A discussion on internet arguments.

steamboat28 wrote: I am not, however, a nice person, because I don't believe that politeness or the social convention of softening one's words necessarily has anything to do with being a good person.

Right. And this is what I was trying to express in an earlier message. Some people see 'niceties' as unnecessary and burdensome, not to mention superficial. Others, like myself, see those niceties as important to the conversation - sometimes even more important than the discussion itself. For me, communication is not only about reaching a goal or getting results, but also about connecting with other individuals and enjoying the time I'm spending doing so.

I am a nice person because I'm genuinely nice/kind/whatever (at least I think I am! haha). I enjoy connecting with others and am nice, not because I think I have to be or because I feel it will somehow make me a better person, but because those 'social conventions' are simply part of who I am and I don't see the point in pretending to be someone else. If others view me as shallow or less than genuine because I smile a lot and speak with a sincere tone, then that's unfortunate.

All of that said, I do understand where you're coming from and recognize that there are different types of people in this world. Though, I'm not sure us feelers need to be taught anything. In fact, I'm pretty sure what you explained toward the end of your post would have the opposite effect on me and others like myself. Most likely, we'd simply learn to avoid you in the future.

Arcade wrote: but because those 'social conventions' are simply part of who I am and I don't see the point in pretending to be someone else. If others view me as shallow or less than genuine because I smile a lot and speak with a sincere tone, then that's unfortunate.

This. Exactly this. If being nice is who you are, you're doing a disservice by not being nice. All we should ever ask of one another is for them to be who they are. If we don't like who they are (I generally don't like happy, sunshiney, kittens-and-joy type people) then we shouldn't be around them. If we like who they are (there are some people so sweet they make my dentures rot, but I love 'em because it's really who they are), we should continue that association and make it stronger. We choose who we allow into our lives for longer than a chance encounter, and we choose how we react to the emotions and actions they put into our relationship with them.

Also, how we seem is not necessarily how we are. I seem hypocritical to a lot of people who've known me longer than ten minutes, because

1. I observe some "social conventions" and not others
2. I'm perfectly pleasant to strangers and completely ruthless with the people closest to me.

It's not quite as simple as all that, though. We all have very complex personalities, and very seldom can our actions be predicted by simplistic rules or algorithms. Typically, the social conventions that I keep are not current ones; they're either old things that resonate deeply with me, or quirks of my personality formed through experience with other people. My general desire to do the greatest amount of good I can accomplish leads me to be more "polite" to strangers because they may never see me again; this may be their only interaction with me. Conversely, I feel that people close to me know me well enough to know that if I'm being "mean" to them, it is to help them learn something important about themselves or their behavior.

So, you put on a false face to those who arent going to be around longer than 10 minutes and are more "real" to those you know longer, but you feel people should be who they are.

That doesnt make you seem like a hypocrite, it makes you one, period.

To which I couldnt care less.

Obviously, social boundries and politeness break down with time in a relationship.

This has nothing to do with anything though.

If your going to be a certain way, who you are, as it were, then you do not need to justify it. Or wouldnt bother.


I also think people like to think there more complicated than they are. When people claim things arent so simple, most often, it really is.

Khaos wrote: So, you put on a false face to those who arent going to be around longer than 10 minutes and are more "real" to those you know longer, but you feel people should be who they are.

It isn't a false face. It's a facet of my personality. One of many. It is as real as all the others, I'm simply choosing when to showcase it.

Khaos wrote: So, you put on a false face to those who arent going to be around longer than 10 minutes and are more "real" to those you know longer, but you feel people should be who they are.

That doesnt make you seem like a hypocrite, it makes you one, period.

To which I couldnt care less.

Obviously, social boundries and politeness break down with time in a relationship.

This has nothing to do with anything though.

If your going to be a certain way, who you are, as it were, then you do not need to justify it. Or wouldnt bother.


I also think people like to think there more complicated than they are. When people claim things arent so simple, most often, it really is.

Taking the other side for a moment, are you fake when you speak to your patients one way, and on the internet another?

You are a excellent guest here, but I've seen your interactions at your home site...

Different circumstances will dictate different responses...

I talk to my mom differently than I do my friends, and depending on my level of friendship, that may vary too...

And, to Steamboats last post, that's what unsaid in a previous post about getting to know people before "acting the fool", lol....

I'm still me, this is how I am...

Interesting conversation so far...

According to my psychology book from college I have 11of the 18 signs of antisocial personality disorder....I say rubbish, it's just how I am...if someone chooses to see it that way it's their choice...I'll be sociable when I feel like it or when necessary, and I'll be antisocial when I feel like it...it's that simple....whichever side of me is in charge at the time....we're of two minds and we're ok with it :evil:

RyuJin wrote: According to my psychology book from college I have 11of the 18 signs of antisocial personality disorder....I say rubbish, it's just how I am...if someone chooses to see it that way it's their choice...I'll be sociable when I feel like it or when necessary, and I'll be antisocial when I feel like it...it's that simple....whichever side of me is in charge at the time....we're of two minds and we're ok with it :evil:

With 11 signs, even if you scored the highest for each you still wouldn't get the score of 30 you'd need to be diagnosed. I think you're safe! I think everyone feels a bit anti-social sometimes, even I do, I just have to remember not to go online when I feel that way.

So I went away and had a think so I wouldn't write something stupid (see my previous post).

I do believe that offense lies with the offended. If I say something insensitive about your dress sense, your being offended says more about your lack of confidence (I think) than my opinion.

That being said though, like relationships, conversations are give and take. Without give and take a discussion turns into an argument, which is effectively two or more people shouting their opinions at each other. I'm not saying concede every point, that's not a discussion, I'm saying that I believe there is a value in courtesy and respect from both sides, regardless of whether you agree with that person or not. Frustration occurs when one person shows it and the other doesn't, I get that, I can understand that means that one might think 'why bloody bother,' but then you become the one that doesn't. I think of it 'action influence', others reap what you sow, so to speak.

What I like about arguments is the wealth of information they give about people. In particular their use of certain informal fallacies.

Edan wrote: I do believe that offense lies with the offended. If I say something insensitive about your dress sense, your being offended says more about your lack of confidence (I think) than my opinion.

I can totally buy that...

My wife tells me I don't k ow how to dress all the time...

I'm fine with it...

But why continue to tell me?

And how a person is told, is more my point...

"Ooo, [lips pursed] honey, are you going out like that? I don't think it looks good. Kinda whore-ish."

And,

"Damn, you look like a whore"

Are two ways of saying the same thing...

Yet some will choose on delivery, and some, the other...

In both cases, it is the person being told how they looks responsibility to not be offended...

But, I also think it is the responsibility of one saying the opinion, to try not to offend....

And, then there is the "was the opinion ask for, or just given"..

Come up to me and my wife, and tell her she looks like a whore, or ask "how much?", and I hope you know us...

Much ass-whoopin', very hurt, may ensue... :lol: (from her, I'm a peaceful old monk, lol)

Time/place/conditions/familiarity, there are factors...

ren wrote: What I like about arguments is the wealth of information they give about people. In particular their use of certain informal fallacies.

:lol:, whatever.....

I did not know about those logical arguments that I have since learned about them, obviously....

I didn't know I used them, because I didn't know such a thing existed....

Am I saying that right?

I didn't know I was using a "logical fallacy"...

I actually have an idea for a lesson on them...