mererdog

Sure. But not everything is a matter of beliefs and principles. Some things are just about tastes and whims. Von did not seem to have decorated based on beliefs and principles, for example. If that is the case, moving things around, or even removing things, would not seem to be any real sacrifice, and could potentially lead to a more harmonious neighborhood. He is not obliged to do it, of course, but when there is a potential gain with no real cost, it is at least worth considering. Sometimes I eat pasta, even though I want falafel, because if my wife never gets to choose the restaurant, my wife will stop being my wife. You know what I mean?

I never made that assertion. I said that you did it, not that you meant to do it. I would wager that most disrespect is unintentional, being caused by differences in what we find important. I don't care about statues, so I don't treat them with respect. To someone who considers statues important, my disrespect is likely to cause offense, because my actions tell them that what they consider important does not matter. I don't consider my disrespect to be wrong, nor do I consider their reaction to it to be wrong. I believe these inevitable disagreements are just proof that we are simply doing the best we can as imperfect beings in an imperfect world.

Looking backward, you had no way to anticipate the reaction you got. Moving forward, you have reason to expect it. As such, if the offense occurs again, it is intentional.

I would say that we are responsible for our choices, and that part of that means we are responsible for how our choices effect the choices of others. If I testify in court that I saw you murder someone, I can't claim to have no responsibility when the jury convicts. Buyers should beware, but that doesn't justify unethical sales practices.

I hear that. But having a civil society requires that we all make a hundred small sacrifices each day. Whether that means refraining from putting a hat on a statue, or refraining from complaining about someone putting a hat on a statue, or even refraining from complaining about someone complaining about a hat on a statue. The happiness of others effects our happiness. Having been in both situations, I can say with confidence that having a friend for a neighbor is better than having an enemy for a neighbor. No contest. Of course, it is only worth so much, and I would leave it to you to decide what you are willing to sacrifice for it.

Does that mean that we have no responsibility to take the likely reactions of others into account while making our plans? Does it mean, for example, that if I call my wife ugly, her getting upset is purely her choice, and not something that I could have prevented? If I were to wave a Nazi flag, aren't the inevitable negative reactions at least partially my fault? If I push someone and they fall over, "You could have chosen to have better balance" seems like a feeble justification. Doesn't it? And, personally speaking, the whole "choosing to be happy" rubs me the wrong way. It belittles the pain of others. According to the story, the Buddha did not understand suffering until he experienced it himself. I suspect that if you haven't experienced someone else's suffering, you cannot understand it. What I can do does not indicate what you can do. Where I am strong may be where you are weak. Faulting the weak for being weak just seems cruel. I felt bad because I had no shoes, until I met a man with no feet. He made fun of me for not having shoes as nice as his, and now I feel even worse.

I did not make that jump, mostly because it doesn't matter. My motives are internal, but my actions are external. As such, people get upset about what I do, not why I do it. I assume you were not trying to upset your neighbor, but that is what you did. Moving forward, however, you know that the action causes upset, so you have to decide whether the action is worth the upset. So, the question is whether or not that matters to you. Do you mind upsetting some people? Is it worth it for the sake of a joke? Do people's feelings only matter if those feelings are based on proper religious doctrine? Do people's feelings cease to matter if they are members of a minority religion? If a Halloween decoration makes almost everyone smile, but makes one witch feel persecuted, is it worth it?

It seems odd to ignore the objection of your neighbor but bow to the opinion of someone who will probably never see it. Its like you are trying to get permission. You made light of a heavy subject. You used religious symbology in a disrespectful manner. Because you found it funny. This is the same, emotionally speaking, as making a joke about someone's mother. It doesn't matter how many people do or don't mind people cracking on their mamas. Becauase it only takes one angry guy to ruin your day, and if you poke enough people you will eventually get smacked... or get someone else smacked... But Yo Mama jokes are funny. And what is life if it isn't fun?

The Dali Lama is to Buddhists what the Pope is to Christians, in that most Christians don't act like the Pope and don't care about the Pope's opinions. To speak of whethet or not "the Buddhists" would be offended ignores the wide diversity amongst Buddhists. Some Buddhists would be offended and some would not, just as some Christians would be offended and some would not. https://www.knowingbuddha.org/dos-and-donts

Irreverence and blasphemy are funny. They also make people angry. That is part of why they are funny.

Its also religious liberty. Your religious views should be irrelevant to how you are treated by the government. It should merit neither punishment nor reward. The same is true for the religion of every individual and every group. Anything else opens the door for unfair favoritism and outright oppression.

Ew. I don't want your used utensils. This sentence is false

There is no "now". Time is never static. You always have one foot in the past and one foot in the future. To ignore the future is to ignore one of your feet. That's how you get trench foot. I don't recommend it.

I used to play around with verbal paradoxes when I was in my twenties. That's the results of trying to unwind one.

Of course. Things are never that simple. In a vast, diverse, and massively interconnected universe where the only real constant is change, how could they be? One of my favorites- There is an exception to every rule. That rule is its own exception.

I do not normally participate in holiday gift exchanges. I get my sister a yearly Kwanzaa gift, mostly because the wrapping paper and card annoy her almost as much as the Christmas ones she sends annoy me. I love giving birthday presents, though. I see them as a chance to show someone that I value them, and to encourage them to celebrate themself. It also gives me a chance to see how well I really know them. I firmly believe the ideal gift for you is something you want, but something you would never buy for yourself. When I hit that mark just right, it just makes me proud, you know?

Honestly? Just leave me out of it. Giving a gift to someone who cannot reciprocate is almost a hostile act. Moreso when the gift is given to celebrate a holiday the other party does not celebrate. It puts them in a very uncomfortable position. There are some fairly obvious exceptions, though. Among family and friends where sharing and free exchange are common, for example...

What we remember is a bit irrelevant. An anonymous donation is still a donation. A forgotten debt is still a debt. Our name can be lost and our legacy can still remain. It works like an inheritance, which is where the term " legacy" comes from. Some parts of an estate will usually be more appreciated than others. Over time, it may be forgotten that a specific item was ever a part of an estate. To the specifics of McCain, he inherited suffering from his captors. That is a part of their legacy. He took what he inherited from them and made something new to pass on to others. That will be a part of his legacy. Yet there is more to any man than that, and a man who lives that long will have necessarily left behind a very complicated estate. One word he said to one person at just the right time may have had a more real and lasting impact on the world than any of the stuff that makes him famous. So a total and accurate accounting of his legacy is impossible for us. We just sort of look at the parts that stand out as important to us and act as if that is all there is. Humans, as a group, do not deal well with complexity or ignorance. So we pretend things are simple, and we pretend we know.

Of course. However, trauma can fundamentally change us. Not always, or even necessarily often. But it can And when it does, the universe is robbed of the chance to know the person we could have been. Innocence doesn't grow back. And that is true both for victim and victimizer.

It is. Everything you do that effects others is a part of your legacy. You may give pain to one and joy to another. You may create one day and destroy the next. Each act leaves a mark, and those marks spell out your legacy. We are not simple creatures, and that is reflected in the complexity of our legacies. This point is actually what I meant to illustrate when I brought up my wife's mother. The good we do does not make the bad we do go away. Pencils have erasers but life does not, you know? We can repent, reform, and even attempt recompense, but we can't turn back the clock.

Your legacy is what you give to the world, not what the world does with what you give them. If I give the world crap, I will have a crap legacy. If you take the crap I give you and make something beautiful to give the world, you can have a beautiful legacy. If I take that beauty and crap on it, destroying your legacy becomes part of my legacy.

Yes. We don't know. We do know, however, that she harmed my wife and provided my wife with no justification for doing so. This causes continual emotional pain for my wife. At best, my wife is able to see her mother as a tragic victim doing her best amid horrible circumstances. At worst, she sees her mother as a heartless villain.

Be very careful with this sort of reasoning. You don't want to accidentally be the guy implying that victims should thank their rapists for the opportunity to learn to overcome their victimhood. You would probably get kicked... More than once... You know where...

That reminds me. You haven't thanked me for not shooting you. Kind of rude of you. I mean, here I am, selflessly not murdering you, and not so much as a card in the mail. Granted, I can't afford a gun and I keep forgetting to make an appointment to see you, but the thought doesn't count.

I was not following it. Now I am. Thankee.