7
   

Delayed Gratification

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 10:32 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
I find the right totally self-indulgent and totally without interior control and dismissive of external control.


how do you explain Jesuits?
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 10:38 am
@plainoldme,
Well, i didn't say that i'm "100% correct." That is a non-sequitur, though. What i said is that you attacked people with whom you disagree politically, because you disagree and not because you provided any evidence that they do not practice self-control. And i am "100% correct" about that.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 09:06 pm
@ehBeth,
Ah, Jebbies as the students at the University of Detroit called them. I remember the female students avoided walking past the Jesuit living quarters on campus.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 09:06 pm
@Setanta,
Think of what it meant when I said it.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 09:08 pm
@Setanta,
I should add that I only attack those people who attack me first. All I need is one.

0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 09:08 pm
@Setanta,
I should add that I only attack those people who attack me first. All I need is one.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 09:11 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
I should add that I only attack those people who attack me first. All I need is one.

Riiiiiiggght....
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2011 10:05 pm
@plainoldme,
Yes, there are a great deal of variables involved in situations regarding delayed gratification. I think the principle is sound, but discernment plays a huge role in the application.
I've always found it interesting to think how my savings provide nothing but an illusion of security. I delay gratification in favor of that illusion.
My guess is a lot of people see that they will never save enough to actually work for them, then opt out of the illusion in favor of short term gratification.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 10:24 am
@plainoldme,
I did think about what it meant--and what it meant was that you were willing to take a cheap shot at people who had not attacked you. Your subsequent post in which you allege that you only attack those who attack you first is certainly not borne out in this thread. Your remarks were both false and reprehensible. Anyone familiar with my posting history will know that i am no friend of political conservatism, and that i don't pull my punches with conservatives. That is no reason to just slander them based on palpable lies.
chai2
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 10:42 am
I don't even like marshmallows.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 11:45 am
@plainoldme,
Quote:
I thought I admired self-control because I was raised a Roman Catholic

I'm not sure I get the connection between the ability to delay gratification and being raised a Roman Catholic. It seems to me that Roman Catholics exhibit no better impulse control than any other group.

Isn't learning self control just part of the process of socialization? Doesn't it begin with toilet training?

I also think the ability to delay gratification is a desirable, and necessary, trait because it involves thinking of consequences before you act. But, isn't there always a time to throw caution to the wind? To seize the moment? To live for today?
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 11:06 pm
@Setanta,
I have never attacked anyone who did not attack/insult me first. PERIOD.

Most people who attack others here or elsewhere, whether in public or behind the screen of a persona on an internet forum can not let go of their original posture. They continue to attach gratuitously. They seldom can compartmentalize. I have been criticized for not being angry across the board at people who have behaved to my face and in my presence in the way that hawkeye always behaves toward me. I can and do compartmentalize. Most people are not completely wrong/worthless/ignorant but all too many people will not allow a person to be acceptable when they speak on one subject and not acceptable when they speak on others. Those who fail to differentiate exemplify narrow mindedness.

What I said to you is that you were not 100% right. What is the reverse or complimentary statement? That you are not 100% wrong.

In other words, I gave you partial support. Until your first response, I had a higher opinion of your intellect. I would think that saying that someone is not 100% correct would be perfectly transparent.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 11:07 pm
@firefly,
The teachings of the church are very much involved with delayed gratification. That does not mean the reality of church members match those teachings.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Dogs Are People, Too - Discussion by Miller
Am I strange or is this normal? - Question by blackbear
Are You a Good Communicator - Discussion by bunnyhabit
Parents of Beverly Hills - Discussion by ossobucotemp
Family Issues - Discussion by war child
Big and serius problem - Question by Birkoft28
DOES THIS GIRL LIKE ME??? - Question by TeaguC
Tarantula Behavior for Beginners? - Question by neuroticWisher
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/28/2021 at 11:23:52