Stay positive! This is a good incentive to break out of this toxic tradition/behaviour. Now you have a good idea of what not to do. You might even tell your parents this conclusion.
"appeal to authority" is a good example in our current situation. How many doctors are talking crap about Covid? Here lies one of our problem about misinformation. Too many people are just regurgitate opinions of "doctors".
Generally speaking, I like to use fallacies for myself, just to be aware about certain pitfalls. Not so much about discrediting others, but rather not fall into one myself.
If I realize other people are using fallacies to support their argument, it helps me to build an argument against it. Just don't use it naively: "you're wrong because of fallacy number 42". Using it like this is a bad habit, because of the wast number of fallacies, you can probably kill any discussion.
Income from my job. No side projects pulling in cash (yet). Getting close on a few though. Hoping I can post something far more interesting here next year when this question comes around again.
That's a pretty stupid way of living. But hey, don't mind me, I'm old..
There is no balance to be attained in being a jerk/cheater or whatever. It's like saying: I have the option of breathing or not breathing, so let's get a good balance. No!
If you want to learn from bad people: Do it, but use it for good. For example in identifying people who are bad, or want to take advantage of you/others. But certainly not to get a balance.
And btw, I always hope, people with questionable opinions get screwed by someone with the same questionable view. Let's hope you'll learn your lesson.
Actually I tried the other way around: never being a jerk, never lie or cheat. But I couldn't manage: people take advantage of you and you get frustrated.
Now, building strengh, characters, and participating to alternatives to the status quo are better long term strategies.
But on the short term, always playing by the rules is a serious disadvantages in some environments.
It's ok to build strength and character, but that doesn't mean you have to be jerk or a liar at the same time. IMO if you have to lie or be a jerk, it's the opposite of a strong character.
Your argument started with "it's easier to get laid, if I'm a jerk". And now your argument is "it pays to be a jerk in harsh environments".
First of all, I hope women aren't included in your harsh environment.
Second, you're right. Absolute commitments without exceptions is rarely good advice. There are always exceptions. My criticism is about finding a balance of being a jerk. There is no balance to be attained. There might be exceptions, but not something to balance for.
I'm aware that I feel very strongly about it. That's why I couldn't hold myself back from writing a comment. For me this is very important, because I get the feeling, that humanity is drifting towards dishonesty. It's even expected to be lied at. For example, my co-workers lie to our customers if we missed something or implemented a bug in our software. It's not an option anymore to say to them straight, that we made an error! How stupid is that? The customers wants to be lied at! On the other hand, if they did something they're not supposed to do with our software, they lie about what they really did. This gets me so angry... Sorry, I'm going to stop now.. :)
If you have to play monopoly, and somebody cheats, you have 4 choices:
- loose. It's not a game you can win by skill
- stop playing. It may very well be a terrible option for you.
- call for authority. Unfortunatly this is one of the least effective strategy IRL.
- level the playing field. Not great, but the least of evils until you get yourself into a better situation such as playing another game, have friends to help you, etc.
Principle of charity. He agreed with this statement: "I was not made for that [lying]." He's saying knowing your dark side is a powerful help. Jung said the same - usually using slightly different words "shadow", "Id", or "shadow aspect/archetype." He hasn't endorsed lying as a lifestyle, and I would mention that those who have encountered and acknowledged their shadow are far less likely to project it on others as you just did - something Jung discusses at length.
If you try to educate others, you probably have to ask first whether you're the one being wrong.
First, your quote is not from a post I answered.
Second, it's interesting to have a link to Jung's material. But stating "something is true, since Jung discusses it at length" is just a very bad argument. Why? Because duedl0r said so.
Third, actually, I share your opinion about the quote and all....but the way you wrote your post is not ok for me
It's really hard to discuss nuance here. But for someone who is proud of his moral superiority, you sure didn't try to see where I was coming from.
I'd say it's a layered thing. You start with the right core, but you layer some of these bad characteristics on top. Depending on your environment, you will have to deal with different kinds of people.
Your example is exactly what I mean by balance. But there are more. But itt difficult to showcase my point when your response just leaks out moral superiority, as if you know the backstory to these opinions.
Looking at the relationship between Trump and the media vs any "good guy" and the media. He can, would and did say everything he wanted, and no one batted an eye, it moved no one. Fundamentally a lot of people already thought he was bad, or that he says shit.
But take your "good guy" Joe. That if his image was built on pure goodness, one slip, one mistake and the press would be all over him.
What I'm trying to see is that the arsenal of weapons ( physical, mental) at a bad person's disposal is larger than a purely good person's.
And that is maintained with scale. I'm looking at the weapons bad politicians have and use, vs those that the purely good ones have at their disposal. Especially when the former have power.
There's more to this. But it's hard to have a discussion with someone, who can't see that some of the things bad people do, have a place in this world, and can be employed for a better purpose.
So? It's not a vote, it's a consultation. The idea being that anyone can give their input on the matter so it doesn't matter who is responding. The voting part, if it comes to that, comes later by the European Parliament.
Note that the European Parliament can't initiate legislation[1], and the Council appears to be able to ignore Parliament's opinion.
"The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament’s opinion but in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it"
Note that you quoted the special "Consultation" procedure instead of the ordinary legislative procedure where EP has more power.
According to the page, the consultation procedure "is applicable in a limited number of legislative areas, such as internal market exemptions and competition law".
