Are you jugmental, or do you just have opinions?

Spot on. It’s ridiculous how some people claim to not judge others. Everybody is judging everybody else all the time. Here’s a few examples.

A. An old woman is walking across the street. A man runs up, tears her purse away, kicks her in the stomach, and shoves her in front of an oncoming 18-wheeler.

B. An old woman is walking across the street. A man runs up, stands in front of the 18-wheeler with his hand out before him. When it stops, he then offers his arm to the old woman and helps her to the other side of the street.

Did anybody make any judgments? Do your judgements of the man differ in cases A and B? Here’s a couple more:

C: You’re walking around the alleys behind Shi-Da, and meet an English teacher from Canada. You stop into a little stall to get a bowl of noodles and he asks how you can eat that bunch of crap. He then tells you Taiwan is a stinking shithole and can’t wait to get back to Canada.

D: You’re walking around the alleys behind Shi-Da, and meet an English teacher from Canada. You stop into a little stall to get a bowl of noodles and he asks how you managed to find such a wonderful noodle stand. He then tells you how much he loves Taiwan, but misses his family back in Canada.

Make any judgments yet folks? How about…

E: A foreigner is wandering the streets of Taipei when a dog runs out in front of him. He immediately reaches into his backpack and draws out a pellet gun. He aims for the ribs but the dog jumps at the last second and the pellet penetrates the dog’s eye. A week later you are treated by the sight of a dog with an infected eye. It dies a slow and painful death. The foreigners sees this happening and tells you, “I care nothing for the likes of strays.”

F: A foreigner is wandering the streets of Taipei when a dog runs out in front of him. He immediately reaches into his backpack and draws out a can of dog food, which he opens. The dog eats hungrily and gratefully, and afterwards the foreigner pets the dog and the dog wags its tail in happiness. The foreigner then takes the dog back to his home, gives it a bath, some more food and some fresh water, and then takes it to the vet for an examination. The dog has heartworms. The foreigner, though poor, withdraws all of his savings for the long series of treatments. Six months later you see the foreigner walking the dog on a leash. The dog’s coat is shiny, he has gained weight, and appears happy and healthy. The foreigner smiles at you and says, “Aren’t dogs just wonderful?”

Bobepine, just continue to stand by your principles. Yes you are going to be insulted for doing so, and the most effective insult is to paint you as “judgmental” or coming off as morally superior. But the truth is that by championing the rights of animals, you are not simply “coming off” as morally superior, you are morally superior, just as the man who risked his life to ferry down a truck to save an old woman then helps her across the street is morally superior to the man who robs her then throws her in front of the truck. Likewise the person who feeds and cares for an abandoned animal is morally superior to a person who shoots it with a pellet gun and stands by while it dies of infection.

The supreme irony is that the people who are so quick to defame you, bobepine, as putting on an airs of superiority, believe themselves to be morally superior by virtue of their supposedly non-judgmental nature. Those who claim not to judge others believe this places them, ipso facto, on a higher moral plane than everybody else. But the reality is that they we all judge others constantly. It’s just part of how we think and interact with other people. I think the charges of faux moral superiority begin when you start presenting people with uncomfortable facts about themselves. Keep up the good work man. :sunglasses:

I think judging people is a perfectly natural part of being human, especially if one is more educated or smarter than most other people. Letting this judgement show through however, while your human right, is generally counterproductive to living your own life happily.

Having an overly acute sense of judgement is a major symptom of depression. Read Catcher in the Rye for a profound examination of this.

Here’s a poem by R.D.Laing that I found very meaningful whan I found myself alienated and depressed during my freshman year in college:

[quote]They are playing a game. They are playing at not

playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I

shall break the rules and they will punish me.

I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.[/quote]
It gave me comfort, but it was a few years later that I understood the key to the poem wasn’t the solace it gave me, but the advice contained in the last line. You can be a social rebel, but you’ll only make yourself hurt because people will reject you. It’s just the way people are.

Personally, I am very tolerant of judgemental people, especially in small conversations. I can count several friends that I like but are not well-liked. But I try to avoid their confrontational approach to things, certainly not with total success.

My favourite book on the subject is Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People. He explains that knowledge is far less important than social tact when it comes to getting ahead in this world. Buttering people up is basically the key to success according to him, and he gives a lot of evidence to support his claim.

Here is an excerpt:
tinyurl.com/2jj6o2

Here is some writing about Carnegie’s writing:
tinyurl.com/2k82tb (use the contents links to the right to skip to page 85; need to click More>> first)

I’ve read HTWFAIP twice now. It’s a great book to keep next to the toilet. It has definitely helped me develop my patience with others. Psychologists say the need for social acceptance is just about the strongest of all our drives. Give in to nature and learn how to get along. If you have something to teach others, you simply can’t do it by disagreeing with them. You can only do it by making them think you are in agreement, but then leading them to your point of view.

Yes Bobpine, I think this book would make a big impact on you. I’m quite sure you have never read it. :wink:

Dragonbones,you nailed it.People should examine the true definitions of oft-used words & phrases more thoroughly than they do before they use them.
Btw Bobepine,you’re INCREDIBLY long-winded lol!

For example,what does it mean to generalise?(Or use a zed in place of the “s”,if you use Americanese).

[quote=“Taiwanderer”]Dragonbones,you nailed it.People should examine the true definitions of oft-used words & phrases more thoroughly than they do before they use them.
Btw Bobepine,you’re INCREDIBLY long-winded lol!

For example,what does it mean to generalise?(Or use a zed in place of the “s”,if you use Americanese).[/quote]

Welcome to Fmosa, Taiwanderer.

Now stop judging me for my long winded posts. :wink:

Just kidding. I know that I have difficulties saying what I think concisely. English is not my first language so I have an excuse, at least. :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]Yes Bobpine, I think this book would make a big impact on you. I’m quite sure you have never read it.[/quote]You’re right, I’ve never read it. I personally dislike it when people try to make believe others that they agree with them so that they can then lead them to their point which is actually a disagreement. I prefer blunt honesty. It may not win me friends as easily, but the friends I do have are real friends who know that they can disagree with me, and I can do the same. The going round about ways is just not me. I don’t tip toe around people.

Later tonight I will read the sections you linked, though. I’m interested to read a hint of what this book is like.

Thanks, Peter.

I totally agree. I hate that too. There should always be blunt honesty and you shouldn’t pretend to agree with someone to later try and make them agree with your point.



But there are times when honesty can cause you problems, and pretending to agree with someone can smooth things out.



It just depends on how important your point is. So, really, a little deception and leading someone to your conclusions by starting with the opposite idea is really good.
:smiling_imp:

Seriously, though, there’s nothing dishonest about using tact, rhetoric, or a bit of diplomacy. Most of the time people have some kind of common ground in their beliefs. What you agree on is that common belief, NOT the thing you want to argue against.

For this discussion it would be an agreement on honesty, if not “blunt” honesty. I don’t think you should misrepresent yourself or your opinions (unless you are playing devil’s advocate purely for the sake of discussion) to try and “trick” someone into agreeing with an exact opposite point of view. What you can do though, is build up the discussion from a point where there is no contention and assure them that you are not making arguments (which you really aren’t) that they would react to emotionally.

When it comes to “judging” or being “judgemental”, are you telling them that it is ok to judge people rashly with poor information? Are you telling them that their belief in the Bible and Jesus are invalid and that they should grow up and join the 21st century? Of course not. Do you agree that people shouldn’t rashly form their opinions? I believe you would agree to that.

My point was to talk about those things in that way before arguing over semantics. Start off using one definition of the word-- the one they are used to, and then explain the way you perceive the word so that the concepts of “judging” and being “judgemental” are separate. Be honest, but avoid argument when you don’t really disagree. Take semantics out of the picture.

[quote]I totally agree. I hate that too. There should always be blunt honesty and you shouldn’t pretend to agree with someone to later try and make them agree with your point.

But there are times when honesty can cause you problems, and pretending to agree with someone can smooth things out.

It just depends on how important your point is. So, really, a little deception and leading someone to your conclusions by starting with the opposite idea is really good.[/quote]Hypocrite, dishonest bastard! :wink:

I hear you. I suppose diplomacy is better of course. But sometimes, there just isn’t much room for agreements and diplomacy, IMO.

If someone says that all black people should still be slaves, what is there to agree with? Hard to be diplomatic in a case like that. That’s just one example. Similar examples are common if you happen to have very strong opinions that are not shared by some people. The same people end up calling you judgmental, when at the end of the day, you’re simply expressing honest opinions.