Don't say that to me again!
Are you hearing voices? I am just drawing my chair, and haven't said anything after the greeting.
I'm regurgitating a conversation I had yesterday.
I'd prefer eating fermented food to letting food ferment in my stomach. But why do you need to recall unpleasant talks and feel agitated again? It doesn't make sense to me, unless you want your life to be more difficult than it is.
I tend to give the benefit of the doubt, ilico. That means I usually take the blame myself rather than put the blame on the other party.
I didn't know that you are so insecure.
It is not insecurity. For me, committing the error of blaming the innocent is far graver if the wrongly accused happens to be someone other than myself. Scrutinize myself first for any faux pas or unethical deed, only then move on to examining others.
Do you always think that way?
I am pretty confident that I do. Placating myself is several magnitudes of order easier than placating others, and I naturally choose the easier.
Do you have to look that grumpy if you have placated yourself?
The problem arises from my concession during a conversation that there is something I could have done or do better. As I mull over it afterwards, I often can't help concluding that I have been taken advantage of due to that approach.
It's natural that whoever admits his/her fault is the one to be faulted.
I am strongly against that modus operandi.
If someone confesses wrongdoing, why should we look further? Our desire to protect ourselves is so fundamental that if someone makes a move that is contrary to that desire, we'd better accept it as truth.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Excuse me, didn't you just say that you always blame yourself first?
What you said is as erroneous as claiming that the sun rises in the west! Okay, you accept that nothing in this world can be described in terms of black and white, correct?
Excepting some photographs and zebras.
Agreed. If nothing is black and white, all parties concerned contributes to the outcome in more than one way; everyone makes both desirable and undesirable contributions.
It's a matter of proportion, you mean.
Proportion is not of great importance, here. What matters is the gesture for achieving justice for all.
But there is always someone who is more culpable than others.
I don't disagree with that. But if you want to move on with as much positive legacy as possible, the best is to reach a consensus that all of us did good things, as well as bad.
That's not effective in curbing undesirable behavior, though.
Certainly not if the most culpable party does not realize and appreciate the leniency.
How is this related to your taken advantage of?
Someone has to start the "truth and reconciliation" process. Someone has to admit in public the undesirable contribution of hers/his so that others are encouraged to admit theirs, and at the same time, appreciate the desirable bits of all parties.
You are saying that you are often the first one that goes through that admission.
Yes.
I don't think it would be such a big problem if you also point out your positive contribution.
I can't do that.
So, you are the one to be blamed!
Again, wrong! Self-preservation and self-lauding are our animalistic core which any civilization has to overcome. Based on that principle, my aesthetics dictate that I be self-effacing.
In other words, you are shifting that preservation responsibility onto others and expecting them to say, "No, no, no, you did some good things. Besides, we did things wrong, too."
And that does not work in this... milieu.
We all need to adapt to our environment.
I refuse to let anyone drag me down to the level of...
It's fine to stick to your approach, but if you do, you should be prepared to take its consequences, too. Now, wipe that foam off your mouth and sit back, because I am ordering glasses of Shiraz.
Are you hearing voices? I am just drawing my chair, and haven't said anything after the greeting.
I'm regurgitating a conversation I had yesterday.
I'd prefer eating fermented food to letting food ferment in my stomach. But why do you need to recall unpleasant talks and feel agitated again? It doesn't make sense to me, unless you want your life to be more difficult than it is.
I tend to give the benefit of the doubt, ilico. That means I usually take the blame myself rather than put the blame on the other party.
I didn't know that you are so insecure.
It is not insecurity. For me, committing the error of blaming the innocent is far graver if the wrongly accused happens to be someone other than myself. Scrutinize myself first for any faux pas or unethical deed, only then move on to examining others.
Do you always think that way?
I am pretty confident that I do. Placating myself is several magnitudes of order easier than placating others, and I naturally choose the easier.
Do you have to look that grumpy if you have placated yourself?
The problem arises from my concession during a conversation that there is something I could have done or do better. As I mull over it afterwards, I often can't help concluding that I have been taken advantage of due to that approach.
It's natural that whoever admits his/her fault is the one to be faulted.
I am strongly against that modus operandi.
If someone confesses wrongdoing, why should we look further? Our desire to protect ourselves is so fundamental that if someone makes a move that is contrary to that desire, we'd better accept it as truth.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Excuse me, didn't you just say that you always blame yourself first?
What you said is as erroneous as claiming that the sun rises in the west! Okay, you accept that nothing in this world can be described in terms of black and white, correct?
Excepting some photographs and zebras.
Agreed. If nothing is black and white, all parties concerned contributes to the outcome in more than one way; everyone makes both desirable and undesirable contributions.
It's a matter of proportion, you mean.
Proportion is not of great importance, here. What matters is the gesture for achieving justice for all.
But there is always someone who is more culpable than others.
I don't disagree with that. But if you want to move on with as much positive legacy as possible, the best is to reach a consensus that all of us did good things, as well as bad.
That's not effective in curbing undesirable behavior, though.
Certainly not if the most culpable party does not realize and appreciate the leniency.
How is this related to your taken advantage of?
Someone has to start the "truth and reconciliation" process. Someone has to admit in public the undesirable contribution of hers/his so that others are encouraged to admit theirs, and at the same time, appreciate the desirable bits of all parties.
You are saying that you are often the first one that goes through that admission.
Yes.
I don't think it would be such a big problem if you also point out your positive contribution.
I can't do that.
So, you are the one to be blamed!
Again, wrong! Self-preservation and self-lauding are our animalistic core which any civilization has to overcome. Based on that principle, my aesthetics dictate that I be self-effacing.
In other words, you are shifting that preservation responsibility onto others and expecting them to say, "No, no, no, you did some good things. Besides, we did things wrong, too."
And that does not work in this... milieu.
We all need to adapt to our environment.
I refuse to let anyone drag me down to the level of...
It's fine to stick to your approach, but if you do, you should be prepared to take its consequences, too. Now, wipe that foam off your mouth and sit back, because I am ordering glasses of Shiraz.
Posts
