Worst Feeling Ever?

[clevergirl]

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thanks but I was only half kidding. I did manage to get through it. I could sense from a glance it was going to be difficult. The first few lines made me feel extremely uncomfortable and I can say without reservation that your views on this topic literally make my skin crawl. Suffice it to say our opinions on the matter differ.

Your paraphrased argument is that it's my duty to personally save someone if I'm going to bother helping them at all. That's a callous and impractical view of the nature of suffering which is both acute and chronic. I simply don't have the ability, free time, or resources to provide employment or housing for the guy begging for food on the street. I've tried but I've learned that I can't fix someone else's life. What I can do is share a portion of my limited resources to help alleviate some immediate suffering. That's always worthwhile.

Fair enough.

I don't help people though. I would if I could. Being unable to doesn't make me feel good.

Being able to help others does feel good. In and of itself I don't care to do it because it feels good. I do it because of why it feels good. And that's creating more humane universe.

If helping will hurt or harm I am always cautious. It's better to be strong not to bleed for that which we cannot improve. I've been harmed enough by well meaning people. Good intentions. And selflessness to know it's usually not worthwhile to dwell on it if I am not immediately able to remedy something.

It's probably better to buy them food. Or use the money to build shelters or public farms.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by clevergirl [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Fair enough.

I don't help people though. I would if I could. Being unable to doesn't make me feel good.

Being able to help others does feel good. In and of itself I don't care to do it because it feels good. I do it because of why it feels good. And that's creating more humane universe.

If helping will hurt or harm I am always cautious. It's better to be strong not to bleed for that which we cannot improve. I've been harmed enough by well meaning people. Good intentions. And selflessness to know it's usually not worthwhile to dwell on it if I am not immediately able to remedy something.

It's probably better to buy them food. Or use the money to build shelters or public farms.

this post made a lotta sense ^^ though i don't think that it is selfless to ignore suffering. it is just more humane than propagating it. i don't see how the other posts followed this one though ^^ unless you were parodying me! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

anyhoo, I gotta get to sleep. it's late for me.

nn all ^^/~

[clevergirl]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

this post made a lotta sense ^^ though i don't think that it is selfless to ignore suffering. it is just more humane than propagating it. i don't see how the other posts followed this one though ^^ unless you were parodying me! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

anyhoo, I gotta get to sleep. it's late for me.

nn all ^^/~

Nope. I wasn't. Just attempting to digress. I think you are pretty smart. Your wordsmith is legendary. This isn't me being facetious.

Sorry it's hard to tell. Take care.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by clevergirl [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nope. I wasn't. Just attempting to digress. I think you are pretty smart. Your wordsmith is legendary. This isn't me being facetious.

Sorry it's hard to tell. Take care.

I just meant that I didn't see how you would see yourself as callous when everything else you wrote speaks contrary to it. Even if you have or do react in one way or another, the fact that you recognize it and reject it means you care ^^ you honestly seem to have mellowed out a lot from before and have a delightful creative streak and pretty evenhanded about things ^^

hope you have a super night! ^^/~


Okay, off for sleeps for real now lol ^^

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thanks but I was only half kidding. I did manage to get through it. I could sense from a glance it was going to be difficult. The first few lines made me feel extremely uncomfortable and I can say without reservation that your views on this topic literally make my skin crawl. Suffice it to say our opinions on the matter differ.

I know you were and I think your reaction is appropriate. It means you are human ^^ the thing I have learned is that reason is indifferent to truth and not all truths are pleasant. Many, liek this one are depressing. Accepting a truth is not the same as embracing or reveling in it though.

Your paraphrased argument is that it's my duty to personally save someone if I'm going to bother helping them at all. That's a callous and impractical view of the nature of suffering which is both acute and chronic. I simply don't have the ability, free time, or resources to provide employment or housing for the guy begging for food on the street. I've tried but I've learned that I can't fix someone else's life. What I can do is share a portion of my limited resources to help alleviate some immediate suffering. That's always worthwhile.

That wasn't my argument ^^ (also wasn't directed at you, was in response to sonders post). my argument was that if you do not do enough to remedy the situation, or frequently enough to diminish it, then you are subsidizing it. This is where pokes gets frustrated as well and I don't blame him for it.

in the past, I've had trouble articulating why doing nothing is preferable when the result could be death, but it is a long the lines of why one should not have a child without the means to feed it. you don't have children when you dont know where your next meal will come from.

i believe suffering is fundamentally bad and an act may be known as wrong if it constitutes suffering. subsidizing it is therefore wrong.

Also, you make a super good point about being unable to fix other people's lives and that is another reason why providing intermittent subsidy is not good. We are the only ones who can save ourselves and generally we are only so inclined when we have no other choice.

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I know you were and I think your reaction is appropriate. It means you are human ^^ the thing I have learned is that reason is indifferent to truth and not all truths are pleasant. Many, liek this one are depressing. Accepting a truth is not the same as embracing or reveling in it though.



That wasn't my argument ^^ (also wasn't directed at you, was in response to sonders post). my argument was that if you do not do enough to remedy the situation, or frequently enough to diminish it, then you are subsidizing it. This is where pokes gets frustrated as well and I don't blame him for it.

Your argument simplifies to fix entirely or don't bother. That's the "truth" I responded to. Unlike you, I don't view short term solutions as subsidizing long term problems. I see them as short term solutions to short term problems. A penniless, hungry person is in a state of urgent need. It doesn't matter how they got there. It doesn't matter if they have realistic plan to fix their life. It matters that they are hungry and that short term problem needs a solution before anything long term can be addressed.

[Cecily]

So tuna, hummus, big chunks of tomato, and a lot of pepper is pretty good.

[clevergirl]

Agreed.

[Jauna]

Huh it just dawned on me my sexdoll has a better life than some people.

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by Jauna [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Huh it just dawned on me my sexdoll has a better life than some people.

It could probably write better posts than you too.