Archive Comment 2
NOT AN ACTUAL POST, Click HERE TO RETURN TO HOME PAGE
Actually Posted on 10-18-05 (My Comments in RED, Pia's in GREEN)
1. You’re doing something right if you irritated someone that much.
Besides that, it’s only an opinion, and it’s obviously a wrong one.
It’s just someone who actually thinks their opinon is important in the scheme of things.
You are a writer now though so you had better get used to critism, I hear it comes in all forms and is often very very ugly; but if you’re a writer you can’t take offense at it.
You Carry On.
;)
Comment by cooper — 10/18/2005 @ 9:54 am
2. Alot of times we tear things down simply because we wish we could be them, or as good as them.
You do what you do. The people who like what they see here will always outnumber the others.
So invite as many men to your apartment as you please, write about it all, and leave no regrets. [salute]
Comment by dan — 10/18/2005 @ 10:19 am
3. It WAS a personal attack, and a pointless, badly expressed one at that. As Cooper says, you must be doing *something* right .
Comment by Ally — 10/18/2005 @ 4:08 pm
4. You know, it almost sounds like this person was carrying around some kind of festering rant in their head and just happened to be on your site when it spilled out. (Lucky you.)
Not much different from being accosted by a random loonie while sitting at a bus stop.
Comment by Joe Snitty — 10/18/2005 @ 5:04 pm
5. I am sorry if I came off as judgmental in any way. I do not (nor would I) presume to judge you in any way, especially from the limited exposure I had to you from that post alone. I have read your blog before, not often, but occasionally.
I will revisit it again though. Please do not take what I said as any personal attack on how YOU as a person are. It was intended as nothing more than a reaction to the post, not you as a person. I hardly conceder myself qualified to make any judgments on you, or your life in general. I have no doubt you are a fine person. Please again understand I was only trying to express my opinion and reaction to that post, not in any way on you.
I would however like to make a couple of corrections to some of your assumptions about me. I am not a member of the “radical right”, nor do I consider myself grandiose. I do get a bit too vain and/or prideful occasionally, but usually something specific comes in and keeps me in check. As far as your morals go, I cannot begin to express to you the absolute lack of authority I feel to pass out any attempt at judgment on that. I have done my share of things that I now look on as reprehensible. I do not attempt to stand on any high ground.
Your post elicited my reaction, only because it expressed something very common in today’s society. But I contend this:
(more)
Comment by G — 10/18/2005 @ 5:14 pm
6. To postulate the value, and even the existence of “morals” would mean that the perception of right and wrong are nothing more than fuzzy lines that can occasionally be crossed. If this is the way you truly feel (“I’ll ask one more time, what the hell are moral values? It’s a redundant phrase that’s not even a fun oxymoron.”), then does this same sentiment bleed over into all facets of your life? Does thievery, rape, murder, incest, etc all become things that are potentially ok, depending on the situation? I see this as the expression of “moral relativism.” Yes, that term is often used by the “radical right”, but they use it as a weapon, I consider it a very encompassing explanation.
For simplicities sake, let me apply my point to the face of politics. We will use Bush and Clinton, since both appear to be “hot-button” issues. While I personally believe that Mr. Clinton did nothing for “the greater good”, I do believe he accomplished some good things. I myself had a time when I was on the WIC program that was his initiative. However, this does not mean that I can think he is a good man. It has nothing to do with his affair(s). It has everything to do with the repeated lying and deceit to continue the “song and dance”. All this has to do with one central fact. You (as I have read) feel honestly that members of the current administration should be held legally accountable for their (real or imagined) wrongs. You feel Bush should be held accountable for “lies”, and that Cheney, Rove, and probably others have committed convictable crimes. Yet, you obviously excuse these same actions by both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.
Moral relativism.
A lie is a lie. Stealing is stealing. If you lie to a little boy that his mother is possibly dead (before you know for sure), it is not something you are doing with the purpose of sin. If you steal food to feed your starving family, it is not done with the purpose of sin. These are, and always will be, forgivable acts.
But if you lie, solely for the self-serving purpose of maintaining an image you have falsely propped up… is that not wrong by anyone’s moral standard? You obviously have a moral standard, as you consistently hold Mr. Bush to it. Why then, because you “like” someone else, will you not hold them to the same standard? This mentality is what I feel (my own personal opinion, open for debate, and/or criticism) has slowly degraded the fabrics of our society. We have become increasingly more acceptant of deviant and “wrong” behaviors, simply for the political, social, and fiscal expediency it affords us. The political right and left, the “rich” and “poor”, the black and the white people ALL do it.
We excuse wrong actions, and wrong behaviors of people or causes we support. This has blurred the lines of what “morals” and “values” actually are. It has let them slip from being a hard line in the sand, to nothing more than a high and low tide mark, with our own fallible selves being the chooser.
P.S. the “perception of purpose” is understanding what you are here for. We all have a specific reason for being on this earth. The perception (or lack there of), is understanding WHY. The answer does not have to come down to the specifics, but instead, I think it is more of a general guidance. I feel, for the “here and now”, I am here to raise my children and support my wife. But I do not have the nagging hunger and longing to find my reason anymore. I don’t still search for the “meaning of life”. I’ve found it, at least the part of it I was supposed to. That is what I meant. It wasn’t supposed to be an ambiguous phrase, sorry.
Comment by G — 10/18/2005 @ 5:15 pm
7. “g” visited my blog and questioned me on how I found him acid and offensive. I opted to delete his comment and refrain from arguing with him. I have learned the hard way that people who disguise their venom in apologies and supposed innocence are even more malicious than their forthright counterparts. People like him thrive on making people react to them. I won’t entertain him at my blog.
Comment by Lisa — 10/18/2005 @ 7:44 pm
8. actually lisa, I was just gunning for an answer. Instead, you offered more accusation. Who is dripping venom under the guise of polite?
I was not planning on comming back to your blog, I was hoping to get something out of you besides this essential acceptance of no creditability to your statements.
Comment by G — 10/18/2005 @ 7:48 pm
9. if you’re not familiar with my work how do you know what standards I consistently hold Bush to?
I am a proud moral relativist. I look for guidance through many sources; I don’t feel the need to explain or clarify for you. If you comment again you will be deleted. If you attempt to comment again you will be blocked.
This is my personal blog; I am entitled to write whatever I want to.
While I think your questions might have some validity you should have asked them in your first comment. I might have enjoyed answering them. But your first comment was so nasty I can’t take you seriously
Thanks Lisa, Dan, Cooper, Ally for the back up.
The funny thing was my first thought when I woke up this morning was “have to delete that post,” too nasty
You are very much dripping venom under the guise of polite; Lisa was sticking up for me, and I won’t have my friends subjected to your very exclusionary morals
Comment by Pia — 10/18/2005 @ 8:34 pm
10. Unbelievable… utterly unbelievable. To close yourself to the debate of ideas is to ensure yourself exclusive ignorance.
I wont try to come back, and if you delete them, so be it. But think of a couple things first.
1. You put this on the public forum for a reason, and surely it wasnt so you could only find people who agree with you.
2. If the first sign of disagreement makes you this defensive and insulted, perhaps there are more to my questions and statements than you would like to admit?
Dont worry, I wont come back again, and you dont have to worry about detelting my comments. I have a copy, and will see if I can get some friends in on this one.
Comment by G — 10/18/2005 @ 8:40 pm
Actually Posted on 10-18-05 (My Comments in RED, Pia's in GREEN)
1. You’re doing something right if you irritated someone that much.
Besides that, it’s only an opinion, and it’s obviously a wrong one.
It’s just someone who actually thinks their opinon is important in the scheme of things.
You are a writer now though so you had better get used to critism, I hear it comes in all forms and is often very very ugly; but if you’re a writer you can’t take offense at it.
You Carry On.
;)
Comment by cooper — 10/18/2005 @ 9:54 am
2. Alot of times we tear things down simply because we wish we could be them, or as good as them.
You do what you do. The people who like what they see here will always outnumber the others.
So invite as many men to your apartment as you please, write about it all, and leave no regrets. [salute]
Comment by dan — 10/18/2005 @ 10:19 am
3. It WAS a personal attack, and a pointless, badly expressed one at that. As Cooper says, you must be doing *something* right .
Comment by Ally — 10/18/2005 @ 4:08 pm
4. You know, it almost sounds like this person was carrying around some kind of festering rant in their head and just happened to be on your site when it spilled out. (Lucky you.)
Not much different from being accosted by a random loonie while sitting at a bus stop.
Comment by Joe Snitty — 10/18/2005 @ 5:04 pm
5. I am sorry if I came off as judgmental in any way. I do not (nor would I) presume to judge you in any way, especially from the limited exposure I had to you from that post alone. I have read your blog before, not often, but occasionally.
I will revisit it again though. Please do not take what I said as any personal attack on how YOU as a person are. It was intended as nothing more than a reaction to the post, not you as a person. I hardly conceder myself qualified to make any judgments on you, or your life in general. I have no doubt you are a fine person. Please again understand I was only trying to express my opinion and reaction to that post, not in any way on you.
I would however like to make a couple of corrections to some of your assumptions about me. I am not a member of the “radical right”, nor do I consider myself grandiose. I do get a bit too vain and/or prideful occasionally, but usually something specific comes in and keeps me in check. As far as your morals go, I cannot begin to express to you the absolute lack of authority I feel to pass out any attempt at judgment on that. I have done my share of things that I now look on as reprehensible. I do not attempt to stand on any high ground.
Your post elicited my reaction, only because it expressed something very common in today’s society. But I contend this:
(more)
Comment by G — 10/18/2005 @ 5:14 pm
6. To postulate the value, and even the existence of “morals” would mean that the perception of right and wrong are nothing more than fuzzy lines that can occasionally be crossed. If this is the way you truly feel (“I’ll ask one more time, what the hell are moral values? It’s a redundant phrase that’s not even a fun oxymoron.”), then does this same sentiment bleed over into all facets of your life? Does thievery, rape, murder, incest, etc all become things that are potentially ok, depending on the situation? I see this as the expression of “moral relativism.” Yes, that term is often used by the “radical right”, but they use it as a weapon, I consider it a very encompassing explanation.
For simplicities sake, let me apply my point to the face of politics. We will use Bush and Clinton, since both appear to be “hot-button” issues. While I personally believe that Mr. Clinton did nothing for “the greater good”, I do believe he accomplished some good things. I myself had a time when I was on the WIC program that was his initiative. However, this does not mean that I can think he is a good man. It has nothing to do with his affair(s). It has everything to do with the repeated lying and deceit to continue the “song and dance”. All this has to do with one central fact. You (as I have read) feel honestly that members of the current administration should be held legally accountable for their (real or imagined) wrongs. You feel Bush should be held accountable for “lies”, and that Cheney, Rove, and probably others have committed convictable crimes. Yet, you obviously excuse these same actions by both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.
Moral relativism.
A lie is a lie. Stealing is stealing. If you lie to a little boy that his mother is possibly dead (before you know for sure), it is not something you are doing with the purpose of sin. If you steal food to feed your starving family, it is not done with the purpose of sin. These are, and always will be, forgivable acts.
But if you lie, solely for the self-serving purpose of maintaining an image you have falsely propped up… is that not wrong by anyone’s moral standard? You obviously have a moral standard, as you consistently hold Mr. Bush to it. Why then, because you “like” someone else, will you not hold them to the same standard? This mentality is what I feel (my own personal opinion, open for debate, and/or criticism) has slowly degraded the fabrics of our society. We have become increasingly more acceptant of deviant and “wrong” behaviors, simply for the political, social, and fiscal expediency it affords us. The political right and left, the “rich” and “poor”, the black and the white people ALL do it.
We excuse wrong actions, and wrong behaviors of people or causes we support. This has blurred the lines of what “morals” and “values” actually are. It has let them slip from being a hard line in the sand, to nothing more than a high and low tide mark, with our own fallible selves being the chooser.
P.S. the “perception of purpose” is understanding what you are here for. We all have a specific reason for being on this earth. The perception (or lack there of), is understanding WHY. The answer does not have to come down to the specifics, but instead, I think it is more of a general guidance. I feel, for the “here and now”, I am here to raise my children and support my wife. But I do not have the nagging hunger and longing to find my reason anymore. I don’t still search for the “meaning of life”. I’ve found it, at least the part of it I was supposed to. That is what I meant. It wasn’t supposed to be an ambiguous phrase, sorry.
Comment by G — 10/18/2005 @ 5:15 pm
7. “g” visited my blog and questioned me on how I found him acid and offensive. I opted to delete his comment and refrain from arguing with him. I have learned the hard way that people who disguise their venom in apologies and supposed innocence are even more malicious than their forthright counterparts. People like him thrive on making people react to them. I won’t entertain him at my blog.
Comment by Lisa — 10/18/2005 @ 7:44 pm
8. actually lisa, I was just gunning for an answer. Instead, you offered more accusation. Who is dripping venom under the guise of polite?
I was not planning on comming back to your blog, I was hoping to get something out of you besides this essential acceptance of no creditability to your statements.
Comment by G — 10/18/2005 @ 7:48 pm
9. if you’re not familiar with my work how do you know what standards I consistently hold Bush to?
I am a proud moral relativist. I look for guidance through many sources; I don’t feel the need to explain or clarify for you. If you comment again you will be deleted. If you attempt to comment again you will be blocked.
This is my personal blog; I am entitled to write whatever I want to.
While I think your questions might have some validity you should have asked them in your first comment. I might have enjoyed answering them. But your first comment was so nasty I can’t take you seriously
Thanks Lisa, Dan, Cooper, Ally for the back up.
The funny thing was my first thought when I woke up this morning was “have to delete that post,” too nasty
You are very much dripping venom under the guise of polite; Lisa was sticking up for me, and I won’t have my friends subjected to your very exclusionary morals
Comment by Pia — 10/18/2005 @ 8:34 pm
10. Unbelievable… utterly unbelievable. To close yourself to the debate of ideas is to ensure yourself exclusive ignorance.
I wont try to come back, and if you delete them, so be it. But think of a couple things first.
1. You put this on the public forum for a reason, and surely it wasnt so you could only find people who agree with you.
2. If the first sign of disagreement makes you this defensive and insulted, perhaps there are more to my questions and statements than you would like to admit?
Dont worry, I wont come back again, and you dont have to worry about detelting my comments. I have a copy, and will see if I can get some friends in on this one.
Comment by G — 10/18/2005 @ 8:40 pm
