If I had my "druthers", I'd rather be happy AND right.
Frankly, I think it's a horsecrap question. If I behave in a way that I believe is right, I'm not sure I can be happy if the alternative to what I'm doing is the "path to happiness." Metaphorically speaking, I'm "right" to drive the direction I do (with traffic) on the interstate. Is the path to "happy" to drive the wrong way, against traffic? That's not going to make me happy either.
But, yes, yes, I know. The point is really about being an argumentative pain in the ass and not seeing the forest for the trees, that you can "win" the individual battle (argument) and lose the war (not actually persuade your opponent and in fact set them harder against your point).
This question generally gets brought up in reference to a romantic relationship, where one side is arguing idiocy (side: gender non-specific) and the other is frustratedly arguing common sense.
For as much as I screw with people and play with perspectives, that's simply because I can. I can argue for abortion, against abortion, for abstinence, for enforced sterility, for IUDs, for post-birth killing, for adoption, for castration, for hysterectomies...for anything concerning the topic. In fact because I can do that, it means there's not much point in arguing with people because I already know what they're going to say. As such, I will generally propose the most ludicrous point of view I can think of and then be as vehement as possible so I can get entertainment from a) exploring something I haven't thought about before and b) bewildering the folks around me.
Now, that's something I do because I can. It doesn't mean that any of those are my beliefs. They're just words and/or thoughts. I find a great many people, the vast majority in fact, can't separate words, thoughts, and beliefs.
What are my thoughts on abortion? You'd have to ask me AND I'd have to want to tell you. Why would I not want to tell you? For the same reason I don't tell 99.99% of people my real opinions: they're different from yours.
Now that's not that I'm afraid to tell you. I am who I am; I like who I am. The thing is...I probably like you too, or at the very least I don't want to upset you or get you riled up (legitimately, that is. I love getting everyone riled up over silly nonsensical crap). I don't like making strangers mad and I definitely don't like making friends mad.
Some folks think this attitude is patronizing or condescending at the base of it. I was raised, and believe, that it's actually polite and civilized not to truly antagonize and argue.
But, Would You Rather Be Happy or Right?
I can get along with people that I disagree with. I have to; there are so, so, so, so, so many of you. And it's fine. I just don't argue with you. "Out of sight/out of mind," a bit. For me it's mostly, "In sight/ignore" because so many of those arguments that we could have are hypotheticals. Until it's a real issue that has direct effects, I'm more than happy to let you be you and me be me.
The issue, I suppose, is that my silence when you say something I disagree with is often taken for tacit agreement. And it's not. It just is not. Unless I have told you my specific view, which must mean I trust and like you a great deal if I know you disagree with me (trust you can handle being around someone who doesn't hold the exact same opinions, which believe it or not, most can't), my silence is simply silence and you're talking for your own benefit or thinking out loud. Again, one side of that coin is patronizing/condescending, but the other is polite/civilized.
"But, Would You Rather Be Happy or Right, Ajax?!?! Answer the damn question!"
I'm getting to it. I'm getting to it.
So the question in my regards would mean that I was having an argument with a girlfriend/wife. And it would mean that the issue was one that our disagreement, which I'd have been aware of for quite some time and mostly ignored (and if it were one of the "dealbreaker" disagreements, like, I don't know, she's a virulent racist or an atheist, then we wouldn't be in a relationship in the first place), had finally converted from some distant hypothetical to a reality.
Well then, the answer is...it depends. What's the outcome of my being right and unhappy? She's pissed off? Or she dumps/divorces me? Because simply pissed off, then I'd rather be right and then she can get over it. Hell, I'd want her to be that way if I got furious about something that wasn't a linecrosser. However, dumps/divorces me? Hmmm...I might have to swallow being "wrong", but I wouldn't be happy either. At all. I'd probably be pissed and really have to work at forgiveness or moving on. But I might choose dump/divorce if it's serious enough. That would be a gawdawful position to be in.
But I'll be super-duper clear here, aside from the fact that I am looking for a beautiful, smart, fun, and funny woman (ie, an extraordinarily rare creature, even moreso considering they get snatched up immediately and so are almost never single), I'm looking for one who shares similar beliefs so we don't have have those kind of arguments.
I know plenty of guys who, if the girl is "hot" enough, will definitely date/marry her. "Yeah, it sucks her dad's a grand dragon in the KKK, and she thinks n----er is verbal punctuation, but other than that, she's great!" and they have nagging, crappy relationships that are marked by mutual annoyance and typically end unpleasantly because they want to have sex with a hottie and can't be alone with themselves and don't have the patience/self-control to say "maybe this isn't a good idea."
I get this often from friends when they give me crap for not going after some girl or another: "But she's hot as hell!" Well, yes, she is. So what?
The other variant of that is guy talk where a woman comes up (usually one all the guy talk participants know/are aware of) and it becomes a roundtable discussion of what, precisely, we'd all do to her. (Yes, it's piggish. However, it's also reality.) And every so often, if I like the guys I'll say, "Nope. She's (whatever my issue with her is)." And one of them will go, "You're full of @#%&! You're telling me, if she came up to you right now and said, 'Let's go!', you'd say 'No.'?" "Yup," I'll say. The one, or perhaps the group, will shake their heads and say "You're full of @#%&! There's something wrong with you."
Maybe, but I'd rather find/pick the right girl and be happy AND right WITH her.
"You never answer the actual question, Ajax! Happy OR Right? Pick!"
Hmmm. Well, I think the fact that I'm 34, never been married, and rarely date prroooobbbbbabbbblllllyyy means I'd rather be right if I had to choose.
But that's a horsecrap question.
Frankly, I think it's a horsecrap question. If I behave in a way that I believe is right, I'm not sure I can be happy if the alternative to what I'm doing is the "path to happiness." Metaphorically speaking, I'm "right" to drive the direction I do (with traffic) on the interstate. Is the path to "happy" to drive the wrong way, against traffic? That's not going to make me happy either.
But, yes, yes, I know. The point is really about being an argumentative pain in the ass and not seeing the forest for the trees, that you can "win" the individual battle (argument) and lose the war (not actually persuade your opponent and in fact set them harder against your point).
This question generally gets brought up in reference to a romantic relationship, where one side is arguing idiocy (side: gender non-specific) and the other is frustratedly arguing common sense.
For as much as I screw with people and play with perspectives, that's simply because I can. I can argue for abortion, against abortion, for abstinence, for enforced sterility, for IUDs, for post-birth killing, for adoption, for castration, for hysterectomies...for anything concerning the topic. In fact because I can do that, it means there's not much point in arguing with people because I already know what they're going to say. As such, I will generally propose the most ludicrous point of view I can think of and then be as vehement as possible so I can get entertainment from a) exploring something I haven't thought about before and b) bewildering the folks around me.
Now, that's something I do because I can. It doesn't mean that any of those are my beliefs. They're just words and/or thoughts. I find a great many people, the vast majority in fact, can't separate words, thoughts, and beliefs.
What are my thoughts on abortion? You'd have to ask me AND I'd have to want to tell you. Why would I not want to tell you? For the same reason I don't tell 99.99% of people my real opinions: they're different from yours.
Now that's not that I'm afraid to tell you. I am who I am; I like who I am. The thing is...I probably like you too, or at the very least I don't want to upset you or get you riled up (legitimately, that is. I love getting everyone riled up over silly nonsensical crap). I don't like making strangers mad and I definitely don't like making friends mad.
Some folks think this attitude is patronizing or condescending at the base of it. I was raised, and believe, that it's actually polite and civilized not to truly antagonize and argue.
But, Would You Rather Be Happy or Right?
I can get along with people that I disagree with. I have to; there are so, so, so, so, so many of you. And it's fine. I just don't argue with you. "Out of sight/out of mind," a bit. For me it's mostly, "In sight/ignore" because so many of those arguments that we could have are hypotheticals. Until it's a real issue that has direct effects, I'm more than happy to let you be you and me be me.
The issue, I suppose, is that my silence when you say something I disagree with is often taken for tacit agreement. And it's not. It just is not. Unless I have told you my specific view, which must mean I trust and like you a great deal if I know you disagree with me (trust you can handle being around someone who doesn't hold the exact same opinions, which believe it or not, most can't), my silence is simply silence and you're talking for your own benefit or thinking out loud. Again, one side of that coin is patronizing/condescending, but the other is polite/civilized.
"But, Would You Rather Be Happy or Right, Ajax?!?! Answer the damn question!"
I'm getting to it. I'm getting to it.
So the question in my regards would mean that I was having an argument with a girlfriend/wife. And it would mean that the issue was one that our disagreement, which I'd have been aware of for quite some time and mostly ignored (and if it were one of the "dealbreaker" disagreements, like, I don't know, she's a virulent racist or an atheist, then we wouldn't be in a relationship in the first place), had finally converted from some distant hypothetical to a reality.
Well then, the answer is...it depends. What's the outcome of my being right and unhappy? She's pissed off? Or she dumps/divorces me? Because simply pissed off, then I'd rather be right and then she can get over it. Hell, I'd want her to be that way if I got furious about something that wasn't a linecrosser. However, dumps/divorces me? Hmmm...I might have to swallow being "wrong", but I wouldn't be happy either. At all. I'd probably be pissed and really have to work at forgiveness or moving on. But I might choose dump/divorce if it's serious enough. That would be a gawdawful position to be in.
But I'll be super-duper clear here, aside from the fact that I am looking for a beautiful, smart, fun, and funny woman (ie, an extraordinarily rare creature, even moreso considering they get snatched up immediately and so are almost never single), I'm looking for one who shares similar beliefs so we don't have have those kind of arguments.
I know plenty of guys who, if the girl is "hot" enough, will definitely date/marry her. "Yeah, it sucks her dad's a grand dragon in the KKK, and she thinks n----er is verbal punctuation, but other than that, she's great!" and they have nagging, crappy relationships that are marked by mutual annoyance and typically end unpleasantly because they want to have sex with a hottie and can't be alone with themselves and don't have the patience/self-control to say "maybe this isn't a good idea."
I get this often from friends when they give me crap for not going after some girl or another: "But she's hot as hell!" Well, yes, she is. So what?
The other variant of that is guy talk where a woman comes up (usually one all the guy talk participants know/are aware of) and it becomes a roundtable discussion of what, precisely, we'd all do to her. (Yes, it's piggish. However, it's also reality.) And every so often, if I like the guys I'll say, "Nope. She's (whatever my issue with her is)." And one of them will go, "You're full of @#%&! You're telling me, if she came up to you right now and said, 'Let's go!', you'd say 'No.'?" "Yup," I'll say. The one, or perhaps the group, will shake their heads and say "You're full of @#%&! There's something wrong with you."
Maybe, but I'd rather find/pick the right girl and be happy AND right WITH her.
"You never answer the actual question, Ajax! Happy OR Right? Pick!"
Hmmm. Well, I think the fact that I'm 34, never been married, and rarely date prroooobbbbbabbbblllllyyy means I'd rather be right if I had to choose.
But that's a horsecrap question.
No comments:
Post a Comment