reply to post by jonnywhite
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by arpgme
Yes but if he feels that alcohol is irresponsible or is the sign of a destructive thing then he might have reason to not like his coworkers for
participating in it or for ever thinking he should.
Then that is his choice. As long as they aren't trying to force him to drink, or he isn't trying to force them to stop, there is nothing "evil"
going on here.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by arpgme
Picture this:
"Hey, Jake, this alcohol won't hurt you. Just a few drinks to loosen up. It's harmless."
If Jake believes alcohol is destructive then what does he say? The other man is also being somewhat insulting towards Jake's attitude towards alcohol
in his subtle choice of words.
The person offering the drink is the wrong because in THIS situation he's trying to force him to drink.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by arpgme
Our opinions don't just determine whether we drink alcohol or the amount, it also affects what we think of those who do or do not drink alcohol. Some
opinions, like our favorite flavor of ice cream, don't cause us to be critical of those who disagree. But others, like political party or choice of
clothes or religious faith, can motivate criticism if agreement is not reached and/or the persons involved cross into the space of another.
If we started making laws (moral or governmental) , eventually there will be no free-will and lots of censorship, a person can just claim to be
"offended".
As long as everyone has the free-will to do whatever they want, and no one is forcing another to drink or stop drinking, everything is ok, they made
their choices for their own lives, caring about whatever thinks or trying to control what another thinks or feel is also wrong. In away, it is still
trying to push alcoholism on him if he doesn't want to drink and they want to FORCE his opinions to change, and the same in the opposite
situation.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
One example is a vegetarian who thinks we shouldn't kill animals for food since animals are higher conscious beings like ourselves. When others eat
animals, they feel anger in response because in their mind the person eating the animal is killing the consciousness of another living being
And that is their right to have their emotions and opinions, as long as they don't force all others to change their emotions and opinions against
their will.
(The free-will of the animals is digressing from my point - I'm talking about "evil" in the sense of a social code for how humans interact
together...)
Originally posted by jonnywhite
The main thing is that when you think that someone else's opinion is impacting your own life and not allowing you to enjoy yourself or to feel
content or satisfied then you become angry.
An opinion does not stop you from enjoying yourself. It is your choice to keep thinking about that opinion and make yourself feel bad - put that
opinion over your own self-judgment, or to focus on thinking of other things, care about your own self-judgment and enjoy yourself).
Originally posted by jonnywhite
Sometimes we can just walk away from it, but sometimes we have something to lose if we do. And this is where the conflict in many cases starts, I
think. The lack of control breeds more anger. The person feeling the anger is forced to confront the opinion(s) that're causing the conflict.
What is there to lose if you walk away? The person that you only hate and argue with in the first place? Everything in your life will be the same
except the person will not be in it - and if the disagreement is so bad that the person can no longer be in your life, then there is not much you're
"losing out" on anyway...
(of course, the exception is that there are no misunderstandings. People argue over small things sometimes and make the large and then wind up not
being friends - an unfortunate situation - but still the free-will of both people - as long as they are not trying to FORCE the other to do anything).
')