@aidan,
aidan wrote:
Well, I know you're a little older and probably wiser (in some ways)
than I am David- and as far as spending time around thieves goes,
you probably trump me there too (because of your job and how long
you've done it - no reflection on your friends and family) - but
I'll tell you what I've learned about this in the last five years or so
that I didn't know before:
A thief is a thief. If someone is willing to steal something -
they're willing to steal anything.
Forgive my skepticism on that point, Rebecca.
I believe that he 'll steal it if it has
sufficient attraction for him to justify his effort n risk.
aidan wrote:If they're willing to steal from someone - they're willing to steal from anyone.
Again, I have my doubts about that, Rebecca.
I can see where he
might have some room in his mind
for discrimination among victims, tho again:
the determinative factor is the degree of allure
of the object of the theft,
considered against counterfactors of inconvenience and risk.
aidan wrote:It could be a million dollars out of your bank account
(if they scam you for your details) or it could be ten dollars
of monopoly money that they cheat you out of while
they're playing a game with you.
Even if he is obsessive-compulsive qua larceny,
it seems unlikely that he's going to suck up
EVERYTHING, like a black hole.
aidan wrote:Same goes for betraying. If they're willing to betray someone,
they'll betray anyone. If they're not willing to be disloyal
and betray people- they won't betray anyone.
Again, with all respect: I believe that the same processes will occur in his mind,
as a cost/benefit analysis on an individual basis, allowing himself
more room for discrimination, based upon whatever factors r significant to
him.
(Note that in my case, the betrayal was the theft of my property.)
aidan wrote:
Same goes for being mean. I don't believe that people can be selectively mean.
If someone is not a mean person - they can't be mean to anyone.
If they are - they can be mean to anyone.
Is there
evidence of this complete absence of discrimination?
I can
conceive of someone being violently oppressive to others,
but not to e.g., a beautiful chick.
What about guys that will be kind to a dog, but swat a fly?
aidan wrote:In terms of any of this, stealing, betrayal, meanness-
I've learned not even to take it personally. Because it's not about
you or me (their victims) - it's about THEM- what they want, need,
or have even convinced themselves they deserve - at someone else's expense.
Agreed.
aidan wrote:It's really very interesting.
I 've loved psychology almost as long as I 've loved guns
(anteceding my 3rd Birthday).
aidan wrote:But my point is - there are people who just WON'T betray,
steal from or be mean to other people in the world David.
The jury is still out on that, Rebecca, for paucity of information.
My ex-friend Marvin used to say that everyone
WILL betray u,
given enuf time. Judgment is held in abeyance on that point, in my mind.
aidan wrote:You just have to find them- and those are the ones you can trust.
And in my experience, that's most people.
Among the most valuable cautionary tales in the Bible is that of Samson n Delila.
aidan wrote:The people who have stolen from me or betrayed my trust or
who have been mean to me have been the exception rather than the rule.
Has this not been true for you?
No, it
has been true, but it has also been my defensive practice
to avoid
committing my well-being into the discretion of others, insofar as is practicable.
aidan wrote:*I'm interested to know if you say no one should ever trust anyone -
if when I was sitting across the table from you, were you hoping
I wouldn't steal your wallet from you, because you didn't trust me?
No. Issues of trust seldom rise to my consideration for analysis
(except within a context of some fellow constituting a
singularly greater risk,
from whom a higher level of prospective defense
[or enhanced situational awareness] is justified,
based on the perceived odds of necessity).
I knew for a fact that my wallet is secure.
In the past, when that issue has been in significant doubt,
I have carried a false wallet (usually in alien cities)
and left my real wallet in a secure environment.
aidan wrote:Should I have sitting there with my hand on my purse,
because in your view, I shouldn't have trusted you?
No, but its a good idea to keep an eye on it.
aidan wrote:That's what you say here - but I don't believe that.
You trusted me- and I'm sure you felt comfortable with me trusting you.
Considerations of trust did not present themselves; thay seldom do.
Its not as if u had tried to entice me to join the Investment Club
of which u r President & Chief Financial Officer.
In 1989, I took a girl named Maris camping in Upstate NY.
The following morning, I was
shocked to hear from her
that she had been very offended by the speed with which
I had walked. (There had been a painfully cold wind blowing.
I wanted to reach the tent.) I did
not know that walking speed
was a point of controversy.
She said that if she had gotten the keys (in her silent rage)
she 'd have stolen my car and returned to NYC, leaving me
with a great bulk and weight of camping equipment there.
I had no idea that I 'd been exposed to this severe risk of
gross inconvenience.
I felt rattled; very rattled.
Keeping my keys in my care, custody n control saved me
from that according to the
sua sponte confession
of the admitted potential car thief.
Quad Est Demonstratum.
David wrote:Sorrow does not help the situation.
This is only historical observation of human nature.
Students in schools shoud be tawt this, for their edification.
aidan wrote:Instead of P.E.? (little joke). And who would write and deliver that curriculum I wonder....
I like the joke; we can present that class right after fonetic spelling and gunnery practice.
David
