Earlier, I sent an opening letter on a discussion I'm having with a coworker. On the second of this month he sent his reply. I've edited his response to take out personal information, but everything else is intact.[Berlzebub], I appreciate you taking the time to share with me your thoughts and beliefs. After having read your brief explanation, there’s no doubt you’ve done a lot of reading and research and have given a great deal of consideration to what you believe. That’s good. It shows you’re a thinking man. Albert Einstein was once asked back in the 1950’s, “Doctor, what’s wrong with man?” He was quoted and answering, “Men simply don’t think.” By simple observation, it would appear a fair number a people seem to go through this life giving little to no thoughts about what they really believe as their basic values and deepest beliefs.
Before going too much further, I’m sure you know I come from an entirely different view point than what you have expressed. My background is one of being raised up in the church. My dad was raised in the Methodist church and my mother joined that church when they married. My dad’s family on both sides had Bible believing, church going Christians for generations. So it would seem only logical that my brother and sister and I would grow up be taught the Bible and learning about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I do believe in God and his eternal existence. I believe that Jesus is the Christ, Son if the living God and I believe that he gives the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who believe in him and claim him as their Lord and Savior. For the last forty plus years, I have been a member of the [Local] Church of Christ. I have served as a teacher, a deacon (servant of some particular ministry), and as an elder (a position of leadership responsible for the church working together alongside other elders).
Perhaps James A. Garfield, former President of the United States, summed up best what Christian churches and Churches of Christ believe. Quoting from an article written for the Christian Standard publication November 14, 1993, it states that:
“President Garfield even served as a “lay preacher.” To answer the many questions he received about the group of believers with whom he worshipped, he wrote a classic statement:
1. We call ourselves Christians, or Disciples of Christ.
2. We believe in God the Father.
3. We believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and our Savior. We regard the divinity as the fundamental truth of the Christian system.
4. We believe in the Holy Spirit, both as to His agency in conversion and as indwelling in the heart of the Christian.
5. We accept both the Old Testament and the New Testament Scriptures as the inspired Word of God.
6. We believe in the future punishment of the wicked and the future reward of the righteous.
7. We believe that the Deity is a prayer hearing and a prayer answering God.
8. We believe the institution of the Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Day. To this table we neither invite nor debar; we say it is the Lord’s Supper for all of the Lord’s children.
9. We plead for the union of God’s people on the Bible and the Bible alone.
10. The Christ is our only creed.
11. We maintain that all ordinances should be observed as they were in the days of the apostles.”
With that said, I need for you to do something for me. As you read what is being shared, I want you to read it as though your read a letter from a good friend from back home, someone who you know cares about you. If the words are read in a different manner or taken wrong, one could get the feeling of animosity or that someone is shouting at you. That’s not at all what I want to portray. I want you to know if a sentence or phrase that gives you that kind of feeling, that is certainly not my intention. Our agreement was to share our ideas, thoughts, beliefs and values with one another. As a believer in Christ and the written Word, we are told to share the Good News with others. Sharing the Gospel or Good News and it’s called is what we are asked to do in God’s Word, the Bible. It is not for us to convict someone else or to “save” anyone. We are simply to share the Gospel with anyone who might be willing to listen. The Bible says it takes that which man thinks is the weakest and uses it for His work. The Holy Spirit takes the written Word and uses it to build God’s kingdom. If a person is willing to listen to what is being said (or read the Bible for themselves), and consider the facts and evidence, then we believe the Holy Spirit will work with that person. Christians also understand the Bible when it says the Lord gives us freedom to choose Him or reject Him for ourselves. In so doing He knows that many will reject Him even though there is evidence to support His claim.
In your writing you mentioned a number of individuals who have influenced your thinking. Just as I mentioned my background and why I believe what I now believe, perhaps we can agree you believe what you believe for the same reason. You have read and studied what different individuals have learned and written about and you agree with their assessment. In this, you and I share a common approach to our belief system. I think the people we are closest to while growing up, our teachers we had in school from the early years to college, preachers if we went to a church or place of worship, the authors of books we read. All these are our influences that have led us to where we are now. I think everyone is influenced to a large degree by these factors. Most of what we consider our basic values and core beliefs don’t just appear. It takes years of love, care, of teaching, nurturing and mentoring from those around us. Along with this, we include the experiences we had along the way. One day we get to a point and look at what’s going on in the world around us and we say to ourselves, “Well, this isn’t right,” or “that ought to be this way”, or “they should/shouldn’t be doing that to those people.” Suddenly, however young or old we may be, we actually have a belief about certain things. We realize there are people and things and ideals that we value deeply. And when we look at others around us and the rest of the world, we suddenly realize that not everyone believes the same things that we do. We find ourselves asking what, how, why and why not about both good things and bad things going on all around us.
Well, that’s probably enough for now. It may be what you were wanting to know or expecting or maybe not. But perhaps it’s some food for thought.
Thanks for sharing,
[Coworker]
I know it really doesn't matter, but I wrote my opening in one day. It took my coworker 73 days to send this response. According to his letter, I'm assuming (and I've emailed him to confirm it before I respond) that his philosophy copies that of the Church of Christ. Considering the quote from his first paragraph, I find that interesting. I also found it slightly humorous that it wasn't Einstein, but Dr. Albert Schweitzer who the quote is attributed to, but even then I can't find a reference to the article the quote appeared in.
I'm working on a response to send him, but you're just going to have to wait to see. I don't want to spoil the surprise [wink & smile].
February 5, 2010
Exchange with a Coworker: His First Response
What No One Tells You About Pregnancy
I've told the story of what the mother has to go through for IVF, but there's more to it than that. Elyse, over at Skepchick, has a list of things that you won't be told. Going down the list I was able to check off everything, except the pooping. I don't recall that happening, but then again I had other things on my mind. Plus, my wife's a nurse, so that can sometimes be the topic of dinner conversation.
Now, if you are one of those who thinks that pregnancy is the most wonderful thing in the world, that a swollen belly is the worst side effect pregnancy has, or that pregnant women don't deserve some amount of consideration then you really should go read it. Also keep in mind the article only covers what occurs in an average pregnancy, and doesn't cover possible complications that a mother-to-be might have to endure.
So, if you want to get pregnant go read it to see what to expect, because the others who also want you to get pregnant won't tell you this shit. If you don't want to get pregnant, go read it so you can make a list of the things that you don't want to go through before you have to deal with sleep deprivation for a few days, weeks, or months.
January 29, 2010
Dress Codes and Bullshit
How often have you heard that a male with long hair, anyone with tattoos, someone who wears non-conservative clothing, etc. are "non-conformist", "anti-establishment", or "attention seekers" (these are only the semi-polite words)? Interestingly, that judgement seems to be slipping except among the conservative populace. Hopefully people are beginning to realize that appearance is only a fraction of the person, and none of those things listed above actually say anything more about the person than that specific thing (e.g. he has long hair, (s)he has a tattoo). It's interesting that a common saying is "never judge a book by its cover", but everyone expects the person to look a certain way.
The thing that got me to thinking about this was when Princess brought home her workplace's regional dress code, the other day. Basically it covered everything from head to toe, but not just "dress". It also included limitations in artificial hair colors and haircuts, fingernail polish colors, piercings, and tattoos. I started looking through it and making margin notes, and found some things that pissed me off.
First off, and this wasn't in the regional dress code, is the uniform restriction. Princess is required to wear scrubs. You know those blue pajamas that doctors and nurses wear on TV? That's what Princess wears to work. Guess what management decided about those uniforms? Cartoon characters and the like aren't allowed. They can wear something like a floral pattern, but if they have any with Mickey Mouse or Taz on them they have to stay in the closet, now. So the ones who actually have to deal with the patients that come in with projectile vomiting, explosive diarrhea, alcohol addiction, drug addiction, overly enthusiastic (and I'm being nice here) families, combative (physical and verbal) personalities, and/or every other nightmare that keeps nursing a career for a select few very stoic personalities can't wear a uniform that lets them have a moment to feel some sense of pleasure. Why? Because the executives thinks the cartoons are unprofessional.
Just to warn you, I'm a bit pedantic when it comes to the writing of company policies. When the writer uses phrases such as "neat and clean" and "alter or change", it drives me nuts and causes me to wonder at the intelligence of the writer. Perhaps with "neat" the reasoning they used is it's association with "interesting" or "cool". Unfortunately, that use seems to be in decline, and no one expects it to be used that way in a professional document. So "neat and clean" are redundant. As far as "alter or change"... To alter means to change! Okay, now I've got that off my chest. Let's move on.
Next on the list is Jewelry. An employee is allowed up to four piercings per ear, but no "facial or tongue" piercings. I'm guessing this goes for males too, and they don't say anything about bellybutton, clit or other less traditional piercing locations. Since the only jewelry they allow is the conservative standard of the ear, I'm guessing this has to do with perception. Although, to be fair, I'm sure many conservatives would raise an unpierced eyebrow at seeing four earrings in one ear... especially on a man. The last time I checked though, the number of non-natural holes in a persons body didn't correlate with their competency.
Then we get to fingernails. No fingernails are allowed to "extend any longer than 1/4" inch from the tip of the finger", and artificial nails aren't allowed at all. That I can understand because of safety issues. However the part about fingernail polish has to be a "natural color, and not chipped". I can understand making sure the polish is in good repair, because of patients with open wounds, etc. What I'm trying to figure out is what fingernail polish color is "natural"? All fingernail polish colors are unnatural, even clear. That's the point of nail polish, for crying out loud. I want to know what their basis is for telling their employees that they can't paint their nails.
The next section talks about odors. Body odor, bad breath, strong perfumes or colognes are "unnacceptable". They state those can cause problems with the "well-being and recovery", but the wording is a bit off considering the earlier part of the sentence talks about the "patient or resident". What is the resident recovering from, working there?
The restriction on hair involve "neat and clean" (don't get me started), hair coloring, hair styles, and how the employee can wear their hair. The "neat, clean and trimmed" part is subjective. Whether a particular hairstyle is viewed as such is more about perception than anything else. Hell, the Doctor's haircut can be viewed as unruly (at best) by someone with conservative taste. With hair coloring (not hair color) they expect natural hues. Technically those highlights that are so popular right now could be used as a reason if they are looking to send a particular employee home. Then, they say "spiked hair or semi-shaved heads" are unacceptable. What do they mean by spiked? Hair cut short enough (for me it's about 1" long) that it stands up when you run a comb through it backward, or the longer spikes that were at one time popular in the punk circuit? For the semi-shaved heads I'm assuming that they mean you can't have any 5 o'clock shadow on your pate. So if you shave your head you'll have to take an extended vacation before you come back to work if you don't like it. The next, employees wearing their hair up, only applies to those in patient care areas, and is a safety and patient health issue, so I can understand it.
Next is facial hair, and the only limitation is "neat, clean and trimmed" (again, dammit). On the plus side, since they separated out facial hair from "hair", I'm assuming this means you can color it however you like.
The one that really piqued my interest was the section concerning tattoos. The document said"Existing tattoos must be covered while at work in a manner consistent with infection control standards and requirements."
Well, I did an online search (since they didn't provide anything saying what those requirements are) and could only find information concerning the practices of tattoo parlors. The only information I could find from the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) was a blog that linked to a topic page concerning the risk of disease and contamination during the tattoo process. All of the information I could find about caring for tattoos after leaving the parlor only talked about keeping a bandage on it for a couple of hours, and then using lotions or ointments. If an infection occurs they advise seeing your doctor, but they don't say much of anything else. Doing a search of NIOSH for tattoo and hospital didn't reveal anything either. I get the feeling that the employer is expecting that they can just tell the employees what they should do and no one will question it. At least, that's the impression I get from the obtuse wording.
The next is a jump to hats. Why they didn't include that with the other outerwear sections I'm uncertain, but it's also vague. The employees can only wear "surgical hats or those with an approved logo". Perhaps an employee can wear one of the approved hats while they're letting their shaved pate grow out.
The final section covers Religious Practices. Basically, it says head coverings are allowed due to the "religious conviction" of the individual, but "any other exception" needs to be submitted to HR. So one group automatically gets an out, but others have to go through the bureaucracy. Granted, considering their tendency to clarify that neat is associated with clean I wonder if religious could mean a strongly held belief? Perhaps if the employee believes that appearance has nothing to do with competancy they could petition for the employer to have aeronautical intercourse with a revolving pastry, and let them do whatever they want with their body.
After the religion section they go through the disclaimer that they "reserve the right to amend, alter or change (stop the redundancy, dammit)" the policy at any time. These clauses irritate the hell outta me. In this case, I suspect that they would change it so they could stop employees from using a loophole or to change it to better meet public opinion. Especially since public opinion seems to drive a great deal of the policy to start with.
So, to all hospitals (and other facilities) who enforce such dress codes for the employees, please stop. If I'm in need of medical care I could care less if the one caring for me is dressed in a grass skirt with coconut bra and sandals, have every possible piercing on their face, wear "fuck-me" red nail polish, bathe in their favorite perfume or cologne every morning, have rainbow hair with 10" spikes (or are showing an 1/8" of hair), have sleeve tattoos on both arms and their face, and/or wear an unapproved hat. I'm looking for someone who is competent at their job.
I'm concerned about going to a hospital that I'm trusting my life with when they seem more concerned with appearance than competency. Forcing someone to follow some arbitray dress code that seems to be based on public bias, stereotypes, and bigotry is as assanine as trying to find the best people for a job by having everyone sign a statement of faith. According to your "dress code" you don't want the best person for the job unless they are willing to conform to some arbitrary list of appearances that seem to meet the majority concensus of public approval. If something is a health and safety issue then it's understandable, but things that have to do with appearance only further the negative stereotypes that society has needlessly ingrained in a populace so they can keep oppressing them.
Hell, if public perception of appearance is what you're striving for, I have a great idea. Instead of having all of the nurses wear pajamas, have them all buy their "uniforms" at Victoria Secret. Granted, most might not find it professional, but you'll end up with a high number of hypochondriac cases. The benefit is that you'll have a high number of repeat visitors, and your staff won't have to be competent.
January 11, 2010
Can You Handle the Truth?
In my 10 Questions post question number 5 asked a question about truth.
Am I able to hold what I believe is truth lightly in the interest of dialog?My answer was "Absolutely not", but the reason for such a vehement answer was the phrasing. The wording came off as asking if the one being questioned is closed-minded, or asking them to be open-minded. However, the more I examined my reaction, the more I understood why. The the words "believe", "truth", and "lightly" along with "in the interest of dialog" were what caught my attention.
Believe
A belief is someone's opinion of what the truth is. Belief can actually be on a scale, much like the Dawkin's scale of god belief. It can go from complete belief to complete non-belief, with varying levels in between. Basically, it's based on the individuals opinion.
Truth
Truth is reality. Where belief is a scale, truth is binary. Something is either true or false.
Lightly
The adverb means to treat with "little weight or force", or "indifference or carelessness".
In the interest of dailog
Adding this to the end seems to imply that the person questioned is being asked to make sacrifices in order to keep communication going.
When you break it down like that it translates as:
"Am I willing to treat my opinion of reality carelessly in order to keep talking to someone?"
Basically, the question seems to be asking if I'm willing to lower my standards in order to keep the conversation going. Guess what? Given that phrasing my answer is still negative, but I change it to "Oh hell no".
As I noted, beliefs (opinions) go on a sliding scale. The more evidence that supports something the more likely that belief seems to be truth (reality). Since my opinion of reality is based on the evidence for my belief someone will need to provide an amount of evidence at least equal to the evidence that supports my conclusion.
The entire reason that I debate a subject is my effort to arrive closer to the truth. Asking me to treat my beliefs carelessly in order to keep the conversation going demeans that effort. If I do have a belief that I'm willing to treat lightly, then that belief isn't important enough to debate to begin with.
If it is necessary for me to lighten up in order to keep dialogue with someone, then that person isn't interested in finding out what the truth is. All they want is for all possibilities to be given equal weight. This negates the reason for the debate to begin with, and also seems to imply that they can't handle the truth.
December 18, 2009
Exchange with a Coworker: My Opening
In a previous post I talked about a conversation, and eventual email exchange, I had with a coworker. Eventually I asked him if he would like to do an email exchange concerning our views, and he accepted.
I have a general idea of my coworkers views, including biblical literalism, intelligent design, an interceding deity, etc. However, I didn't want to make assumptions based on overhearing conversations, so I made each of our openings about giving more information. That way I wouldn't be making assumptions.
I sent the opeing on November 20th, and he told me that he's now working on a response. If he agrees to it, I'll put his up after I receive it.
Now, for my opening:
As I said, my views are most closely associated with secular humanism. You can find a description of secular humanism here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what§ion=main
A brief overview of secular humanism is:
As with most other people, this is a decent general idea of my views but the details are more involved.
For clarity’s sake I’ll break my views down into individual parts. If you need clarification on some parts, or want to ask about things I don’t discuss please feel free to. I’ll start with the broader aspects and we can go into more detail as we go along.
Since some issues are referenced in others, I’ll include an outline of what I discuss.
1) God
2) Religion
3) The Bible
4) Morality
5) The Supernatural
6) Science
7) Intelligent Design/Creationism
8) Evolution
9) Miscellaneous
10) Conclusion
God
For full disclosure’s sake I’ll go ahead and tell you that I’m an atheist. However, as with most “labels” the term isn’t black and white. Richard Dawkins came up with a scale of belief in the existence of a god or gods. The scale goes from 1 to 7 and is as follows:
On that scale I am a 6. I can’t know for certain that God doesn’t exist but I haven’t seen anything that inclines me to believe that it does. Therefore, I live my life according to values and morals that I’ve developed through introspection and exploration.
With that being said, even if it were to be proven in the future that God does exist that doesn’t necessarily mean that I would follow its tenets. Authority and power do not make any being moral, and I would expect it to explain to me why I should follow any particular rule that I didn’t agree with.
Religion
As I stated earlier I prefer to refer to it as personal philosophy rather than assume a stereotype of a religion. A person may identify most closely with a particular branch of religion, but I expect that their views would differ from some aspects of the religion if they were honest. Still, as with any philosophy it’s a way that a person establishes their moral values.
Even though I don’t believe in a deity, I have nothing against religion per se. However, I do have issues with what some people do in the name of their religion. All too often religion is used as a reason for ill treatment and discrimination against others who are different. If a person believes that they have to behave in a certain way in order to make it to a happy afterlife I don’t have a problem with that until their beliefs start having a negative effect on other people.
The Bible
In 325 BC a group of Christian authorities was gathered in Nicaea by Emperor Constantine I in order to reach consensus. The result is a collection of some of the existing books from the Jewish Tanakh, the teachings of Jesus as told by his apostles, and other gospels. Basically, the entire collection was done by a committee over 3 centuries after Jesus himself could have had any say so.
To me the Bible is simply another book. It was written by people, and as such contains biases toward their views of the world. However, unlike most other books it has also had two millennia for errors in translation and copying (both intentional and unintentional) to be propagated.
Basically, I question why anyone would base their philosophy and beliefs on the world as it was viewed by people two millennia ago. I believe that a person should examine not only what we’ve discovered about our surroundings (both immediate and cosmic) until today, but also examine the evidence that has supported those discoveries.
Morality
Simply put morality is the way a person views right and wrong. Since morality is based on a person's views they are also subjective. One person's idea of right and wrong does not necessarily equal another's. Of course, the major influence on a person’s morality is their personal philosophy.
My view of morality, in simplistic terms, is three different types of actions. Of course, there’s more detail to it but this the general description of it.
There are some scenarios of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few that can still be moral actions, but not as moral as actions that have no negative effect on anyone else. Consider those sorts of actions as being at 1.5. (If you’d like, we can discuss this further, later.)
The Supernatural
When I speak of the supernatural what I’m referring to is anything that relies on magic as an explanation. This includes such things as astrology, numerology, psychics, homeopathy, traditional acupuncture, angels, demons, deities, an afterlife, and reincarnation. As I discussed above about God, I don’t know that any of these don’t exist but I haven’t found anything that gives me a reason to give them any credence. The late astronomer Carl Sagan once said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The more unlikely the assertion is the greater the need for evidence.
Science
When I refer to science I refer to the scientific method and its findings. Science is simply a method of investigation. What it finds is neither right nor wrong in a moral sense. It’s simply the answer that was arrived at through the evidence found. Sometimes, the answer is wrong or incomplete, but further investigation is used to correct that.
In order for a hypothesis or theory to be scientific it has to meet three criteria. It has to be testable, falsifiable, and reproducible. If it fails at any of these three then it does not meet the criteria and is no better than a guess.
Intelligent Design/Creationism
Intelligent design and creationism both imply that there were supernatural forces at work during the creation of the universe and life as we know it. The supernatural is not a proven or falsifiable assumption, so neither ID nor creationism is a scientific explanation. This was even supported by a court in Kansas (Kitzmiller vs. Dover).
The other day you spoke of complexity as a reason that you don’t believe in ToE. Taking that view, then God would have needed to be designed since he must be more complex than us.
There’s also the fact that every vertebrate on Earth develops in the same way that people do. They start out as a small collection of cells, slowly grow more complex, and then come out into the world and continue growing until they have (hopefully) passed on their genes and died. This is a continual occurrence and science has even found the “triggers” that cause many parts of development.
Evolution
Evolution is the change in generations of organisms caused by natural selection. The individuals with the most beneficial traits will be more likely to survive until the age that they can reproduce and will be more “attractive” for mating. Therefore, the genetic traits of those individuals will be more numerous in the next generation and eventually those traits will become dominate.
Evolution is one of the best supported (by the evidence) theories in science. Everything from findings in the fossil record to actual observations done in recent years has supported and furthered the understanding of ToE.
One example is a fossil found by the paleontologist Neil Shubin. There were fossils of amphibians and later fossils of fish, but none had found the transitional form between the two. So Dr. Shubin and a colleague happened upon a geology textbook and found that there was an undeveloped area where no one had looked that fit the criteria of what was needed. So they got the funding to go to the location and look. They found an area where the rock strata that they expected to find it in was exposed and started their search. What they found has been named Tiktaalik. It’s a fish with a bone structure that allows it to “do push-ups”, as Dr. Shubin described it.
The criteria that Dr. Shubin and his colleague used was that the rock strata should date to the middle time between the dates of the fish and amphibian, and the area should have been in shallow water and on the edge of an ocean at the time. Using findings from chronology, geology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology they were able to not only find the fossil, but also figure out where it should be found if the theories were correct.
Miscellaneous
During our discussion the other day you said something about thinking of my view as a horizontal worldview and of yours as a vertical. Personally, I think that description is too limiting in both cases. Both of those adjectives describe being linear and as such one dimensional.
Conclusion
This is an overview of how I view the world and what guides my actions, but by no means is a complete explanation. As with anything things are rarely as simple as they may seem on the surface. I look forward to receiving your reply and continuing our discussion.
December 10, 2009
10 Christian Questions Answered by an Atheist
Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist found a list of 10 questions asked of Christians by David Hayward. As an exercise, Hemant posted the same questions and asked them of atheists. You will find the questions [in italics, and with a '*' at the end to denote those asked by Mr. Mehta] and my answers to them below the fold.
Yes. Beliefs are internal, and up to the person. Whether you consider them to be wrong or right should only be addressed if the person publicly voices their beliefs.
Yes. If a person holds what I percieve to be a negative belief but doesn't take action in using that belief to harm others then I can respect the person.
I hope so.
I'm assuming that "kill" in this sense refers to great emotional stress. In that case, I don't think so. During the time that I was gradually coming to understand my atheism it wasn't a major crisis for me, and that is arguably the most life altering realization that I've ever come to.
But I could be wrong.
Absolutely not. The truth is too important to be treated lightly, even in the interest of dialog.
Of course, I've tried to do so for nearly my entire life. Additionally, I always attmept to, not only hear but, listen to what they say.
Ooohhh... someone wrote a deepity. As a kayaker I'll further this analogy. Looking at the surface will often tell you what the deeper currents are like if you know what to look for. The trick is drawing on past experience with those currents.
So, in effect yes. I won't be distracted by the surface ripples, because I'll be using them to give me a greater idea of what is underneath.
I hope that my answer to question #2 would give you some idea of my answer to this. I'm willing to converse, associate, or "play" with anyone, regardless of their beliefs. I will however avoid or confront someone who takes a negative action against me or another person.
Absolutely not.
By my definition of love, no and no. Love, like respect, has to be earned, but love takes a deeper involvement in order for a person to earn it. If you were to love everyone, then you would truly love no one.
Being approachable/likeable isn't imporant to me to begin with. I try to conduct myself in a way that others won't find condescending, intimidating, or threatening but there are some people that you just can't deal with.
If you have to "cede points" to someone to keep the relationship going it doesn't sound like there is a strong relationship to being with.
I'm hoping someone will develop a similar set of questions without the esoteric meanings that are in this one. While I agree that getting both sides to answer questions is a good way to get a dialog going, if the questions aren't clear to both sides then they are all but useless.
December 9, 2009
Dove Deepity #2: Thank Those You Love
I got another Dove chocolate, today. This time Princess had put it into my lunch, but I still opened it with slow trepidation. What I read wasn't as "Wait... What?" as the last time, but it still leaves me feeling glad that there was at least real chocolate.Express your gratitude to those you love.
This one didn't have an attribution, so I expect that they just included it because it's a common enough saying in our culture. Still, there are a few reasons why I consider it a deepity.
Excessive Purple Prose:
Notice my title compared to what the quote actually was. Sometimes, to make something seem deep and insightful people will use a string of 50 cent words where a penny word will suffice. Such as "express your gratitude to" instead of "thank".
It's too limiting:
Instead of "those you love" what about "everyone who has helped you". I would expect that means you would thank those you love, and those you meet sometimes just in passing. The message they are giving implies just thinking those you love instead of everyone who's aided you in some way.
Why not "love" instead of "gratitude"?
Instead of thanking them, shouldn't you actually tell those you love that you love them? If all you ever do is show gratitude then you would have to assume that they know you love them. I have actually seen people who have difficulty in expressing affection, and instead "thank" those they love. Sometimes they do so without using words, such as giving gifts. However, if they were to actually tell someone they loved them, it would mean even more since it is so difficult for them to admit.
I've actually submitted something to Dove, but I'm going to see if they actually accept it. I'll keep you posted, and if they do you can decide if it's a deepity.
