some exposure to it eventually. Just be aware that since you've never done it before, it can be easy to go the complete opposite way you had before - no restraint at all - at least for a while.
I know that I feel a lot more comfortable with alcohol now that I've given it a try and seen what's to like and not like about it. I don't feel like I'm scared of drinking anymore, if you know what I mean.
As for you and Michael, I hope it smoothes out. If he's been acting harshly or irritably, or tried to stir up conflict around you, it's not right and it's not fair, but I can understand why he'd do that. Break-ups can be crazy hard sometimes, even if it's what the couple needs or what they mutually decided on. And maybe he still wants to be involved with you and your life somehow, even if he doesn't feel that way consciously, and even if that is in a way now characterized by anger or resentment. When my boyfriend and I broke up, it seemed like he kept trying to find ways to creep back into my life, even though he kept saying that he was no longer interested in me at all. Letting go is a process, and not a simple one, even if it's something you want.
I'm not going to Ohio at all. Mikey told me he didn't want me there. Fine. I didn't want to go in the first place.
I'm sorry. I know you felt badly about not being able to see his family anymore, on top of everything else.
Quote from Kraj »
Oh and Jo, if Mikey is still reading this then here's a message from me to the both of you: I don't pretend to know the whole story of your relationship or even whether or not your side of the story is fair or whatever. But I will say that for one reason or another your relationship with him always seemed to be a source of stress, whether you were fighting or whether you were full of anxiety missing him/anticipating seeing him. It seems to me you both are probably better off in the long run without each other, so the best thing to do would be to let this relationship end as gracefully as possible. Trying to punish or hurt one another will just prevent you from getting closure.
I second that. It seems like your relationship had some complicated terms, taking into account the distance and the stage of life you're both in. It's not a bad thing to be especially connected to another person or to have much of your identity folded in with them, but at times it's not a good thing, either.
Being alone can be a pain, especially when you just want to be close with someone, but whatever is the case, being alone can be really good for you. Learning to live without being so close to someone, having time to focus on yourself, to deal with your own problems, and to come to better understand relationships in general . . . these are all very valuable things.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Eh, closure...i don't need it this time. I'm fine. I'm strong, I'm independent, and I'm happy.
Well, until about an hour and a half ago. But we'll get to that in a minute, hokay?
I have this bag of Skittles, that is "Carnival" flavored..some limited edition? It's got....Cotton Candy, Candy Apple, Bubble Gum, Green Slushie, and Red Licorice as flavors. Quite tasty.
Also! My dad ordered a bunch of dirt and gravel....because where i park at my house, it's not paved...just dirt and gravel. but the thing has kind of sunken....so when it rains, i park in a puddle. Having a new parking space makes me happy!
hokay, onto why i'm not quite as happy.
I had friends over tonight, whatever. Friend Peter [who you may or may not remember] came over...he's having a rough couple days. He kind of left in a hurry halfway through the night, because he had a breakdown and didn't want anyone to see. he talked to Molly on the phone, whatever. later on, i called him to make sure he was okay, and to try and coax him into coming back here for a while.
he does, after me begging and pleading for a few minutes. he shows up, plays guitar and talks and watches star wars, no big deal. Gets up to leave, because he has work in the morning [ugh, haha]. I walk upstairs with him, to walk him out and say goodbye and whatnot.
He goes "Wait, before I go, we need to have a talk quick." Okay, maybe he just needs to vent, right? Wrong! he's so...nervous, i guess would be the word....at first, that i seriously thought he was going to kiss me. He didn't, but our conversation was similar to:
Peter: I get the impression you still like me.
Me: Sweetheart, that's never really changed. I've liked you since sophomore year.
Peter: Well...I...I don't mean to be a jerk or anything, but I don't think I like you the same way back.
Me: That's fine, I understand.
Peter: you don't hate me, then? I don't want you to hate me.
Me: No, I don't hate you. I understand.
Peter: Well, I mean, we can still be cuddly and stuff. I just want you to know that I don't like you the same way you like me.
and then I got a Peter-Hug [which are RARE, he hardly ever hugs people], and he promised to call me after he gets off work tomorrow, so we can do something together, just the two of us.
I just don't know what to think. I do still like him, it's never changed. never. i always figured he didn't like me back, and i was always okay with it. It'd be nice if he DID like me back, but I can't make him, you know?
ah well. I think it confuses me because to me, this came way out of left field, and i wasn't expecting it at all.
We'll see what tomorrow brings, I guess. I really miss cuddling with him, and talking. but yeah.
I'm just glad I have him back as a friend, really.
aaannnddd now i'm probably going to go sleep, i'm quite tired. randomly. i've only been up for like, 13 hours, haha.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know it seems that I don't care, but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
Well I don't blame you for being bummed about it, but at least he had the nerve to talk to you about it rather than be silently uncomfortable with you all the time or avoiding you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
These are all very informative pieces of the puzzle. Poor self-esteem, strong and suppressed emotions, and substance abuse are all poweful factors, but there's something else I notice. You say she has a history of being abused by her family?
Yeah. She grew up in a foster family (a fact which wasn't revealed to her until she was twenty) of nine where for whatever reason she was made to do all the cooking and cleaning ... for everyone. We're talking breakfast for eleven people every morning, supper for them all at night, all the dishes, cleaning the house, making everyone's beds, you name it. Basically, she was Cinderella and that's no exaggeration. But on top of that, her mother was very conservative and strict and constantly told her she was an ugly whore (even going as far as to cut off all her hair and take away all of her clothes that weren't baggy sweaters and jeans). Her father was physically abusive though I'm not sure to what extent. I do know that he hit her once with a plank of wood with bent nails in it because she told me the story after I found the scars.
At the age of 21, her curfew was still 11pm on weekends (10pm on weekdays) and that's when I finally convinced her to move out and live with me and my family. And the day we moved her out was horrific. The entire time her mother screamed at her for being and ungrateful little *****, her father physically threw me out of the house and she wasn't given the chance to get any of her things. She was told that if she wanted to go so bad, she was going to go without any of the things their money afforded her. So we left everything behind. Her clothes, her guitar, her journals from the previous ten years, stuffed animals, photos, everything. As we were leaving, her parents reemerged on the step, thowing some of her things (lipgloss, and that sort of thing) at my car. So I can't even say that she could be lying about her home life, because I've seen it when it's bad.
My guess would be that she wasn't trying to deceive him, consciously, so much as she really believed what she was saying. She probably thought she didn't really have a problem anymore.
I'm not so convinced. I thinking she was lying to both him and herself because she desperately wanted the lie to be true. I think she thought that if she lived the lie long enough, that's what life would eventually be.
To be honest, I would say that is the right decision to make. You certainly can't fix her or cure her problems, as she's the only one who can improve herself. It's good to give to others, but there's a limit. You can't let someone take everything, especially as that probably won't even really be a help most of the time, which is most likely in this case if she is needing to learn how to help herself. It's not that cold distance is necessary, but you most definitely do have to think of yourself. And if you feel you need to stay uninvolved and you don't like being drawn into it emotionally, then it's probably best that you do that. You've made it clear that you don't feel either equipped or inclined to do anything about her problem or handle her emotional issues, which is sensible. And despite harsh words we exchanged the last time this topic was under discussion, I respect that.
Thank you.
If this is too personal, let me know, but . . . I had the impression that you were more unsettled by this than you've said so far, at least you had been in the beginning.
If anything were too personal, I'd let you know, but generally I'm willing to answer any questions people have. And yeah, I was unsettled in the beginning, but I recover quickly. Especially when the situation requires me to pull myself together and act.
When you heard she tried to kill herself again, did you feel angry or upset?
I felt a lot of things, but the one thing that won out was anger. Anger mostly at myself for being right. I wanted so badly to be wrong this time, largely because were that the case, that would mean I did something right over the past five years. So I guess the runner-up feeling was failure. Neither emotion lasted long, but they were the big ones once I heard what had happened.
You really were concerned for her life, weren't you?
Of course I was, for a variety of reasons.
And she keeps trying to throw it away, as if it didn't matter?
Yeah.
As if the feelings of those in her life don't matter?
Sure. But I don't think she always feels this way. It's just that when things get too deep she can't see anything else but her own bull****.
I'd bet you'd resent that, especially if she keeps doing it.
You're damn right I would. It would be a spit in my face for everything I ever did for her. I don't do altruistic things very often and when I do, I'd like to think my efforts aren't for nothing.
Quote from SilveryCord »
Does anyone like my job with the Hot Guy of the Week? You don't have to ignore it, you can just be honest about the quality of it >_>
You did a good job. The guy's just not my type. Too fey. There's a flamer and then there's a salmon blazer over a navy blue vest, light blue shirt and black pinstripe pants with hair befitting an 80's glam pop singer.
A lot of people, including myself, are in a similar situation. They need attention, so they act like total attention-whores. But what does everyone do to attention whores? Ignore them. I just wish someone could come up with an easy way to get out of it, because the 'fault' is sort of spread around everyone. Yeah, maybe the attention whore is being annoying and they should realize they can get attention in other ways and still be happy without being a douche, but if a few more people had just given him/her a compliment as walking by or maybe said something nice about them or something, there wouldn't be a problem. You know what I mean? The 'offender', the attention whore, that is, isn't the only one at fault.
Wait, so I can't roll my eyes at attention-whores anymore because I forced them to be that way because I ignore their ploys for attention? That's whacked. People should take responsibility for how they act and make an effort to change, not spread the blame around.
Well I don't blame you for being bummed about it, but at least he had the nerve to talk to you about it rather than be silently uncomfortable with you all the time or avoiding you.
Yeah, that's true. I understand and everything, i can't make him like me. I've accepted the fact a long time ago that he doesn't like me and probably never will.
i guess it's kind of nice to actually hear him say it, but also i feel like that means he'll never like me.
I dunno. I'm fine with the whole thing now, it was just ...confusion because it came out of NOWHERE, and i wasn't expecting it. haha.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know it seems that I don't care, but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
Wait, so I can't roll my eyes at attention-whores anymore because I forced them to be that way because I ignore their ploys for attention? That's whacked. People should take responsibility for how they act and make an effort to change, not spread the blame around.
I have to agree with you. I imagine it's not pleasant to fill like you're worthless to other people, but other people aren't necessarily responsible for your self-image and perception. And they're definitely not responsible for your actions.
I imagine the equivalent might be excusing a bully on the basis that his parents are abusive. Yeah, abusive parents suck, but it's still wrong to take it out on other kids who didn't do anything to you. In the same way, I don't think electing to not pay a person a compliment or whatever counts as a personal affront on them worthy of making you fling yourself at their feet and beg for attention.
Also, I suspect that the kind of people who are most likely to get compliments and positive attention are those who, in turn, give it and are not so self-absorbed with their own needs.
Quote from sentimentGX4 »
i believe that it is poor people's own fault for being poor
I have to agree with you. I imagine it's not pleasant to fill like you're worthless to other people, but other people aren't necessarily responsible for your self-image and perception. And they're definitely not responsible for your actions.
I'm not really prone to giving people compliments even when they're warranted, let alone when the person is just fishing for validation. So I'm a bit put off by anyone indicating that a lack of said compliments are partially why some people behave this way. I've probably created a hundred monsters in high school alone.
Seriously though, I'm always a bit skeptical when it's said that people are even somewhat responsible for the actions of others. It's just not the case except for very rare circumstances.
You hate this guy, don't you?
I guess I can't blame you.
I don't hate him at all, though I get asked that alot. I just enjoy watching his comments hang him. Which happens often considering some of the wild comments he makes. I kinda think he's a down-low gimmick troll. *shrug*
I'm not really prone to giving people compliments even when they're warranted, let alone when the person is just fishing for validation. So I'm a bit put off by anyone indicating that a lack of said compliments are partially why some people behave this way. I've probably created a hundred monsters in high school alone.
Seriously though, I'm always a bit skeptical when it's said that people are even somewhat responsible for the actions of others. It's just not the case except for very rare circumstances.
I am very sparring with the giving of compliments. I feel that if I give someone a compliment, they should know that I mean it and that it's special; not something that I'd just throw to anyone... especially if I perceived that they already felt they deserved it and expected such.
I think most people don't tend to compliment people on a whim. I always find it awkward when people give me one, and I give them awkwardly sometimes.
I do suspect that those who give the most compliments and attention receive the most. There are a few people I've known who have shown kindness to everyone, and that, I think, is what earns you the most respect with people.
I don't hate him at all, though I get asked that alot. I just enjoy watching his comments hang him. Which happens often considering some of the wild comments he makes. I kinda think he's a down-low gimmick troll. *shrug*
I've definitely seen a few less than well thought-out comments from him.
It's interesting how, as a troll, he would tie into this discussion. The obnoxious internet troll: if you attack him, it fuels him; if you ignore him, his efforts to draw attention grow greater and more elaborate until he has destroyed the entire internet community which is dear to you beyond repair. At least, for communities of a smaller scale. Larger ones such as this simply seem to have a constant trickle of stupid comments, saturated with a mostly empty and non-nutritious mantle of posts, with only a few gems between them.
The only thing that seems to be able to be done is to tolerate it. Blah.
Well, I also came to realize that the meeting place was incredibly impractical to get to. The Tube line splits into two before the stop, so I'd have had to have gone into town, reached the stop, and then gone back out to a certain point, and then gone back in to do some shopping. Also, as I said, ZeroG made me question why exactly I was going, and what I expected to get out of it if I wasn't sure I'd like anyone and I wasn't going to get a boyfriend or... erm... "f***buddy".
Do you need a reason outside of being curious?
I'm not sure I understand this shunning of exposure to new experiences for lack of a personal gain. They can be good for you even if you don't immediately get anything out of it, such as a boyfriend. Which you've stated not even wanting yet.
If it's an issue of having disdain for "segregation," then I suppose no group of people might congregate on the basis of any shared quality or characteristic. We can't, after all, segregate chess players from the rest of society. At the very least, you'd be going to a community that is likely to share a number of your interests and be able to commiserate with your experiences, and that can be a relieving thing. At the worst, you'll encounter a nigh orgy pit of depravity and superficiality.
At the moment, that's all I can reason. Perhaps tomorrow morning I'll be able to defend my actions without feeling that I'm simply making excuses and that my actions had little merit.
Perhaps I'm just really not that sociable.
Well, it's ok to do whatever you choose - I think it's important that what you do is your own choice, which is why I feel kind of weird about others discouraging you. Do what you want, seriously.
I'm not very sociable, either, so I understand the allure of just keeping to yourself and not putting yourself in a vulnerable situation.
I'm looking over the FCC thread and kicking myself for not entering. I recently came up with this keyword which is perfect for the phoenix archetype. Too bad I can't find any good images. The point of this? We often regret that which we do not try!
Well, after what seemed to be an eternity of saving, I finally did it. I bought a car. And not just any car; I got a Pontiac Aztek because why get a compact when a rugged sport utility vehicle is the same price, am I right? Actually, I as planning ahead for when I take my long drive across Canada. I wanted something roomy (so I can sleep in it and still take my belongings) and comfortable to drive for a long time in. And my Aztek is certainly that. I cannot wait to get back on the road. The next time I get a couple days off in a row, I'm taking off to parts unknown, just to take it for a long spin.
I have to agree with you. I imagine it's not pleasant to fill like you're worthless to other people, but other people aren't necessarily responsible for your self-image and perception. And they're definitely not responsible for your actions.
Oh no, I definitely don't want to come off as saying that AWs are that way because 'society has been so horrible to them! sniffle!'. I'm just saying that there's a much larger tendancy to leave an AW out to dry and not empathize with them at all in comparison to people with other problems. In my perception thus far, self-esteem issues have been glossed over much more than other kinds of issues.
I imagine the equivalent might be excusing a bully on the basis that his parents are abusive. Yeah, abusive parents suck, but it's still wrong to take it out on other kids who didn't do anything to you.
But I imagine a teacher or anyone else would feel that the situation required outside help and would try and stop the problem at its source; probably with a discussion with the parents or something. If it's very bad, the child needs to be removed from that parental environment.
People need to stop taking the view of, "You know what? If the AW tried hard enough, he or she could stop acting the way she does and could easily have better self-image!"
In fact, ignoring anyone's personal views, which do you think you would hear more of from the general public? "A bully should just get over it, he could try very hard to get over the pain caused by his parents and then he wouldn't cause any problems." or "An AW should just get over it, he could try very hard to improve her self-image and she'd stop acting so AW-y and would be a lot less annoying to be around."
I know I personally hear the latter much more.
In the same way, I don't think electing to not pay a person a compliment or whatever counts as a personal affront on them worthy of making you fling yourself at their feet and beg for attention.
hm. Again, not trying to be OVERLY patronizing of AWing, but, I mean, the question shouldn't be "Why should I help?" it should be, "Why shouldn't I help?" (Although here I'm painting with a very wide brush. There are infinite different levels of problems and attitudes and situations, so it's pointless for me to prescribe advice like "Help out!" because sometimes it ISN'T worth it, but I digress...) Usually it doesn't take that much effort to help someone's self confidence.
Also, I suspect that the kind of people who are most likely to get compliments and positive attention are those who, in turn, give it and are not so self-absorbed with their own needs.
True.
We're getting into the problem with defining what we're talking about. I imagine we've all had different experiences with AWs, and different levels of AW-dom, so it's confusing to put this into context.
Now, okay, if I'm putting words into anyone's mouth or I'm getting off track or anything, it's a side effect of me not fully reading every post on this thread. Sort of. I'd rather just move on from this line of discussion. It seems I'm very bad at connecting dots in this kind of conversational mode, you know? It's just an awkward medium for me to produce a complete argumentative thought in.
*sigh*. Anywho. Not my greatest piece of writing ever. (AW = Attention Whore)
Oh no, I definitely don't want to come off as saying that AWs are that way because 'society has been so horrible to them! sniffle!'. I'm just saying that there's a much larger tendancy to leave an AW out to dry and not empathize with them at all in comparison to people with other problems. In my perception thus far, self-esteem issues have been glossed over much more than other kinds of issues.
I think leaving them out to dry is probably good for them, however.
Think of it like this situation. Let's say you have a kid, you're in a store, and the kid really wants this toy. You're not going to get it for him, and he throws a temper tantrum, embarrassing you in public. Now, most people deal with this in one of two ways: appease the child by buying the toy, or punish the child (or threaten to do so). Appeasing the child only makes him learn that it works to throw a tantrum. Punishing him, similarly, tends to not be effective. The best thing to do is to ignore the child, and possibly even walk away for some distance, and you'll notice the child will probably stop crying.
There's a fourth thing that you can do, which is also particularly effective but somewhat cruel. You could act as though you were buying the toy for them, appeasing them at first, and then unexpectedly pay a visit to one of their friends' house upon which you announce that you child has suggested that you give the toy to their friend.
The way that people treat attention-seekers breaks down in much the same way. Punishing them by deliberately attacking their low self-esteem will cause it to go lower and worsen the problem. Giving them the attention that they want will reinforce the behavior. Tricking them might make them resent you for life. The only healthy thing to do is to ignore it, and if everyone does so, you eventually get over it. It's not a kind way of life, unfortunately, but we'd all be pansies if we grew up without a few knocks along the way.
But I imagine a teacher or anyone else would feel that the situation required outside help and would try and stop the problem at its source; probably with a discussion with the parents or something. If it's very bad, the child needs to be removed from that parental environment.
People need to stop taking the view of, "You know what? If the AW tried hard enough, he or she could stop acting the way she does and could easily have better self-image!"
I agree the bully's personal environment does need to be addressed, but you still wouldn't put the blame on his victims. They're simply the subjects of his displacement defense mechanism. I was mostly disagreeing with the idea that we can put any sort of blame on those who don't give attention to the attention-starved.
The correct way of dealing with a bully's aggressiveness is to get to the source and stop the problem. And provide a little bit of discipline; kids often need that. It wouldn't be correct to, for example, compliment the bully on his strength in beating some smaller kid up - that will only boost his ego and take pride in hurting others. In the same way, I think those who dramatically seek attention need to have good behaviors emphasized instead of the bad ones. Encouraging moderate, calm behavior by being sociable with a person when they aren't trying to get attention is a good way to do this.
In fact, ignoring anyone's personal views, which do you think you would hear more of from the general public? "A bully should just get over it, he could try very hard to get over the pain caused by his parents and then he wouldn't cause any problems." or "An AW should just get over it, he could try very hard to improve her self-image and she'd stop acting so AW-y and would be a lot less annoying to be around."
I know I personally hear the latter much more.
Well, I'm not suggesting either should "just get over it," simply that reinforcing their bad manners is not going to make the problem go away.
hm. Again, not trying to be OVERLY patronizing of AWing, but, I mean, the question shouldn't be "Why should I help?" it should be, "Why shouldn't I help?" (Although here I'm painting with a very wide brush. There are infinite different levels of problems and attitudes and situations, so it's pointless for me to prescribe advice like "Help out!" because sometimes it ISN'T worth it, but I digress...) Usually it doesn't take that much effort to help someone's self confidence.
Well, we are talking about giving compliments. Giving a compliment that you don't mean is insincere and unhelpful, and I don't think you can just force people to give out compliments. It's something that most people, I think, do on a whim, and not terribly frequently. I don't think you can blame people for that.
True.
We're getting into the problem with defining what we're talking about. I imagine we've all had different experiences with AWs, and different levels of AW-dom, so it's confusing to put this into context.
Now, okay, if I'm putting words into anyone's mouth or I'm getting off track or anything, it's a side effect of me not fully reading every post on this thread. Sort of. I'd rather just move on from this line of discussion. It seems I'm very bad at connecting dots in this kind of conversational mode, you know? It's just an awkward medium for me to produce a complete argumentative thought in.
*sigh*. Anywho. Not my greatest piece of writing ever. (AW = Attention Whore)
Hmm.
I think a lot of it is probably because you are young. When we're adolescents, stuff like this seems a lot more important. I think it's mostly a relief to grow older and realize you don't care about any of it anymore, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We broke up, and I honestly couldn't be happier.
Pokemon...hmm. Maybe I should start a game on my Blue cartridge. My brother has the Red and Yellow ones around someplace.
I have new ringtones! Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" and Reel Big Fish's "Sell Out". YAYYYYY.
Oh, and i tried a little of this mixed drink thing last night. It's called "Hot Sex". It's kind of like spiced chocolate milk? best description I've got.
I figured, if nothing else, you guys would get a kick out of the name.
I know it seems that I don't care,
but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
He's an actor, director, and producer. He's the actor of the second best character on Ugly Betty. He's Michael Urie.
Born and raised in Texas. He isn't open about his sexuality, and says that he wants to keep it a mystery. I wonder what that means? Hmm... can we turn the 'straight' boy gay? (Or maybe you ladies out there want to turn the 'gay' boy straight?)
He won some stupid high school forensics competition or something. Whatever. Let's just look at his hotness some more.
So whether he's negotiating with Betty for that fabulous purse or making fun of renaissance-fair-goers with Amanda, we all love Michael Urie and his roll of Marc on Ugly Betty. A-thank you.
I couldn't really blame someone for hiding depressing - look at how much stigma it garners - but it's difficult, to put it mildly, when a loved one such as a significant other isn't honest with you about their important feelings, even if those feelings don't directly pertain to you. Not to say jarring when you finally find out about it.
Not a good situation to be in, at all.
Good idea. The best thing to do is to not even involve guilt and shame. Those are probably going to come up along the course of things, and should be dealt with, but assigning blame is going to exacerbate things. He really shouldn't feel guilty for not noticing earlier - for one, if he made a mistake, then he made a mistake, and should just watch not to make it again. Secondly, it's not that hard of a mistake to make. Even if you know someone very well, you can't read their mind - though signs of severe depression can be obvious, a plan to commit suicide is easily unnoticeable. If you have a relationship with a person that is characterized by trust, then you have reason to want to believe that person. So if she assured him she wasn't in danger, I wouldn't be surprised if he began ignoring or missing subtle warning signs. Especially if he wasn't aware what some of those can be - like sudden, inexplicable calm or resolve, speaking of the world like something already but a memory, dropping previous commitments and long-term goals, so on.
She shouldn't feel guilty or ashamed, either. Despair is a powerful thing, we almost all face it, and people deal with it in different ways - whether through fantasy, apathy, indulgence, taking it out on others, or any other kind of sublimation. Suicide is an extreme form, and irreversible if successful, but certainly not the only manner in which people give up. If that's why she tried to kill herself, it's a very serious matter - but reproaching herself is only going to complicate and cloud things. It's right to say she needs to know that she shouldn't try to kill herself, but that won't mean anything if she sees that as the admonishment of an authority, telling her she's been a bad girl. Instead, what is desireable is for her to realize for herself why it's better not to take her own life. It'd be more beneficial to give herself reasons to want to stay alive as opposed to reasons to feel bad about suicide.
There's also the possibility that the attempt was a cry for help or attention. If that's so, it's a different issue, but still a serious one. Generally speaking, as far as I can say, the best thing for a person wanting to help (such as her boyfriend) to do is to give her that attention. Communication can be an overwhelming challenge at times, especially when powerful emotions like desperation are involved. Some people only seem to show their thoughts and feelings through actions, and such people may develop the tendency to act out rather than directly confront others with problems. It's not hard to look down on that, though it's really pretty natural. Confrontations and other open expressions of emotion are not only daunting and exposing, but they are typically discouraged and punished. People aren't supposed to "make a scene."
Of course, "attention" isn't like money - something uniform. Awareness needs to be gained. What requires attention? Why did she try to kill herself? What was she trying to express or accomplish, if anything?
This can be hard, since simply asking about it may not yield answers. She has to be willing to know.
It's more complicated if she always seems to be trying to get attention through harming herself and it never seems to be enough. That'd be a sign of a rigid personality pattern - but, interestingly enough, she still needs attention in some way. If she is manipulative often, then just not playing the game really can be the best response. But ultimately, she needs to be addressed. A professional is definitely something appropriate, though that's already true even if it's just "normal" depression.
I don't know her, and I'm not a professional, so I really couldn't say what she would need either way, except in very general terms. If she has a problem with ploys to manipulate people, she needs to realize she does that and want to change. Nothing else will make much of a difference.
But it might not be that severe, if it's even that. It'd help if she could try developing more direct communication skills and better ways of dealing with strong emotions. Maybe things she normally forbids herself from doing; even outbursts are better than suicide attempts.
And just as important - don't hide things to make others happy. Don't pretend everything is okay to avoid conflict or letting people down, while letting it build up on the inside until you can't hold it anymore.
Mikey, if I had to make a guess from what you've described, I'd probably assume that communication and coping with emotions is a major aspect of her difficulties. It sounds like she might be someone who's ended up isolating herself through her actions, only making her pain and despair worse by cutting off almost all ways she had of dealing with them. In doing so, she would make herself simultaneously helpless and unable to be helped by others. Double-bind; rinse, repeat. Eventually, suicide starts looking like the only sensible solution.
If that is the case, she needs to get out of that. Which certainly isn't easy, because changing behavior isn't easy. And in any case, it'll be a pretty tough road.
The way you say that makes it seem as though mental health were less of a concern than physical health, which is interesting because it can often be the other way around. But it makes sense in a way, because physical damage is more immediate and other people can help you with that more easily. Emotional problems are something you have to face yourself, and though others can support you and guide you, it's still something you have to be ready and willing to do, and something that takes a lot of time and patience. That's decidedly harder for someone else to be involved in. And since our various emotional hindrances and issues are not only less visible, but very everyday, I feel it's more than understandable for us to view them with less exigency and interest than physical crises.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
I'm not sure if she ever misrepresented things about their relationship (that's something I try to stay out of as much as humanly possible), but it's clear now that she most definately was misrepresenting her emotional state. Through my conversation with him in March, I learned that she had told him all about her history and about how screwed up she had been. But she made it sound as though the bulk of her issues were behind her now that she was with him and she promised that she would always communicate things to him if she ever found herself feeling that badly again. Obviously she was hiding her mental state from him and she certainly wasn't communicating anything she felt was really bad.
I should note now that my conversation with him was brought on when I caught wind that she had attempted to jump off a balcony after catching another friend hitting on her boyfriend. She of course backpedaled with him afterwards, telling him that it was only because she was really drunk and she had no idea where that came from. But she knew I'd find out and she also knew that I'd know the difference, so she also told him to expect me to talk to him about her. She told him that I really didn't know her anymore, not like he does, so whatever I said to him would be based on the girl I knew and not the person she is now. Basically, she told him to ignore whatever I said to him because she was trying to preserve her fantasy world. He admitted as much to me this weekend. And he bought it because no matter what I said to him, he refused to listen, told me to trust him because he knew the situation far better than me and that not everything was the way I thought it was.
Oddly enough, there was no plan from what I've gathered. She just got really drunk, downed a bottle of pills and went to bed like there was nothing wrong. Which would fit her pattern of dramatic outbursts when she's drunk (which started off as shouting matches and got progressively worse over the past year or so).
As I said, I don't think there were any signs of her planning it out. But even still, the signs of her distressing mental situation were there, he just didn't take notice of them. Probably from a combination of her placating lies and his own denial.
I think consciously she knows she has reasons to live, but in the back of her mind, she's so focused on all the reasons not to live that when she loses sight of the positive she quickly becomes consumed by the negative. Which is a part of the reason I think things only get really bad when she drinks. When she's drunk, she doesn't even see the good and all the crap she bottles up surges to the front of her mind.
Pretty much. The only thing you're short of in your assessment is a complete lack of self-worth from years of emotional and physical abuse from her family. Which I would wager is the source of her poor communication and impulse to isolate herself.
I do generally put equal weight on both physical and mental health, but in this case, for my own protection, I was only letting myself focus on the physical. Between her boyfriend and her shrink, her mental health should be covered, so I'm bowing out of that. I had myself on the hook for caring a great deal for her emotional well-being for over five years, and I just can't do it anymore. I made a decision to stop trying to be the one trying to fix her. I failed repeatedly, the best I ever did was give her a chance to help herself and I might've delayed the inevitable by a few years. But it's just not my job anymore. I can't say the urge isn't there, but I know better now.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
No, see, he's been reading my posts for weeks [which i give him some credit for, i guess--this place gets crazy with the posting sometimes. :P], and has recently used what I said to try and turn MY friends against me.
Thankfully, they didn't believe him. Or, at least, didn't call me out on it without asking me about it first.
I'm happy, but at the same time....I can't believe he would sink to that level. It kind of hurts. [there, michael, are you happy?]
He wants to be friends again, after being a HUGE ******* to me the past two days. I'm not ready to talk civilly to him yet. I just want to beat the **** out of him.
I know it seems that I don't care,
but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
For some reason my DS is 12 hours behind and so its night during the day and day at night. *lol* This morning I remembered the "balloon" pokemon and hightailed it to the windworks! Luckily it was still Friday in the world of Pokemon. Meh...I'll be happy when my brother is off of video game punishment. He and I are gonna go to each other's secret base and talk to each other 32 times so we can get Spiritomb.
Azelf still eludes me. I can kill it fairly easily but if I try to catch it it KO's all my pokemon. Yata Lock, my fully evolved penguin guy does good against him though. I've tried confusing it, paralyzing it, and poisoning it. It uses Uproar every other turn so I can't put it to sleep. I refuse to use the Master Ball to catch it. I caught Mespirit in a Poke Ball and I can prolly do the same with Azelf. Grrr!!
I've been having good luck with the GTS. My strategy is to catch a bunch of Pearl-only pokemon and trade them for pokemon I actually want. My dex is coming along well. I've seen 123 pokemon(I got Dialiga's info from Cynthia's granny already) so far and Victory Road and the Elite Four should put me at 150.
@pokemon: I wish I had time to play my copy. I need to get Ditto somehow.
edit @mamelon: Wow, your last post was really interesting. You're completely on the target when you say attention isn't like money, because it's not. I have a little problem with needing attention (Dr. Meiring tells me it's because I feel unwanted because of my failure to impress my parents, so I constantly attempt to overwork myself to impress other people, but that's another story.)
A lot of people, including myself, are in a similar situation. They need attention, so they act like total attention-whores. But what does everyone do to attention whores? Ignore them. I just wish someone could come up with an easy way to get out of it, because the 'fault' is sort of spread around everyone. Yeah, maybe the attention whore is being annoying and they should realize they can get attention in other ways and still be happy without being a douche, but if a few more people had just given him/her a compliment as walking by or maybe said something nice about them or something, there wouldn't be a problem. You know what I mean? The 'offender', the attention whore, that is, isn't the only one at fault.
Learning good self-valuation and learning to be secure in one's relationships are certainly interconnected.
The drinking problem makes a lot of sense, too. One of the first things that'd help her would be to address her drinking. She probably wouldn't be able to stop right away, but that's why there's a more important aspect to it. I'd say that she, like most people, has a lot of buried emotions, repressed for years that trouble her - most of the time only semi-consciously - and can be agitated and triggered by all kinds of stimuli. Drinking will make that worse - you lose inhibition, coherency, emotions becomes intense, impulse control weakens, etc. But outbursts while drunk will not help her feel any better, because she isn't really aware of them. Getting those kinds of emotions out while sober actually can make one feel better.
My guess would be that she wasn't trying to deceive him, consciously, so much as she really believed what she was saying. She probably thought she didn't really have a problem anymore.
When someone is important to you and you want to have that person in your life, you don't want to go against them. Which is probably why people often excuse abusive spouses or boyfriends/girlfriends, or those who frequently are dishonest or unfaithful, and yet may spurn friends or other family for less serious offenses. Of course he wanted to believe her, as much as she wanted to believe herself.
And of course, it hurts when people put you second like that, and refuse when you offer help.
Intellectually, most of us can see why we have cause to live our lives. But emotions have a profound influence on our perception of reality and our behavior. Emotions are very deep, moreso than thoughts, color our thoughts, and aren't completely conscious or voluntary. In many ways, dealing with our emotions is like dealing with a whole other person - we must get to know them, learn how to "communicate" with them, to interact with them harmoniously.
When you feel trapped, overwhelmed, you don't know why things keep going badly, and you feel like you're trying as hard as you can and nothing seems to help, despair grows quickly. It becomes harder and harder to realize that things can get better. Everything seems like it will never change, which is the core of what despair is. When it's strong, reasoning sometimes isn't enough.
Focusing on the positive surely helps, but one also needs to take action. She would need to make tangible changes in the way she lives her life, and of course just become more self-aware in general.
I'm sure it's already obvious, she really should go for professional, therapeutic help, both to deal with immediate issues and to make long-term changes.
To be honest, I would say that is the right decision to make. You certainly can't fix her or cure her problems, as she's the only one who can improve herself. It's good to give to others, but there's a limit. You can't let someone take everything, especially as that probably won't even really be a help most of the time, which is most likely in this case if she is needing to learn how to help herself. It's not that cold distance is necessary, but you most definitely do have to think of yourself. And if you feel you need to stay uninvolved and you don't like being drawn into it emotionally, then it's probably best that you do that. You've made it clear that you don't feel either equipped or inclined to do anything about her problem or handle her emotional issues, which is sensible. And despite harsh words we exchanged the last time this topic was under discussion, I respect that.
If this is too personal, let me know, but . . . I had the impression that you were more unsettled by this than you've said so far, at least you had been in the beginning. When you heard she tried to kill herself again, did you feel angry or upset? You really were concerned for her life, weren't you? And she keeps trying to throw it away, as if it didn't matter? As if the feelings of those in her life don't matter? I'd bet you'd resent that, especially if she keeps doing it.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
If you don't intend to hit someone and you're angry, the angriness doesn't just override your intention. It causes you to change your mind and intend to hit the person. Maybe the person regrets it right afterward, but they did not swing their arm simply because they were angry.
Your statement that we ought to favor your definition because measured values are better than intuitive ones. That is a subjective statement.
Well, first of all, that depends on what you consider to be the qualities of actions. You also must assign weights to various different outcomes, which is not objective. And the act itself of assigning "moral" or "immoral" to the outcomes is subjective. You might be able to say objectively what the outcomes are, but when you make judgments about them, you're back in subjective territory.
Also, you can't simply assign "Morality" (meaning "objective morality") that definition and then when I try to say that objective morality could be different, respond that that's not the definition of Morality. You need a reason to define it that way because morality has a more basic definition than the one you're trying to put on it. And because you supposedly can objectively evaluate the impact of actions on people does not mean that you can just say "Morality" is objective.
That's not an argument. That's like arguing with a Christian who says that everything in the Bible is true, and when you bring up a counterexample (such as evidence that the Flood did not occur), they say "That's not the definition of truth".
Look here - if you have not even heard of the is-ought problem, or merely think it is semantics, I don't see how you even think you have any business arguing about moral philosophy. It is a fundamental problem of modern ethics.
It is semantics, in that, "is" has a meaning, and "ought" has a meaning, and they are different meanings. And so when you say "X is Y", you can't logically conclude that "X ought to be Y". Because they aren't equivalent statements, and you need another normative statement before you can have "X ought to be Y" as a conclusion.
You seem to be saying that you have solved the problem - that you can get objective morality from objective statements about the world. I would be interested to hear your solution, because as far as I know, there is no solution for the problem.
Mmmmm... but the basis of the morality is still based on the intentions. Saying I've reduced it to your system is just silly, unless you expect me to argue that thinking is not an action.
Mmmmm... just saying "or ___" does not get around the fact that it's subjective. We only care about "___" because you are trying to equate it with morality. If it were something else, we wouldn't necessarily care. Morality does not simply mean what you have defined it as, which is why it is problematic to act as if it's a free word that you can just define any way you want.
And the problem is that assigning those impacts "moral" or "immoral" is still subjective.
And there (the bolded section) is where the is-ought problem comes into play. You have no objective basis for that.
Your phrasing is a bit off here, but yes, I do deny that you can conclude that that action is "moral" or "immoral" objectively.
He was not willing. Also, I do not see how infringing on consent is an impact. The consequence is the same regardless of whether he consented - he's dead.
Now it might affect his family and friend's reaction to things. But even if that were so, it would not affect the scenario I proposed, in which their reaction would still be outweighed even if they knew he didn't consent. Also, he could lie about whether he consented, and thus ameliorate their negative reaction.
Yes, you can. There are plenty of people who would have no qualms, in fact, I would say most people, would have no qualms with saying that it is immoral to kill someone for their organs (without their consent, but I think that's implied by the statement "kill him for his organs"). I don't see on what basis you could say that you're being objective and they're not, but you seem to think you are.
That's not what you said earlier, when you said that improving yourself is moral (or was it a moral imperative?).
The whole point is that you shouldn't adopt the word "Morality" for what you're describing, because it isn't objective morality in the first place!
Really, the whole "I have defined Morality as this, therefore it is this" defense is just lame.
I understand. I'm not arguing that Kantian ethics is true! In fact, my whole point is that there is no objective basis for deciding between Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism and other such systems. So it would be strange if it were the case that I was arguing that Kantian ethics was true.
I do not believe that ethics based on commandments from God have anything to do with intention or consequences. They may try to say that God's commandments are intended to make the world better in some way that isn't obvious to us, but someone promulgating that form of morality doesn't need to make that move.
Ain Soph has explained that he has simply defined "Morality" as being what he thinks it is, but I don't think morality is one of those words you can just define like that, since it has a more basic definition, and I'm denying that what he has defined as morality can be said to objectively conform to that more basic definition.
Kantian ethics is pretty much. Deontological ethics are not necessarily based on intent, I agree. I was only saying that it is only necessary for my point that Kantian ethics only rely on intent.
It can be the case that given a particular moral system, you can evaluate an action objectively using that system. That is very different from saying that the system objectively is the same as "Morality". You can't say that Kantian ethics is objective, even if within Kantian ethics you can objectively determine whether an action is in accordance with the categorical imperative.
Ain Soph Aur seems to be saying something along those lines - because in what he has described as "Morality", you can objectively evaluate actions (although, I take issue with that as well, given the definition he gave), he can therefore say that what he calls "Morality" is objective. Those are different statements.
Anyone who says that, it would seem, would be a rule Utilitarian.
Oy. I've said this before: I'm not primarily deontological in outlook. I don't think I would say that I am purely utilitarian or deontological - but I lean somewhat strongly towards the utilitarian side.
I don't think that my morality is objective, tho. That's the difference between me and Ain Soph Aur.
Well, it's not shirtless, but...
SilveryCord, you did a fine job. He is indeed a cutie. I've added your entry to the front page. Good for you for stepping up! *eyes Micah disapprovingly*
Oh and Jo, if Mikey is still reading this then here's a message from me to the both of you: I don't pretend to know the whole story of your relationship or even whether or not your side of the story is fair or whatever. But I will say that for one reason or another your relationship with him always seemed to be a source of stress, whether you were fighting or whether you were full of anxiety missing him/anticipating seeing him. It seems to me you both are probably better off in the long run without each other, so the best thing to do would be to let this relationship end as gracefully as possible. Trying to punish or hurt one another will just prevent you from getting closure.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I'm so horrible at these things. I HATE talking about myself.
The point is that more contributes to why people commit actions than intent, even if those things may feed into intent. Choosing intent over emotions or past experiences is an arbitrary qualifier that, interestingly, doesn't change the action itself. For example, a person who murders someone happily and a person who murders someone angrily seem to have different intents - one is seeking enjoyment, and the other vengeance or something. You can take these intents, apply them to a different situation and outcome, and while they do not change, the consequence does. For example, instead of murdering a person, the person seeking enjoyment could abuse a doll, and the person seeking vengeance could simply wish ill things to happen to the person. Why wouldn't the intents be immoral in that situation if they are in the first? And, for that matter, what is it that differentiates the mental realm of enjoying murdering others and enjoying, say, saving lives? The people commit their action in these situations with intents fully concerned with their own personal outcome - enjoyment. In that sense, the intent is the same between the two, and certainly a lot of people are self-absorbed enough to act with intentions only regarding the self. What makes the intent of pursuing one kind of enjoyment worse than that of another? The consequences.
Further, if intents precede actions, in many cases emotions precede intents. So that angry face-punching individual would never have the intent to punch someone's face unless they were angry. The intent here seems to depend strongly on the preceding emotional state or other mental condition, whereas the emotional state is independent of the intent. Additionally, while it's possible to reduce consequences to two categories (harm and benefit), intentions run the gamut - how do we decide which intentions are to be labeled moral and which immoral in a way that is not arbitrary?
And some people have a genetic predisposition towards being angry or displaying sociopathic behavior. All of their intentions will be colored by an intrinsic part of who they are. How can we describe them as immoral for their intentions if a "normal" person doesn't possess the same predispositions that will influence how they intend to act?
Then it's also a subjective statement to say that science better describes reality than superstition - after all, measured values versus intuition. Why should we even define the word "science" to be "a systematic methodology for the collection of knowledge by use of empirical observation" for example? How do we know that the things we observe in scientific experiments ought to be knowledge? What is knowledge, and how do we know that we have it? We trust our senses because they are consistent and give us functionality. We have to assume that the things we are able to observe and repeat using the same methodologies are, ultimately, accurate. And yet this is not a major criticism of science. You could define science as simply "the understanding of the universe" or something, and while this is true of science to an extent, it's too broad. Lot's of things like religion, superstition and other non-empirical methods attempt to understand the universe, but do so in a different way than science. Science must be specified as the philosophical notion that the universe can be understood through empiricism.
In the same way, morality through the consequences of actions operates objectively. If fuzzy part of science is whether we can know from the things we observe then the fuzzy part of morality entails conduct, that is, if we ought not to do something because of the observations of that something resulting in a certain manner. There's always a little bit of subjectivity present in science from the formation of a hypothesis. If I try this, and the result is that, then the relationship of this to that is something. The problem is that how we define something is necessarily linguistic, it's an explanation of the causality between this and that. For example, you could conduct a study of whether earthworms are more prevalent in deciduous or coniferous forests. From the results of the study, if you find more earthworms prevalent in deciduous forests, the reason why is probably because the environment is better for them. But whether an environment is to be considered better is subjective. What, after all, makes an environment better? We can objectively see how there are more earthworms present in one environment, but how do we know that this makes it better? You can try to specify what you mean by "better" by saying it has more nutrients that the earthworms need to support their larger population, and more nutrients are present because deciduous trees shed their leaves seasonally. This isn't devoid of subjectivity. But, overall, the experiment is objective. You observed two different habitats, measured the populations, got empirical results. Your conclusion attempts to explain your results. Any conclusion we make about things will not be objective because the process of coming to a conclusion involves using reason instead of using observation. And how you use the conclusion might be entirely subjective as well. For example, if you subjectively want to create a earthworm rich habitat, you'll choose the habitat that the study shows will support a larger population. How you decide to put the earthworms in one habitat is subjective. Another person might hate earthworms and put them in a coniferous environment so that they don't do as well. But how we use the results of our scientific experiments practically is not related to the objectivity of the scientific experiment. Science only refers to the collection of knowledge, not how the knowledge is used outside of the process of constantly testing things and refining results. Morality, in the same way, refers to what quality actions possess. They possess moral or immoral qualities based on their impacts on others. What ought a person do who wishes explicitly to hurt another? Well, obviously, doing something violent is likely to hurt another person and have a result that the person wished for. The result is immoral, because it hurt someone. I can't, and have not, said that my conclusion that we ought not to harm people is objective, merely that it is based on objective observations. After all, I don't like being hurt, would like for others to avoid hurting me, and feel that my actions should benefit people instead of hurting them. One thing consistent with all people being hurt is that they do not like to be hurt, whatever it is which they would consider harmful to them. Something is either harmful or it is not. It is either true or false that it's bad to harm people. Whether or not we should be good or bad is subjective, just as anything people should do will be based subjectively. You're insisting that morality tells us what we should do, and that's not necessarily the case any more than science is whatever one does to attempt to understand the universe. Morality tells us what things are good and bad, and it's a flawed assumption to say that we should be good or bad, because we don't necessarily know one way or the other. I do think that we should be good, and I've stated such, but I don't think this belief is, in itself, objective. Morality is something that we can use, an objective system by which to decide our actions, if you want to be good. If you want to be bad, it wouldn't make sense to be moral. Your actions, regardless, take on those objective moral qualities independently of what you think you should do.
No where have I suggested making judgments about actions, merely a description of their qualities. In this sense, describing beneficial actions as moral and harmful action as immoral isn't really subjective, although it could be.
Also, assigning weights to actions can be subjective or objective based on what system or standard you use for weighing them. For example, if they're weighed by generation, this weighing system is objective because we can observe how time passes between generations and the impact of one action may be less and less causally related to the results compared to more recent actions, and often between generations the impact of one action is expressed through an action committed by a person impacted in the prior generation, in which case the new action is what is being measured.
People have, in the past, used the word morality intuitively to describe a number of things. For example, noting that killing people is immoral. I think linguistically when people use the word "immoral" in this instance, they use it because they don't like the outcome of that person's death. The connotation of the word refers to actions and outcomes. In other words, the word and how people understand the word was subjective. Based on, what seems to me, is the most likely intent of the word (to refer to the consequences of actions), I've concluded that the objective definition of morality would most likely refer to an objective system of observing the impact of actions on others. It could be that most people really just meant the intention of killing others was mean or something, but I find this highly unlikely.
I suppose if a definition is unspecified, clarity is needed, yes.
I am speaking of what morality is, that is, how it is manifested and what it means for things to be moral or immoral. You are speaking of the overarching ethical question of whether we should be moral. I do think that we should be moral, obviously, but while my statements may have strongly implied to you that I thought this belief to be objective, I have not said this nor do I think that it is.
I fail to see how you're connecting these two situations.
In that situation, you're showing how the Bible is not true, that is, it makes a claim that, if taken literally, is contrary to evidence. If the evidence is correct, and the Bible is indeed supposed to be taken literally, then we conclude that the Bible is wrong or, at least, that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. If such is the case, then this disproves their statement either that everything in the Bible is true, or that everything in the Bible is literally true. That Christian has made a claim, and your argument made a connection to that claim.
In this situation, I've claimed that the impact of actions can be observed, and that actions either have one kind of impact or the other, and are thus objective. You're arguing in turn that what we should do is subjective. These two points of contention are going in different directions, not making a connection. Neither statement is being disproven or even addressed. "Morality" etymologically refers to conduct, manner or behavior, or the character that one has for displaying such. Conduct, manner and behavior in morality are, at their fundamental basis, determined through the consequences of certain actions. Even in strange moral systems where you have to sacrifice people to your gods - the gods need the sacrifice and, presumably, without the sacrifice greater harm will result. In Christianity, you have to act in a certain way to avoid the consequence of eternal damnation, a sort of "ultimate harm." These systems are convoluted and have lots of assumptions to them that are demonstratably incorrect or, at least, questionable, but what they all have in common is that they care about the consequences of actions (and in the case of Christianity, the consequences of intents, or an "action on your soul"). In the same way, Alchemy was concerned with a lot of things that we now define as Chemistry even though Alchemy made use of a lot of arbitrary methods whereas Chemistry uses an empirical system.
I have not made statements that what we ought to do is objective any more than I would say that natural selection in evolutionary theory is objective. Natural selection seems to be quite intuitively obvious, of course, but it is an explanation for why populations change in size over time. It explains what we can observe objectively. Note that I, and most people knowledgeable in science, do not choose to reject the explanation of evolution because it can't be proven.
Well, obviously. I'm a little bit amused at this.
The fatal flaw in your argument is that you have assumed that what I meant in saying that morality is objective is that what we ought to do is objective. I have not said this.
I am quite aware of the "is-ought" problem with respect to the modern ethical question of whether we should be moral. This isn't the same thing as what morality, itself, is.
Any objective system gives us raw data: measurements, observations, counting stuff. What we make of these things, the explanations we make of them, and the consideration of what we should do with regard to them, are all subjective or at least, not objective. Insofar as the ethical question of what we ought to do is concerned, we're in that realm. And it's definitely an important question to ask. But morality doesn't necessarily tell us what we ought to do; ethics does. Morality is simply a description of the things that we do.
I believe I've made it quite clear that when speaking of the objectivity of morality, I am speaking of it at the descriptive level, not the prescriptive one.
Although, I suppose, if we contend that there is a G-d which is good, then our purpose in existing entails acting morally, in which case we should be moral. Such a statement would be objective with respect to the given purpose. This is only a theistic assumption, however.
Let's look at what you said (emphasis mine):
"Kantian ethics might say that ignorance, bias and false rationalizations are the result of immoral actions. Your ignorance may be the result of allowing yourself to remain in ignorance, rather than furthering yourself as a rational, autonomous being. Likewise false rationalizations arise from you having a base desire that is the true intention of your action, which you have deceived yourself about. You would not need a false rationalization if your action was of a good intention from the start. As such, your actions can still be immoral even if at first glance you seem to have proper intentions, because those intentions may be at root improper."
You've reduced the "bad intentions" here to previous actions whose consequence was the ignorant or falsely rationalized intention. So, ultimately, an action committed in ignorance is wrong because you did not act prior to lessen your ignorance. It no longer becomes about the intent of the bad action but rather the lack of a good consequence from a prior action.
Given linguistic connotations, "morality" seems to be the best fit.
Is assigning those impacts as "beneficial" or "harmful" subjective? No.
Nor have I said I did.
No, the phrasing is not off, which is what you seem to not get.
The ultimate consequence of his death consisted of a series of actions and interactions which would have had to occur in order to lead to his death. The first was infringing upon his consent - doing this in any manner will be immoral, and the immorality will increase with the manner in which the consent is breached. Further, if he was harmed during the struggle before his death, this would contribute to the immorality. And if the people told him that he didn't matter as you specified, the harm caused by this would also be immoral. You see, while the ultimate consequence was his death, there were a series of minor consequences prior to that event which contributed to the overall morality.
This is where we get out idea of being "humane" from. You could knock him on the back of the head and dissect him while he was still unconscious, and this might reduce the immorality, although I suspect it would remain immoral.
Further, if the other six patients were complicit with the action, this would increase the immorality.
Finally, I do think that you've actually combined two actions into one: the killing of one person, and the saving of the lives of six other people. The actions are related, obviously, but since there's a number of steps that have to be taken to connect "one person dies" to "six people live" I think that the morality of the two situations must be discerned separately.
Well, most people do not truly wish to die, so in some sense it's pretty impossible to truthfully consent to sacrificing your life. You might do it anyway, which this person does in lying. In fact, if he does lie as such, how does the person who killed him know he did not consent?
I'd agree that without consent, it would be immoral to do so unless it saved enough lives to render the lack of consent insignificant.
But I do think you're missing the point in not addressing other possible solutions to your problem. If the organs can be donated by some other manner or the people can be treated without a transplant, then unless these possibilities are exhausted, the possibility of simply having someone killed isn't one that wont be immoral. It's always better to choose an action that will lead to the greater mutual benefit of everyone. For example, if you were forced to fight two people, and if you choose one, the conditions of the fight would be satisfied if you punched him in the face, whereas the conditions of the other entailed killing your opponent, it's better to choose the former. Harm is still caused, of course, in the act of face punching, but much less harm that killing another person which is prevented.
Is acquiring possessions a form of self improvement? I don't think so.
When I speak of self improvement, I speak of character, that is, cultivating a personality prone to committing moral acts. I do think this is a moral imperative.
Really? You haven't shown how it's not.
That's a good point. Authoritarian morality, generally, doesn't really seem to be reasoned in that way. I suppose I was referring more to moral systems that try to be coherent and reasonable - and even with authoritarian morality, there's still a goal being served. Presumably, it's gaining favor with the authority (most of the time). Following such commandments may or may not yield good altogether, but they do yield "good" according to that paradigm in that obedience of the authority leads to being further approved by the authority.
But yes, that's somewhat different.
Frankly, I agree more with you. I tend to feel, probably like you, that the existence of an objective morality doesn't exactly matter because we can't verify it anyway.
I just don't want to dismiss Ain Soph's point. I guess because I'm trying to understand it better from an intellectual point of view.
I understand. You were trying to show how a moral system defined by intent isn't affected by the existence of non-existence of positive results, etc.
Right, exactly. That's what I sometimes call "the breakdown."
Well, not necessarily. I think it's mean to kind of poke fun at utilitarianism. If consequential ethics are supposed to be the closest to objective and are supposed to be more desireable to follow, the idea would be that consequentialist systems fail at this goal. I don't think one has to be a rule utilitarian to simply make that observation.
I don't think it's exactly the same, but one of the reasons I'm against pure utilitarianism is because only watching consequences can lead to the devaluation of actions and attitudes I think are immoral - that is, I think a system that is less focused on consequences is better to have (in other words, it'd be more functional to follow one less focused on consequences, in the way I described a moral system being function in my last post.)
I'm not purely deontological either, though I am necessarily at least a little bit deontological in outlook since I think things can be wrong even with their consequences notwithstanding. And I do care about consequences because I am concerned with the good of people.
And you're right. It's good to get some exposure to it eventually. Just be aware that since you've never done it before, it can be easy to go the complete opposite way you had before - no restraint at all - at least for a while.
I know that I feel a lot more comfortable with alcohol now that I've given it a try and seen what's to like and not like about it. I don't feel like I'm scared of drinking anymore, if you know what I mean.
As for you and Michael, I hope it smoothes out. If he's been acting harshly or irritably, or tried to stir up conflict around you, it's not right and it's not fair, but I can understand why he'd do that. Break-ups can be crazy hard sometimes, even if it's what the couple needs or what they mutually decided on. And maybe he still wants to be involved with you and your life somehow, even if he doesn't feel that way consciously, and even if that is in a way now characterized by anger or resentment. When my boyfriend and I broke up, it seemed like he kept trying to find ways to creep back into my life, even though he kept saying that he was no longer interested in me at all. Letting go is a process, and not a simple one, even if it's something you want.
I'm sorry. I know you felt badly about not being able to see his family anymore, on top of everything else.
I second that. It seems like your relationship had some complicated terms, taking into account the distance and the stage of life you're both in. It's not a bad thing to be especially connected to another person or to have much of your identity folded in with them, but at times it's not a good thing, either.
Being alone can be a pain, especially when you just want to be close with someone, but whatever is the case, being alone can be really good for you. Learning to live without being so close to someone, having time to focus on yourself, to deal with your own problems, and to come to better understand relationships in general . . . these are all very valuable things.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
* Leilani hugs everyone
Eh, closure...i don't need it this time. I'm fine. I'm strong, I'm independent, and I'm happy.
Well, until about an hour and a half ago. But we'll get to that in a minute, hokay?
I have this bag of Skittles, that is "Carnival" flavored..some limited edition? It's got....Cotton Candy, Candy Apple, Bubble Gum, Green Slushie, and Red Licorice as flavors. Quite tasty.
Also! My dad ordered a bunch of dirt and gravel....because where i park at my house, it's not paved...just dirt and gravel. but the thing has kind of sunken....so when it rains, i park in a puddle. Having a new parking space makes me happy!
hokay, onto why i'm not quite as happy.
I had friends over tonight, whatever. Friend Peter [who you may or may not remember] came over...he's having a rough couple days. He kind of left in a hurry halfway through the night, because he had a breakdown and didn't want anyone to see. he talked to Molly on the phone, whatever. later on, i called him to make sure he was okay, and to try and coax him into coming back here for a while.
he does, after me begging and pleading for a few minutes. he shows up, plays guitar and talks and watches star wars, no big deal. Gets up to leave, because he has work in the morning [ugh, haha]. I walk upstairs with him, to walk him out and say goodbye and whatnot.
He goes "Wait, before I go, we need to have a talk quick." Okay, maybe he just needs to vent, right? Wrong! he's so...nervous, i guess would be the word....at first, that i seriously thought he was going to kiss me. He didn't, but our conversation was similar to:
Peter: I get the impression you still like me.
Me: Sweetheart, that's never really changed. I've liked you since sophomore year.
Peter: Well...I...I don't mean to be a jerk or anything, but I don't think I like you the same way back.
Me: That's fine, I understand.
Peter: you don't hate me, then? I don't want you to hate me.
Me: No, I don't hate you. I understand.
Peter: Well, I mean, we can still be cuddly and stuff. I just want you to know that I don't like you the same way you like me.
and then I got a Peter-Hug [which are RARE, he hardly ever hugs people], and he promised to call me after he gets off work tomorrow, so we can do something together, just the two of us.
I just don't know what to think. I do still like him, it's never changed. never. i always figured he didn't like me back, and i was always okay with it. It'd be nice if he DID like me back, but I can't make him, you know?
ah well. I think it confuses me because to me, this came way out of left field, and i wasn't expecting it at all.
We'll see what tomorrow brings, I guess. I really miss cuddling with him, and talking. but yeah.
I'm just glad I have him back as a friend, really.
aaannnddd now i'm probably going to go sleep, i'm quite tired. randomly. i've only been up for like, 13 hours, haha.
I know it seems that I don't care,
but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
Well I don't blame you for being bummed about it, but at least he had the nerve to talk to you about it rather than be silently uncomfortable with you all the time or avoiding you.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Yeah. She grew up in a foster family (a fact which wasn't revealed to her until she was twenty) of nine where for whatever reason she was made to do all the cooking and cleaning ... for everyone. We're talking breakfast for eleven people every morning, supper for them all at night, all the dishes, cleaning the house, making everyone's beds, you name it. Basically, she was Cinderella and that's no exaggeration. But on top of that, her mother was very conservative and strict and constantly told her she was an ugly whore (even going as far as to cut off all her hair and take away all of her clothes that weren't baggy sweaters and jeans). Her father was physically abusive though I'm not sure to what extent. I do know that he hit her once with a plank of wood with bent nails in it because she told me the story after I found the scars.
At the age of 21, her curfew was still 11pm on weekends (10pm on weekdays) and that's when I finally convinced her to move out and live with me and my family. And the day we moved her out was horrific. The entire time her mother screamed at her for being and ungrateful little *****, her father physically threw me out of the house and she wasn't given the chance to get any of her things. She was told that if she wanted to go so bad, she was going to go without any of the things their money afforded her. So we left everything behind. Her clothes, her guitar, her journals from the previous ten years, stuffed animals, photos, everything. As we were leaving, her parents reemerged on the step, thowing some of her things (lipgloss, and that sort of thing) at my car. So I can't even say that she could be lying about her home life, because I've seen it when it's bad.
I'm not so convinced. I thinking she was lying to both him and herself because she desperately wanted the lie to be true. I think she thought that if she lived the lie long enough, that's what life would eventually be.
Thank you.
If anything were too personal, I'd let you know, but generally I'm willing to answer any questions people have. And yeah, I was unsettled in the beginning, but I recover quickly. Especially when the situation requires me to pull myself together and act.
I felt a lot of things, but the one thing that won out was anger. Anger mostly at myself for being right. I wanted so badly to be wrong this time, largely because were that the case, that would mean I did something right over the past five years. So I guess the runner-up feeling was failure. Neither emotion lasted long, but they were the big ones once I heard what had happened.
Of course I was, for a variety of reasons.
Yeah.
Sure. But I don't think she always feels this way. It's just that when things get too deep she can't see anything else but her own bull****.
You're damn right I would. It would be a spit in my face for everything I ever did for her. I don't do altruistic things very often and when I do, I'd like to think my efforts aren't for nothing.
You did a good job. The guy's just not my type. Too fey. There's a flamer and then there's a salmon blazer over a navy blue vest, light blue shirt and black pinstripe pants with hair befitting an 80's glam pop singer.
Wait, so I can't roll my eyes at attention-whores anymore because I forced them to be that way because I ignore their ploys for attention? That's whacked. People should take responsibility for how they act and make an effort to change, not spread the blame around.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Yeah, that's true. I understand and everything, i can't make him like me. I've accepted the fact a long time ago that he doesn't like me and probably never will.
i guess it's kind of nice to actually hear him say it, but also i feel like that means he'll never like me.
I dunno. I'm fine with the whole thing now, it was just ...confusion because it came out of NOWHERE, and i wasn't expecting it. haha.
I know it seems that I don't care,
but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
I have to agree with you. I imagine it's not pleasant to fill like you're worthless to other people, but other people aren't necessarily responsible for your self-image and perception. And they're definitely not responsible for your actions.
I imagine the equivalent might be excusing a bully on the basis that his parents are abusive. Yeah, abusive parents suck, but it's still wrong to take it out on other kids who didn't do anything to you. In the same way, I don't think electing to not pay a person a compliment or whatever counts as a personal affront on them worthy of making you fling yourself at their feet and beg for attention.
Also, I suspect that the kind of people who are most likely to get compliments and positive attention are those who, in turn, give it and are not so self-absorbed with their own needs.
You hate this guy, don't you?
I guess I can't blame you.
I'm not really prone to giving people compliments even when they're warranted, let alone when the person is just fishing for validation. So I'm a bit put off by anyone indicating that a lack of said compliments are partially why some people behave this way. I've probably created a hundred monsters in high school alone.
Seriously though, I'm always a bit skeptical when it's said that people are even somewhat responsible for the actions of others. It's just not the case except for very rare circumstances.
I don't hate him at all, though I get asked that alot. I just enjoy watching his comments hang him. Which happens often considering some of the wild comments he makes. I kinda think he's a down-low gimmick troll. *shrug*
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I am very sparring with the giving of compliments. I feel that if I give someone a compliment, they should know that I mean it and that it's special; not something that I'd just throw to anyone... especially if I perceived that they already felt they deserved it and expected such.
I think most people don't tend to compliment people on a whim. I always find it awkward when people give me one, and I give them awkwardly sometimes.
I do suspect that those who give the most compliments and attention receive the most. There are a few people I've known who have shown kindness to everyone, and that, I think, is what earns you the most respect with people.
I've definitely seen a few less than well thought-out comments from him.
It's interesting how, as a troll, he would tie into this discussion. The obnoxious internet troll: if you attack him, it fuels him; if you ignore him, his efforts to draw attention grow greater and more elaborate until he has destroyed the entire internet community which is dear to you beyond repair. At least, for communities of a smaller scale. Larger ones such as this simply seem to have a constant trickle of stupid comments, saturated with a mostly empty and non-nutritious mantle of posts, with only a few gems between them.
The only thing that seems to be able to be done is to tolerate it. Blah.
Do you need a reason outside of being curious?
I'm not sure I understand this shunning of exposure to new experiences for lack of a personal gain. They can be good for you even if you don't immediately get anything out of it, such as a boyfriend. Which you've stated not even wanting yet.
If it's an issue of having disdain for "segregation," then I suppose no group of people might congregate on the basis of any shared quality or characteristic. We can't, after all, segregate chess players from the rest of society. At the very least, you'd be going to a community that is likely to share a number of your interests and be able to commiserate with your experiences, and that can be a relieving thing. At the worst, you'll encounter a nigh orgy pit of depravity and superficiality.
Seems odd to never try, is all.
Well, it's ok to do whatever you choose - I think it's important that what you do is your own choice, which is why I feel kind of weird about others discouraging you. Do what you want, seriously.
I'm not very sociable, either, so I understand the allure of just keeping to yourself and not putting yourself in a vulnerable situation.
I'm looking over the FCC thread and kicking myself for not entering. I recently came up with this keyword which is perfect for the phoenix archetype. Too bad I can't find any good images. The point of this? We often regret that which we do not try!
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Oh no, I definitely don't want to come off as saying that AWs are that way because 'society has been so horrible to them! sniffle!'. I'm just saying that there's a much larger tendancy to leave an AW out to dry and not empathize with them at all in comparison to people with other problems. In my perception thus far, self-esteem issues have been glossed over much more than other kinds of issues.
But I imagine a teacher or anyone else would feel that the situation required outside help and would try and stop the problem at its source; probably with a discussion with the parents or something. If it's very bad, the child needs to be removed from that parental environment.
People need to stop taking the view of, "You know what? If the AW tried hard enough, he or she could stop acting the way she does and could easily have better self-image!"
In fact, ignoring anyone's personal views, which do you think you would hear more of from the general public? "A bully should just get over it, he could try very hard to get over the pain caused by his parents and then he wouldn't cause any problems." or "An AW should just get over it, he could try very hard to improve her self-image and she'd stop acting so AW-y and would be a lot less annoying to be around."
I know I personally hear the latter much more.
hm. Again, not trying to be OVERLY patronizing of AWing, but, I mean, the question shouldn't be "Why should I help?" it should be, "Why shouldn't I help?" (Although here I'm painting with a very wide brush. There are infinite different levels of problems and attitudes and situations, so it's pointless for me to prescribe advice like "Help out!" because sometimes it ISN'T worth it, but I digress...) Usually it doesn't take that much effort to help someone's self confidence.
True.
We're getting into the problem with defining what we're talking about. I imagine we've all had different experiences with AWs, and different levels of AW-dom, so it's confusing to put this into context.
Now, okay, if I'm putting words into anyone's mouth or I'm getting off track or anything, it's a side effect of me not fully reading every post on this thread. Sort of. I'd rather just move on from this line of discussion. It seems I'm very bad at connecting dots in this kind of conversational mode, you know? It's just an awkward medium for me to produce a complete argumentative thought in.
*sigh*. Anywho. Not my greatest piece of writing ever. (AW = Attention Whore)
I think leaving them out to dry is probably good for them, however.
Think of it like this situation. Let's say you have a kid, you're in a store, and the kid really wants this toy. You're not going to get it for him, and he throws a temper tantrum, embarrassing you in public. Now, most people deal with this in one of two ways: appease the child by buying the toy, or punish the child (or threaten to do so). Appeasing the child only makes him learn that it works to throw a tantrum. Punishing him, similarly, tends to not be effective. The best thing to do is to ignore the child, and possibly even walk away for some distance, and you'll notice the child will probably stop crying.
There's a fourth thing that you can do, which is also particularly effective but somewhat cruel. You could act as though you were buying the toy for them, appeasing them at first, and then unexpectedly pay a visit to one of their friends' house upon which you announce that you child has suggested that you give the toy to their friend.
The way that people treat attention-seekers breaks down in much the same way. Punishing them by deliberately attacking their low self-esteem will cause it to go lower and worsen the problem. Giving them the attention that they want will reinforce the behavior. Tricking them might make them resent you for life. The only healthy thing to do is to ignore it, and if everyone does so, you eventually get over it. It's not a kind way of life, unfortunately, but we'd all be pansies if we grew up without a few knocks along the way.
I agree the bully's personal environment does need to be addressed, but you still wouldn't put the blame on his victims. They're simply the subjects of his displacement defense mechanism. I was mostly disagreeing with the idea that we can put any sort of blame on those who don't give attention to the attention-starved.
The correct way of dealing with a bully's aggressiveness is to get to the source and stop the problem. And provide a little bit of discipline; kids often need that. It wouldn't be correct to, for example, compliment the bully on his strength in beating some smaller kid up - that will only boost his ego and take pride in hurting others. In the same way, I think those who dramatically seek attention need to have good behaviors emphasized instead of the bad ones. Encouraging moderate, calm behavior by being sociable with a person when they aren't trying to get attention is a good way to do this.
Well, I'm not suggesting either should "just get over it," simply that reinforcing their bad manners is not going to make the problem go away.
Well, we are talking about giving compliments. Giving a compliment that you don't mean is insincere and unhelpful, and I don't think you can just force people to give out compliments. It's something that most people, I think, do on a whim, and not terribly frequently. I don't think you can blame people for that.
Hmm.
I think a lot of it is probably because you are young. When we're adolescents, stuff like this seems a lot more important. I think it's mostly a relief to grow older and realize you don't care about any of it anymore, though.