Apprentice's Kate and Phillip are engaged!

[omairt]

I think only children, to a certain age, can be nice 100% of the time.

wait...

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by corky20

no-one is 100% nice all of the time, no such thing I don't know anyone 100% nice all the time!

Have you ever seen a fruit called a lucuma? Im guessing no, but i assure you it exists.

People who live in big cities tend to be more rude than average people. I happen to live in a really friendly places, and I have met and known plenty of people who don't have a bad bone in their body. They are the sort of people that if they got stressed or upset they'd cry. If you criticised them or argued with them and they knew they were in the right they'd just frown and let you win the argument, because they don't like fighting. They smile from the minute they wake up until the moment they go to bed, and I have met so many people like this!

So I have to disagree that these people are mythical, as you've suggested.

Originally Posted by omairt

I think only children, to a certain age, can be nice 100% of the time.

wait...

Well children grow up, and although I'd agree that many people lose that innocence as they grow older, you cannot surely be suggesting that it is a strict impossibility to retain that youthful innocence through adolescence?

I know for a fact that it isn't, and I know some truly sweet people who act as though they are still that child.


I think that the reason you think everybody is occasionally rude when under pressure, is because it is not easy to think of this aspect of yourselves as a flaw.

Im not saying you need therapy or anything, but if you had a therapist it would be one of the things that they would want to know about because they want to help you be a better person, and coping with stress in ways which don't make others feel upset or uncomfortable is also good for you in the long run.

So don't see it as a 1% attribute ("its inevitable, what can I do?"), just accept that not everybody reacts the way you do, and if you'd like to rid yourself of any aspect of yourself that you feel isn't 'nice', then there are ways to do so.

[1halfsingh]

Originally Posted by barcelonic

So don't see it as a 1% attribute ("its inevitable, what can I do?"), just accept that not everybody reacts the way you do, and if you'd like to rid yourself of any aspect of yourself that you feel isn't 'nice', then there are ways to do so.

Such as...

Do you not understand the concept that perhaps people can be nice, and yet still sometimes unintentionally do things that can be seen as not nice, for which they may apologise etc. People shouldn't look to rid themselves of anything, because it's part of human nature, and is inevitable. It's trying to amend mistakes that builds character.

Also with regards to when you say '...accept that not everyone reacts the way you do'. Is this not something you should follow yourself? Maybe then you could appreciate that not everyone in the world is 100% nice, and it could be that 1% of them that does react differently, thus they should still warrant your friendship shouldn't they?

You say that your chosen friends are 100% nice etc, but I personally think it's a rather utopian view to have, and not so realistic. Imo being 100% nice is an unattainable goal. However, it's the persuit of being kind etc that garners respect. Having friends for me is about being aware of other's faults and differences, and yet still being able to bridge a gap over them, and not about deeming them not worthy because they aren't 100% nice (whatever that is defined as).

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by 1halfsingh

Such as...

Do you not understand the concept that perhaps people can be nice, and yet still sometimes unintentionally do things that can be seen as not nice, for which they may apologise etc. People shouldn't look to rid themselves of anything, because it's part of human nature, and is inevitable. It's trying to amend mistakes that builds character.

Also with regards to when you say '...accept that not everyone reacts the way you do'. Is this not something you should follow yourself? Maybe then you could appreciate that not everyone in the world is 100% nice, and it could be that 1% of them that does react differently, thus they should still warrant your friendship shouldn't they?

You say that your chosen friends are 100% nice etc, but I personally think it's a rather utopian view to have, and not so realistic. Imo being 100% nice is an unattainable goal. However, it's the persuit of being kind etc that garners respect. Having friends for me is about being aware of other's faults and differences, and yet still being able to bridge a gap over them, and not about deeming them not worthy because they aren't 100% nice (whatever that is defined as).

Perhaps we have to establish for the sake of argument what "nice" means before we go any further. My last post was simply to point out that I know people who are 100% nice, so they DO exist. They are still a minority, although they are out there in abundance.

But there are still many, many people who have traits that aren't particularly ideal, but we can still befriend these people. If for example one of my friends belittled me in front of others, or put me down to make himself look good, or said something out of the blue to deliberately hurt my feelings, then that person isn't a friend at all - that ISN'T nice.

But if I was staying with a friend while in between housing and somebody offered them £1,000 to kick me out and they really needed the money, I could understand that (although Id be furious with whoever offered the money, lol). The key there is that they were desperate for the money and felt really bad about kicking me out. They had to look out for themselves also, and upsetting me was a byproduct of a decision that HAD to be made, and not in itself an intentional harm.

If you knew somebody who was the sweetest guy ever and made you feel at home wherever you were and always talked you up to other people, but this guy had a passion for kidnapping babies and barbequeing them alive - how would you feel about that if you knew that that passion was only 1% of him? The other 99% was almost Jesus-like! This particular example, although extreme, supports my original point(the reason why i specifically split the percentile 99 - 1) - it is irrevelant whether how frequently someone shows their good or bad sides, what does matter is the bad side itself.

So it depends on where you draw the line with nice, but for me someone IS nice if they never intentionally hurt someone's feelings. So a good example would be someone who is trying to fit in with new work colleagues and makes a joke at your expense right in front of you - they know they are upsetting you but are happy to hurt your feelings if it helps them fit in. Many people would do that, and these people still consider themselves "nice" people. A lot of people bully others and still think they are "nice" people. On Big Brother you often hear people say that it is OK to bully people because "i'm only jokin around, they are just too sensitive" - im afraid far too many people have that attitude and it's no excuse for their own bad behaviour. These people should be ignored no matter how nice their good sides are, simply because there are so many people out there to meet who consider others' feelings, and therefore would care for you more and be a better friend.

[corky20]

Originally Posted by barcelonic

Have you ever seen a fruit called a lucuma? Im guessing no, but i assure you it exists.

People who live in big cities tend to be more rude than average people. I happen to live in a really friendly places, and I have met and known plenty of people who don't have a bad bone in their body. They are the sort of people that if they got stressed or upset they'd cry. If you criticised them or argued with them and they knew they were in the right they'd just frown and let you win the argument, because they don't like fighting. They smile from the minute they wake up until the moment they go to bed, and I have met so many people like this!

So I have to disagree that these people are mythical, as you've suggested.

I get what your saying but in my opinion I don't think it is possible for anyone to be 100% nice, no-one can be 100% nice 24/7, I think it's impossible. I have met people who are just like you described above but I would not say they are 100% nice like you are saying. Maybe your interpretation of the word nice is different to mine but i'm not saying these people you are talking about do not exist... I am just saying I don't think being 100% nice is possible for anyone!

[1halfsingh]

Originally Posted by barcelonic

If you knew somebody who was the sweetest guy ever and made you feel at home wherever you were and always talked you up to other people, but this guy had a passion for kidnapping babies and barbequeing them alive - how would you feel about that if you knew that that passion was only 1% of him? The other 99% was almost Jesus-like! This particular example, although extreme, supports my original point(the reason why i specifically split the percentile 99 - 1) - it is irrevelant whether how frequently someone shows their good or bad sides, what does matter is the bad side itself.

That's quite an irrelevant example tbh, and hardly applies to the real world. I don't imagine anyone who would show compassion for what this person would be doing I wouldn't think 'Oh so he has a tendency for killing etc, but he's a right laugh', far from it, and the same would apply for anyone who had an ounce of common decency.

So you know people who are 100% nice, but should we see these people as 100% nice too, surely it's impossible to be liked by everyone, as everyone is different, and is pleased by different traits, and so that's the basis why I argue that it's impossible to find someone who is 100% nice.

Also, none of us are aware of the situations and circumstances that will come in the future, and subsequently how people will react to them. In that way is your view not a perhaps little nieve?

Furthermore, I think it's narrow-minded to assume that the people you know who are 100% nice, will be seen the same by everyone else in the world...that's imo another flaw I see in your argument. You can know 1+2=3, that no one will refute, but you can't know your friends are 100% nice. You can't know everything about someone, and you can't know where someone is all the time, and what they're doing. Surely that's the point of trust? You'll get nowhere by remaining permanently cautious (Nothing ventured, nothing gained). I'll admit trust is no substitute for facts. But you need to be able to trust others, after all you and your friends aren't all attached at the hips are you?

I have best mates who i went to school with, stayed with for ages at a time but I would never say they were 100% nice, and I'd happily admit they're all bellends sometimes, and have all done stuff that they're not proud of, which has really pissed me off (I have had full on fights with some of my friends before), it's accepting differences that allows the friendship to strengthen.

I 100% trust my mates, but they sure as hell aren't 100% nice (They'll admit it themselves, and i'm definitely not 100% nice either)


I really need to get to be now, but will read you reply in the morning with an open mind, should you feel the need to.

"A friend is someone who will bail you out of jail, but your best friend is the one sitting next to you saying 'That was f***ing awesome!' "

Just noticed: 2 blobs after 700 posts, not bad going

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by 1halfsingh

that's quite an irrelevant example tbh, and hardly applies to the real world. I don't imagine anyone who would show compassion for what this person would be doing I wouldn't think 'oh so he has a tendency for killing etc, but he's a right laugh', far from it, and the same would apply for anyone who had an ounce of common decency.

i did say the example was extreme, but it is relevant. Read it again, this time substituting killing the babies to cheating on their girlfriend for no other reason than to upset her. A lesser example - how does that sound now?

so you know people who are 100% nice, but should we see these people as 100% nice too, surely it's impossible to be liked by everyone, as everyone is different, and is pleased by different traits, and so that's the basis why i argue that it's impossible to find someone who is 100% nice.

of course you cannot be liked by everyone, but that has nothing to do with being nice. And if that is the basis on which you say it's impossible to be 100% nice then i feel i've nothing more to say. Jesus christ was the epitomy of nice, and yet he had many enemies (who even went as far as to kill him).

also, none of us are aware of the situations and circumstances that will come in the future, and subsequently how people will react to them. In that way is your view not a perhaps little nieve? *naive

please expand.

Furthermore, i think it's narrow-minded to assume that the people you know who are 100% nice, will be seen the same by everyone else in the world...that's imo another flaw i see in your argument.

when did i say that? again, i didn't say that everyone would like them. To me that is a separate entity entirely. But surely you agree that if someone intentionally hurts your feelings, then that person is not nice. And so by the same logic if someone never ever intentionally hurts another person's feelings, then they are "not nice" 0% of the time, and hence 100% nice.

you can know 1+2=3, that no one will refute, but you can't know your friends are 100% nice. You can't know everything about someone, and you can't know where someone is all the time, and what they're doing. Surely that's the point of trust? You'll get nowhere by remaining permanently cautious (nothing ventured, nothing gained). I'll admit trust is no substitute for facts. But you need to be able to trust others, after all you and your friends aren't all attached at the hips are you?

when you know someone well you have spent countless hours with them, and you learn what type of person they are. Therefore you don't need to have spent every living second by their side. To suggest that as we are not connected physically we do not have "knowledge" and so lack certainty, only leads this debate to empiricism - one that has been debated for centuries, there is no indisputable answer to, and one that i would be a fool to involve myself in (let's remember what this about, and not choose to focus on whether we know what we percieve to know).

i have best mates who i went to school with, stayed with for ages at a time but i would never say they were 100% nice, and i'd happily admit they're all bellends sometimes, and have all done stuff that they're not proud of, which has really pissed me off (i have had full on fights with some of my friends before), it's accepting differences that allows the friendship to strengthen.

i 100% trust my mates, but they sure as hell aren't 100% nice (they'll admit it themselves, and i'm definitely not 100% nice either)

well you only need look at the length of this thread so far to see that we take different approaches to the selection of friends. If you remember though 1halfsingh, all i have said is that my belief is that you should not assosciate with such people, and that i myself choose not to.

i really need to get to be now, but will read you reply in the morning with an open mind, should you feel the need to.

"a friend is someone who will bail you out of jail, but your best friend is the one sitting next to you saying 'that was f***ing awesome!' "

great quote mate lol. I like that one. I know you're not expecting a comment behind this but i wanted to mention that i have broken the law many thousands of times, but on none of those occasions was i doing anything "not nice". Lol, this isnt a part of the debate but i thought i'd mention it. It's actually a different debate entirely - about the law - but i'd rather not expand on that one lol.

just noticed: 2 blobs after 700 posts, not bad going

congrats! I recently made my 2,000 post, and only had my second blob a few weeks ago so well done!

to summarise i'd really like to re-emphasise that i feel the wrong parts of my posts are being debated. My main three points are and always have been (read my posts back and you'll see): whether someone is 99% nice, or 59%, or 44% or any other amount is irrelevant - the number is not what we consider when judging that person; someone is nice if they never intentionally hurt someone's feelings; there are people who exist who never intentionally hurt people's feelings.

:-d

[az87aris]

ffs does it really matter? I can't beleive you're now arguing about philip from the apprentice just because he's now supposedly engaged to horseface.

[1halfsingh]

Couldn't get to sleep. And that reply was well worth reading. Still can't believe I spelt naive wrong I'll put it down to being tired, and also speaking 4 different languages all day

I was mainly trying to assert that one action that someone does should not necessarily confirm them as not being nice. Someone trying to piss you off/hurt feelings is not necessarily bad indefinitely etc. and that they need not rid themselves of anything to amend the situation.

Anyways I think we've come to a conclusion.

So, after a much exhausting debate we have managed to find that:

1) We have different perceptions of what the word 'nice' means

2)My friends are bellends sometimes.

3)I am also a bellend.

4)You have broken the law on numerous occasions

5)We both like the same quote


Cheers for not keeling over tho, you've clearly got a backbone, so thanks for a good debate

Mike

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by az87aris

ffs does it really matter? I can't beleive you're now arguing about philip from the apprentice just because he's now supposedly engaged to horseface.

admittedly it should be in the debating forum, but thats spontaneity for you

btw if Kate is horseface, then i guess i crush on horses (check out my new status!)

[1halfsingh]

Originally Posted by barcelonic

admittedly it should be in the debating forum, but thats spontaneity for you

btw if Kate is horseface, then i guess i crush on horses (check out my new status!)

I'd get prosecuted for animal cruelty for the things i'd do to her

Barcelonic, can we now call you Mr Hands?

[barcelonic]

lol have u watched the film about him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(film)

Edit: tried to rep u but i gotta "spread it around" first, wateva that means

[1halfsingh]

Originally Posted by barcelonic

lol have u watched the film about him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(film)

I've not seen that film, but I've seen another he starred in

No worries about the rep lol.

[-null-]

Originally Posted by barcelonic

to summarise i'd really like to re-emphasise that i feel the wrong parts of my posts are being debated. My main three points are and always have been (read my posts back and you'll see): whether someone is 99% nice, or 59%, or 44% or any other amount is irrelevant - the number is not what we consider when judging that person; someone is nice if they never intentionally hurt someone's feelings; there are people who exist who never intentionally hurt people's feelings.

Well then that would be me.

I never intentionally snap at people and I always feel like crap after I do. So does that make me one of the 100% nice people or still bad because I can't control snapping at them.

I do agree though if someone deliberately does something to hurt my feelings or get me into trouble (for example telling a teacher I called him a name because she fancies him and wanted to go and talk to him on her own) that's not someone I want to know.

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by -null-

Well then that would be me.

I never intentionally snap at people and I always feel like crap after I do. So does that make me one of the 100% nice people or still bad because I can't control snapping at them.

I do agree though if someone deliberately does something to hurt my feelings or get me into trouble (for example telling a teacher I called him a name because she fancies him and wanted to go and talk to him on her own) that's not someone I want to know.

in my eyes yes. but i do still maintain that there are ppl out there who don't even snap at people when they are stressed.

but yes if you dont intentionally hurt people's feelings EVER then yes you are nice, but if you intentionally hurt people's feelings even 1% of the time then thats too much imo

[-null-]

Originally Posted by barcelonic

in my eyes yes. but i do still maintain that there are ppl out there who don't even snap at people when they are stressed.

but yes if you dont intentionally hurt people's feelings EVER then yes you are nice, but if you intentionally hurt people's feelings even 1% of the time then thats too much imo

Yes I'm bad

Because if so you are contradicting yourself. I never intentionally snap at people or intentionally hurt their feelings. But occasionally through not thinking about my actions or not taking a few seconds to calm down or frankly because I'm hormonal I'll do so.

So am I a bad person because I am not 100% in control of my emotions 100% of the time.

And these people who never snap when stressed. Do you believe they would still be the same when put in an extreme situation for example facing the kidnapper of their still missing child.

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by -null-

Yes I'm bad

Because if so you are contradicting yourself. I never intentionally snap at people or intentionally hurt their feelings. But occasionally through not thinking about my actions or not taking a few seconds to calm down or frankly because I'm hormonal I'll do so.

So am I a bad person because I am not 100% in control of my emotions 100% of the time.

And these people who never snap when stressed. Do you believe they would still be the same when put in an extreme situation for example facing the kidnapper of their still missing child.

Do us both a favour and read back my posts. You'll see that you've read something in my posts that isn't there, and that is why you feel Im contradicting myself. The truth, however, is that I never said someone is a bad person if they occasionally snap at someone due to hormones.
In fact, have you even read my last few posts at all?

It's easy to briefly flick through people's comments and assume you know what they are saying but this time you've gravely misunderstood. When did I say that you are a bad person because you're not in control of your emotions 100% of the time.

I'll reiterate, although you need only look at the bold at the bottom of my long response to 1halfsingh to see that my points are as follows: whether someone is 99% nice, or 59%, or 44% or any other amount is irrelevant - the number is not what we consider when judging that person; someone is nice if they never intentionally hurt someone's feelings; there are people who exist who never intentionally hurt people's feelings. (copied & pasted)

I did previously mention the fact that there are some people who don't snap at others when they are under stress, and even that it isn't an inherent feature of us all, but I never once said that those people are the only ones who can be called nice.

So please if you are going to suggest I've contradicted myself, please quote the post in which I said those people are bad people.


Edit: In fact, below is the fork in the road with which I was first misunderstood...

I myself have always believed that if someone is nice 99% of the time and horrid 1% of the time then I wont waste my time with that person.
There are close to 7 billion people in this world so there are plenty of '100% nice' people to assosciate with.

Clearly when I first spoke of the term "100% nice", I meant someone who was NEVER horrid.

hor·rid (hôrd, hr-)
adj.
1. Causing horror; dreadful.
2. Extremely disagreeable; offensive.
3. Archaic Bristling; rough.

[-null-]

That's why I was asking for clarification. Sorry but I seem to have forgotten the question mark which would have changed the tone of the sentence. This better?

Originally Posted by barcelonic

in my eyes yes. but i do still maintain that there are ppl out there who don't even snap at people when they are stressed.

Yes I'm bad?

In other words are you answering yes to the first question in my post prior to that one "So does that make me one of the 100% nice people" or yes to the second question "or still bad because I can't control snapping at them".

If you had been answering yes to the latter question then you would be contradicting yourself.

I have understood your posts but it seems my missing the question mark has caused you to misunderstand mine. Sorry

[1halfsingh]

Originally Posted by barcelonic

Edit: In fact, below is the fork in the road with which I was first misunderstood...

I myself have always believed that if someone is nice 99% of the time and horrid 1% of the time then I wont waste my time with that person.
There are close to 7 billion people in this world so there are plenty of '100% nice' people to assosciate with.

Clearly when I first spoke of the term "100% nice", I meant someone who was NEVER horrid.

The problem I have is that you're arguing for something that's completely subjective (nice, horrid etc). And this it makes it so easy for me to uphold my argument that you will never find someone who is 100% nice, or never horrid.

Ok let's work with your definition of nice. By your own admission, someone who is 100% nice is someone who was never horrid. I personally think you will not find a single person who has never done anything I would class as 'horrid' to someone, to a certain degree. Thus your friends are indeed people who YOU THINK, are 100% nice, but for you to say that YOU KNOW they are implies that it is a fact of common knowledge, which is impossible to argue, as fundamentally it's purely subjective. That's what I'm trying to draw attention to. You cannot know that they have never done anything horrid, and nor can you know whether they are going to do something horrid tomorrow.

Also where does that leave people who have done regrettable, albeit not life-threatening, things in the past, that have hurt others (having an affair for example). They can do all they can to amend the situation, and can rebuild as much as they are able, and show as much remorse for doing what they did, but will these people never be what you call 100% nice?

I have done things intentionally to hurt others, I'll admit, and so have most others here. However, predominantly my actions were simply a product of the situation I was in, does that therefore justify me being instantly branded 'not 100% nice', as it is only a small flaw in my character that caused the actions. Also, would I therefore not be someone who could be your friend for example?

I would like to know how many members here can honestly say they have never intentionally hurt somebody...

From your posts it seems that actions, where you may have hurt someone else's feelings, are a good enough to brand that person as not being 'up to par' indefinitely, however much you regret them and endeavour to make things right...

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by -null-

In other words are you answering yes to the first question in my post prior to that one "So does that make me one of the 100% nice people" or yes to the second question "or still bad because I can't control snapping at them".

The first one.

Originally Posted by 1halfsingh

The problem I have is that you're arguing for something that's completely subjective (nice, horrid etc). And this it makes it so easy for me to uphold my argument that you will never find someone who is 100% nice, or never horrid.

Ok let's work with your definition of nice. By your own admission, someone who is 100% nice is someone who was never horrid. I personally think you will not find a single person who has never done anything I would class as 'horrid' to someone, to a certain degree. Thus your friends are indeed people who YOU THINK, are 100% nice, but for you to say that YOU KNOW they are implies that it is a fact of common knowledge, which is impossible to argue, as fundamentally it's purely subjective. That's what I'm trying to draw attention to. You cannot know that they have never done anything horrid, and nor can you know whether they are going to do something horrid tomorrow.

Also where does that leave people who have done regrettable, albeit not life-threatening, things in the past, that have hurt others (having an affair for example). They can do all they can to amend the situation, and can rebuild as much as they are able, and show as much remorse for doing what they did, but will these people never be what you call 100% nice?

I have done things intentionally to hurt others, I'll admit, and so have most others here. However, predominantly my actions were simply a product of the situation I was in, does that therefore justify me being instantly branded 'not 100% nice', as it is only a small flaw in my character that caused the actions. Also, would I therefore not be someone who could be your friend for example?

I would like to know how many members here can honestly say they have never intentionally hurt somebody...

From your posts it seems that actions, where you may have hurt someone else's feelings, are a good enough to brand that person as not being 'up to par' indefinitely, however much you regret them and endeavour to make things right...

The key here is the factor of change.

People change throughout their lives. If a nice person's entire family get raped and murdered right in front of them, that person could change and go from being a nice person to a bad person. Even without that event, they may change for other reasons.
Similarly, a previously bad person may have found God and changed their ways, and again may have changed them for some other reason.

When we talk about how a person "is", we are referring to the present. We are not referring to how they "were" or "will be". So for example, the people in my mind who I see as never horrid, are people who during the whole time I knew or have known them, did not become a bad person - ie. did not intentionally hurt others' feelings.

As for the word "horrid", I disagree that it is as subjective as you claim. Yes, there are surely people who like being mistreated (although Im sure not many), but even they themselves would use the word "horrid" (as in "i like people being horrid to me"), because that is what the word means.

How kind or horrid someone is can be subjective. Different people will disagree on where on the scale of niceness those words apply, but the meaning of the word itself does not change from person to person.