I'm so sad that I have to include you in the INTJ category. We're supposed to be good at encouraging people to make up their own minds about what is best for them, not trying to control them. Sad sad...
Not slam, just observation .... absolutely not saying you are a bad person, just a bad INTJ (that's a joke). If everyone in the world respected where everyone else is at this moment there would be a lot less hate. I have no right to tell you how you should (or shouldn't) be or feel and only wish you would feel the same way. I just thought INTJ's were better at this than you seem to be..? All I can do is observe and speak, same as you... Who cares what I think anyway??? We're all entitled to opinions, right? No hard feelings.
Well first you would have to state your personal definition of respect. To me, respect means brutal honesty. Do I think you are Intolerant? Probably. Hateful? Probably that too, intolerance and hate go hand in hand. And before you think I'm "hating" on you. Nope, not a chance. Hate isn't in my repertoire of emotions. Verbalizing how I feel is though. I do not "feel" anything but sadness for what I see as ignorance on your part. You can speak your mind all you want but probably don't have any right to tell people what they should do with their own mind and body. I respect your right to speak but not your attempt to control. You can take my opinion with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to change you, only make you more aware of how different people can be Differing opinions doesn't make people less worthy than you.
Do you respect the government's attempt to control via the Rule of Law? Are you condemning control per se, or merely absolute control (e.g., dictatorship/totalitarianism)? If only the latter, then I'm happy to let you know I'm utterly powerless compared to a sovereign dictator of a nation. Heck, I don't even carry the weight of a Congressperson, or even a city council member. All the control I have is over my life. Anything else I say is simply an attempt at influencing others--in my opinion, for the better. But influence is a far, far cry from control, or even "attempted control." Rather, it's the duty of every responsible citizen of a democratic republic such as ours--yea, of whatever social sphere we inhabit.
Now, if you're specifically criticizing me for defending the innocent lives of preborn children against those who would wish to murder them, that's fine. But that's not control. It's simply standing up for the defenseless, those who have no voice, no power.
Remember that the government puts all sorts of constraints on our "freedom to choose." Citizens of any social entity, be it a family, a school, a place of work, or a nation, accept certain limitations on the choices they may make, as well as the consequences for transgressing them. We are not allowed to choose to take what is not rightfully ours to take, be it someone else's car or their life. We are not allowed to choose to destroy others' property, or treat them like chattel. Civil society is built upon a foundation of mutual respect, which includes accepting constraints on one's freedom. You say you want respect, yet if I'm hearing you right, you want freedom from control. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Respect and mutual deference go hand in hand.
My point is, when our choices infringe on the freedoms and well-being of others, we are not simply free to make them. If an unborn child is a human person, no one has a right to take his or her life, even if his or her mere existence (note: not choice) infringes on that person's freedom. Otherwise, we would have the right to do away with anyone who causes us psychological distress or any other sort of imposition. But do we have the right to kill anyone who harms, distresses, or inconveniences us? Of course not. Should we adopt policies like those of China which require children over a certain quota per household to be killed for the sake of population control? Should we kill all severely disabled people to spare them the misery of living in such an abominable condition? All of these policies logically flow from the reasoning upon which the right to kill preborn children is built.
I do not hate, Christy. I love all people. But I love them with action. Action that seeks to preserve a society in which all people, especially the most vulnerable and powerless, are safe from the choices of others to do them harm.
I'm so sad that I have to include you in the INTJ category. We're supposed to be good at encouraging people to make up their own minds about what is best for them, not trying to control them. Sad sad...
ReplyDeleteWow. That may be the worst slam I've ever received on my blog. Then again, if you attribute that much power to my blogging, it may be a compliment!
ReplyDeleteNot slam, just observation .... absolutely not saying you are a bad person, just a bad INTJ (that's a joke). If everyone in the world respected where everyone else is at this moment there would be a lot less hate. I have no right to tell you how you should (or shouldn't) be or feel and only wish you would feel the same way. I just thought INTJ's were better at this than you seem to be..? All I can do is observe and speak, same as you... Who cares what I think anyway??? We're all entitled to opinions, right? No hard feelings.
ReplyDeleteWell first you would have to state your personal definition of respect. To me, respect means brutal honesty. Do I think you are Intolerant? Probably. Hateful? Probably that too, intolerance and hate go hand in hand. And before you think I'm "hating" on you. Nope, not a chance. Hate isn't in my repertoire of emotions. Verbalizing how I feel is though. I do not "feel" anything but sadness for what I see as ignorance on your part. You can speak your mind all you want but probably don't have any right to tell people what they should do with their own mind and body. I respect your right to speak but not your attempt to control. You can take my opinion with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to change you, only make you more aware of how different people can be Differing opinions doesn't make people less worthy than you.
ReplyDeleteChristy,
ReplyDeleteDo you respect the government's attempt to control via the Rule of Law? Are you condemning control per se, or merely absolute control (e.g., dictatorship/totalitarianism)? If only the latter, then I'm happy to let you know I'm utterly powerless compared to a sovereign dictator of a nation. Heck, I don't even carry the weight of a Congressperson, or even a city council member. All the control I have is over my life. Anything else I say is simply an attempt at influencing others--in my opinion, for the better. But influence is a far, far cry from control, or even "attempted control." Rather, it's the duty of every responsible citizen of a democratic republic such as ours--yea, of whatever social sphere we inhabit.
Now, if you're specifically criticizing me for defending the innocent lives of preborn children against those who would wish to murder them, that's fine. But that's not control. It's simply standing up for the defenseless, those who have no voice, no power.
Remember that the government puts all sorts of constraints on our "freedom to choose." Citizens of any social entity, be it a family, a school, a place of work, or a nation, accept certain limitations on the choices they may make, as well as the consequences for transgressing them. We are not allowed to choose to take what is not rightfully ours to take, be it someone else's car or their life. We are not allowed to choose to destroy others' property, or treat them like chattel. Civil society is built upon a foundation of mutual respect, which includes accepting constraints on one's freedom. You say you want respect, yet if I'm hearing you right, you want freedom from control. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Respect and mutual deference go hand in hand.
My point is, when our choices infringe on the freedoms and well-being of others, we are not simply free to make them. If an unborn child is a human person, no one has a right to take his or her life, even if his or her mere existence (note: not choice) infringes on that person's freedom. Otherwise, we would have the right to do away with anyone who causes us psychological distress or any other sort of imposition. But do we have the right to kill anyone who harms, distresses, or inconveniences us? Of course not. Should we adopt policies like those of China which require children over a certain quota per household to be killed for the sake of population control? Should we kill all severely disabled people to spare them the misery of living in such an abominable condition? All of these policies logically flow from the reasoning upon which the right to kill preborn children is built.
I do not hate, Christy. I love all people. But I love them with action. Action that seeks to preserve a society in which all people, especially the most vulnerable and powerless, are safe from the choices of others to do them harm.