Compliance, reliance and the abuse of companionship.

[CDNBear]

Why does 'friendship' or 'companionship' have to come with complete acceptance of one another's faults?

Take the friendship between 'X' and 'Y'. 'X' thinks and accuses 'Y' of 'attacking' 'X', because 'Y' sees and addresses a flaw in 'X', even though 'Y' likes 'X', but 'Y' doesn't like what 'X' says or does at times. 'Y' only acknowledges only the apparent flaw.

Why does that make 'Y' the bad guy? Why is it an 'attack' when 'Y' states the obvious?

Further to that...

Why does 'Y' have to dislike or disassociate with 'Z', because he is 'friends' with 'W'?

Why is it 'A' through 'Z' cannot just associate maturely, openly and without predetermined prejudices because of association?

When someone in that alphabet of membership uses there friendship and/or emotions, to force compliance and/or acceptance without question, is that not an abuse?

 

[MikeyDB]

Your asking why (someone?) can't have a mature reasonable relationship with a person whom some other acquaintance/friend/relation places a negative value determination on, implying that by entertaining this kind of relationship that acceptance/approval/respect would be denied..?

Hidden agendas, envy, projection, guilt, prejudice, jealousy, etc....

 

[CDNBear]

Mikey, that was very generic coming from you.

Factual none the less, but I've always liked the depth of your views (Even when I disagree).

 

[MikeyDB]

I'm a generic kind of guy Bear..

 

[CDNBear]

I'm a generic kind of guy Bear..

I think not Mikey.
But thanx for your input none the less.

You oft provoke much with your postings. Sometimes negativity, but only when you stretch things. But that doesn't change the fact that you put much effort into your posts and you use great throught to formulate them.

I have online acquaintances that despise you, yet I do not, I have some online acquaintances that absolutely adore you, yet I place a limit on that adoration, myself.

It will not change how I view your posts, nor will it alter my perception of who you are as a person.

And in that lies the basis of my conundrum. Though no one has held out over my feelings about your contributions, your case would be the exception to the norm and only part of the greater issue. Which to me is, is it abuse of 'friendship' to demand that one never address or acknowledge errors or flaws in ones acquaintances online or otherwise?

On a side note, how ya doing these days?

 

[MikeyDB]

I stopped being concerned with what anyone else thinks about what I say or believe or offer as opinion a long long time ago. I'm not engaged in dialogue with anyone, particularly the anonymous denizens of the virtual world that exists on our "information super highway"...

Anyone who let's the opinions of anyone/someone else influence their emotional and psychological balance needs to get help. Because I think "this or that" is exactly like somone else's contribution here at CC pointed out with respect to membership in a political party....That and a buck twenty-five will get you a cup of coffee....

Anyone can simultaneously agree with some points or opinions or observations of somone else and disagree with some points opinions or observations of that same person.

Multi-dimensionality, non-linear thinking, "generic" /broader perspectives all find their place within the human psyche.

As far as how I'm doiin.....

Air's comin in and goin out.... everyday above ground's a good day.

You and I disagree on a great many things Bear but that doesn't mean that I have any right to foster hatred or harbour anger and resentment against you. I can take umbrage with your views and passionately disagree on some things, but last time I checked (yes the great weakness of the virtual world...) you're a human being who has just as much right as I do to hold beliefs and opinions that are product of your own thinking and your own ideals without the necessity of conforming to my views opinions and assessments.

I'd sit and have a beer or a coffee with you or anyone else with whom I might disagree and so long as you didn't try to harm me things would probably go just fine...

Back in my sixties I stopped taking a lot of things tooooooo seriously.

 

[Sal]

Why does 'friendship' or 'companionship' have to come with complete acceptance of one another's faults?

Take the friendship between 'X' and 'Y'. 'X' thinks and accuses 'Y' of 'attacking' 'X', because 'Y' sees and addresses a flaw in 'X', even though 'Y' likes 'X', but 'Y' doesn't like what 'X' says or does at times. 'Y' only acknowledges only the apparent flaw.

Why does that make 'Y' the bad guy? Why is it an 'attack' when 'Y' states the obvious?

Further to that...

Why does 'Y' have to dislike or disassociate with 'Z', because he is 'friends' with 'W'?

Why is it 'A' through 'Z' cannot just associate maturely, openly and without predetermined prejudices because of association?

When someone in that alphabet of membership uses there friendship and/or emotions, to force compliance and/or acceptance without question, is that not an abuse?

Your asking why (someone?) can't have a mature reasonable relationship with a person whom some other acquaintance/friend/relation places a negative value determination on, implying that by entertaining this kind of relationship that acceptance/approval/respect would be denied..?

Hidden agendas, envy, projection, guilt, prejudice, jealousy, etc....

Well Bear, Mikey pretty much summed it up.

It's why I don't like group think in a forum. I prefer to stand alone.

There are ofcourse exceptions to standing alone. There are people who can respect others as individuals and allow them the freedom to be exactly who they are in every circumstance. Not saying they won't challenge their bud, but that both speak their mind in an upfront and non combative way. It's all about communication. Then things are fine.

It's also about being sure of oneself. People who are extremely comfortable in their own shoes can allow things to evolve naturally. And then work on things as they happen if they are disturbed by things being discussed or said.

That's the beauty of the PM button. If ya get your knickers in a knot, you can PM the other and say.........did you mean this "?". NO? Okay, maybe I'm a tad sensitive today. And then move on.

We all have our days when things can be misinterpreted. OR when someone in a moment of anger meant exactly what appears to be meant. The thing is, until it is discussed in a cool headed manner, one would never know.

Regardless, it can be discussed and resolved if both wish it.

 

[CDNBear]

And there's the meat in Mikey's views. Thanx Mikey!!!

Excellent post Mikey, I knew there was more to your views then the first reply.

My opinion on your first reply...you may have felt I was fishing for a fight. You have oft pointed out that I tend to be bellicose in nature and you would be correct. I am a tad, lol.

Well Bear, Mikey pretty much summed it up.

It's why I don't like group think in a forum. I prefer to stand alone.

There are ofcourse exceptions to standing alone. There are people who can respect others as individuals and allow them the freedom to be exactly who they are in every circumstance. Not saying they won't challenge their bud, but that both speak their mind in an upfront and non combative way. It's all about communication. Then things are fine.

It's also about being sure of oneself. People who are extremely comfortable in their own shoes can allow things to evolve naturally. And then work on things as they happen if they are disturbed by things being discussed or said.

That's the beauty of the PM button. If ya get your knickers in a knot, you can PM the other and say.........did you mean this "?". NO? Okay, maybe I'm a tad sensitive today. And then move on.

We all have our days when things can be misinterpreted. OR when someone in a moment of anger meant exactly what appears to be meant. The thing is, until it is discussed in a cool headed manner, one would never know.

Regardless, it can be discussed and resolved if both wish it.

I think you and I had one ofthose misconception moments once. PM's can be a wondrous thing. But they can be abused to.

Have you ever said..."I don't want to hear it!!!"

Or how about..."I've heard it all before!"

When the cycle keeps on cycling and the same ole same ole, becomes a broken record of monumental proportions. It's much easier to just shut off the PM's.

btw...I like Mikey's last post best. It's what I've come to expect from him, depth.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Why does 'friendship' or 'companionship' have to come with complete acceptance of one another's faults?

I don't think it does. Some interesting gender differences though. For instance, suppose your best buddy says something really stupid. Everybody does, sometimes. Odds are you can safely turn to him and say, "What are you, a moron?" and he'll still respect you in the morning.

Now suppose SCB says something really stupid... 8O

 

[MikeyDB]

Hey Dex how's it goin Eh!?

I heard that comic on Club 54 who was making the case for listening to your wife/girlfriend/lover etc. as opposed to a "real-friend". We will be a "real-friend" when there's no resultant consequences for dealing honestly with each other.... when your wife/significant-other etc. says something stupid....it's the inference that you'll pay some price for pointing out that stupidity...No sexual intercourse/fun....disagreement when you're seeking cooperation for some task or endeavor.... It's the longest running game in the entire species....

In fact that's what "lawyers" are all about!

 

[CDNBear]

I don't think it does. Some interesting gender differences though. For instance, suppose your best buddy says something really stupid. Everybody does, sometimes. Odds are you can safely turn to him and say, "What are you, a moron?" and he'll still respect you in the morning.

Well that's the problem. I like you, you like me, you've actually said to me "What are you, a moron?" and I visa versa, yet we moved on. It's when the question becomes the norm and it's all about the singular individual, that the issue arises.

It's one thing to say. "WTF?" It's a whole other issue to be accusatory constantly.

Now suppose SCB says something really stupid... 8O

I just knod politely and say uh huh!!! It's just safer. :lol:

 

[Outta here]

Bear,

What has got you in such a conundrum? You appear in your post to want someone "y" ?? to become someone different - to perceive things they way you would wish them... even if your intention is positive, it's damn near impossible to 'get' someone to see the light exactly as you see it.

People see what they want to, when they want to. If you're trying to teach a cat to bark, you'll have a long and frustrating road ahead of you, I'm afraid.

I've found that sometimes it is absolutely necessary to accept certain flaws in people - especially if they refuse to accept or acknowledge that such flaws exist or have no desire to look at themselves and see how those 'flaws' impact their lives or their relationship with others.

If the flaw becomes the overriding thing that's defining the friendship - that is, everything that occurs within the friendship has to pass through that flaw-filter first, then I think it becomes an issue of whether or not I have the energy or the desire to do the work of on my end to maintain the relationship.

Sounds like you're in the horns of a dilemma... if you're trying to determine whether or not the friendship is salvageable, only you can decide that. There must be positives that exist or you wouldn't be scratching your head over this. The question isn't about whether or not it 'should' be this way in a friendship, because clearly it is like this. It seems the question is "Do *I* want to continue a friendship that is like this?"

It's like marriage Bear - never go into it thinking you can change the other one - what you see is what you get - if you don't like something, it'll be up to you to either accept it and learn to work with it - or to ask yourself why you think this person should change an integral part of themselves to suit your wants. Even if you perceive it as a reasonable request - it's still unreasonable to expect someone to change if they've stated an unwillingness - either in word or in their behaviour - to do so.

Not only that, it's a monumental exercise in frustration for you and the other, and often ends up being nothing more than fodder for a damn good drama with regular predictability.

imo.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I heard that comic on Club 54...

So did I, about a week or so ago I think it was, 'cept I think it was the Winnipeg Comedy Festival where I heard him make the point, and it stuck in my memory. Jebb Fink, wasn't it? The best standup comics often have a way of pointing out the home truths...

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I just knod politely and say uh huh!!! It's just safer. :lol:

Yeah, it's like John Wing said. There are only four words you have to know, and they can be used singly or in combination: Oh, yeah, right, and sorry.

 

[CDNBear]

It isn't about trying to change someone, it is about being accepted yourself.

I accept people for who they are. I'm not going to change them. I will offer advice, but in the end the choice is theirs.

It is however an issue when people try to influence your posting, your perceptions, your associations. By whatever means necessary.

My apologies if that wasn't made clear.

 

[Outta here]

No apologies needed Bear... perhaps I mis-read - I am still on my first coffee of the day... but humour me for a sec here ... you're wanting someone to accept you - as you are - but they can't (won't ??) do that?

Writing's on the wall, isn't it?

 

[CDNBear]

Not at all.

It's about having to censor what you type, post think, just because if you don't, you will be accused of being a victimiser, an abuser, or whatever.

It's about being friends with someone and you/they are unable to accept the truths about them self/yourself.

Zan, you yourself have called me out in public and private, non?

Did I get all pissy and accuse you of all manner of things? Absolutely I did!!! Did I attack every post you made after that? Absolutely not. Your world does not revolve around me.

My point is and was, it's impossible not to post somethings that some people you know won't take objection to. It's impossible to censor yourself to the point silence.

 

[lone wolf]

Sorry, man.... Sounds too much like algebra. Hmm ... isn't that how most relationships are? 'Tis wisely written that aside from one's self, the number of people one actually can control may be counted with remarkable accuracy on the fingers of one foot.

Woof!

 

[CDNBear]

Sorry, man.... Sounds too much like algebra. Hmm ... isn't that how most relationships are? 'Tis wisely written that aside from one's self, the number of people one actually can control may be counted with remarkable accuracy on the fingers of one foot.

Woof!

LOL Wolf...

That's the point, people sometimes go to great lengths to control others. I'm sick of it. I had a conversation with another Member and it saddened me and angered me, that she felt she was hindered in her right to free speech, because of pressure from others, or the reaction to her commentary in certain venues...

Hence the OP.

 

[karrie]

Hmmm.

Okay, one thing that jumps out at me is that pointing out a flaw in logical process (saying things like 'what are you, stupid?) isn't the same as pointing out a flaw in a person. Pointing out a flaw in a person doesn't fly in most relationships. It becomes a sore spot, which, hit once may not be a huge deal but, hit repeatedly, becomes emotional abuse. Don't try to tell me that any guys would keep hanging out with someone who kept bitching at them about the same issue over and over and over again. You might not be dramatic about it, but you'd probably walk away