Nice People

[Daktoria]

Why are there so few of us?

Or maybe there aren't any at all, perhaps the nice ones are just the most lazy and vain.

I dunno. What's the saying? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Well maybe we're only nice because we're trying to appeal to the powerful or scout out to find the powerful.

Or maybe it's cuz we're so vain that we want to say something else matters when really nothing doesn't.

Kind of annoys me that I've never gotten over this since being a little kid, but w/e. I don't think I ever truly will. Maybe nobody completely does though. Even the meanest of them all lets their guard down sometimes just to smell the roses.

[Michael]

Bemused giggles. :lol:

Don't ask me! No one has ever accused me of being a "nice guy". ;)

[Daktoria]

Yea, hmmm. :cool:

[dilettante]

What do you mean by "nice"?
I mean, what's an example of someone being nice?

[Donkey]

Nice is kind of a flaccid word.

Do you mean kind?

[Michael]

Nice is kind of a flaccid word.
I've never seen the word "flaccid" used in any context other than in reference to the ... um... status of you-know-what! :lol:

[Margot]

Nice is kind of a flaccid word.

Do you mean kind?

flaccid... Good choice.

[Margot]

Why are there so few of us?

Or maybe there aren't any at all, perhaps the nice ones are just the most lazy and vain.

I dunno. What's the saying? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Well maybe we're only nice because we're trying to appeal to the powerful or scout out to find the powerful.

Or maybe it's cuz we're so vain that we want to say something else matters when really nothing doesn't.

Kind of annoys me that I've never gotten over this since being a little kid, but w/e. I don't think I ever truly will. Maybe nobody completely does though. Even the meanest of them all lets their guard down sometimes just to smell the roses.

Kindness (or a lack thereof) doesn't really affect me in the slightest- it probably comes from being raised by the "cold, cold woman"...

It seems to me that there are a ton of kind people in this world, but very few conscientious ones. I don't care if you swear like a sailor- just don't stand in the middle of a busy thoroughfare. I don't care if you're sweet- just don't be an idiot.

Kindness is nice, but logic is essential. Then again, I've never been called "kind" or "nice".

[Donkey]

I've never seen the word "flaccid" used in any context other than in reference to the ... um... status of you-know-what! :lol:
I would propose that such exclusionary usage only points to a lack of imagination on the part of the employer of the word.

[The Drunk Guy]

I think the difference is motivation. Everyone is selfish, but it is degree of that selfishness that sets apart "mean" from "nice." I would include the ignorant and illogical in the mean category simply because they refuse to broaden themselves for the betterment of their contribution. Since the vast majority are ignorant and illogical, that really slims down the pickings for nice folks.

And I like to joke that my boss is 5'6" completely flaccid. :D

[Lily]

Nice. Hmmm... I'm blaming my fucked up childhood and subsequent fucked up young adulthood, but when I hear the word "nice" applied to someone, the connotation that immediately springs to mind is "walked all over like a cheap doormat." When I can push past my obvious bias, my next thought is, Yeah, what do you want?

I admit, I'm cynical. I can, however, be "nice" in certain circumstances, although I would not apply that word (an artifice, in most adults) to my actions, unless of course, I'm actully making "nice" with a purpose in mind. More precisely, I can exhibit compassion and concern. I do show true charity from time to time and I am sensitive to the plight of others in certain circumstances, especially in my profession. While so many of the nurses I've known are the touchy-feely, scrapbooking, puppy-loving, would give you their last bundt cake kind of people, that's definitely not me. I don't know that I've ever been called "nice."

[Michael]

Actually, what I think when someone calls someone else "nice", that is because the person has done something (apparently selfless) for someone else (usually the speaker).

I consider such qualifications to be suspect. If you do something beneficial to me (and apparently selfless), that seems like a very "nice" thing to do. But the "nice" part is entirely projected by the receiver of the benefit. One doesn't actually know the mind of the person who did the act. It is possible that they did what they did for nefarious or self-serving sexual reasons that the 'receiver' doesn't immediately perceive. Thus, they project "niceness" upon the act.

Thus, I would conjecture that 'stupid people' are far more likely to perceive any given person as "nice" (since they are likely ignorant of deeper motives).

[Margot]

Nice. Hmmm... I'm blaming my fucked up childhood and subsequent fucked up young adulthood, but when I hear the word "nice" applied to someone, the connotation that immediately springs to mind is "walked all over like a cheap doormat." When I can push past my obvious bias, my next thought is, Yeah, what do you want?

I admit, I'm cynical. I can, however, be "nice" in certain circumstances, although I would not apply that word (an artifice, in most adults) to my actions, unless of course, I'm actully making "nice" with a purpose in mind. More precisely, I can exhibit compassion and concern. I do show true charity from time to time and I am sensitive to the plight of others in certain circumstances, especially in my profession. While so many of the nurses I've known are the touchy-feely, scrapbooking, puppy-loving, would give you their last bundt cake kind of people, that's definitely not me. I don't know that I've ever been called "nice."

Agreed.

[Americano]

I think the difference is motivation. Everyone is selfish, but it is degree of that selfishness that sets apart "mean" from "nice." I would include the ignorant and illogical in the mean category simply because they refuse to broaden themselves for the betterment of their contribution. Since the vast majority are ignorant and illogical, that really slims down the pickings for nice folks.

And I like to joke that my boss is 5'6" completely flaccid. :D

I agree. Carrot and stick motivation.

[Americano]

Nice. Hmmm... I'm blaming my fucked up childhood and subsequent fucked up young adulthood, but when I hear the word "nice" applied to someone, the connotation that immediately springs to mind is "walked all over like a cheap doormat." When I can push past my obvious bias, my next thought is, Yeah, what do you want?

I admit, I'm cynical. I can, however, be "nice" in certain circumstances, although I would not apply that word (an artifice, in most adults) to my actions, unless of course, I'm actully making "nice" with a purpose in mind. More precisely, I can exhibit compassion and concern. I do show true charity from time to time and I am sensitive to the plight of others in certain circumstances, especially in my profession. While so many of the nurses I've known are the touchy-feely, scrapbooking, puppy-loving, would give you their last bundt cake kind of people, that's definitely not me. I don't know that I've ever been called "nice."

You've just described a ambulance chasing personal injury lawyer.

[andrewl]

I really thought i was a nice guy, but then i gave the finger to someone on my way to work this morning (after i kinda cut them off and they honked at me) and my wife indicated that perhaps i was not as nice as i see myself.... :shrug:

Andrew

[Americano]

I really thought i was a nice guy, but then i gave the finger to someone on my way to work this morning (after i kinda cut them off and they honked at me) and my wife indicated that perhaps i was not as nice as i see myself.... :shrug:

Andrew

In some parts of the US that action could draw gunfire.

[Daktoria]

Hmm.

To me, nice means having the insight to realize how multiple people's self-interests can be resolved through cooperation, so the nice person sticks out a hand to show a willingness to get along.

Problem of course being the matter of third parties. How could one person be nice unless there was a larger obstacle already in place? That means the only ways a person could be nice if naivete, manipulation, or provokation were happened at some higher level...

...unless the nice person plans on helping the third party as well.

For a moment here, lets also assume that there aren't any higher level third parties.

So where do the obstacles come from?

I don't see an alternative from nature.

Which begs the question, "If people want to be nice, then does life have to intrinsically be about torture such all anyone ever really wants to do is find sanctuary from pain?"

Maslow's Hierarchy could be one example here among others if you can't think of any (hahaha).

[Daktoria]

Sundried tomato chips are very nice btw.

Actually, anything with tomato in it is kick butt in my book.

Not a big raw cheese person though. Baked or melted or w/e is good, but tomato and mozzarella antipasto isn't my kinda deal.

Rather have tacos actually.

[Donkey]

Sundried tomato chips are very nice btw.

Actually, anything with tomato in it is kick butt in my book.
Yes. But they are hardly kind.

I don't know, or particularly care, if I am nice. I believe myself to be kind.

[Daktoria]

What's the diff?

[dilettante]

It does seem that "kind" might be a more useful here than "nice". Calling someone a 'nice person' is more ambiguous than calling a 'kind person'. It also seems to be somewhat less subjective since its less often directly tied to what an individual prefers.

Anyway, I'd also rather be a kind person than just as a nice guy.

What's the diff?

Webster gives "pleasing", "agreeable" and "socially acceptable" as meanings for "nice".
It gives "affectionate", "loving" and " of a sympathetic or helpful nature" for "kind".

That seems to capture the common usage difference pretty well. One could conceivably be nice, but not particularly kind, or kind, but not especially nice.

[Daktoria]

K, yea I see the prob.

Nice doesn't care if society has the best of intentions already in place whereas kind already gives the benefit of the doubt to the individual.

[The Drunk Guy]

Nice person: "Honey, I would really appreciate it if you went to that corner over there and proceeded to fuck yourself. Thank you!"

Kind person: "Would you like for me to help you fuck yourself?"

Mean person: "Go fuck yourself!"

DWF person: "Here's some different suggested ways to fuck yourself...which would you prefer?"

[Donkey]

Nice person: "Honey, I would really appreciate it if you went to that corner over there and proceeded to fuck yourself. Thank you!"

Kind person: "Would you like for me to help you fuck yourself?"

Mean person: "Go fuck yourself!"

DWF person: "Here's some different suggested ways to fuck yourself...which would you prefer?"
I did someone to "Fuck off or I'll throw a rock at your car" last night (pre-bar).

:o

[Americano]

When my wife uses the word nice to describe anyone I know that person is in her mind a blah.

"What do you think of insert name?" "She's nice." End of conversation.

[Margot]

I did someone to "Fuck off or I'll throw a rock at your car" last night (pre-bar).

:o

You're so kind.

[Donkey]

You're so kind.
He uh... was remiss in being a gentleman.

[Lily]

You've just described a ambulance chasing personal injury lawyer.


Which part of my description says "personal injury lawyer?" Ambulances come to me at this point. Are you suggesting I'm in the wrong profession? :)

[Americano]

Which part of my description says "personal injury lawyer?" Ambulances come to me at this point. Are you suggesting I'm in the wrong profession? :)

Just from a viewpoint of income.

[Lily]

Just from a viewpoint of income.

On the whole, I pretty much detest lawyers (although there are a very few exceptions). This joke comes to mind: If you dropped a personal injury attorney and a corporate litigator off a roof at the same time, which one would hit the ground first? Answer: Who cares?

[Daktoria]

Sometimes I wish the business and art worlds would just collide and kill each other. There's too many stupid people on both sides who insist on marginal evaluations of aesthetics whether it's wealth, prestige, happiness, or w/e else.

Sry, I talked too much in international finance class today and tried to get to know some art and music kids too intensely.

Same problem I always have, but it's the anxiety I can never hold back. I know what I'm doing is strategically wrong and will be perceived as immature, but I can't help it really. Sometimes I spasm from holding back too long, and that really annoys me because I'm stuck between making a fool of myself socially or looking like a physical whackjob...

...and I know I don't have aspbergers because I know people who do and I'm nothing like them. The problem I have is living in community after community of average nobodies who don't understand the value of explicit feedback for the sake of settling intuition, something I know because I've lived with people before for long periods of time who do appreciate intuition and what it takes to handle it.

Not really a macroeconomic or psychological problem, but rather a microeconomic and cultural problem from the shortage of understanding for intuition and a surplus of demand for empirical evidence.

[Daktoria]

Actions might speak louder than words and making a good impression might be everything, but it's dumb to judge a book by its cover and neglect speaking softly while carrying a big stick.

Course the problem being that big stick wielding isn't really feasible in a culturally relativist world infested by wise guys who provoke, provoke, and provoke to manipulate legal systems.

Kinda like the typical situation of the alpha male pick up artist hooking up with the lead feminist leader only to find each other in court after she calls rape or becomes pregnant as an extremely sadistic version of flirting for the sake of testing personalities, there really couldn't be anything more sick.

It's not a class war, but a culture war, and it drives me nuts more and more how organizational leaders convince the masses otherwise by appealing to their vanity and pride.

Again, not that this is anything new since I've had to deal with this since growing up as a little kid, but it's just so frustrating that there never seems to be a solution in sight unless you manipulate the system yourself and become part of the problem.

And again, I see that Malthus was right and that life is just a meaningless rat race where everyone's a chicken with their head cut off, and again, everyone wants to laugh with an invitation about joining the adult real world, but this isn't something that's exactly new to me.

Maybe if people didn't have hormones, we wouldn't feel so restrained from blowing up to just end all of the torture, but if we didn't have hormones, we wouldn't try to be wise guys in the first place, so there wouldn't be an original need to blow up.

[Donkey]

Sometimes I wish the business and art worlds would just collide and kill each other. There's too many stupid people on both sides who insist on marginal evaluations of aesthetics whether it's wealth, prestige, happiness, or w/e else.

Sry, I talked too much in international finance class today and tried to get to know some art and music kids too intensely.

Same problem I always have, but it's the anxiety I can never hold back. I know what I'm doing is strategically wrong and will be perceived as immature, but I can't help it really. Sometimes I spasm from holding back too long, and that really annoys me because I'm stuck between making a fool of myself socially or looking like a physical whackjob...

...and I know I don't have aspbergers because I know people who do and I'm nothing like them. The problem I have is living in community after community of average nobodies who don't understand the value of explicit feedback for the sake of settling intuition, something I know because I've lived with people before for long periods of time who do appreciate intuition and what it takes to handle it.

Not really a macroeconomic or psychological problem, but rather a microeconomic and cultural problem from the shortage of understanding for intuition and a surplus of demand for empirical evidence.
Macro, micro, social, quoi?

Sounds like a run of the mill social problem.

[Daktoria]

What is normal?:shrug:

[Donkey]

What is normal?:shrug:
It doesn't have anything to do with "normal."

It has to do with interaction.

[Daktoria]

Nonono, I was asking about what a "run of the mill" social problem is.

[Americano]

Nonono, I was asking about what a "run of the mill" social problem is.

How about chronic alcoholism?

[Margot]

Sometimes I make fun of people for stringing nine cliches in a row in one sentence. I'm nice.

[Daktoria]

Who knows. Maybe it's just the same old frustration with anti-social narcissistists I've always had, people being critical just to get a kick out of whipping out their pride on a black sheep while relishing in the cheers and jeers of the masses.

And THEY say I'm the one who hates everything.

The biggest problem being that I feel that I can never get away from them. Not really a sense of paranoia because this isn't fear, but just a sense of exhaustion because I feel like I'm always being chased and screamed at for either some little thing I didn't take care of, something out of my control, or nothing at all.

[Donkey]

Nonono, I was asking about what a "run of the mill" social problem is.
I meant common. I don't think you're the only person in the world who experiences the sort of thing that you are describing.

But then, you're being sufficiently vague that I don't really know what you're talking about.

[Daktoria]

Went for a run around campus early this morning and it was great. I hit the gym and play racquetball and football with some guys at school like I did last year (unlike at home where everything's a pain to coordinate), but doing something physical with nobody around reminded me of how I used to let off steam when I was younger by building forts in the woods around the house. Sometimes, a friend or a cousin or whoever would be over back then and help out, and sometimes they'd really get into it, but it was the times I was alone that I really felt free. Kind of like playing piano too, there's nobody else to worry about so it's easy to not feel bothered.

[Americano]

Went for a run around campus early this morning and it was great. I hit the gym and play racquetball and football with some guys at school like I did last year (unlike at home where everything's a pain to coordinate), but doing something physical with nobody around reminded me of how I used to let off steam when I was younger by building forts in the woods around the house. Sometimes, a friend or a cousin or whoever would be over back then and help out, and sometimes they'd really get into it, but it was the times I was alone that I really felt free. Kind of like playing piano too, there's nobody else to worry about so it's easy to not feel bothered.

I had a remote place in Idaho's Panhandle which, when I'd stay there, presented a lot of variety in my life. I met people who really did come into town twice yearly, fall and summer, for....supplies. All intellectual and every sociological level was there, from highly educated and financially independent to society rejected outlaws. Loners to the extreme. Though those who were mated seemed far more content than the hermits of either sex.

[Donkey]

This thread has the continuity of a nervous urine stream.

[Margot]

This thread has the continuity of a nervous urine stream.

Kegel exercises should help.

[Daktoria]

Kegel exercises should help.

Well how am I (or is anyone else) supposed to respond to Americano now? :erm:

[Daktoria]

I had a remote place in Idaho's Panhandle which, when I'd stay there, presented a lot of variety in my life. I met people who really did come into town twice yearly, fall and summer, for....supplies. All intellectual and every sociological level was there, from highly educated and financially independent to society rejected outlaws. Loners to the extreme. Though those who were mated seemed far more content than the hermits of either sex.

By hermit you mean bachelor?

I mean that's common sense really though. When you can trust someone to be that physically intimate with you, then you feel as though you can trust that person with anything. Reflection becomes a lot easier, and headaches become a lot less common.

[Donkey]

By hermit you mean bachelor? A bachelor who doesn't live off by himself is not a hermit. That's just a bachelor.


I mean that's common sense really though.
Yes but...

When you can trust someone to be that physically intimate with you, then you feel as though you can trust that person with anything. Not so true... actually.

Perhaps when you trust someone enough to commit to them you feel that you can trust them with anything and:
Reflection becomes a lot easier, and headaches become a lot less common.

I know MFC is about to rain unholy hell down on my ass, but sometimes sex is just sex.

[Americano]

By hermit you mean bachelor?

Nothing to do with gender.

Hermit: A person who has withdrawn from society and lives a solitary existence.

I mean that's common sense really though. When you can trust someone to be that physically intimate with you, then you feel as though you can trust that person with anything. Reflection becomes a lot easier, and headaches become a lot less common.I never needed trust to enjoy sex. Though in my younger days not being able to remember their names often created some social conflicts.

[Daktoria]

A bachelor who doesn't live off by himself is not a hermit. That's just a bachelor.

Yes but...

Not so true... actually.

Perhaps when you trust someone enough to commit to them you feel that you can trust them with anything and:

I know MFC is about to rain unholy hell down on my ass, but sometimes sex is just sex.

Never really liked one night stands, kind of always struggled through them, heh. Never really knew why even before I rationalized through it.

But yea, I see how you're saying my causality can be backwards since intimacy can come after trust is established since intimacy could be the epitome of getting along.

I feel its more like stages though for most people. We find people we're compatible with, and sex kind of acts as a checkpoint for confirming that higher and higher levels of trust are reached. The more intimate we are, the more we trust the person, and the more trust we have, the more intense the intimacy becomes...

...which is how babies are made and people become tied down, heh.

[Michael]

Moderator's Note:

Upon request, I have tried to move all the posts pertaining to the discussion of sex to this thread (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=789) in order to leave this one for discussion of Daktoria's topic. :)

Please take the discussion of kegels, shy-pee syndrome and the debate about love vs sex to that thread, not this one. :D

[Daktoria]

Wait, who's request?

[Evangeline]

I've always wondered if there are more "nice" people in the world than "mean" ones.

Do you think we have a majority?

I'm putting myself in the nice catagory.

:p

If you disagree, fuck you.

;)

[Daktoria]

Niceness is in the eye of the beholder, so the majority is whoever we want it to be. :-\

[Americano]

Niceness is in the eye of the beholder, so the majority is whoever we want it to be. :-\

There are some really good con people out there who practice that image.

[Michael]

Niceness is in the eye of the beholder ...
That, by definition, is relativism.

I thought you opposed relativist thinking?

To be consistent, you ought to assert that "niceness" is a definable quantity.

[Daktoria]

That, by definition, is relativism.

I thought you opposed relativist thinking?

To be consistent, you ought to assert that "niceness" is a definable quantity.

If a chair exists yet someone looks at it, is it still not in the eye of the beholder?

Earlier, we recognized the difference between nice and kind, and in line with that, it seems that niceness is an artificial construct. Kindness, however, can be both absolute and subjective.

[Donkey]

and kind, and in line with that, it seems that niceness is an artificial construct. Kindness, however, can be both absolute and subjective.
Elaborate please.

[Michael]

If a chair exists yet someone looks at it, is it still not in the eye of the beholder?
Your analogy fails.

The chair has a material existence that can be measured. That's quite unlike "niceness" or "kindness" which have no material existence and thus, cannot be rationally measured.

Niceness or kindness may be entirely and completely defined by the 'beholder', but the chair has a verifiable material existence beyond the subjective definition asserted by the 'beholder'.

[Daktoria]

Your analogy fails.

The chair has a material existence that can be measured. That's quite unlike "niceness" or "kindness" which have no material existence and thus, cannot be rationally measured.

Niceness or kindness may be entirely and completely defined by the 'beholder', but the chair has a verifiable material existence beyond the subjective definition asserted by the 'beholder'.

I dunno if I really want to get into this here because, for starters, it's not what this thread was supposed to be about.

W/e.

You'll agree that characteristics are subject to interpretation, no? For example, what one person believes to be hard, another can believe to be soft? What one person believes to be short, another can believe to be tall?

[Daktoria]

Elaborate please.

Lemme find the post and my response from earlier.

OK, here they are:

It does seem that "kind" might be a more useful here than "nice". Calling someone a 'nice person' is more ambiguous than calling a 'kind person'. It also seems to be somewhat less subjective since its less often directly tied to what an individual prefers.

Anyway, I'd also rather be a kind person than just as a nice guy.



Webster gives "pleasing", "agreeable" and "socially acceptable" as meanings for "nice".
It gives "affectionate", "loving" and " of a sympathetic or helpful nature" for "kind".

That seems to capture the common usage difference pretty well. One could conceivably be nice, but not particularly kind, or kind, but not especially nice.

K, yea I see the prob.

Nice doesn't care if society has the best of intentions already in place whereas kind already gives the benefit of the doubt to the individual.

[Michael]

I dunno if I really want to get into this here because, for starters, it's not what this thread was supposed to be about.

W/e.

You'll agree that characteristics are subject to interpretation, no? For example, what one person believes to be hard, another can believe to be soft? What one person believes to be short, another can believe to be tall?
Absolutely.

Whether or not the chair is 'beautiful' or 'ugly' is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

Whether or not the chair exists, not so much.

[Daktoria]

You'll agree then that recognizing characteristics such as niceness and kindness are matters of opinion?

[Michael]

You'll agree then that recognizing characteristics such as niceness and kindness are matters of opinion?
Yes, certainly.

[Daktoria]

Now you'll also agree with Dil's listed definitions (shown above) of niceness and kindness by Webster's Dictionary?

[Daktoria]

Meh.

Moving on, today was a good day. Good people all around, nobody got pissed off at me, and I helped some people do some stuff. Carried boxes, planted some trees, revised 3 papers, helped someone up who fell. A good day.

Sometimes I wonder though if people could be nice to each other if nothing bad happened. Everyone doesn't have a dominant problem solver personality, but I think 90-95% of people are opportunists who want someone else to look bad in order to look good.

I'd rather not be cynical, but it seems that there a very few people who are authentically genuine and heartfelt through and through. Even when things get difficult and glum, they still want to do good because doing good is the right thing and nothing else.

Altruism is a defense mechanism though, so maybe even these people don't count? :-\ Again, I don't want to be cynical, and it would be mighty sad if that was the truth.

Or maybe one mechanism and one disorder to one person is normal to the next (dynamic equilibrium and all, haha).

[Zarquon]

Being nice without a motive would be irrational (getting praised, sent to 'heaven', getting the emotional high,etc are all motives). I doubt the existence of sincere altruism, the one we exhibit is a reciprocal one.

Anyhow, why is people's lack of niceness such a problem? :ummm:

Personally, I remind myself of the fact that humans are animals that happen to be intelligent(and not vice-versa), and that too unevenly; and so don't get pissed off when others act juvenile or inhibit my activities, and just look out for my own interest.
On other occasions, swearing helps:D

And incessantly complaining about others like this makes you sound as if you think you're perfect or that perfection is attainable and desirable, which I take exception to.
To me, humans are mutable, in that they can be made better or worse depending upon nurture, (nature alone isn't enough, with notable exceptions of extreme sociopaths and certain pedophiles who are thought to be wired to be that way)with caveats-you can't eliminate greed or lust for example-and given this is your only life, ruining your mood over such issues seems to be a waste.

[Michael]

Now you'll also agree with Dil's listed definitions (shown above) of niceness and kindness by Webster's Dictionary?

Sure. They seem innocuous enough. Both are matters of opinion.

[Daktoria]

From his definitions, you'll agree that the ideas of "pleasing", "agreeable", and "socially acceptable" are matters of efficient personal interaction while the ideas of "affectionate", "loving", and "sympathetic or helpful in nature" are matters of preferable personal interaction?

[Michael]

From his definitions, you'll agree that the ideas of "pleasing", "agreeable", and "socially acceptable" are matters of efficient personal interaction while the ideas of "affectionate", "loving", and "sympathetic or helpful in nature" are matters of preferable personal interaction?

No I wouldn't. I'd say it was a matter of subjective opinion.

I (for example) would say that "pleasing", "agreeable" and "socially acceptable" are highly preferable interactions while "affectionate", "loving" and "sympathetic" are characteristics that I consider neither efficient nor desirable (depending on context of course).

Seriously, I don't want the ugly old lady walking down the street to be "affectionate", "loving" or "sympathetic" to me at all. I just want her to ignore me - that's the most preferable and most efficient relationship in that context. If that ugly old lady ignores me completely, then I'd agree that she's "pleasing", "agreeable" and "socially acceptable". If she tries to talk to me in any way, even to remark about what a nice day it is, she instantly becomes "annoying", "tedious" and "tiresome".

In other words, subjectivity and relativism rule in these matters completely.

[Donkey]

No I wouldn't. I'd say it was a matter of subjective opinion.

I (for example) would say that "pleasing", "agreeable" and "socially acceptable" are highly preferable interactions while "affectionate", "loving" and "sympathetic" are characteristics that I consider neither efficient nor desirable (depending on context of course).

Seriously, I don't want the ugly old lady walking down the street to be "affectionate", "loving" or "sympathetic" to me at all. I just want her to ignore me - that's the most preferable and most efficient relationship in that context. If that ugly old lady ignores me completely, then I'd agree that she's "pleasing", "agreeable" and "socially acceptable". If she tries to talk to me in any way, even to remark about what a nice day it is, she instantly becomes "annoying", "tedious" and "tiresome".

In other words, subjectivity and relativism rule in these matters completely.Just to flesh out the point, for me (hypothetically), the old lady happens to be my grandmother and therefore her affection, love and sympathy translates into cookies and 20 dollar bills, and therefore pleasing, agreeable and profitable. ;)

[Daktoria]

Well yea, people can be both nice and kind, but we often say that those we don't like are nice (but not kind) if others like them. Likewise, if others don't like someone but we do, we'll call them kind instead of nice.

[Daktoria]

No I wouldn't. I'd say it was a matter of subjective opinion.

I (for example) would say that "pleasing", "agreeable" and "socially acceptable" are highly preferable interactions while "affectionate", "loving" and "sympathetic" are characteristics that I consider neither efficient nor desirable (depending on context of course).

Seriously, I don't want the ugly old lady walking down the street to be "affectionate", "loving" or "sympathetic" to me at all. I just want her to ignore me - that's the most preferable and most efficient relationship in that context. If that ugly old lady ignores me completely, then I'd agree that she's "pleasing", "agreeable" and "socially acceptable". If she tries to talk to me in any way, even to remark about what a nice day it is, she instantly becomes "annoying", "tedious" and "tiresome".

In other words, subjectivity and relativism rule in these matters completely.

Eh, this is strange. Words like affectionate, loving, and sympathetic don't make sense if we don't include internal locus with them. If one country is sympathetic to another's cause, the perceiver must recognize honest initiative taking place. If a relative behaves in an affectionate or loving manner, it's because the perceiver must approve of the culture being exhibited. Something that the perceiver cares about must be characterized by the action taking place when it comes to being "kind".

In contrast, words like pleasing and agreeable as well as the phrase socially acceptable are a matter of external locus since the perceiver might find the actions unpreferable, but the parties involved enjoy them. Openminded communities wouldn't find discrimination to be a sympathetic action within bigoted communities, but it would be identified as socially acceptable because of the opinions of where it took place. Similarly, law abiding communities wouldn't find extortion to be an affectionate action within criminal communities, but it would be identified as agreeable.

Think of it this way. If you're training a police agent to infiltrate a morally disingenuous community to gather evidence for a case, you would tell the agent to behave nicely, but not kindly. If he behaved kindly instead, he would probably get spotted for behaving out of character, or (even worse) he might go rogue by assimilating the character of the target community into his own.

[Michael]

Eh, this is strange. Words like affectionate, loving, and sympathetic don't make sense if we don't include internal locus with them. If one country is sympathetic to another's cause, the perceiver must recognize honest initiative taking place. If a relative behaves in an affectionate or loving manner, it's because the perceiver must approve of the culture being exhibited. Something that the perceiver cares about must be characterized by the action taking place when it comes to being "kind".
That doesn't fit with my understanding of human experience or the meaning or usage of those terms.

For example, "affectionate, loving and sympathetic" are terms that often do fit a certain type of individual, regardless of any object. Some people are inclined to be affectionate, loving and sympathetic by nature (to their pets, their spouses, their family, friends, co-workers, neighbors and even some strangers).

Some other people are only affectionate or loving or sympathetic to particular others (their dog perhaps, but not their wife, co-workers or friends, etc.) or just particular causes.

These both represent 'general inclinations' or 'dispositions' of individual people (but also can be descriptive labels applied to individual acts).

In contrast, words like pleasing and agreeable as well as the phrase socially acceptable are a matter of external locus since the perceiver might find the actions unpreferable, but the parties involved enjoy them. Openminded communities wouldn't find discrimination to be a sympathetic action within bigoted communities, but it would be identified as socially acceptable because of the opinions of where it took place. Similarly, law abiding communities wouldn't find extortion to be an affectionate action within criminal communities, but it would be identified as agreeable.

One of the most "pleasing and agreeable" things I can think of would involve observing (at a small distance) at particularly attractive member of the opposite sex. Ideally, the object would be entirely ignorant of being viewed as such (and might not find the experience pleasant if they were to become aware that they were being 'observed' by some stranger).

Think of it this way. If you're training a police agent to infiltrate a morally disingenuous community to gather evidence for a case, you would tell the agent to behave nicely, but not kindly. If he behaved kindly instead, he would probably get spotted for behaving out of character, or (even worse) he might go rogue by assimilating the character of the target community into his own.
I don't accept that whole communities could be described in "mono-morality" terms. Humans are way to complex beings to be described as functioning with any given mono-morality. Morality is essentially different for every single individual on the planet.

[Daktoria]

That doesn't fit with my understanding of human experience or the meaning or usage of those terms.

For example, "affectionate, loving and sympathetic" are terms that often do fit a certain type of individual, regardless of any object. Some people are inclined to be affectionate, loving and sympathetic by nature (to their pets, their spouses, their family, friends, co-workers, neighbors and even some strangers).

Some other people are only affectionate or loving or sympathetic to particular others (their dog perhaps, but not their wife, co-workers or friends, etc.) or just particular causes.

These both represent 'general inclinations' or 'dispositions' of individual people (but also can be descriptive labels applied to individual acts).

You can't claim this though. Earlier, you said that "kind" and "nice" were matters of subjectivity, and if certain terms "fit" certain individuals, that would imply intrinsic (and therefore objective) meaning.

I mean maybe you're making sense, and I don't have any disagreement with you personally here, but "affectionate, loving and sympathetic" are terms assigned by the perceiver, something we have to acknowledge especially because of our premise of subjectivity.

One of the most "pleasing and agreeable" things I can think of would involve observing (at a small distance) at particularly attractive member of the opposite sex. Ideally, the object would be entirely ignorant of being viewed as such (and might not find the experience pleasant if they were to become aware that they were being 'observed' by some stranger).

Again, see above. Maybe the lady can be treated and felt for like a piece of art, but meanings are assigned rather than intrinsically fitting. The goal in defining these terms is a matter of recognizing categorical relationships, not hypothetical opinions.

I don't accept that whole communities could be described in "mono-morality" terms. Humans are way to complex beings to be described as functioning with any given mono-morality. Morality is essentially different for every single individual on the planet.

This really isn't a fair critique since what I said still applies for this segment if we replace every instance of "community" with "individual".

[Sucre]

Niceness is in the eye of the beholder, so the majority is whoever we want it to be. :-\
No ... Niceness is not in the eye of the beholder.

No more than beauty by the way - or only in a very limited way.

[The Drunk Girl]

I never would have thought a discussion this big would have came out of the topic of "nice people," but I guess that is one thing about this forum that I do enjoy.

Defining what exactly "nice" is or means is not all that easy. It is one of those topics I just add in with my "gray area stuff." There is no definite to this adjective making it hard to truly identify a universal meaning and definition.

I have to agree with Daktoria, that niceness is in the eye of the beholder. I might think/feel that person A is nice, while you might think that person A is a dick. In my opinion there are way too many factors to contribute to this; much like music, movies, food, colors, clothes, looks, etc., etc. it all depends on a person's taste and preference.

[Daktoria]

I never would have thought a discussion this big would have came out of the topic of "nice people," but I guess that is one thing about this forum that I do enjoy.

Defining what exactly "nice" is or means is not all that easy. It is one of those topics I just add in with my "gray area stuff." There is no definite to this adjective making it hard to truly identify a universal meaning and definition.

I have to agree with Daktoria, that niceness is in the eye of the beholder. I might think/feel that person A is nice, while you might think that person A is a dick. In my opinion there are way too many factors to contribute to this; much like music, movies, food, colors, clothes, looks, etc., etc. it all depends on a person's taste and preference.

OK.

Just to ask, if you think a person is a dick, but you're talking to someone else who thinks the same person is "kind", would you describe the dick as "nice" if you see how there are feelings at stake and you don't want those feelings to be upset?

[Michael]

OK.

Just to ask, if you think a person is a dick, but you're talking to someone else who thinks the same person is "kind", would you describe the dick as "nice" if you see how there are feelings at stake and you don't want those feelings to be upset?

I'd say that "little white lies" are very useful, if not necessary, for social relationships.

[Daktoria]

Sure, but this still depends on what we're talking about. To me, this doesn't qualify as a lie because "nice" doesn't imply internal locus.

[Michael]

Sure, but this still depends on what we're talking about. To me, this doesn't qualify as a lie because "nice" doesn't imply internal locus.

That bolded part sure makes it seem like pure subjective relativism is the key defining element... :ummm:

[Daktoria]

Subjectivity, not relativism.

I'd like to move for the previous question too. :hatoff:

[Michael]

Subjectivity, not relativism.
Subjectivity is relativism. ;)

It is difficult to separate the two unless you accuse the subjects of 'error'. :shrug:

I'd like to move for the previous question too. :hatoff:
Could you be more specific please?

[Donkey]

I'd like to move for the previous question too. :hatoff:
What did you want to vote on?

[Daktoria]

Could you be more specific please?

My previous post in our discussion. You're sidetracking it by focusing on my response to TDG.

[Michael]

My previous post in our discussion. You're sidetracking it by focusing on my response to TDG.

Okay sure... but can you be specific? Like restate the question? I haven't a clue what you are referring to.

[Daktoria]

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14834#post14834

I guess when you're ready, you could respond to my previous comments in the EMH thread as well:
http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14607#post14607

And if you're really willing, you could finish your response in the neoliberalism thread from a while back :D:
http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=12427#post12427

[The Drunk Girl]

OK.

Just to ask, if you think a person is a dick, but you're talking to someone else who thinks the same person is "kind", would you describe the dick as "nice" if you see how there are feelings at stake and you don't want those feelings to be upset?

I work with this woman and her boyfriend is a total dick. I consider us to be friends even though her boyfriend is controlling, lazy, and typically doesn't allow her to do anything (of course, these rules don't apply to him). She comes in everyday going on and on about him and how horrible he has treated her, yet she always makes a note to say, "he's not always like this..." I tell her straight forward, 1) "umm...yes he is, or you wouldn't be in here everyday crying about him." 2) "he's a fucking dick and you need to get rid of him." Even after telling her that numerous times, we still get along and have fun when working together.

There have been other situations in making conversation and a person's name will be brought up. One person will say, "yeah, he/she is pretty nice" and someone else will say, "really?! I thought he/she was a dick/bitch." If I am the one that said a person is a dick/bitch, I will explain why I feel that way and usually I still walk away thinking that about that person. The same can be said for the person I have talked with.

We both had different experiences regarding someone, and no matter if the outcome was good or bad it boils down to personal experience. People take personal experiences into great consideration when evaluating another's qualities on whether they are "nice" or not.

[Michael]

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14834#post14834

I guess when you're ready, you could respond to my previous comments in the EMH thread as well:
http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14607#post14607

And if you're really willing, you could finish your response in the neoliberalism thread from a while back :D:
http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=12427#post12427

Roger that! :D

That makes things nice and easy! I think I need to reply to you and Dilettante as well in the "Yet Another Morality" thread too!

Btw, I do have a life and a job, so sometimes it takes me a bit of time to address all the discussions I'm involved in. ;)

[Daktoria]

I work with this woman and her boyfriend is a total dick. I consider us to be friends even though her boyfriend is controlling, lazy, and typically doesn't allow her to do anything (of course, these rules don't apply to him). She comes in everyday going on and on about him and how horrible he has treated her, yet she always makes a note to say, "he's not always like this..." I tell her straight forward, 1) "umm...yes he is, or you wouldn't be in here everyday crying about him." 2) "he's a fucking dick and you need to get rid of him." Even after telling her that numerous times, we still get along and have fun when working together.

There have been other situations in making conversation and a person's name will be brought up. One person will say, "yeah, he/she is pretty nice" and someone else will say, "really?! I thought he/she was a dick/bitch." If I am the one that said a person is a dick/bitch, I will explain why I feel that way and usually I still walk away thinking that about that person. The same can be said for the person I have talked with.

We both had different experiences regarding someone, and no matter if the outcome was good or bad it boils down to personal experience. People take personal experiences into great consideration when evaluating another's qualities on whether they are "nice" or not.

This still seems OK though because you're still being compassionate just in a "tough love" sort of way.

Likewise, I'd say your brutal honesty is "nice", but depending on my mood, I might call it "kind" or I might not. It's kind because you care, but your delivery is definitely a little rough to touch, heh.

[The Drunk Girl]

This still seems OK though because you're still being compassionate just in a "tough love" sort of way.

Likewise, I'd say your brutal honesty is "nice", but depending on my mood, I might call it "kind" or I might not. It's kind because you care, but your delivery is definitely a little rough to touch, heh.

:)

In a situation like this, that is the only "nice" thing to do. At first everyone, myself included, was more gentle and soft with their responses on how she should deal with this POS "man" of hers, but after awhile of hearing the same shit and seeing her upset, our approach became not-so-gentle.

[Michael]

You can't claim this though. Earlier, you said that "kind" and "nice" were matters of subjectivity, and if certain terms "fit" certain individuals, that would imply intrinsic (and therefore objective) meaning.

I mean maybe you're making sense, and I don't have any disagreement with you personally here, but "affectionate, loving and sympathetic" are terms assigned by the perceiver, something we have to acknowledge especially because of our premise of subjectivity.

I hold that that certain terms may "fit" certain individuals and yet that does NOT imply intrinsic or objective meaning to those terms.

For example, I would generally describe my friend Leanne as "affectionate, loving and sympathetic". That is to say, Leanne tends to be loving and affectionate to everyone (family, friends, pets, animals, etc), and quite sympathetic towards most 'bleeding heart' political causes - especially those that seek to protect animals, poor people, babies, children and/or old people. She's also generally sympathetic to hard-luck stories from strangers.

Now I don't believe that Leanne is intrinsicly "affectionate, loving and sympathetic" - rather that she seems to be naturally or commonly inclined to act in a way that I interpret as "affectionate, loving and sympathetic". Leanne's motives for doing these things might be entirely selfish, self-serving, or even nefarious, but that is unknown to me. :shrug:

Thus, there is no contradiction in the statement of my viewpoint here. I hold that the usage or application of these terms is entirely subjective and therefore always relative.

Again, see above. Maybe the lady can be treated and felt for like a piece of art, but meanings are assigned rather than intrinsically fitting. The goal in defining these terms is a matter of recognizing categorical relationships, not hypothetical opinions.
Categorical relationships must conform to common opinions if they are to be considered functional.

My approach to strangers is a common one for those of us who live in really big cities. We tend to like to be ignored and ignore you in the process. It is necessary when one might see several hundred or several thousand people everyday (and they are always different people each day).

This really isn't a fair critique since what I said still applies for this segment if we replace every instance of "community" with "individual".
If you do that, then I will object to a 'mono-morality' being applied to individuals. I hold that any given individual is a complex creature that contains an almost unfathomable mixture of moral interests or desires. The combination (and result) is therefore unique for every individual. This is the very definition of subjectivity.

[Donkey]

What is this thread about?

The nature of kindness/niceness or anecdotes about people being or not being nice.

[Daktoria]

For example, I would generally describe my friend Leanne as "affectionate, loving and sympathetic". That is to say, Leanne tends to be loving and affectionate to everyone (family, friends, pets, animals, etc), and quite sympathetic towards most 'bleeding heart' political causes - especially those that seek to protect animals, poor people, babies, children and/or old people. She's also generally sympathetic to hard-luck stories from strangers.

Now I don't believe that Leanne is intrinsicly "affectionate, loving and sympathetic" - rather that she seems to be naturally or commonly inclined to act in a way that I interpret as "affectionate, loving and sympathetic". Leanne's motives for doing these things might be entirely selfish, self-serving, or even nefarious, but that is unknown to me.

This doesn't show whether or not "affectionate, loving and sympathetic" is a phrase that fits her or not though. The phrase reflects your opinion, but your opinion (as you recognize by saying that the truth, "is unknown to me") isn't necessarily right. If opinions inherently reflected the truth, that would show objective perspective by definition.

Thus, there is no contradiction in the statement of my viewpoint here. I hold that the usage or application of these terms is entirely subjective and therefore always relative.


The contradiction is in how you're admitting that Leanne's portrayal can be described through opinions; her portrayal (and existence) can exist independent of opinions, but your opinions are not guaranteed to accurately convey her portrayal.

Categorical relationships must conform to common opinions if they are to be considered functional.

My approach to strangers is a common one for those of us who live in really big cities. We tend to like to be ignored and ignore you in the process. It is necessary when one might see several hundred or several thousand people everyday (and they are always different people each day).

What is a "common opinion"? We can use common sense to create a functional model, but common sense is inherently subjective so that doesn't get us anywhere in discovering the essence of what "common opinion" is since we're always part of the experiment we're trying to evaluate.

If you do that, then I will object to a 'mono-morality' being applied to individuals. I hold that any given individual is a complex creature that contains an almost unfathomable mixture of moral interests or desires. The combination (and result) is therefore unique for every individual. This is the very definition of subjectivity.

I'll go along with this for now because categorical relationships aren't dependent upon hypothetical specifics. Actually, if we concede to humanity being too complex to fully understand, that justifies the role of faith for the sake of division of labor. =P

[Michael]

This doesn't show whether or not "affectionate, loving and sympathetic" is a phrase that fits her or not though. The phrase reflects your opinion, but your opinion (as you recognize by saying that the truth, "is unknown to me") isn't necessarily right. If opinions inherently reflected the truth, that would show objective perspective by definition.
Yes, the phrase reflects my "subjective" opinion and also reflects the "relativism" of the meaning of the term.

That's the point. The terms in question are always predicated upon subjectivity.

The contradiction is in how you're admitting that Leanne's portrayal can be described through opinions; her portrayal (and existence) can exist independent of opinions, but your opinions are not guaranteed to accurately convey her portrayal.
Right, my opinions are not guarenteed to be accurate. They are subjective opinions and therefore limited.

Only Leanne's own opinion matters and that's hidden inside and cannot be rationally observed - and it is equally subjective as well - Leanne might not realize that she is acting this way - or might not be honest when speaking about her own motives.

So we are left with the conclusion that "niceness" is a label that is always applied in a subjective way.

What is a "common opinion"? We can use common sense to create a functional model, but common sense is inherently subjective so that doesn't get us anywhere in discovering the essence of what "common opinion" is since we're always part of the experiment we're trying to evaluate.

More barriers to your thesis of absolute meaning.

I only raised the piont since you dismissed the early point by saying it was unique. I pointed out that it wasn't a unique point - it is a fairly common one under certain circumstances.

I'll go along with this for now because categorical relationships aren't dependent upon hypothetical specifics. Actually, if we concede to humanity being too complex to fully understand, that justifies the role of faith for the sake of division of labor. =P
If humanity is too complex to be fully predictable or fully understandable, that doesn't mean that humans are too complex to understand at all.

I'll certainly agree that humanity is too complex to make claims of 100% accuracy in predictions of their actions. That's primarily due to the inpossibility of predicting irrational behavior.

[Daktoria]

Yes, the phrase reflects my "subjective" opinion and also reflects the "relativism" of the meaning of the term.

That's the point. The terms in question are always predicated upon subjectivity.

You still haven't shown that subjectivity automatically implies relativism, and the notion that error has to be considered for absolutism to exist refutes the potential of different perspectives. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's going to portray its identity equally to all views. As such, relativist instantiation (or fittedness) would imply that imagination creates environment because different views would directly affect the identity of the subject, but you dismissed this as solipsism before (due to the necessary connection between perceiver and subject).

Right, my opinions are not guarenteed to be accurate. They are subjective opinions and therefore limited.

Only Leanne's own opinion matters and that's hidden inside and cannot be rationally observed - and it is equally subjective as well - Leanne might not realize that she is acting this way - or might not be honest when speaking about her own motives.

So we are left with the conclusion that "niceness" is a label that is always applied in a subjective way.

If your opinions aren't accurate, then the perceived characteristics aren't guaranteed to fit the subject; that's induction. Furthermore, Leanne's own opinion doesn't matter either because of internal observer-expectancy cognitive bias; not only could she fool herself into believing things which aren't true, but as a subjective perceiver, she isn't a reliably calibrated instrument for identifying her genuine essence.

By the way, we're talking about kindness, not niceness, here. Do you want to revise the last part of this segment? Pending on whether you made a mistake here or not, my response can go one way or another since kindness deals with internal, whereas niceness deals with external, locus.

More barriers to your thesis of absolute meaning.

I only raised the piont since you dismissed the early point by saying it was unique. I pointed out that it wasn't a unique point - it is a fairly common one under certain circumstances.

This part is about cognitive bias, not absolutism. The crowd isn't any more reliable because it's still made up of subjective observers (which is why appeals to popularity and authority are logical fallacies). Furthermore, there's no guarantee that central limit theorem is going to apply (as a form of reaching truth's equilibrium via moderation) because even the entire population of mankind put together isn't omniscient. Yes, functionality is important, but functionality is different from theory. If we let one be part of the other prematurely, then we're going to come up with biased models whether it's for pragmatism or idealism, strategy or justice, or anything else.

It's like a recipe or a chemistry formula. We can't just throw everything together all at once because certain ingredients need to set with others in order for our objectives to be fulfilled. Otherwise, we're just going to end up with a big mess.

If humanity is too complex to be fully predictable or fully understandable, that doesn't mean that humans are too complex to understand at all.

I'll certainly agree that humanity is too complex to make claims of 100% accuracy in predictions of their actions. That's primarily due to the inpossibility of predicting irrational behavior.

OK, but our police agent should still be told to behave nicely instead of kindly since behavior analysis only focuses on the understandable (and predictable) portions of behavior.

[Lasher]

One of the most "pleasing and agreeable" things I can think of would involve observing (at a small distance) at particularly attractive member of the opposite sex. Ideally, the object would be entirely ignorant of being viewed as such (and might not find the experience pleasant if they were to become aware that they were being 'observed' by some stranger).


.
Lasher would never be resentful, or find the experience to be unpleasant, if He became aware of being worshiped from afar, as He constantly is. It is always a compliment to Him, even though it is an everyday thing.

[Lasher]

I never would have thought a discussion this big would have came (sic - "come")out of the topic of "nice people," but I guess that is one thing about this forum that I do enjoy.

Defining what exactly "nice" is or means is not all that easy. It is one of those topics I just add in with my "gray area stuff." There is no definite to this adjective making it hard to truly identify a universal meaning and definition.

I have to agree with Daktoria, that niceness is in the eye of the beholder. I might think/feel that person A is nice, while you might think that person A is a dick. In my opinion there are way too many factors to contribute to this; much like music, movies, food, colors, clothes, looks, etc., etc. it all depends on a person's taste and preference.
Sorry if you resent corrective criticism, but a college student should really appreciate the educational worth of it, dear. "Come" is the past participle of the verb "come." That means if there is a helping verb, in this case "have," you must use the correct tense (come) for the correlative verb. Otherwise, you are very good with your writing.

[Lasher]

Sure, but this still depends on what we're talking about. To me, this doesn't qualify as a lie because "nice" doesn't imply internal locus.
Please explain what you mean by "internal locus." Lasher is not sure what you mean by it.

[Lasher]

I work with this woman and her boyfriend is a total dick. I consider us to be friends even though her boyfriend is controlling, lazy, and typically doesn't allow her to do anything (of course, these rules don't apply to him). She comes in everyday going on and on about him and how horrible he has treated her, yet she always makes a note to say, "he's not always like this..." I tell her straight forward, 1) "umm...yes he is, or you wouldn't be in here everyday crying about him." 2) "he's a fucking dick and you need to get rid of him." Even after telling her that numerous times, we still get along and have fun when working together.

There have been other situations in making conversation and a person's name will be brought up. One person will say, "yeah, he/she is pretty nice" and someone else will say, "really?! I thought he/she was a dick/bitch." If I am the one that said a person is a dick/bitch, I will explain why I feel that way and usually I still walk away thinking that about that person. The same can be said for the person I have talked with.

We both had different experiences regarding someone, and no matter if the outcome was good or bad it boils down to personal experience. People take personal experiences into great consideration when evaluating another's qualities on whether they are "nice" or not.
Really now, Drunk, can't we be a little more genteel in our choice of words? That sort of speech from a lady makes her seem to be coarse and common, and Lash doesn't believe that is the fact in your case. Lash could be wrong, but it would be quite novel if He were.

[Daktoria]

Please explain what you mean by "internal locus." Lasher is not sure what you mean by it.

Eh? Considering your third person perspective on everything, I'd think it'd be easy for you. :cheers:

[Lasher]

Eh? Considering your third person perspective on everything, I'd think it'd be easy for you. :cheers:
So you can't explain what it means?

[Lily]

Lasher, Google is your friend. Look it up.

[gavinbarretto235]

It appears to me that there are a millions forms of individuals in this universe, but very little conscientious ones. I do not care if you swear like a sailor- just do not stand in the middle of a busy thoroughfare.