# Pigging



## SBQT73 (Oct 14, 2017)

Pigging I guess is the latest dating or lack thereof fad. I was pigged last night by one of our very own Dims member. Yep was waiting for him to get off of the plane and he never did. I won't publicly shame him because he knows who he is. I'd like him to know that I'm a lot stronger than he gives/gave me credit for because I'm still the same person I was before this and not him nor anyone else will be able to extinguish my internal shine. I'm a beautiful person inside and out and no one can ever take that from me. Love, hugs, and kisses. &#10084;&#65039; 

View attachment IMG_2841.jpg


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 14, 2017)

SBQT73 said:


> Pigging I guess is the latest dating or lack thereof fad. I was pigged last night by one of our very own Dims member. Yep was waiting for him to get off of the plane and he never did. I won't publicly shame him because he knows who he is. I'd like him to know that I'm a lot stronger than he gives/gave me credit for because I'm still the same person I was before this and not him nor anyone else will be able to extinguish my internal shine. I'm a beautiful person inside and out and no one can ever take that from me. Love, hugs, and kisses. &#10084;&#65039;



You're absolutely right. Unless this guy fell into a coma or died before he got on the plane, he's a moron for standing you up. The classy way you handled this is just another indication of the kind of person you are, which as you say, is beautiful inside and out. The actions of others do not define us.


----------



## AuntHen (Oct 14, 2017)

So sorry that happened to you. That's horrible


----------



## fuelingfire (Oct 14, 2017)

Sorry to hear that. What is wrong with people...


----------



## SBQT73 (Oct 15, 2017)

Thank you for the replies. I'm honestly fine. I'm pretty sure he thinks/thought I would be beyond devastated, but I'm not. People try to knock you down, you just have to pick yourself back up, dust yourself off, and move forward. 

I agree with you, fuelingfire, what is wrong with people. Why he did what he did, I will never understand, but for me, I know I'm fine and moving on.


----------



## loopytheone (Oct 15, 2017)

Wooooow, what an absolute scumbag. They should be very grateful that you are a better person than them and chose not to share their name here because if I knew who did this they wouldn't be welcome here anymore. 

I'm glad you understand that it is him who has the problem and not you; you're gorgeous.


----------



## squeezablysoft (Oct 15, 2017)

Props to you for handling this jerkassery so well. If I were you though I'd consider pming an admin here with the scumbag's name, seems like ban-worthy behavior to me.


----------



## fuelingfire (Oct 15, 2017)

I dislike a lot of these news stories about new “dating treads.” It’s just a new term for being a specific type of jerk. Putting it nicely.


It’s just like catfishing. It is just sad all around. Why waste time attempting to deceive someone, for no real reason? It just sounds like an incredible waste of time to me. Why put so much effort into being cruel, when there is already so much wrong in the world?


When I started talking to my current girlfriend on Feabie over a year ago, after a week of messaging we agreed to meet in person. I hadn’t used Skype at the time which now would have made sense, now that I use it every day. But my biggest fear for the 2 hour drive was, I would get to our meeting spot and no one was there. From all of our talking, I knew I personalities fit and wasn’t really worried about that. We talked in person for 7 hours straight that day. Near the end of that 7 hours, I told her that was my biggest fear in our meeting, she thought it was funny that that was what I was most worried about. She had never thought of the idea, that someone would try to pretend to be her, and found it amusing. From all of our talking and the profile pictures of her, I was thinking she seemed to be too good to be true.


----------



## landshark (Oct 15, 2017)

Help me understand how this is a new trend. Being stood up is pretty old and being stood up for amusement is just as old. It happened to me a couple times before I was married.

Regardless, OP, I'm sorry it happened to you and wish you the best as you take the high road and keep moving forward.


----------



## fuelingfire (Oct 15, 2017)

When I saw this was called "pigging" I googled it quick, to distinguish if this was fat related. It's not, though I only read one story. The story I read referred to it as a new dating trend. I think just the name is new. I saw a different story a month ago about the dating trend called "ghosting" after a few dates, you disappear for a month, then start talking to the person like only a day has passed. I think it's just the name is new for crappy behavior.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 15, 2017)

It confounds me that there actually are enough "people" (to use the term loosely) to make crappy behavior a "trend." I guess they're the same types as trolls. I just don't understand why anybody would choose to put themselves in that category.


----------



## LarryTheNoodleGuy (Oct 15, 2017)

It happens. Better you find out now.

Also, they do it to you, they do it to everyone. Don't take it personally, I say. Just sigh, say "another one bites the dust" and back on the horse.


----------



## Tracii (Oct 15, 2017)

We called it getting stood up its nothing new.
Let it pass and be the better person you know you are.
Like everything else people have come up with new names for things.
Its like the term tip as in doing something is now a life hack and that makes no sense a tip is a tip and not a hack.A hack is what you do with an axe to a piece of wood.
Getting stood up sucks and yes I have been stood up because of my weight.
Yet there have been times I have been asked out because of my weight I'm pretty sure.


----------



## azerty (Oct 15, 2017)

As a man I feel ashamed to see some men still act that way


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 15, 2017)

Many moons ago, when I was still kinda new to Dims, I had a guy messaging and calling me. He only lived a few hours away from me. We had arranged a meet up. 

Imagine my surprise when I checked my VM messges and there was one...not from him...but his wife. He hadn't even been married for two years. 

She read some of our messages because he had mentioned some of the things he had done in this area as a tourist....except he was in this area on his honeymoon I found out from her. :doh::doh:


Lesson learned. 

Just have to say that I have met some Dimmers that are really nice people. I have had some dates from sites other than Dims that were awesome. 

Dims is just like the real world- you win some you lose some. 

Sounds like he did you a favor to just not show up. No telling what that assclown might have done if he'd actually had the balls to keep his word and show up. 


Hey mystery man...you suck.


P.S. I remember another lady I met online who flew to another state to meet the guy she's been talking to online for over a year. He actually showed up at the airport, looked at her and turned around and left her stuck at the airport. She didn't have a return ticket home so a family member had to bail her out. Hope that guy is still single for sure.....


----------



## FatAndProud (Oct 15, 2017)

Men on Dimensions generally suck. Go out into the world where there's plenty of beefcakes waiting to be gobbled up by a beautiful woman such as yourself. Don't waste your time on these half-assed men <3


----------



## Marlayna (Oct 15, 2017)

SBQT73 said:


> Thank you for the replies. I'm honestly fine. I'm pretty sure he thinks/thought I would be beyond devastated, but I'm not. People try to knock you down, you just have to pick yourself back up, dust yourself off, and move forward.
> 
> I agree with you, fuelingfire, what is wrong with people. Why he did what he did, I will never understand, but for me, I know I'm fine and moving on.


His loss. The guys who play that stupid game are just jerk-offs. Life goes on, glad you have such a good attitude... and you're very cute.:smitten:


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 15, 2017)

FatAndProud said:


> Men on Dimensions generally suck. Go out into the world where there's plenty of beefcakes waiting to be gobbled up by a beautiful woman such as yourself. Don't waste your time on these half-assed men <3



Like some others here, I'm a married man who is on Dimensions because I'm looking for exchanges of ideas with more or less like-minded people. I'm actually not interested in behaving like a jerk toward anyone, but maybe I just don't have time for that because I'm too busy sucking while looking for the other half of my ass.


----------



## Tracii (Oct 16, 2017)

I had one on fantasy feeder ask me if I want to fuc% and wanted to meet up.
Like no you a hole!! LOL I wonder how he would like a ball bat up side the head?
Complete jerk.


----------



## squeezablysoft (Oct 16, 2017)

Hey now, there are some really awesome dudes here on Dims,
let's not let one bad egg convince us to toss the whole chicken. Or something like that.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Oct 16, 2017)

Tracii said:


> I had one on fantasy feeder ask me if I want to fuc% and wanted to meet up.
> Like no you a hole!! LOL I wonder how he would like a ball bat up side the head?



Not upside the head. Consider another orifice. Consider sideways. :happy:


----------



## landshark (Oct 16, 2017)

squeezablysoft said:


> Hey now, there are some really awesome dudes here on Dims,




Im gonna go out on a limb and assume youre talking about me!


----------



## FatAndProud (Oct 16, 2017)

The men on Dimensions that know they don't suck and have a full ass needn't respond in this thread. They know who they are and they know I respect them fully!


----------



## DragonFly (Oct 16, 2017)

Ive met quite a few people from Dimensions at either bashes or conventions, yes just like in the outside world there are some with questionable intentions. You just have to be carful and be protective of yourself.


----------



## AmyJo1976 (Oct 16, 2017)

happily_married said:


> Im gonna go out on a limb and assume youre talking about me!


 
No, you're not bad at all. Awfully skinny, but sweet as can be


----------



## squeezablysoft (Oct 16, 2017)

Some of us aren't so much half assed as we are ONE AND A half assed lol!


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 16, 2017)

squeezablysoft said:


> Some of us aren't so much half assed as we are ONE AND A half assed lol!



One and a half assed beats half AND whole assed every time!


----------



## Craiger16 (Oct 16, 2017)

sorry that happened.

People who do things like this are immature. Hope you can forget about them. 

It's tough to do but remember they have to live with the shitty thing they did, something that will eat at them in the back of their mind like an itch you can't scratch. Because when we know we are guilty of hurting someone purposely you can't just fix it or forget it and sure time passes but for the rest of their life they can't be happy knowing what a shitty person they really are inside. 

You are able to continue being a good person.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 18, 2017)

fatgrllvr said:


> It confounds me that there actually are enough "people" (to use the term loosely) to make crappy behavior a "trend." I guess they're the same types as trolls. I just don't understand why anybody would choose to put themselves in that category.



I've studied this by investigating a few of the more open trolls, and my conclusion is that they come in a few categories. Some genuinely enjoy being disruptive. It gives them a sort of weird thrill to tear down what others build, or at least to interfere in the happiness and contentment of people, to the best of their ability. A lot of these people seem to have been taught tolerance and good behavior from birth, however, so I think, whether they know it or not, many of them fall into the second category.

The second category is people who look around themselves, see a ton of people who are at peace with the way the world is, yet they *know* that something is wrong, but when they bring it up politely and with good reasoning, no one will even stop to listen to them. They examine the internet, find that the people with the loudest and most noticeable voices are also the biggest jerks, and decide "well, that doesn't look so hard. I can do that too."

I would have been part of that second category, had it not been that I started following a person online who was very civil and presented his case like a gentleman. It taught me the value of being coherent and polite when making your points. Still, some people will choose disruptive and cruel methods as an expression of how they feel inside, which is category 3.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 18, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> I've studied this by investigating a few of the more open trolls, and my conclusion is that they come in a few categories. Some genuinely enjoy being disruptive. It gives them a sort of weird thrill to tear down what others build, or at least to interfere in the happiness and contentment of people, to the best of their ability. A lot of these people seem to have been taught tolerance and good behavior from birth, however, so I think, whether they know it or not, many of them fall into the second category.
> 
> The second category is people who look around themselves, see a ton of people who are at peace with the way the world is, yet they *know* that something is wrong, but when they bring it up politely and with good reasoning, no one will even stop to listen to them. They examine the internet, find that the people with the loudest and most noticeable voices are also the biggest jerks, and decide "well, that doesn't look so hard. I can do that too."
> 
> I would have been part of that second category, had it not been that I started following a person online who was very civil and presented his case like a gentleman. It taught me the value of being coherent and polite when making your points. Still, some people will choose disruptive and cruel methods as an expression of how they feel inside, which is category 3.



Maybe I'm more judgmental and less forgiving, but once someone is deliberately cruel, without provocation, to an innocent person (or being), they've lost their human status in my eyes. I understand and relate to the reasons for raging against society and/or general human behavior, and there have been times in my life when such anger almost consumed me. At those times I was particularly ready and willing to smash anyone who affronted me or mine, but hurting any innocent party was inconceivable no matter how angry I was. Doing so would be cowardly and contemptible, as is the "pig" who was the original subject of this thread.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 18, 2017)

fatgrllvr said:


> Maybe I'm more judgmental and less forgiving, but once someone is deliberately cruel, without provocation, to an innocent person (or being), they've lost their human status in my eyes. I understand and relate to the reasons for raging against society and/or general human behavior, and there have been times in my life when such anger almost consumed me. At those times I was particularly ready and willing to smash anyone who affronted me or mine, but hurting any innocent party was inconceivable no matter how angry I was. Doing so would be cowardly and contemptible, as is the "pig" who was the original subject of this thread.



I'm actually quite judgmental and I find forgiveness very difficult. Still, I don't have much choice but to acknowledge the humanity of trolls as purely a definitional matter. Humans are, by definition, rational animals, and trolls may not be rational at the moment, but they do still have at least the _potential_ for rational thought.

As far as learning to forgive, that comes in two stages; refusing to cling to old wounds, and refusing to hold grudges against individual people. The first type I try to embrace in all circumstances. If not, I'd be a much worse and more unhappy person. The second type usually isn't even an issue, unless the person in question is someone I personally know in my real life (they often aren't.) If they are, my usual approach is to think about other things until I see them again, so that I can approach them in a clear-headed way. Often, I'll remember some rotten thing I did in the past, and remind myself of the forgiveness that I need too. These techniques have helped me learn to cope with many disappointments in my life.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 19, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> I'm actually quite judgmental and I find forgiveness very difficult. Still, I don't have much choice but to acknowledge the humanity of trolls as purely a definitional matter. Humans are, by definition, rational animals, and trolls may not be rational at the moment, but they do still have at least the _potential_ for rational thought.
> 
> As far as learning to forgive, that comes in two stages; refusing to cling to old wounds, and refusing to hold grudges against individual people. The first type I try to embrace in all circumstances. If not, I'd be a much worse and more unhappy person. The second type usually isn't even an issue, unless the person in question is someone I personally know in my real life (they often aren't.) If they are, my usual approach is to think about other things until I see them again, so that I can approach them in a clear-headed way. Often, I'll remember some rotten thing I did in the past, and remind myself of the forgiveness that I need too. These techniques have helped me learn to cope with many disappointments in my life.



I must respectfully disagree about humans being rational by definition. If our species was rational, there would be no wars, very little poverty, and no overpopulation, and we would not be on the brink of destroying our own planet. Each human is capable of some degree of reasoning; some of us try to exercise that capability as much as possible (for good or ill), and others don't even seem to try.

I do agree that clinging to old wounds is a pointless exercise that will only make the wounded party more miserable. I think it's wise, however, to remember who has harmed you, if only as a precaution against allowing them to harm you again in the future. This need not rise to the level of seeking revenge. 

As to forgiveness, for me it depends on (a) the circumstances (including the nature and degree of the offense), and (b) whether or not the offending party regrets their behavior.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 20, 2017)

fatgrllvr said:


> I must respectfully disagree about humans being rational by definition. If our species was rational, there would be no wars, very little poverty, and no overpopulation, and we would not be on the brink of destroying our own planet.



"Rational" and "perfect" are two different things. What you're referring to isn't a limit in the human mind, but rather, in the human heart, and all of that is as a result of people having free will. I do think most human beings fail to use *proper* reasoning when evaluating data most of the time, but they do still have reasoning capability.

As for destroying the planet itself, I'm not sure what you're referring to, unless there's some government Death Star project I've not been made aware of.



fatgrllvr said:


> Each human is capable of some degree of reasoning; some of us try to exercise that capability as much as possible (for good or ill), and others don't even seem to try.



Exactly my point.



fatgrllvr said:


> I do agree that clinging to old wounds is a pointless exercise that will only make the wounded party more miserable. I think it's wise, however, to remember who has harmed you, if only as a precaution against allowing them to harm you again in the future. This need not rise to the level of seeking revenge.



Exactly. Vengeance doesn't fall within our capacity as mortals.



fatgrllvr said:


> As to forgiveness, for me it depends on (a) the circumstances (including the nature and degree of the offense), and (b) whether or not the offending party regrets their behavior.



That last one will mean a lot more when it comes to whether the person finds forgiveness in an ultimate sense.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 20, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> "Rational" and "perfect" are two different things. What you're referring to isn't a limit in the human mind, but rather, in the human heart, and all of that is as a result of people having free will. I do think most human beings fail to use *proper* reasoning when evaluating data most of the time, but they do still have reasoning capability.
> 
> As for destroying the planet itself, I'm not sure what you're referring to, unless there's some government Death Star project I've not been made aware of.
> 
> ...



Again, I respectfully disagree. (I think our differences stem from the fact that you're a Christian and I'm an atheist. We'd best not get into a theological discussion, however, or we'll end up getting kicked off the board.)

Perfection can't be achieved, but rationality and honorable behavior can. Our ability to reason is limited by our mental capabilities and obfuscated by our predilection for rationalizing away evidence that doesn't conform to our wishes and prejudices. Honorable behavior proceeds from our individual value systems. Reasoning against one's own desires and/or prejudices and engaging in inconvenient but honorable behavior aren't easy, but they provide the only available avenue for giving your life meaning (at least in my world). 

We are destroying the planet through overpopulation, pollution, and man-made global warming, and our government's policies are rapidly accelerating the process. We' don't need a Death Star - our policies will achieve the same end result, although it may take a century or two to play out.

Vengeance is certainly within our capacity, although it's seldom a wise choice. Of course, the idea of ultimate forgiveness is outside my belief system.

Different strokes, I guess.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 20, 2017)

fatgrllvr said:


> Perfection can't be achieved, but rationality and honorable behavior can.



Wow. I'd be miserable if I thought honorable conduct was the best I could hope for.



fatgrllvr said:


> Our ability to reason is limited by our mental capabilities and obfuscated by our predilection for rationalizing away evidence that doesn't conform to our wishes and prejudices. Honorable behavior proceeds from our individual value systems. Reasoning against one's own desires and/or prejudices and engaging in inconvenient but honorable behavior aren't easy, but they provide the only available avenue for giving your life meaning (at least in my world).



In what sense? I don't see how behaving honorably provides meaning in any way. A tiny, rational animal behaves honorably, vs behaving dishonorably, but in both cases, it's just a different kind of behavior pattern. Unless you can actually sympathize with at least some of your fellow men (a function of the heart,) I don't see why one behavior pattern would be any more meaningful than another.



fatgrllvr said:


> We are destroying the planet through overpopulation, pollution, and man-made global warming, and our government's policies are rapidly accelerating the process. We' don't need a Death Star - our policies will achieve the same end result, although it may take a century or two to play out.



Well, this is disputed, of course, but putting that aside, even in the worst case scenario projections, the potential damage would only be to the ecosystem; not the planet itself. The Earth would continue rotating around the sun at the same trajectory, even if we scorched the world's surface into a cinder.



fatgrllvr said:


> Vengeance is certainly within our capacity, although it's seldom a wise choice.



I think a lot of that depends on what you want, ultimately, out of life. If your goals have nothing to do with people being able to get along, or mankind surviving for a prolonged period, then a lot of this would seem academic.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 21, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> Wow. I'd be miserable if I thought honorable conduct was the best I could hope for.



Really? What do you think is the best you can hope for? In any case, I never said anything about "hoping for" honorable conduct. That's something you work at, not hope for.



TwoSwords said:


> In what sense? I don't see how behaving honorably provides meaning in any way. A tiny, rational animal behaves honorably, vs behaving dishonorably, but in both cases, it's just a different kind of behavior pattern. Unless you can actually sympathize with at least some of your fellow men (a function of the heart,) I don't see why one behavior pattern would be any more meaningful than another.



Again, read what I actually said. You can choose to (and make every effort to) act in as rational and honorable manner as possible and thereby give your life meaning. You've said you're interested in philosophy: read Epictetus on the four major virtues of Stoicism: courage, justice, self-control, and wisdom. (Side note: the Stoic virtues of wisdom and justice encompass compassion.) I include those virtues within the parameters of acting rationally and honorably, which again, can provide meaning to your life. (Another side note: you can only hope to achieve such meaning in your own eyes, since you have little control over anyone else's opinions.) Read the utilitarian philosophers, particularly Jeremy Bentham, and the existentialists, particularly Camus, and the modern-day humanists such as Paul Kurtz and Peter Singer. Google "The Affirmations of Humanism." That should give you an idea of where I'm coming from. I recognize that your belief system is completely different from mine and never the twain shall meet, so there's not much point in taking this further.



TwoSwords said:


> Well, this is disputed, of course, but putting that aside, even in the worst case scenario projections, the potential damage would only be to the ecosystem; not the planet itself. The Earth would continue rotating around the sun at the same trajectory, even if we scorched the world's surface into a cinder.



Yeah, it's disputed by maybe three percent of the scientists who actually study the topic. I obviously didn't mean that climate change, overpopulation, and pollution would obliterate the Earth itself. The planet will merely be rendered nearly or entirely uninhabitable by most life forms, including the humans who are bringing that happy state about. 



TwoSwords said:


> I think a lot of that depends on what you want, ultimately, out of life. If your goals have nothing to do with people being able to get along, or mankind surviving for a prolonged period, then a lot of this would seem academic.



Of course I think people should be able to get along and hope that mankind will survive for a prolonged period. I do what I can, but so far I haven't been able to accomplish either. Have you?


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 22, 2017)

fatgrllvr said:


> Really? What do you think is the best you can hope for? In any case, I never said anything about "hoping for" honorable conduct. That's something you work at, not hope for.



The term "the best I could hope for" in no way implies sitting around and wishing upon a star. Everything that people hope to have requires work, if it's achievable.

As for my hopes and dreams, to put it in the simplest possible terms; a fix. A total fix, for everything. I could, of course, expand on that, but it'd be better to do by PM, lest the thread topic be further derailed. For now, let's just say that even if everyone in the world were constantly telling me to grow up, it would in no way decrease the scope of my desires, needs or dreams.



fatgrllvr said:


> You can choose to (and make every effort to) act in as rational and honorable manner as possible and thereby give your life meaning. You've said you're interested in philosophy: read Epictetus on the four major virtues of Stoicism: courage, justice, self-control, and wisdom. (Side note: the Stoic virtues of wisdom and justice encompass compassion.)



I *have* read Epictetus' work on the virtues, and I don't recall him saying that virtue gives "meaning" to life. One person, for instance, may demonstrate tremendous courage in the face of a devastating opponent, while another flees before a much weaker threat, but the coward's life is no more meaningless than that of the courageous man. In fact, the coward has good reasons to flee; he's afraid of dying or being injured. The courageous man may have good reasons to be courageous as well, but even if he does, it's hard to see how his courage is "meaningful" as such.

As for the virtues of wisdom and justice encompassing compassion, it seems that they would actually be opposed to one another in many situations. For instance, if a person knows that their job is being endangered by a dozen competitors on the other side of town. For this reason, their desire to continue supporting their family; their compassion towards their loved ones, may interfere with their wisdom and desire for their competitors to be treated justly.

I also think that the way in which Epictetus selected his virtues was too simplistic and arbitrary. He rejected things like wealth and pleasure as "good" because they don't necessary benefit the possessor in all cases, yet courage *frequently* doesn't benefit the person who possesses it, and he selected that as a virtue. Wisdom offers little in the way of benefit in certain conditions, and indeed, often leads to scorn and ridicule when others are foolish. He seems to be presupposing a larger type of "benefit" than the traditional, measurable ones, and on his stoic world view, I just don't see any justification for that.



fatgrllvr said:


> I include those virtues within the parameters of acting rationally and honorably, which again, can provide meaning to your life.



Again; what sort of meaning? In what sense? Of what does this meaning consist, and where does it derive from?



fatgrllvr said:


> (Another side note: you can only hope to achieve such meaning in your own eyes, since you have little control over anyone else's opinions.)



Oh. Well, if "meaning" is just some opinion, then what you *call* meaning is really just another word for self-esteem, and that can be had, even *without* the virtues in any sense. On this view, the person with the most meaning in life is the narcissist, whose opinion of their own meaning and worth is *completely* independent of the views of others, and, indeed, of the facts as well.



fatgrllvr said:


> Read the utilitarian philosophers, particularly Jeremy Bentham, and the existentialists, particularly Camus, and the modern-day humanists such as Paul Kurtz and Peter Singer. Google "The Affirmations of Humanism." That should give you an idea of where I'm coming from. I recognize that your belief system is completely different from mine and never the twain shall meet, so there's not much point in taking this further.



I suppose not. I just don't see how "meaning" can be claimed, unless "meaning" is a real thing, or a real aspect of a thing which has it.



fatgrllvr said:


> I obviously didn't mean that climate change, overpopulation, and pollution would obliterate the Earth itself. The planet will merely be rendered nearly or entirely uninhabitable by most life forms, including the humans who are bringing that happy state about.



I get that. Still, let's not overstate the matter. Humans are really quite small, and the damage they can cause is much smaller than they often think it is. That's my point.



fatgrllvr said:


> Of course I think people should be able to get along and hope that mankind will survive for a prolonged period. I do what I can, but so far I haven't been able to accomplish either. Have you?



No, but those aren't really my goals, so that's not surprising.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 22, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> I *have* read Epictetus' work on the virtues, and I don't recall him saying that virtue gives "meaning" to life. One person, for instance, may demonstrate tremendous courage in the face of a devastating opponent, while another flees before a much weaker threat, but the coward's life is no more meaningless than that of the courageous man. In fact, the coward has good reasons to flee; he's afraid of dying or being injured. The courageous man may have good reasons to be courageous as well, but even if he does, it's hard to see how his courage is "meaningful" as such.
> 
> As for the virtues of wisdom and justice encompassing compassion, it seems that they would actually be opposed to one another in many situations. For instance, if a person knows that their job is being endangered by a dozen competitors on the other side of town. For this reason, their desire to continue supporting their family; their compassion towards their loved ones, may interfere with their wisdom and desire for their competitors to be treated justly.
> 
> I also think that the way in which Epictetus selected his virtues was too simplistic and arbitrary. He rejected things like wealth and pleasure as "good" because they don't necessary benefit the possessor in all cases, yet courage *frequently* doesn't benefit the person who possesses it, and he selected that as a virtue. Wisdom offers little in the way of benefit in certain conditions, and indeed, often leads to scorn and ridicule when others are foolish. He seems to be presupposing a larger type of "benefit" than the traditional, measurable ones, and on his stoic world view, I just don't see any justification for that.



Let me clarify what I'm getting at when I talk about giving one's life "meaning." I believe meaning is entirely relative and subjective, applying only to the person to whom a thing is meaningful. Our lives are meaningful to ourselves and may or may not be meaningful to anyone else. In fact, our lives have very little meaning (probably none) to the universe as a whole, or even to the vast majority of people.

Epictetus did, in fact, address this. At one point he compared virtue to a garment worn by the nobility, stating (and I'm admittedly paraphrasing), "Most people are content to be part of the white cloth. I choose to be part of the purple lining." I disagree with a lot of the positions taken by Epictetus (and the rest of the Stoics), but I like his take on the virtues. 

I think that a deeper analysis of his ideas about wisdom and courage would prove them both to be compatible with compassion. Courage without wisdom is merely foolhardiness; wisdom without courage is of little practical use. Empathy and compassion are qualities that should be incorporated (where applicable) when making decisions requiring courage and wisdom, but the best (most "virtuous") outcome may require going with the lesser of two evils. 




TwoSwords said:


> Oh. Well, if "meaning" is just some opinion, then what you *call* meaning is really just another word for self-esteem, and that can be had, even *without* the virtues in any sense. On this view, the person with the most meaning in life is the narcissist, whose opinion of their own meaning and worth is *completely* independent of the views of others, and, indeed, of the facts as well.



Again, as I'm using it here, "meaning" is a standard applied by an individual when determining whether his/her life has value in his/her own eyes. 
It's not the same as self-esteem; giving your life meaning (again, in your own eyes) will _result_ in self-esteem. 

All narcissists think their lives have great meaning, but that opinion is pathologically delusional in everyone else's eyes. We don't have to take narcissists seriously, and they can be left to their delusions unless those delusions lead to actions that are harmful to others. 




TwoSwords said:


> I get that. Still, let's not overstate the matter. Humans are really quite small, and the damage they can cause is much smaller than they often think it is. That's my point.



True, but they are creating a disproportionately large mess here on Earth that has become a serious threat to our small lives.



TwoSWords said:


> No, but those aren't really my goals, so that's not surprising.



So why would you imply that those goals should be mine? And even if they were your goals or mine, I rather doubt that either of us could come anywhere close to achieving them. 

Once again, we've gone way off thread. Agree to disagree and move on?


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Oct 22, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> Humans are, by definition, rational animals.





fatgrllvr said:


> I must respectfully disagree about humans being rational by definition.



Going back to what started the discussion, TwoSwords is technically correct: the definition, in this case, comes from Aristotle. However, Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who hung out with scholars like Plato, and this doubtlessly influenced his outlook.

I would say that you're both right. Children of school age can understand a very simple rational explanation, but they cannot yet generate one on their own and consequently make decisions mostly by impulse. A great number of people never get beyond this stage, which is why grocery stores put the candy next to the checkout line. Most people can use means-to-end reasoning, i.e. figure out a way to get something they want, but cannot reason out whether they _ought_ to want that particular thing. A minority can analyze their own motives and conflicting desires and reason impartially.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 22, 2017)

fatgrllvr said:


> Once again, we've gone way off thread. Agree to disagree and move on?



Once again, there's so much to reply to here, and while I'd much prefer to continue this by PM, it seems strange to leave all of this unanswered.



fatgrllvr said:


> Let me clarify what I'm getting at when I talk about giving one's life "meaning." I believe meaning is entirely relative and subjective, applying only to the person to whom a thing is meaningful. Our lives are meaningful to ourselves and may or may not be meaningful to anyone else. In fact, our lives have very little meaning (probably none) to the universe as a whole, or even to the vast majority of people.



On my view, our lives have no meaning at all to the universe as a whole, because the universe is not an intelligent creature able to perceive meaning, and due to the universal heat death, it will leave no evidence of our existence in the end. Only if one acknowledges transcendent realities is there any hope for a deeper meaning than the purely subjective and temporary one that you affirm.



fatgrllvr said:


> Epictetus did, in fact, address this. At one point he compared virtue to a garment worn by the nobility, stating (and I'm admittedly paraphrasing), "Most people are content to be part of the white cloth. I choose to be part of the purple lining." I disagree with a lot of the positions taken by Epictetus (and the rest of the Stoics), but I like his take on the virtues.



I agree with him that the nobility will use the virtues of ordinary people to their own ends, whether we like it or not. I'm not sure what else he means to say here.



fatgrllvr said:


> I think that a deeper analysis of his ideas about wisdom and courage would prove them both to be compatible with compassion. Courage without wisdom is merely foolhardiness; wisdom without courage is of little practical use. Empathy and compassion are qualities that should be incorporated (where applicable) when making decisions requiring courage and wisdom, but the best (most "virtuous") outcome may require going with the lesser of two evils.



My problem wasn't really with them being incompatible, but that I just don't see how one could derive compassion from just wisdom and justice. It doesn't seem to follow. At most, you'd end up with something like equity according to some understanding of the world, but that still doesn't really bring you to compassion as such.



fatgrllvr said:


> All narcissists think their lives have great meaning, but that opinion is pathologically delusional in everyone else's eyes. We don't have to take narcissists seriously, and they can be left to their delusions unless those delusions lead to actions that are harmful to others.



Well, just a minute. A second ago, you said...



fatgrllvr said:


> I believe meaning is entirely relative and subjective, applying only to the person to whom a thing is meaningful.



That position seems not to play nicely with this one...



fatgrllvr said:


> ...that opinion is pathologically delusional in everyone else's eyes.



If the meaning of the life of the narcissist only applies to the person to whom it's meaningful; himself, why does it matter whether everyone else in the world thinks it's delusional?



fatgrllvr said:


> True, but they are creating a disproportionately large mess here on Earth that has become a serious threat to our small lives.



No argument there. Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not, there's no denying that human beings cause far too much death to their own kind.



fatgrllvr said:


> So why would you imply that those goals should be mine?



You said they were. Didn't you?



fatgrllvr said:


> And even if they were your goals or mine, I rather doubt that either of us could come anywhere close to achieving them.



Right. We're just not strong enough to win on our own.


----------



## TwoSwords (Oct 22, 2017)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Going back to what started the discussion, TwoSwords is technically correct: the definition, in this case, comes from Aristotle. However, Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who hung out with scholars like Plato, and this doubtlessly influenced his outlook.
> 
> I would say that you're both right. Children of school age can understand a very simple rational explanation, but they cannot yet generate one on their own and consequently make decisions mostly by impulse. A great number of people never get beyond this stage, which is why grocery stores put the candy next to the checkout line. Most people can use means-to-end reasoning, i.e. figure out a way to get something they want, but cannot reason out whether they _ought_ to want that particular thing. A minority can analyze their own motives and conflicting desires and reason impartially.



Aristotle was of a Greek school of thought, and indeed, much of Greek and early Roman society was steeped in this kind of firm, logical and intellectual knowledge tradition. It's one of the reasons why they grew so powerful. I've seen students of various nations, and how they react to logic and knowledge, and honestly, there does seem to be a trend in modern education systems away from logic and knowledge, in the sense of being able to follow causes to their effects. This is at its worst in nations where schools fall under the dominion of the government. I have my own theories about why that would be.


----------



## FreeThinker (Oct 22, 2017)

Some of us don't believe our lives have meaning. Mine doesn't. 

I just try to stay out of the way of 'good' and not enable 'bad'. 

The 'pigger' (?) in this incident has acted deplorably. Forgiveness is not mine to grant on anything beyond a scale of what is personal to me. 

To the original poster, I'm sorry you had to experience this person's bad actions.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 23, 2017)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Going back to what started the discussion, TwoSwords is technically correct: the definition, in this case, comes from Aristotle. However, Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who hung out with scholars like Plato, and this doubtlessly influenced his outlook.
> 
> I would say that you're both right. Children of school age can understand a very simple rational explanation, but they cannot yet generate one on their own and consequently make decisions mostly by impulse. A great number of people never get beyond this stage, which is why grocery stores put the candy next to the checkout line. Most people can use means-to-end reasoning, i.e. figure out a way to get something they want, but cannot reason out whether they _ought_ to want that particular thing. A minority can analyze their own motives and conflicting desires and reason impartially.



You're absolutely right. Aristotle, and quite a few philosophers afterwards, did embrace that definition, and different people do display different levels of rationality. When I wrote about humanity being irrational, I was zeroed in on the irrationality displayed by the _collective_ power centers of our species (mostly government and big industry) whose short-sighted greed and self-interest are leading us to destruction. Sometimes I tend to narrow my focus a little too much.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 23, 2017)

FreeThinker said:


> Some of us don't believe our lives have meaning. Mine doesn't.
> 
> I just try to stay out of the way of 'good' and not enable 'bad'.
> 
> ...



I pretty much agree with you all the way. I was only talking about creating meaning in one's own eyes, by one's own definition, which is totally subjective. I kind of doubt that there's such a thing as meaning on an absolute level.


----------



## fatgrllvr (Oct 23, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> Once again, there's so much to reply to here, and while I'd much prefer to continue this by PM, it seems strange to leave all of this unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Naturally I have a few response to the above, but I'm going to shut up, take a deep breath and call it a day.  No hard feelings.


----------

