Truth & Consequences

[ashlesha]

"if somebody is stupid enough to get used/played/manipulated/conned, they deserve the consequences."

lately i've wondered if this attitude is more widespread than i thought. obviously this is an issue with a LOT of grey area but i think overall with some thought it shouldn't be too hard to place yourself as more sympathetic toward someone who gets fucked over or more scornful toward someone who doesn't use their head and makes stupid decisions. (or however else you would frame the issue - comments welcomed.)

place your votes. types added for science.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Add context for this to be remotely meaningful.

[ashlesha]

an example: somebody being strung along romantically by someone playing head games on them.

[ashlesha]

logical types are avoiding this poll so far

[Pa3s]

As you have already said in the OP, it's not easy to make a categorical judgement here. But I'm still more inclined to agree, because everyone is responsible for the outcome of their actions. And ultimately, it's you who decides who is trustworthy and who is not.

I think trial & error is one of the best ways to learn, even in human relations. It's also a method everyone can use. It sure takes less time if you're smart but the principle is still the same. With the experience you gather, you can estimate the risks. If you have very limited experience, it's not your fault if you get fucked over. But it really depends on how predictable the trick is. If some random person wants to inspect your wallet and you give it to them, I'd not feel much sympathy for you. But if your mom (who always was a very trustworthy person, let's just assume that) steals money from your wallet while you walk the dog, it would be a totally different situation.

However, that also means that it gets much worse if the same person tricks you several times. Or a different person with the same trick. Or, the worst scenario: the same person with the same trick. You'd exhibit a clear lack of learning skills in that case. And this can be extremely dangerous (just ask Darwin).

[squark]

"if somebody is stupid enough to get used/played/manipulated/conned, they deserve the consequences."

lately i've wondered if this attitude is more widespread than i thought. obviously this is an issue with a LOT of grey area but i think overall with some thought it shouldn't be too hard to place yourself as more sympathetic toward someone who gets fucked over or more scornful toward someone who doesn't use their head and makes stupid decisions. (or however else you would frame the issue - comments welcomed.)

place your votes. types added for science.

I voted no, because it often has little to do with stupidity, and much more to do with experience. It's easy to sit back and judge a person when you see them being obviously conned/manipulated etc etc, because it's obvious to you. But, you have to keep in mind that they don't necessarily have the same background, experience, knowledge, or detachment from the situation to see what's happening clearly. We're all vulnerable in different ways, and we're all able to take advantage of others in different ways if we choose to do that. The responsibility to refrain from exploiting others even when the opportunity arises is an individual one. The responsibility to learn from mistakes is also an individual one. But, it's hard to fault someone for not being aware of something they haven't had to deal with before.

[Scapegrace]

It's too difficult to say, frankly. There are too many factors involved.

Take the friend I posted about recently (Mr. I know! I should get married to the married girl I'm seeing). That's his fault. He's being willfully ignorant and (as much as I hate it) he deserves whatever outcome his actions result in.

[leckysupport]

I don't trust anyone who hasn't wildly and emotionally gone out of control for a while.

[Beautiful sky]

I vote no.

[ashlesha]

I don't trust anyone who hasn't wildly and emotionally gone out of control for a while.

i'm not even seeing the relevance here but i like this.

edit: oh! never mind. i get it. i think. having total mental control over your emotions at all times to the point where you could never be susceptible to cons would make you untrustworthy in a calculating-robot-mind kind of way. i agree. if that's what you mean.

[Beautiful sky]

I don't trust anyone who hasn't wildly and emotionally gone out of control for a while.

How about those who are that way um, more than usual?

[FDG]

an example: somebody being strung along romantically by someone playing head games on them.

In this case I wouldn't agree with the statement unless the behavior was repeated over many years (10 or more).

An example where I would agree: expensive horoscope and tarot card readers.

[Absurd]

Whoever makes stupid decisions makes them on their own account, that is, people like that violate, exploit and make themselves vulnerable to any kind of outside intervention where they are the suspect and perpetrator in one, that is, they committed the same crime the culprit would have committed on them if caught. It's pretty standard: it happens voluntarily on both sides, neither the person conned nor the conman are pressured into what they do, there is no force aspect behind it, no gun held to their heads. In a romantic scenario, it plays out as an agreement between two parties, that is, they both agree on a relationship and if you want to see such scenario as being conned into it while the other person being the conman, be my guest, although one thing remains unsure in it - who's being conned and who is doing the conning for the line is pretty thin and blur. Besides, no one ever said a conman can't make a shitty decision leading to his demise. All do mistakes, all are human.

So be smarter than the average conman/manipulator is what I say and there is no problem. As for head games, point at the person and an angry 16types.info mob is going to lynch him/her. Providing you're sure about it and there isn't even a faint hint to the contrary.

Voted yes.

[Korpsy Knievel]

1 - Accepting the realness of human agency, persons of able body and mind are ultimately responsible for their own choices.

2 - Understanding of consequentiality is developed through experience, both harmful and beneficial, directly and through acquaintance (i.e. from books or other media, anecdotes, advice, and so on).

3 - All actions entail potential risks.

4 - It is generally impossible to detect or anticipate all situational contingencies.

5 - Awareness of dangers posed by predatory and/or ulterior motives can be attenuated through interpersonal mimesis and deception.

6 - The efficacy of human agency must be weighed against human ability, perception, knowledge, and opportunity.

7 - Given the above it is only those who repeat errors after multiple negative experiences and friendly warnings who "deserve" to be exploited in like manner again.

[Absurd]

Every relationship is based on trust, at least it was so last time I checked, so I don't really know how can one get into one where there is none. For sport?

[wacey]

You live and burn. How else can you learn?

It"s messy and you make mistakes. Everyone wears both shoes in the course of a lifetime, the burned and the burners. The great thing about mistakes is they can be learned from. Don't touch the stove next time because you might get .....


Makes me appreciate the quality ones even more.

[Raver]

Here are some quotes I found that I think are relevant to this topic:


“Time ripens all things; no man is born wise.”

“People never learn anything by being told, they have to find out for themselves.”

“Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.”

“Life will give you whatever experience is most helpful for the evolution of your consciousness. How do you know this is the experience you need? Because this is the experience you are having at the moment.”


Anyways my point is that people do not deserve the consequences derived from their poor decision making, however they do need it imo.

[ashlesha]

itt i learned te egos are dicks

[wacey]

I wish I could say both yes and no. Here's why: there is truth in being innocent and there is also truth in loosing innocence.

The problem for me is the word "deserves".

[Absurd]

You're not innocent the moment you leave baby phase behind you (thanks, Park). Losing innocence in the case you mentioned Wacey means no one deserves to grow/mature and make the many mistakes one wouldn't even know about in the first place. It also means one wouldn't get to know love, anger, etc.

[Creepy-]

I lean towards yes, though I tend to apply this logic to much more trite things such as being offended (and yes, people who get offended easily do deserve to get offended), but I think when we are speaking of manipulation, emotional, fiscal, or otherwise, it might depend on the context.

[davez]

Yes. Borderline for possible no would be case where someone is being manipulative to the extreme. example : striving to get in head of particular person for settled reason, which came up before messing emotions.

[wacey]

You're not innocent the moment you leave baby phase behind you (thanks, Park). Losing innocence in the case you mentioned Wacey means no one deserves to grow/mature and make the many mistakes one wouldn't even know about in the first place. It also means one wouldn't get to know love, anger, etc.

You are innocent after you are born. Have worked for last 15 hours so I'm brain dead - cannot come up with many examples. But are are innocent in many respects up untill you die of old age.

Did you read the post about the stove top? I think we are saying the same thing. I never thought of using the word deserves to describe the chance to learn and grow. Thank-you for the fresh prespective.

[Absurd]

Yeah, sure one is considered innocent when one hasn't been proved guilty. I can remain innocent and plead not guilty to manslaughter until I haven't been proved guilty of manslaughter, up until the day I die. That is, providing I did really commit manslaughter and I'm not a serial killer that is going to do it again after my crime has been whitewashed. In other words my innocence has not been shattered and left intact.

And yes, I read your "stove comment". Problem is, some people are going to get burned over and over again, that is, they laugh in the face of consequences like an immortal person laughs in the face of death.

Oh and I didn't realise there is many Delta NFs on here.

[wacey]

I meant innocence in the sense of a young boy shares a ball with an older kid. He does it because he wants to play, and he wants a friend. So he gives the ball to the older kid, and the older kid say, "gee, thanks!". The young kid thinks they are going to play together now, so is hurt and confused when the older kid walks away, with the ball! So does the young kid deserve what was coming to him? Does he deserve to be lied to? Does he deserve to not play with the older kid? Does he deserve to have his ball stolen? Does he deserve to be manipulated? Did he deserve that kind of treatment? Just because he wanted a friend? ;ust because he wanted to se so that they could play together? This is what I mean by innocence. The same innocence that carries us on untill the end. There is truth in being innocent and not deserving mistreatment.

There is also truth in loosing that innocence, no matter how many times you touch the hot stove. If you did it over and over again, learning those consequences are no less different then when you did it the first time. Except now you have some scars.


Is not failing to learn consequences another form of innocence? As in they are unconcious of the consequences, thus innocent?

[wacey]

Well from a justice stand point no, failure to know the consequences still does not make you innocent. I am talking from humanist stand point, the view that sees the large picture, where actions of the individual can be seen as concious or unconcious. Not in a Jung or Freud sense, but in an awake /unawake sense. All our actions are born of innocence. Because conciousness, the thing that animates our being is innocent and pure, untainted. Why do you think I said both yes and no to the question?

I am not sure you would understand this because you have this mental block. This block is called "Stirlitz" .

. .

[Absurd]

What I'm saying is if you're unable to assess what is going to happen when you "play" with people out of your league not to mention that not every one you're going to meet is going to be your friend, unless you live in a dream world humanist Jehova's Witnesses fantasy where you kiss a venomous cobra on the head and it is going to hug you instead of biting you, you're sure the one to say "I didn't deserve it, my cobra friend, let's do it again, this time properly."

That is, if you're unable to learn from your own mistakes you fully deserve everything that is coming to you. Looks like "this mental bock called Stirlitz" triumphs once again.

As a side note, if you would do that, I would personally immortalise you in a book called "dumbest world records."

[wacey]

Okay. Tell that to an six year old. I like to see you do that, really, illuminate them on the ways of cruelty and selfishness. Tell them you got what was coming. And if he, out of his innocence does it again, you tell him: well you got your come up-ins.

Or a 25 year old. Or a 30 year old. Or a 80 year old. Obviously your right; but really misses out on the full story. Unless you are some unfeeling creature that nothing touches, what person deserves to be misused? What was learned from trying to play with someone out your league, never try it again? No, what you should take away from that example is that some people are mean. But maybe that boy does not know how to share?

There is a fine line between empathy for another and judgment: its called compassion.

One keeps living their mistakes over and over, the same circumstances because out of their innocence they have not seen their own karma. Or do not YET have the capacity and clarity to change their actions. Imagine for a second that touching the stove meant that you get burned, but that it also FEELS GOOD and your life is so difficult that you want to feel good even for a moment. Wouldnlt you keep touching the stove, up untill the point you have no hand left?

Well the answer to that question depends on the level of awareness that person has, or learned. You cannot judge them though, maybe they were doing the best they could at that moment with the level of awareness they had available.

[Absurd]

Tell them you got what was coming. And if he, out of his innocence does it again, you tell him: well you got your come up-ins.

No problem with that, people do that on their own account. I can say, "hey, this going to end up this and that way" before, for I know what is going to happen simply having lived longer to know, but the choice is always yours, you learn this way. No need to bombard me six year old children, they're not mine.

Obviously your right

Duh.

but really misses out on the full story.

I don't see any "full story" presented by OP.

Unless you are some unfeeling creature that nothing touches, what person deserves to be misused? What was learned from trying to play with someone out your league, never try it again? No, what you should take away from that example is that some people are mean. But maybe that boy does not know how to share?

Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know whether that figment of your imagination knows that, you created him, so I think you're better off answering that, and you don't know whether the things you say about me(?) right now are true. Besides a person wouldn't be "misused" if that person wouldn't allow that to happen in the first place. That is, they want it.

There is a fine line between empathy for another and judgment: its called compassion.

Oh.

One keeps living their mistakes over and over, the same circumstances because out of their innocence they have not seen their own karma.

By karma you imply cause and effect relationship between one's past/present deeds and future self, so heh, this is a bit funny for it allows for reincarnation. Paging crazed rat, haha. But when it allows for one being reincarnated and see/know that one has been reincarnated, one can change the course of action completely, one can abuse it for their own needs.

Or do not YET have the capacity and clarity to change their actions.

Interesting...

Imagine for a second that touching the stove meant that you get burned, but that it also FEELS GOOD and your life is so difficult that you want to feel good even for a moment. Wouldnlt you keep touching the stove, up untill the point you have no hand left?

No. I would turn on the central heating.

Well the answer to that question depends on the level of awareness that person has, or learned. You cannot judge them though, maybe they were doing the best they could at that moment with the level of awareness they had available.

I'm not judging anyone, I didn't say they're bad people that shouldn't walk on two legs, no. The only judgment that was practised has been thrown in my face actually, so easy there, don't burn yourself again.

[wacey]

In the jehovahs world, the sheep and the wolf are friends, no disguises needed.

But I guess this is the real world where consequences prevail.

"Speaking different languages; striving for the same".

[Ryan]

some people are going to get burned over and over again, that is, they laugh in the face of consequences like an immortal person laughs in the face of death.

I liked this part

I hate it when people act as if consequences are unavoidable, or they are necessarily bad/good for everyone

and I'm also one of those people who do not understand what is there to "deserve" in such sitautions

[Absurd]

And I wasn't wrong. It's nothing to "deserve", it's just semantics and it's pretty simple, the moment you, Ryan, are going to marry Wacey having the knowledge of him beforehand you're doing it at your own risk. It not anyone's fault you wanted to give it a try. Both parties wanted it, one can say. A bystander can say you deserved what you got for you knew what you got into after it failed.

Innocence would imply you haven't had a clue and did something not fully aware of what you were doing.

Hell, I know a girl who did that, my age. First marriage, even though her sisters weren't too fond of that guy and knew he is going to cheat on her, and so he did, she didn't listen. Divorce.

So next time, another guy, same thing, no marriage/divorce though. Seems like they both wanted it...

Crap choice of relationships, isn't it?

[wacey]

And I wasn't wrong. It's nothing to "deserve", it's just semantics and it's pretty simple, the moment you, Ryan, are going to marry Wacey having the knowledge of him beforehand you're doing it at your own risk. It not anyone's fault you wanted to give it a try. Both parties wanted it, one can say. A bystander can say you deserved what you got for you knew what you got into after it failed.

Innocence would imply you haven't had a clue and did something not fully aware of what you were doing.

Hell, I know a girl who did that, my age. First marriage, even though her sisters weren't too fond of that guy and knew he is going to cheat on her, and so he did, she didn't listen. Divorce.

So next time, another guy, same thing, no marriage/divorce though. Seems like they both wanted it...

Crap choice of relationships, isn't it?

Nobody likes an, "I told you so". Do this, and you won't have many friends left, even if you are correct.

Thank God for the ethicals. We don't always need to be right.

[mikemex]

Those who voted 'yes' are potential serial killers.

[JWC3]

You either play the best, or you aren't the best.

[Absurd]

Nobody likes an, "I told you so". Do this, and you won't have many friends left, even if you are correct.

Thank God for the ethicals. We don't always need to be right.

Well, it can play out as you say, those five sisters are still sisters though, they keep contact, visit each other on occasion, etc. I suppose nothing changed between them and the one "unlucky" can be doing what she was doing before, with success...

I don't know, don't bother to check at all actually.

Those who voted 'yes' are potential serial killers.

Good for you.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

@lungs:

I like that you mentioned this. Being manipulated I think comes from being sheltered and lacking street smarts. If you spend a lot of time in your room and are closed off to all the ways people try to fuck others over you know.... you will be like more vulnerable to somebody trying to manipulate you and saying they have your back when they really don't mean it.

there's this like naive little boy/girl innocense that we all have i think, we all understand that when the good guys combine their powers together (through friendship and real love) it can destroy all evil in the universe, and we still kinda hold on to those ideals from being alone in our house and watching tv you know.

and i think it's understandable and forgiveable. the person is just sheltered. i think if you just simply expose that sheltered person, they become stronger/thicker skinned and realize that everything is just more complicated than that. that in real life you can't hold your hands with your sisters and say a gay spell and then like vanquish the demon or whatever. The 'demon' is a human who thinks they are somehow justified in how they are behaving. "when we do shitty things in life we never think we are not righteous, we think we have the right" the common plague of humanity.

i think the real world is cleansing. like after spending time in the real world and coming back to the more emotional gay world of the internet i realized who really loved me more than ever before. when you let yourself fall and be vulnerable, you simply pay attention to who catches you for real, true caring has a substance whereas manipulation you can always sniff out.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Hmm. I don't know if "deserve" is the right word here. I will definitely say that I am far less likely to feel sorry for someone who landed themselves in a situation through stupidity. However, I do also think there's a difference between naivete and stupidity.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

women are taught to hate themselves whereas men are taught that they are always correct even when they are not.

it's the message our society sends on a grandiose level. "ooh you're a straight man you're all logical and manly and not emotional like me and you're in charge. Please take me." But the catch-22 if they were to really do that, they'd have to be emotional themselves. Do you want to date a person or do you want to date a computer?

It's a bit political and preachy but you have to admit that it's true: We think a girl wearing pants is okay because we think it's okay to be a boy. We think a boy wearing a dress is shameful because we think there's something wrong with being a girl. You were imprinted from a very young age that you should hate yourself and that you only deserve douchebag men that treat others like crap emotionally.

feminism is about taking that power back and realize you deserve a meaningful healthy relationship like anybody else. that a guy can be sexually dominant and masculine w/o being an ass about it. A guy can care about you while still being heterosexual. Just like gay men realize a guy can be gay but still be manly and self-confident. they don't always have to project their own self-loathing on all gay guys they come across.

[717495]

Those who say yes are more likely to like stupid people for obvious reasons. Now you know why I facepalm at the sight of stupid people. Sympathy overload.

-stupid guy