pelicanpreacher Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Maybe it's just your idea of what selfish means that's the problem. Okay, semantically speaking, what's your definition of selfishness?!
Lookingforward Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Actually, it's a pretty simple concept - for most people. not my fault words get "hijacked" - I know what I mean by it
luvmy2ns Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 not my fault words get "hijacked" - I know what I mean by it :lmao:
Lookingforward Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Actually I wrote a longer post which was a good one re clarification of what I mean by selfish, but my computer ate it......such is life This is why I tend to stick to shorter posts
luvmy2ns Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 I guess a person could ascribe any meaning to any word they wanted so it would fit their lifestyle. However, Merriam-Webster declares the meaning as follows: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish This pretty much sums up what I've been saying.
Lookingforward Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 I guess a person could ascribe any meaning to any word they wanted so it would fit their lifestyle. However, Merriam-Webster declares the meaning as follows: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish This pretty much sums up what I've been saying. Yes, I do know the MW definition - and it still follows that to truly love someone else you have to be able to love yourself selfishly (without regard to others) first. Is that clearer ?
luvmy2ns Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Yes, I do know the MW definition - and it still follows that to truly love someone else you have to be able to love yourself selfishly (without regard to others) first. Is that clearer ? So in order to care about yourself you have to be a selfish person? Wow. No wonder this planet is going to hell in a handbasket. And no - you don't have to be a selfish person to "truly love someone else." Good gawd.
Lookingforward Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 So in order to care about yourself you have to be a selfish person? Wow. No wonder this planet is going to hell in a handbasket. And no - you don't have to be a selfish person to "truly love someone else." Good gawd. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it - I have mine which is that the majority of humans ARE selfish to some degree.
Order & Chaos Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 So in order to care about yourself you have to be a selfish person? Wow. No wonder this planet is going to hell in a handbasket. And no - you don't have to be a selfish person to "truly love someone else." Good gawd. Yes you have to be selfish. It is a selfish motivation to eat and drink every day to survive. It is centered around the self, thus selfish. Selfish isn't necc bad, I think that is where the misunderstanding is. Selfish can be good. If one becomes too self centered then you run into problems. But if you can not love yourself, if you do not have that selfish motive, then you can not truly love someone else.
luvmy2ns Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Yes you have to be selfish. It is a selfish motivation to eat and drink every day to survive. It is centered around the self, thus selfish. Selfish isn't necc bad, I think that is where the misunderstanding is. Selfish can be good. If one becomes too self centered then you run into problems. But if you can not love yourself, if you do not have that selfish motive, then you can not truly love someone else. But, according to Merriam-Webster, selfish means putting yourself first always and disregarding everyone else, which would, of course, include the person you profess to love (unless you're in a relationship with yourself only - lol). If you disregard the wants/needs/feelings of the person you supposedly "love" ALWAYS in favor of your OWN wants/needs/feelings, you are most DEFINITELY not showing them any love.
Lookingforward Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 But, according to Merriam-Webster, selfish means putting yourself first always and disregarding everyone else, which would, of course, include the person you profess to love (unless you're in a relationship with yourself only - lol). If you disregard the wants/needs/feelings of the person you supposedly "love" ALWAYS in favor of your OWN wants/needs/feelings, you are most DEFINITELY not showing them any love. Luckily for me, I don't base my opinions and life on definitions of words as espoused by a dictionary fwiw , even acts of "charity" aren't selfless. The giver gives partially because it makes them feel GOOD about themselves.
OWoman Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 I still think self love is heavily involved even with children. It isn't in your childrens best interest if you didn't love yourself first as you are their best means of survival. The healthier, happier, more "survivable" you are, the better your offspring have of growing up to adulthood. I tend to agree with this. Taking a bullet for your kids doesn't help if it leaves them to face the gunman alone. (It also explains why the safety instructions on the plane say, "first put on your own oxygen mask before assisting children or the elderly".)
luvmy2ns Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Luckily for me, I don't base my opinions and life on definitions of words as espoused by a dictionary Like I said, we could ascribe ANY definition to ANY word we choose to in order to force it to fit our lifestyle if we want. But selfish is selfish. You can love yourself and look after your own best interests without being selfish. I'm very good at multi-tasking.
pelicanpreacher Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Okay...Ruthless, Brutal, and Unyielding Selfishness rules the day! It's time I adopt the criminal mindset like the rest of you and rip somebody off because my survival takes precedence over the needs and rights of everyone around me! Caveat Emptor! Watch out and get out of my way, LOL!
twice_shy Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Like I said, we could ascribe ANY definition to ANY word we choose to in order to force it to fit our lifestyle if we want. yup, thats what Bill Clinton did. But selfish is selfish. You can love yourself and look after your own best interests without being selfish. I'm very good at multi-tasking. Very true. But to me, love is putting someone's needs, feelings, etc. above your own. If you love yourself more than someone else, then the only person you are truly in love with is.....well....yourself (note I'm saying "you" regarding people in general, not you luvmy)
pelicanpreacher Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 I've been cautioned by the police for doing exactly that. We're told under no conditions to get involved - they'd rather sweep up one body than several. The official line is - call the cops. Protect yourself and DO NOT GET INVOLVED. As for what I'd hope - I've lived through enough acts of random violence in my life neither to hope for, nor expect, assistance. I'm quite capable of defending myself against unarmed or knife attacks, and if attacked with a gun I'd rather go down cleanly - while fighting - that pee in my pants worrying what might happen. So I'm not sure if your extreme extrapolation sheds any light or not. And if you think an EMA is "violent", you're obviously into far kinkier sex than I am Calling the police, fire and rescue, or an ambulance is an act of affinity towards another in distress. I'm from the hard streets so I know the dangers of direct involvement and therefore, wouldn't put myself in harm's way unless absolutely necessary. I'd hope that if I'm taken down however, that someone would at least have enough affinity for me to make a phone call! Again, this is an extreme extrapolation of your original precept but, if you feel its you against the world then good health to you.
silktricks Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Luckily for me, I don't base my opinions and life on definitions of words as espoused by a dictionary fwiw , even acts of "charity" aren't selfless. The giver gives partially because it makes them feel GOOD about themselves. :) But if you are using a word to argue a point, it becomes necessary for everyone to use the same definition of the word. A dictionary is the arbiter of the meaning of words. If the only way to "win" an argument about a word is to change the meaning of it, then what has been accomplished? BTW, IMHO there is a large gap between selfless and selfish. Most of society fits in the gap. To state, basically, that any act we make is a selfish act if it benefits ourself as well as another is not being reasonable. But that's just me.
luvmy2ns Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 :) But if you are using a word to argue a point, it becomes necessary for everyone to use the same definition of the word. A dictionary is the arbiter of the meaning of words. If the only way to "win" an argument about a word is to change the meaning of it, then what has been accomplished? BTW, IMHO there is a large gap between selfless and selfish. Most of society fits in the gap. To state, basically, that any act we make is a selfish act if it benefits ourself as well as another is not being reasonable. But that's just me. I know, huh? "...as espoused by a dictionary." lol Where else do you get a true and correct meaning of a word?
Owl Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 OK here's the bit I don't get - why should I feel some special affinity to some other random women I've never met, just because she and I both have XX chromosomes? I don't feel any special affinity to people who happen to be the same race as me, or who happen to speak the same language I do, or who happen to live in the same place, so why should her gender make the remotest difference as to whether I single her out for special treatment one way or the other? If it was, say, a gay guy's partner I hit on (who happens to be bi, or bi curious, or occasionally indulging in crossplatform experiences) would you see it as the same level of betrayal, there being a man and not a woman on the receiving end? How about looking at this in a non-gender specific fashion? (Lets be real...there are OM out there too!) Rather than view this as "...some special affinity to some other random women I've never met, just because she and I both have XX chromosomes? "... How about viewing it as EMPATHY more than anything else. If I were that person...and my SO cheated on me...I would FEEL this... Therefore, rather than inflict that feeling on someone else (or on that one specific person)...I'll instead choose to conduct relationships with people that do NOT result in hurting someone else. Nothing to do with gender...everything to do with EMPATHY. When you consider the ramifications to other people based on what the results would be to YOURSELF in that position...it begins to change the perspective for many people. Now, Owoman (and Lizzie)...you two obviously have much different viewpoints on monogamy/marriage/etc...so you personally may not care if your SO boinks half of Amsterdam. So this again is where you may have to attempt to view it from outside of your own personal views, and see it from that other person's perspective. I'm not afraid of snakes. Many people are phobic of them. Therefore, while I don't share their fear of them, I can understand it exists, and then therefore choose not to walk down the street carrying a boa constrictor...simply because I know what the result will be for many people who DO have that fear. That might not exactly be empathy in that case, but in the end of it all, its still a respect for the impacts to others of the results of MY choices and actions.
Lookingforward Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 I know, huh? "...as espoused by a dictionary." lol Where else do you get a true and correct meaning of a word? okay - then I'm done with expressing my opinion on this subject as some just seem to take the opportunity to snipe and nit pick rather than taking it in the spirit in which it was posted - whatever - have a nice day
Lookingforward Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 :) But if you are using a word to argue a point, it becomes necessary for everyone to use the same definition of the word. A dictionary is the arbiter of the meaning of words. If the only way to "win" an argument about a word is to change the meaning of it, then what has been accomplished? BTW, IMHO there is a large gap between selfless and selfish. Most of society fits in the gap. To state, basically, that any act we make is a selfish act if it benefits ourself as well as another is not being reasonable. But that's just me. fwiw I was NOT "using a word to argue a point" , just that certain posters like to take whatever part of a post they can use to "score a point" - I'm done here
OWoman Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 How about looking at this in a non-gender specific fashion? Owl the point I was questioning is that so many women posters here seem to do just that - make a gendered issue of it; as if mere sharing of a gender should create some sense of solidarity and stop one crossing the line and betraying da sistah-hood or some such. My question was addressing exactly that bias - would those same people who feel outraged that I as a woman could do that to another woman feel equally outraged if my "victim" (the BS) was a man instead of a woman?
Owl Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Well, I think the reason that many women see it as a betrayal of the "sista hood" is because women DO BOND far deeper between themselves than men do. Many women do seem to feel some type of "sista-hood" exists... And remember that a lot of that "bond" that they have IS DEEPLY EMOTIONAL AND EMPATHETIC. Its based off of a shared perception. Men don't "get" women as well as other women. So they'd expect a man to "not get it" and do something that was emotionally traumatizing to them...but they don't expect another woman...whom they expect to be emotionally similar and empathetic to them...to injure them in that manner. Hence the response you get from those women who feel that bond more deeply than you do.
luvmy2ns Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 fwiw I was NOT "using a word to argue a point" , just that certain posters like to take whatever part of a post they can use to "score a point" - I'm done here Funny that, in your mind, it's "scoring" a point rather than "making" a point, which was what I did quite successfully. Said point being, selfish people are more apt to be cheaters or cheatees as they care ONLY for themselves and not the feelings and welfare of others and those who say they would never tell someone they were being cheated on, regardless how you are involved or NOT involved in the situation because it doesn't affect them, are as well, IMO.
SueBee3490 Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Well, I think the reason that many women see it as a betrayal of the "sista hood" is because women DO BOND far deeper between themselves than men do. Many women do seem to feel some type of "sista-hood" exists... And remember that a lot of that "bond" that they have IS DEEPLY EMOTIONAL AND EMPATHETIC. Its based off of a shared perception. Men don't "get" women as well as other women. So they'd expect a man to "not get it" and do something that was emotionally traumatizing to them...but they don't expect another woman...whom they expect to be emotionally similar and empathetic to them...to injure them in that manner. Hence the response you get from those women who feel that bond more deeply than you do. I agree with this.
Recommended Posts