GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
It's not about being wrong or right. And respectfully, why is my response referred to as bait?
Respectfully in return, because changing the focus in such a way is a lure. Baiting away.
Is it wrong to wish people could find strength to live instead of ctb?
It's a diversionary lure away from criticism with appeal to emotion and polarized values. An extreme example is the parent who is criticized and says, "Are you saying I'm a bad parent?" It demands to either fight with the bait instead of the real fish, or shut the whole thing down.
This is a similar all-or-none, door-shutting appeal:
"Should all goodbye threads be like Shawn's ? Emotionless good lucks?"
Does this make sense? It lures away from the topic, sets up a new one, and polarizes with all-or-none. It sets up an unwinnable fight. So I step away from that kind of fight and from the diversion, and I return to the topic.
Threads are created to ask opinions.. to agree or disagree, to debate, to advise, not to be right or wrong, but unfortunately many argue to those notions.
This thread was created to state the OP's position and make an appeal.
In love with myself, no. In love with living life, yes. I was, not now. I mostly appreciate your feedback and view it as constructive up until making accusations and analyzing someone's personal feelings which can be uncalled for and presumptuous. I'm not versed but is that a form of other defining? Are you trying to define who I am for others? That is not who I am in any way. And I know I fell for the bait, couldn't help myself.
I had no intetion to bait you, and I'm glad you responded and brought some things to light for me. I used a rhetorical device to appeal and convince, including answering my own questions, and it failed. It's not the first time I've used it and that it's had effects I didn't want, but I've never had it pointed out or questioned, so I didn't quite get how it was working against my goals. Thank you for the constructive feedback. I can see that tends toward ad hominem attack, which includes other-defining, and I don't want to do that. A better way to have presented it would have been:
What I perceive is that you each loved being your own self and loved your own life, and do not want those things to die to die. There is no negative judgment from me on that. I like myself, too, and I've worked for it. But what I read in your responses to those who wish to die for relationship reasons is that you yourself are reflected onto those who are still living. However they are not your self, or your personal and particular lost potential. Basically, it's an idea of enmeshment.
In comment 26 where you quoted and responded to me, you first said there to @Elbarado ways in which you agreed, and so my response addressed both of you, as I had been engaging with both of you about exactly the same topics, and your responses that I addressed were complementary as well asa your stances.
However, this following quote is external to that; I was not involved with that exchange. It feels like you're using it to defend yourself, but again, it's a diversion from the topics you and I have been engaging in.
I made a polite suggestion to @Elbarado on being careful to not tread to close to the prolife stance. I also noted that there are people who hate life and nothing can change it and ctb is their only option.
I'm going to sum myself up, and I'll let you have the last word, no matter what.
What I read from both of your comments in this thread, beginning with your very first comments, was this:
"OP, I hear you and I agree. Now here's all the ways I don't hear you and I disagree."
In that I sense that you want a win. You each come from a place of goodness as you perceive it, and I do not judge it as good or bad; and you each appear by your defenses against my assertions that you want to believe that you are acting in goodness.
However, the original post laid out how some well-meaning posters were not demonstrating acceptance and equality, but something else, and that it doesn't feel good to the OP. Yet how you and @Elbarado comment in such situations feels good to you. And you act from motivations of ostensible goodness.
How does one resolvle that?
Here are options I can see:
1. Start doing what the other person asked and stop doing what is the opposite. Result: Other person receives what they seek and experiences well-being. You gain awareness of another and having contributed to their well-being. Reciprocity occurs, which enhances the well-being of all who interconnect, both one-on-one, and among those in the community who read such interactions.
2. Agree that you hear and agree with the other person, justify that your own actions and goals are in alignment, and proceed as before. Result: Other person hears words but receives different actions, remains dissatisfied with new dissatisfaction added, while your sense of well-being is undiminished if not increased for having gotten to maintain what feels good to you and feeling like you gave a gift of agreement and acknowledgment.
3. Disagree with the other person's perceptions, wants and goals. Result: Actions and words are aligned, person knows what to expect, experiences the safety of predictiability, does not lose support that wasn't there nor hope for support that won't occur, and you continue on with the same beliefs and actions and feel as good as you did before, and have ehanced self-respect for having been truthful and for having held to your values and need.
4. Stop engaging with posts about wanting to ctb for relationship issues. Result: other person's well-being is not diminished and is in fact enhanced because someone held back from negating them, and you have enhanced self-resepect for not acting against your values and needs to please or help another with whom you disagree.