I feel myself to be in very much a calm, cool, and collected mood now. So, everyone can relax here. I'm not in rage mode or anything.
I also want to extend my sincere apologies if I pissed off any of the moderators. I kind of lost my head and I made a post that I'm pretty sure didn't get approved, which is probably for the best, as I definitely was not at my most level-headed. I guess I need to take this as a lesson to watch my temper. The weird thing is that I can't hardly remember the last time my temper exploded like that. Trust me. That is not typical for me. I don't know if something has changed in me lately, or if I just simply reached a boiling point. Maybe it's a bit of both.
Also, I promise I'm not going to attack Aldrick like that again. If I do, you can kick me off of the forums. I actually feel kind of sober about the whole situation. It's like, wow, I allowed anger to cloud my vision and thoughts and ended up pushing one of my own brethren away. Whereas, if maybe I had just simply took some time away to chill out and look at things from a bigger respective, things would have been smoother.
By the way Aldrick, if you want to talk things over with me, feel free to chat. I'm not going to attack your or anything. If for some reason, I get really upset, I might walk away, but I'm not going to fight you. I am willing to forgive and forget, if you shall do the same. If you don't feel like coming to the table though, then I understand.
I'm only going to address the issue of the apparent conflict between me and Aldrick this ONE LAST FINAL time, and then I want to be done with it. I do this as I wish to make the case from my perspective, and to hopefully bring some greater understanding and resolution. I'm going to focus on cold hard objective facts here. No overly speculative opinions, feelings, personal attacks, etc. I'm just going to do my best to focus on what actually occurred.
Hey, some of you might even find it educational by learning how to argue against logical fallacies and making reasonable fact-based arguments. A potentially useful skill when dealing with xians, jews, etc. I think this may be useful input for Aldrick too. Consider it constructive criticism as far making responses to others.
Now then, let's start with some basics. Was I angry? Yes. Did I have justification to be angry? Partially, if not totally at least, yes. Not only that, but if you allow me, I will make it plainly evident my reasons for being angry.
Now, starting from the beginning, I made a post, and one of the repliers was Aldrick. Here's his first post to me.
Aldrick said:
This suggests you are an aggressive person, not a very assertive one. Or you hold your anger in.
If you're younger, this is very common. You see the birth chart takes time to grow into.
Jupiter matures at 16, sun at 22, moon 24, venus 26, mars 28, mercury 32, saturn 36. In astrology you are considered an adult at 36. In your 40s you mature your south and north nodes. Then the houses must mature, you finish at age 65.
Not to mention Saturn Return and other factors. Not too worry, you will soon become assertive and mature, along with feeling dead inside and constantly thinking of your early 20s like most adults.
Okay, so do what we have here? Well, if we look at the last sentence, he appears to be stating a broadly presumptive opinion about me personally. Obviously, since he does not know me that well, he is arguably putting himself in a factually precarious, if not likely false position. He also does not provide any substantiation or reasoning for his claims. We can divide the last sentence into four different arguments thusly.
1. You will soon become assertive.
2. You will soon become mature.
3. You will feel dead inside (like most adults).
4. You will be constantly thinking of your early 20s (like most adults).
He also makes another statement about me in the beginning. This makes five total arguments.
5. You are aggressive (not assertive) OR you hold your anger in.
Now, let's assume about 50:50 coin flip odds that each of these individual arguments are either correct or wrong. That would only leave him a 1 in 32, or 3.125% probability that all five of his arguments are correct. We could probably reasonably conclude that his statements are wildly speculative. On average, he'd only be correct on approximately 2.5 out of the 5 statements. So, right out of the gate, he is addressing me from a factually troubled and opinionated position.
Now after that, I elaborated a bit on my personal beliefs and thoughts regarding assertiveness in the workplace. Without delving too deep in my original statements, I mentioned one time I DID actually assert myself on the job. It is also worth noting that I implied employers are sometimes unfair. This is true in that an employer can fire you for any amount of assertion, or indeed, for no reason at all.
I also questioned Aldrick about his statement regarding me eventually "feeling dead inside" and "constantly thinking of your early 20s", as I found it rather odd and bizarre. I figured he was either trying to make some sort of attempt to intuit me, or he simply made a typographical error. Anyways, here is how Aldrick responded to my statements and questions.
Aldrick said:
Assertiveness, if you understand it what it really means, is never in the wrong, not even at a job.
First off, Aldrick does not bother to define what assertiveness (as opposed to aggression) is, or he is unable to. This leaves a great deal of vagueness as to what exactly he thinks assertiveness is. There is no way to reasonably know, as he doesn't make any attempt to state his opinions or beliefs. We can only guess. Is assertiveness a tit-for-tat response in his view? For example, if your neighbor lets his dog defecate in your yard, do you let your dog defecate in his yard in turn? Perhaps instead you talk to the neighbor first, and then only resort to the tit-for-tat if the neighbor doesn't listen? Maybe we go a little more ballistic and get the authorities involved or curse the neighbor?
It could also be that maybe Aldrick doesn't fully understand himself what assertiveness is. Again, it's a complete total mystery, because Aldrick never defines what he thinks assertiveness is in the first place. This problem is made only more troubling by the fact that he suggested assertiveness and aggression are two different things, yet he doesn't define either. Are the given neighbor examples all examples of aggression? Are they all ways of asserting one's self? Which is which?
Secondly, he makes a logically extreme statement that it is never wrong to assert yourself. This only compounds with the first problem of the vague definition of assertiveness to confuse things. If it is never wrong to assert one's self, does that mean it's okay to hit your dog if it bites you? If it is never wrong to assert yourself, then logically it is never wrong to assert yourself when your dog bites you. Likewise, if an ant bites you, it is never wrong to assert yourself against the ant, and perhaps by extension the ant colony. I'm sure to most of you, the idea of asserting yourself against an ant or ant colony is quite laughable. This would suggest that perhaps Aldrick's original statement of, "assertiveness is never in the wrong", is logically flawed.
Other questions are inevitably invited too. Does that mean it's never wrong to assert yourself against someone who makes a mistake? Is it never wrong to assert yourself against someone stronger who will pulverize or kill you for asserting yourself?
Is it not wrong for me to assert myself by writing this collection of reasoned arguments and logic? If Aldrick is to be believed and taken at his word, then the answer to all these questions is a resounding
yes!
Aldrick said:
No I did not intuit you. What I said was common sense.
The statement of, "What I said was common sense.", is but a mere meaningless platitude that doesn't add anything of value or justify anything. The "It's common sense" argument can be and is often used to argue against evolution by xians, or when proposing the flat earth theory. It's the logical equivalent of "Just because." or "It's true because g-d says so." Moving on.
Aldrick said:
How one can take something so simple, and twist it all over the place is way beyond me.
If it's so simple, why not provide an explanation for what assertiveness is? Wouldn't that be useful information to provide? Why not explain to me what assertiveness is instead of blaming me for "taking something simple and twisting it all over the place"? Does Aldrick actually want to help? He also does not bother to explain how I am "twisting something simple all over the place". I merely elaborated my own views regarding assertiveness. It didn't seem like "twisting" to me.
Aldrick said:
If you are assertive and mature, life will become easier. Though you will learn it comes with its pros and cons. As it is an undeniable fact, that after age 25, one loses their naeive motivation and gusto.
Aldrick makes another logically extreme statement by stating that it's undeniable fact, "that after age 25, one loses their naeive motivation and gusto." This is so obviously categorically wrong, I almost feel like I don't really need to debunk this. Guess someone should tell President Trump to turn in his gusto badge, because that dude is obviously too old. Oh, and let's not forget those scientists, Olympic athletes, middle-aged and older business entrepreneurs, etc. A lot of them are over 25 too.
By the way, what is naive motivation anyways? Hard to say, because again, nothing is explained. Without any context, this could be seen as a negative implication that motivation is somehow an undesirable characteristic only possessed by the naive.
Aldrick said:
Beyond this, there's nothing to say.
Oh no, quite on the contrary. There is MUCH more to say. Aldrick didn't really explain anything. As demonstrated earlier, he didn't explain assertiveness, and he didn't explain aggression. Due to his lack of explanation he leaves much ambiguity and vagueness. There are many open questions left in the air.
Aldrick said:
I'm not gonna argue simple reality.
It is unclear what simple reality Aldrick is referring to. He does not explain.
Aldrick said:
If you dont get it,you are a troll or a complete dolt.
So, I am a troll or dolt for not getting something that hasn't even been properly or fully explained? How does that make ANY sense? I'd like to point out that this was the thing that really offended and angered me the most. Can of any of you honestly tell me with a straight face, that this is an acceptable way to address someone? Is this what passes for acceptable social interaction around here?
Yes, okay, I'll admit, I kind of lost my cool when I said Aldrick "came across as a dick", but can you really blame me for seeing it that way? This wouldn't at least slightly irritate some of you? Keep in mind, Aldrick was the one who chose to respond to my original thread. It wasn't me responding to his thread. By the way, if he actually thought I was trolling or too stupid to get it, he could have chose to walk away at any time. However, he didn't.
Anyways, you can kind of tell my thoughts and feelings from what I posted in response, so I won't delve too much into that. I'd like to point out that I did make it clear to Aldrick, I didn't appreciate the way he addressed me. Furthermore, I asked him to leave if he wanted to act that way. He ignored that.
After that, he made some other rather cringe low-value post about dragons chasing each around in forums. Not sure what the point of that was, but okay.
Aldrick said:
No no no. There you go into nonsense again.
Instead of addressing in any serious manner my questions or apparent disgust with the way he addressed me, he dismisses me as going into nonsense again. Therein precluding any sort of respectful reasonable dialogue between parties.
Aldrick said:
I'm not one to be easily distracted by twisting everything around.
Couldn't help but find this comment to be a real eyebrow raiser. What exactly is the point of this comment?
Aldrick said:
Puts hands out. Very simple. Are you ready. I'll go slow. I'm sure you can follow along.
I don't think I should really need to explain the problem with this choice of words, do I? This seems like the type of language one would use for an unruly child. Thus kind of proving my point about condescending language.
Aldrick said:
As you get older, you will mature into your planets. You will become more assertive and take control.
That's it. No drama. No nonsense.
This is totally missing the point. I never disputed the "maturing into planets". Also, my concerns are once again dismissed as "drama" and "nonsense".
Aldrick said:
No trying to find a hidden meaning.
It would be unnecessary to find hidden meanings if things were explained better and more thoroughly.
Aldrick said:
No trying to reverse on me, that I have a problem.
Once again, this is ignoring, if not completely refusing to address the issues I brought up with him.
Aldrick said:
Lot of song and dance it seems for something "very simple".
Aldrick said:
I think you'll get it this time. Just try a little more. I'm sure it will sink in.
Hate to sound like a broken record, but this kind of proves my point again about condescending language.
Anyways, then he finally gets into this this odd simulated dialogue that follows.
Aldrick said:
Actually this is very beneficial for you.
So far, I see rather little that is beneficial, but go on.
Aldrick said:
You were talking about having problems dealing with people. I am showing you what assertiveness looks like.
Bringing up assertiveness, again I don't think he's really doing the best job fleshing out his points, but let's move on.
Aldrick said:
The passive aggressiveness and creation of drama causes more and more problems.
At least this is something I can kind of agree with. Yes, indeed! It's almost like we should avoid insulting people in the first place. Maybe even apologize if we're in the wrong. That said, I don't feel I am normally passive-aggressive in my day-to-day life.
Aldrick said:
You are reacting to everything I say. Become responsive. Here I will give you an example.
That's kind of funny you bring up reacting to everything and not being responsive. Why couldn't you respond to the points I made about how he was treating me? Anyways, I'm not opposed to the idea of being responsive, but it needs to be a two-way street.
You: So I will grow into my chart and become better at this?
Me: yes
You: What do you mean by feel dead inside?
Me: Just a joke. People have a really rough time when they hit late 20s early 30s. Some dont survive it. There is what is known as the 28 club. Because so many people die at that age.
You: How do I get through that?
Me: Meditation is a big help. But there's no easy answer.
You: Oh..ok. Thanks.
Aldrick said:
See how easy a conversation could go? Without having to inject feelings, people being an asshole, or you wrote something 3 years ago that wasn't right, so that must mean you're wrong and a douche here. Like really pulling for straws when people do that.
Sure, sounds great. Why didn't it turn out like that though? No need to throw around insults. Just talk to me.
Aldrick said:
Then ofcourse the pro and anti whoever's must show up to defend or admonish someone's worth as a person. Fueling the fires for more drama.
I'm not into that anymore. Either take the advice or dont.
You sound like you don't like fights or drama. Hey, I'm not really looking for fights and drama either, and I'm sure you also don't like being insulted. Guess what, I don't like being insulted either. So, can we just, you know... not insult one another?
Anyways, just want to show where I'm coming from. I don't wish to put anyone down. I'm ready to move on.