A) Decided my friend is perfectly healthy/normal without ever having met him, and
I could have sworn I said maybe your friend wasn't unhealthy or immature at all and that you just weren't understanding his point of view.
Perhaps I left out the "maybe"? Don't remember, and frankly don't care since it's beside the point. What I said was a suggestion. It was a "maybe you aren't seeing your friend very clearly" thing. There was no ill-intent.
B) Told me I'm incapable of understanding or getting along with him,
Well, you were having difficulty understanding, sim.
If you understood, Amar wouldn't have spent two pages trying to explain to you how your friend works.
and that was enough for me. You're preaching better understanding of others and then outright declare that this is impossible for me? Really? Why should I bother trying then?
At least Amargith is trying to facilitate better communication, rather than whining and declaring people lost causes. What are you trying to accomplish by doing that?
I was being sarcastic to prove a point. You make Fi seem so difficult to understand, so I took another approach: take the opposite stance to try and provoke you. Maybe you shouldn't be friends with him. Maybe Ti and Fi can't find common ground. Maybe you the ENTP are just too different from your INFP friend. That was the sense I was getting from you, so I just used that tactic in reverse to see how you'd react. & well, I got a reply.
Oh, and I appreciate your going back and actually reading my post [albeit skimming it]. Also, I really don't feel like arguing with you tonight, sim. I think Amar is better suited for this job.
Besides, we all know you can't just go around arguing with a ridiculous 5w4 4w3. Foolish! :rolli:
Last edited by neptunesnet; 03-20-2010 at 06:17 PM.
What I meant was...well consider the difference between law and corporate business. The law provide the main guidelines of contracts between corporations everywhere. But, those coporations will, on top of that, negotiate the terms that they themselves also want to agree upon to guarantee their specific wants and needs being fulfilled.
The same goes for people. The law provides the framework for society to work with. Aside from that, as far as I'm concerned, you can consider something to be unethical and immoral, but those things are still to be negotiated between people.
Example: cheating is considered immoral, not illegal. And open marriages do exist, where technically, cheating goes on, a practice that is considered immoral by many, but it's none of their business. That's between those two people.
That's the level I'm talking about. This is even below that still. You have to at least determine first what you want in the relationship and let your prospect partner know. I dunno about you, but when I start dating someone I state that I want an exclusive relationship with them. And he, in turn, can express the fact that he wants it to be temporary, casual or date other people as well. Same thing.
Edit: Sigh, I swore I wouldn't be a part of this anymore. We once again hijacked a thread for this ever lasting debate. Not that I mind the way it's going, the example that this INTJ provided of his interaction between him and his TP, has given us some serious stuff to work with, and it's getting us somewhere, but we really should stop derailing every thread into this topic people!
I guess I'm confused, if you'd be willing to elaborate, on how 'being mindful next time' is objectifying a person or otherwise not admitting fault and being disrespectful.
At least if it were me in the situation, I'd assume that it was just a mistake on the part of the person making noise. Either they didn't know I was asleep, or they didn't know that I could hear them. Either way, if I say something, then now they know I can hear them and they've agreed to pay more attention as to not wake me up. I guess I wouldn't feel offended or disrespected unless it were extremely obvious (I'm sleeping on the couch and they come in with a group of friends talking loudy for an extreme example) or it were an ongoing problem which is disrespectful due to an insincere agreement to pay more attention.
Intent plays a major factor into this, I suppose, where it does not seem to be the case according to your posts. If someone just did not know the situation it can be brought up, an agreement reached, then if the problem were to continue obviously there is intent to not hold up their side, which is disrespectful. Without discussing it first, in a fair number of cases I would assume it's just a mistake or a misunderstanding. This is probably a reflection of my inability to see these implicit rules of engagement. In the aforementioned situation, personally I think I would know to be quiet if I knew someone was sleeping, so any noise would be purely accidental. Which is why I believe I would get offended by the kind of response you are giving, having felt that you were not giving me a chance to fix the situation which I would by not continuing to make the noise that woke you up. It is a form of admitting fault from my perspective. If I did not respect you, I would tell you to go fuck yourself when you brought it up. The apology is in the action, not the words.
To me, the entire thing sounds like miscommunication that ends badly for both parties. Neither sound more 'correct' than the other. I'm just interested in the differences.
The hell it is. You cannot fine me for being rude to you. You can just consider it unethical. You cannot punish or jail a spouse for cheating on you either. It's not illegal, therefore it's not the law. It's just the violation of a personal contract between two people.