I had a friend that was alcoholic & anorexic, her life was spiraling out of control, she became a porn star and even got mixed up with meth . I tried to help her but she was very defensive wouldn't listen, she thought I was trying to be her mom. Sometimes people wont stop until they are ready to... I even wrote her a heart to heart letter, she didn't appreciate it at the time because she wasn't ready. So I backed off, we didn't see each other for a long time. You can try to help but it wont always work, but I think its worth it to try anyway...thats what friends are for right? I dunno, I guess it just depends on the person and their situation. If its about petty stuff and your nagging that could be annoying, if its serious definitely try and help.
That is exactly what I was talking about. I always worry about what they'll think of me "telling them what to do." But I will anyway, because you're right.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend, too.
Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?
She is fine now thank goodness! She came in from out of town and stayed with me, we talked about everything that happened. We are still best friends and she knows that I will always have her back .
I had a drug problem at one point and kind of wished someone would help me through it , I thought where are my friends? It sucked because I found out that some of them were talking about me behind my back about it, if they were so concerned why not let me know that they were worried! That reallllly bummed me out.
Fe | Ni | Se | Ti ... 3w4 ... Lawful Neutral ... Johari -Nohari
In particular this quotation (from a David Brooks article):
Originally Posted by David Brooks
Paul Bloom of Yale noted that this moral sense can be observed early in life. Bloom and his colleagues conducted an experiment in which they showed babies a scene featuring one figure struggling to climb a hill, another figure trying to help it, and a third trying to hinder it.
At as early as six months, the babies showed a preference for the helper over the hinderer. In some plays, there is a second act. The hindering figure is either punished or rewarded. In this case, 8-month-olds preferred a character who was punishing the hinderer over ones being nice to it.
This illustrates, Bloom says, that people have a rudimentary sense of justice from a very early age. This doesn’t make people naturally good. If you give a 3-year-old two pieces of candy and ask him if he wants to share one of them, he will almost certainly say no. It’s not until age 7 or 8 that even half the children are willing to share. But it does mean that social norms fall upon prepared ground. We come equipped to learn fairness and other virtues.
So I think it's interesting that our understanding of morality and justice develops concurrently with other basic forms of understanding. It's also interesting that some aspects of morality seem to exist (in rudimentary form) long before any theory of mind.
A second analysis compared the three groups of children according to their responses on a quiz that measures moral disengagement, which relates to a child's ability to suppress feelings of conscience and compassion. (The subjects had to rate their agreement with statements like, "Kids cannot be blamed for misbehaving if their friends pressured them to do it.") According to the researchers, the bullies seemed more inclined to disengage than either the victims or the defenders.
In other words, the bullies knew right from wrong, but didn't care. The victims cared, but were confused about right and wrong.
I do think people have moral agency and are ultimately responsible for their own actions. That doesn't mean you shouldn't tell people when they are doing wrong or are setting themselves up for failure (although I agree that helping people think about the ramifications of their actions beats browbeating them). Nor does it mean you should help others do wrong or hurt themselves or others. Still, people need the freedom to make mistakes and face consequences for their actions in order to develop as responsible human beings.
It all becomes murkier when people are doing real damage to themselves. And clearly when they are harming others it becomes imperative to act.
Depends. If it's not a matter of consequence - like it's not severely damaging to other people or it doesn't directly affect me - then people can do whatever the hell they want. If I don't like it, I can just avoid it.
However, I think some people need to be confronted. I believe it's a good idea to be tough with some people, especially if everyone else is just tip-toeing around their bullshit or enabling them.
"Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." - Edward Abbey