Two falsehoods

[David Young]

I would suggest that both of these statements are false:

1) You can do whatever you like to other people if you have some claim to victimhood of some kind.
2) Nobody actually believes statement 1.

Does anyone wish to contest either of these?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would suggest that both of these statements are false:

1) You can do whatever you like to other people if you have some claim to victimhood of some kind.
2) Nobody actually believes statement 1.

Does anyone wish to contest either of these?

Agree that they're both false.

What's your interest in people who disagree with you there?

Let me play the part of such a person. Suppose I thought that if I claim victimhood, I can do whatever I like to others. Would you find such an opinion interesting?

Now suppose I claimed that nobody believes the first statement. Once again, why would that be interesting to you?

Now, I'll combine them: Nobody believes that if they claim victimhood they can do whatever they like to others, but if they did, they could. Now I've contradicted both of your comments, but once again, so what? I'm obviously an undisciplined thinker who makes that few believe, and which affect almost nobody.

 

[David Young]

In your hypothetical example:

What is it about your victimhood which makes you believe you have the right to do whatever you like to others? Is it, in fact, a right you believe has been given to you or, for example, a disability in which the victimhood prevents you from acting considerately even if you wished to?

 

[GoodAttention]

In your hypothetical example:

What is it about your victimhood which makes you believe you have the right to do whatever you like to others? Is it, in fact, a right you believe has been given to you or, for example, a disability in which the victimhood prevents you from acting considerately even if you wished to?

Generally it is a sense of power and/control that is otherwise lacking day-to-day, stemming from also not understanding what considerate is due to childhood trauma, combined with difficulty to control impulses.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) You can do whatever you like to other people if you have some claim to victimhood of some kind.
2) Nobody actually believes statement 1.

Both are falshish.....which is less than totally false.

 

[David Young]

[...] not understanding what considerate is due to childhood trauma, combined with difficulty to control impulses.

Keeping with the analogy:

Everyone except severely mentally handicapped people and children under four years of age know what is considerate.

Difficulty to control impulses is what every human being is expected to overcome, even when it is more difficult for one person than for another.

 

[GoodAttention]

Keeping with the analogy:

Everyone except severely mentally handicapped people and children under four years of age know what is considerate.

Difficulty to control impulses is what every human being is expected to overcome, even when it is more difficult for one person than for another.

If every child had a non-traumatic upbringing, sure.

 

[David Young]

And in the case of children with traumatic upbringings as well.

 

[GoodAttention]

And in the case of children with traumatic upbringings as well.

Hence why personal circumstances are usually taken into consideration during legal proceedings.

 

[David Young]

No. That is not what I said.

Look again.

 

[HonestJoe]

Does anyone wish to contest either of these?

I think it is true that nobody believes statement 1.

Some people seem to believe that they can do anything they want because they claim some victimhood but those same people are often the first to object when someone else tries to do the same kind of thing. Normal people recognise the importance of context, circumstance and condition.

But you're not allowed to disagree with be because I have a bit of a cold.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In your hypothetical example: What is it about your victimhood which makes you believe you have the right to do whatever you like to others? Is it, in fact, a right you believe has been given to you or, for example, a disability in which the victimhood prevents you from acting considerately even if you wished to?

I asked you four questions. You ignored them all and asked me two questions of your own.

My questions to you were:

[1] What's your interest in people who disagree with you there ?​

​

[2] Let me play the part of such a person. Suppose I thought that if I claim victimhood, I can do whatever I like to others. Would you find such an opinion interesting ?​

​

[3] Now suppose I claimed that nobody believes the first statement. Once again, why would that be interesting to you ?​

​

[4] Now, I'll combine them: Nobody believes that if they claim victimhood they can do whatever they like to others, but if they did, they could. Now I've contradicted both of your comments, but once again, so what ?​

Answer those and I'll answer yours.

You seem to think that your questions matter but that those of others don't and can be disregarded. Did it even occur to you that I might like thoughtful answers to my questions? Does the Golden Rule play any part in your thinking?

You should rethink that if you want others to respect and cooperate with you. Your stock has plummeted with me, but you have a chance to redeem yourself in part or whole. I'll let you decide what partial redemption is here, and what goes beyond that. I'll be glad to help you with those as well as answer your questions above after you respond provided that it is a cooperative response.

 

[David Young]

Aha! I see we have a narcissist here.

Two words for you: Grow up.