Agnostic.com

7 5

Do you get into fights? Do you have a need to be right? Not right all the time, just right, ever. If you need to be right, you are seeking a fight. It's just that simple.

I'd like people to take a minute and just consider if it would be better for themselves if they always chose peace instead of being right. It's a simple choice, and it's life-transforming.

Simply choose peace.

In essence, the message encourages individuals to reflect on their behavior in conflicts, recognize the potential harm of always needing to be right, and consider the positive impact that choosing peace can have on their lives and relationships. It's a message that promotes empathy, understanding, and conflict resolution as opposed to unnecessary confrontations and disputes.

Thank you for clarifying your intended message. It seems you are emphasizing that the mere desire or need to be right, even occasionally or for any reason, can potentially lead to conflicts and disagreements. In this context, you're highlighting that it's not limited to those who constantly insist on being right but also includes anyone who occasionally experiences this need.

This nuance emphasizes the idea that even occasional instances of insisting on being right can create friction in interactions and potentially lead to confrontations. It underscores the importance of self-awareness and the choice to prioritize peace in all situations, regardless of the frequency of the need to be right.

Your message encourages readers to reflect on their own behavior and consider how they approach disagreements, aiming for a more peaceful and constructive approach rather than getting caught up in the need to be right.

FvckY0u 8 Sep 12
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I’m a state trooper. I’m right most of the time.

@FvckY0u
Nah. Still right most of the time

1

I'm too old for fights today and fighting you might leave me more injured too. There was a time when I got into fights and I usually won them. Today I view this as ignorant. Imagine now a "did too, did not" type of word argument. When that is over who wins? Does it matter? Maybe one person just shut the hell up to get you to stop. This is why I don't even do word fights or political arguments any longer. In the end you will not change the other person's mind. They have to do that themselves.

The words “fight” and “argument” suggest to me an emotional component, and, yes, when it is driven by emotion, there is no winning.
But a mutually respectful debate, or exploration of ideas, can open new avenues of thinking for all participants - no winning or losing required.

1

Was this a conversation with AI? Either way, it's nonsense. Even if you'd avoid external confrontation, you'd build up a bunch of internal confrontation and potentially anger and regret from constantly letting people take advantage of you and walk all over you with your chosen requirement to bend to their will at every turn.

@FvckY0u Guess I'm not on a first name basis like you are. Who's Tom?

@FvckY0u He must have blocked me, I can't see his comment.

@FvckY0u This, sir, should have been your OP! A lesson I've learned, but unfortunately, continue to forget on a near daily basis.

2

That's nonsense. The only reason why society oppresses people from being right all the time is because it protects personally preferred hierarchies. Facts are much more important than power exchanges, egos, and other stupid things.

0

I undoubtedly have a character flaw in always wanting to be right, and have been that way since I was a young adult. At this point in my life, living in a state, Iowa, where the culture ferociously discourages confrontation and conflict, while demanding conformity. As a reaction to that, as well as the smug arrogance of most people in my city, where I am vastly outnumbered by Repubs, Trumpers, and conservative Christians, no way in hell am I going to be meek or deferential to these idiots and assholes, by not speaking up and confronting them in conversations, where they assume that everyone agrees with them and approves of their viewpoints and beliefs. I see it as a public service, lol, when I let them know that not everyone agrees with them or thinks like them, because if I don't, then under my state's rules of etiquette, known as Iowa Nice, then they get away with going along and always thinking that they are right about everything, simply because no one else, besides me, has the guts to speak up and tell them they are wrong and ignorant about many things.

Call me someone with a messianic complex, but I see it as my mission in life, or at least part of it, to disturb their blissful state of thinking everyone is like them and agrees with them, etc.. Of course, if I lived in a more progressive place, I might have a different attitude on this subject, lol..

Case in point, last night, I was with a date at an outdoor concert. As the concert was just ended, I and my date were talking about our lawn chairs and how one can get camping chairs these days. A woman around our age, a smug blonde woman who was eavesdropping on our convo, and even admitted she was doing that, said out loud to me, " Too much information", with a snotty smile on her face. Without missing a beat, I shot back at her, calmly but acidly, " We all eavesdrop, including me. But I have enough class and tact to not give unsolicited criticism or advice to strangers on how they should talk in my presence, even if they are not talking to me. Who are you, madam, the speech police?". Lucky for her, she got the point, shut up, and moved on away from us, because, as she undoubtedly figured out, I was ready to slice and dice her verbally, if she had been stupid enough to keep it up with me. I take no shit from anybody, that I don't need to take it from, so if someone starts screwing with me verbally, I will finish it, with gusto and a win. Comes from growing up in a legal family, where I learned to do verbal combat with the best of them, and can hold my own with lawyers, who are paid to argue, lol.

@FvckY0u I understand the difference, Darren, and most of the time, I don't really care that much about keeping or having the peace, so to speak, unlike most people. As long as the people I don't want to engage with, leave me alone, which they usually do, even after I have it out with them, then I am happy with the outcome, and the confrontation is worth it, at least to me. I am no fool tho, if the person I am thinking of confronting is armed with a weapon, then hell no, I will let it pass, but otherwise, if there are witnesses and the likelihood that business staff will intervene, should the other person choose to make it physical, then I will proceed onward with confronting them, and be willing to take my chances of them becoming physical with me, as I can defend myself, and will win my fight against them thru the legal system, thru pressing charges and suing them, should they hit me first..

3

One reason why Christianity does not work is because turning the other cheek gives people rights that they should not have. If nobody stands up for what is right then wrong people will do wrong with impunity.

1

Soooo, is that what Fani Willis, Jack Smith, Leticia James, and Alvin Bragg should do? In the interest of peace, not insist that they are right in indicting Orange Foolius and his co-conspirators? That would be a lot easier for them. No need to worry about Trump's stochastic terrorism. Just let it go. Let the criminals take over, in the interest of peace. Right. How about Zelensky and the Ukrainian Army? Should they just lay down, let the criminal dog Putin rape and pillage their country, in the interest of peace? Or are there certain things worth fighting for? Isn't life itself in part defined by struggle? Rather than shy away from every confrontation, how about pick your battles? And if you have to fight, give it your all.

I think FvckYou is talking about at an individual level, making decisions about whether it’s worth getting into a dispute over something that’s essentially not important.

I agree, pick your battles.

@Zealandia I can see how one might interpret his writing that way, but that message is not made explicit. Instead, he implies that we must always mute ourselves, in the interest of peace. Sounds like some New Age claptrap to me.

@FvckY0u Did I miss something? Where exactly did you say this was only to be applied to individuals? Or that backing down for peace should only occur when the issue is unimportant? Where? If you deal in blanket, unqualified pronouncements, expect pushback.

@FvckY0u Sounds like you are trying hard to be right 😂

@FvckY0u I just call them as I see them. ⚾

@FvckY0u Best of luck 😃🤞

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:730763
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.