- This topic has 840 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
justme.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM #449531August 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM #448753
fredo4
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.
What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.
It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”
I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up![/quote]
Ok, whatever you say Dave. But I’m not the one trying to convince everyone how happy and non grouchy I am.
August 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM #448945Participant[quote=davelj][quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.
What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.
It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”
I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up![/quote]
Ok, whatever you say Dave. But I’m not the one trying to convince everyone how happy and non grouchy I am.
August 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM #449284Participant[quote=davelj][quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.
What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.
It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”
I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up![/quote]
Ok, whatever you say Dave. But I’m not the one trying to convince everyone how happy and non grouchy I am.
August 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM #449355Participant[quote=davelj][quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.
What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.
It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”
I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up![/quote]
Ok, whatever you say Dave. But I’m not the one trying to convince everyone how happy and non grouchy I am.
August 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM #449541Participant[quote=davelj][quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.
What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.
It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”
I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up![/quote]
Ok, whatever you say Dave. But I’m not the one trying to convince everyone how happy and non grouchy I am.
August 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM #448767ParticipantI would love to continue this interesting debate, but am moving and will be without internet service for a few days. Dave, you are a formidable(albeit slightly grouchy) opponent. Tg- you really should start a blog, you’re great. You crack my husband Guido up too. I’ll check in next week.
August 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM #448960ParticipantI would love to continue this interesting debate, but am moving and will be without internet service for a few days. Dave, you are a formidable(albeit slightly grouchy) opponent. Tg- you really should start a blog, you’re great. You crack my husband Guido up too. I’ll check in next week.
August 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM #449299ParticipantI would love to continue this interesting debate, but am moving and will be without internet service for a few days. Dave, you are a formidable(albeit slightly grouchy) opponent. Tg- you really should start a blog, you’re great. You crack my husband Guido up too. I’ll check in next week.
August 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM #449370ParticipantI would love to continue this interesting debate, but am moving and will be without internet service for a few days. Dave, you are a formidable(albeit slightly grouchy) opponent. Tg- you really should start a blog, you’re great. You crack my husband Guido up too. I’ll check in next week.
August 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM #449556ParticipantI would love to continue this interesting debate, but am moving and will be without internet service for a few days. Dave, you are a formidable(albeit slightly grouchy) opponent. Tg- you really should start a blog, you’re great. You crack my husband Guido up too. I’ll check in next week.
August 25, 2009 at 2:19 PM #448802DWCAP
Participantcabal,
I appologize for misunderstanding the word ‘spoil’ in a thread about why people have unrealistic expecatations of wealth and happyness. Your children aside, I still feel my comment stands. We have a nasty habit of lavashing everything we can on our children, and then wondering why they expect everything of the rest of the world.
It seems you are doing well by your children, avoiding the much more common definition of ‘spoiling without hesitation’.August 25, 2009 at 2:19 PM #448994Participantcabal,
I appologize for misunderstanding the word ‘spoil’ in a thread about why people have unrealistic expecatations of wealth and happyness. Your children aside, I still feel my comment stands. We have a nasty habit of lavashing everything we can on our children, and then wondering why they expect everything of the rest of the world.
It seems you are doing well by your children, avoiding the much more common definition of ‘spoiling without hesitation’.August 25, 2009 at 2:19 PM #449334Participantcabal,
I appologize for misunderstanding the word ‘spoil’ in a thread about why people have unrealistic expecatations of wealth and happyness. Your children aside, I still feel my comment stands. We have a nasty habit of lavashing everything we can on our children, and then wondering why they expect everything of the rest of the world.
It seems you are doing well by your children, avoiding the much more common definition of ‘spoiling without hesitation’.August 25, 2009 at 2:19 PM #449405Participantcabal,
I appologize for misunderstanding the word ‘spoil’ in a thread about why people have unrealistic expecatations of wealth and happyness. Your children aside, I still feel my comment stands. We have a nasty habit of lavashing everything we can on our children, and then wondering why they expect everything of the rest of the world.
It seems you are doing well by your children, avoiding the much more common definition of ‘spoiling without hesitation’. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.